Architectural Experimentation

However, if we didn't have the practical people (I was originally going to call these people the "realists," but theory is just as real as anything else) then nothing would ever get built.

In an article in SEED Magazine there's an article demonstrating a theoretical approach to constructing architecture without walls. To most practical people this experimentation seems absurd. These people may be asking themselves "how do I keep the elements out if there are no walls?" or "how am I going to achieve privacy if everyone outside the building can see me?" Of course this experimentation was born of the theoretical argument of "why do we have to continue constructing buildings in the same manner as we have for the last 3,000 years?"

The practical attacks the theoretical and the theoretical attacks the practical. It's a vicious but necessary circle. But there's a part of the circle where these two opposing forces come crashing into each other, where the theoretical idea collides with the practical idea. This collision converts the revolutionary into the evolutionary, a transformation that turns the revolutionary idea created with no rules into an evolutionary idea embedded with all of the rules of the universe. If this product doesn't evolve into something that can be implemented by society it remains within the realm of revolutionary ideas, but if it does succeed in transforming into something useful then it becomes a part of our reality of practical ideas. And then the circle continues.

Architecture is completely dependent upon this circle. The theorists usually reside within the friendly confines of academia, protected from the practical requests of profit-focused clients. There are some theorists who practice architecture (including Frank Gehry and Daniel Libeskind) and implement their revolutionary ideas onto clients that demand originality and absolute uniqueness. (Although sometimes these designs lack enough practicality to keep the rain from coming through the roof)

These theorists are definitely in the minority when compared with the practical architects, who typically strive to master a building type (like single-family houses, hospitals, or big box stores) and will ultimately become very good and predictable at what they design. I state “very good” because it’s almost impossible to become great while repeatedly pushing the same idea into every project.

I don’t believe that theory is better than pragmatism, and I don’t believe pragmatism is better than theory. They are two completely different schools of thought that rely upon each other – theory is focused on the process of creating a solution that puts aside the status quo, and pragmatism is focused on a solution that has been proven to be effective in the past.

So these experiments may come across as otherworldly, but if these ideas have any usefulness to how we live (and how we're going to live in the future) then these revolutionary ideas will become our practical future.

Written by Eric McNeal. He writes about architecture and sustainability on his blog at www.BlueArchitecture.Wordpress.com.