Overcoming the Division between Theory and Practice

Research is essential. However, too often, practice and theory are considered as separate entities. Would it not be advantageous to overcome this division? But even before that, where does this division originate? In the 1990s, architectural theory became a discipline unto itself, with its own language and specialists, closing itself off. The theory became dense and impenetrable, and as Hélene Frichot observes, even professors excluded architectural theory from design studios due to challenges in connecting that theory with project-based learning (Frichot, 2009). The consequence was the rise of the post-avant-garde, shifting the emphasis from theory to practice. Michael Speaks famously declared: “Theory was fun, but now we have work to do” (2002, 209-212). Stan Allen supported this trend, asserting that discursive practices focus Maria Scandroglio Anelli - Between Theory and Practice on representation and interpretation, with an emphasis on the past, while material practices transform reality, producing new objects (Allen 2009). Today, we must overcome the notion that theory serves to explain practice only in hindsight. Certainly, Till’s text aligns with this perspective, along with other architects, including the Italian Pier Vittorio Aureli.