As an undergraduate I was indoctrinated with the idea that theoretical appeals were the most desirable and most acceptable method for approaching architectural design. This went OK for my first studio, but after my second and onto my third, each instructor introduced a different theory, and each one we students were to treat with the same unwavering devotion. I simply could not reconcile the obvious disparities between each method and my rejection of this left me alienated (and in the philosophy and comparative literature departments). Since then I have embarked on a PhD entirely devoted (at least it seems to me now after three years of study) to coming to terms with my emigration from the architecture school. My involvement with philosophy and comparative literature has allowed me to reconcile the use of concepts in architecture discourse and practice to a degree, but I hope that the opening of a platform meant for this sort of discussion helps to bring others interested in these problems together in hopes of coming to, in the very least, a better understanding of the appeal and role of theory in architecture practice. On this note, I warmly invite those interested to engage, and those tentative about this to maybe spend some time thinking about what they take architecture to actually be, and hopefully return to us with a response of some kind. Looking forward to what transpires.
Harvard Citation Guide: Fahey, C. (2009) Inaugural Post, International Society for the Philosophy of Architecture, [blog] 02 Aug 2009, Available at: https://isparchitecture.wordpress.com. [Accessed: 01 June 2012].