<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: No House of Cards
Review: I praise Michael Hayes for his succinct and accurate notation and massive inter-article references. This text is the bible of a discipline that ostensibly began in the twentieth century, as self-conscious writing began to absorb architecture as a theme or subject.Each successive wave of theorization about architecture contains similar elements of concern and patterns of approach, each multivalent through time or the pen of the author. Hayes gathers the contentious groups and individuals who have jumped into the fray of Architectural Theory and presents them neatly, their most salient essays all within one binding.
Rating: 
Summary: Woa!
Review: I'm a graduate student in architecture, and for a theory course we read selections from this book, and two other similar theory anthologies, Kate Nesbitt's "Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture," and Niel Leach's "Rethinking Architecture." All books attempt to do roughly the same thing, and I have to say the Hays (this one) was the one I got the least out of. I'll start with one minor criticism, which wouldn't condemn the book, but is extremely infuriating: the page numbers are printed on the inside upper corners of the pages near the spine, not the outside upper corners as is standard practice in books. This makes it difficult to flip through and find what you're looking for, and is just sort of a mind-bogglingly idiotic thing to do. Compounding the problem, many pages are simply not numbered! That little complaint aside, I guess Hays does do a pretty good job with his selection of essays. If anything it illustrates how much the discourse has obfuscated itself over the last 30+ years. To give you the the flavor of the book, here are a few selections: "The concept of architecture is itself an inhabited constructum, a heritage wich comprehends us even before we could submit it to thought. Certain invariables remain, constant, through all the mutations of architecture. Impassable, imperturbable, an axiomatic traverses the whole history of architecture. An axiomatic, that is to say, an organized ensemble of fundamental and always presupposed evaluations. This hierarchy has fixed itself in stone; henceforth, it informs the entirety of social space."
(Jacques Derrida) "The combination of the system theory of the urban realm with its dynamic interpretation as a pressurized field gives rise to an assembly language based on impregnation, with system elements existing simultaneously, and at least virutally, everywhere, emerging to actualization only within nodes (conjunctions) of mutually interfering systems."
(Stanford Kwinter) "This suggests the idea of architecture as "writing" as opposed to architecture as image. What is being "written" is not the object itself - its mass and volume - but the act of massing. This idea gives a metaphoric body to the act of architecture. It then signals its reading through an other system of signs, called traces. Traces are not the be read literally, since the have no other value than to signal the idea that three is a reading event and that reading should take place; trace signals the idea to read. Thus a trace is a partial or fragmentary signal; it has no objecthood."
(Peter Eisenman) They are not all quite like that of course, but most will not find this 'easy' reading. Learning to read english like this is a skill that takes some time to develop. Hays's little blurbs preceding each writer are decent enough, grounding you a little before you take on the selection, but they are not spectacular. I simply cannot recommend this book to anyone other than students forced to read it or those with a highly devoted interest in contemporary architectural theory. Anybody else will find it useless. (The Nesbitt and Leach were somewhat better)
Rating:
Summary: Woa!
Review: I'm a graduate student in architecture, and for a theory course we read selections from this book, and two other similar theory anthologies, Kate Nesbitt's "Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture," and Niel Leach's "Rethinking Architecture." All books attempt to do roughly the same thing, and I have to say the Hays (this one) was the one I got the least out of. I'll start with one minor criticism, which wouldn't condemn the book, but is extremely infuriating: the page numbers are printed on the inside upper corners of the pages near the spine, not the outside upper corners as is standard practice in books. This makes it difficult to flip through and find what you're looking for, and is just sort of a mind-bogglingly idiotic thing to do. Compounding the problem, many pages are simply not numbered! That little complaint aside, I guess Hays does do a pretty good job with his selection of essays. If anything it illustrates how much the discourse has obfuscated itself over the last 30+ years. To give you the the flavor of the book, here are a few selections: "The concept of architecture is itself an inhabited constructum, a heritage wich comprehends us even before we could submit it to thought. Certain invariables remain, constant, through all the mutations of architecture. Impassable, imperturbable, an axiomatic traverses the whole history of architecture. An axiomatic, that is to say, an organized ensemble of fundamental and always presupposed evaluations. This hierarchy has fixed itself in stone; henceforth, it informs the entirety of social space."
(Jacques Derrida) "The combination of the system theory of the urban realm with its dynamic interpretation as a pressurized field gives rise to an assembly language based on impregnation, with system elements existing simultaneously, and at least virutally, everywhere, emerging to actualization only within nodes (conjunctions) of mutually interfering systems."
(Stanford Kwinter) "This suggests the idea of architecture as "writing" as opposed to architecture as image. What is being "written" is not the object itself - its mass and volume - but the act of massing. This idea gives a metaphoric body to the act of architecture. It then signals its reading through an other system of signs, called traces. Traces are not the be read literally, since the have no other value than to signal the idea that three is a reading event and that reading should take place; trace signals the idea to read. Thus a trace is a partial or fragmentary signal; it has no objecthood."
(Peter Eisenman) They are not all quite like that of course, but most will not find this 'easy' reading. Learning to read english like this is a skill that takes some time to develop. Hays's little blurbs preceding each writer are decent enough, grounding you a little before you take on the selection, but they are not spectacular. I simply cannot recommend this book to anyone other than students forced to read it or those with a highly devoted interest in contemporary architectural theory. Anybody else will find it useless. (The Nesbitt and Leach were somewhat better)
Rating:
Summary: All texts of postmodernism in one book
Review: This book, which is very beautifully printed, shows us all the relevant texts of the post-modern architecture debate. Although this debate is very difficult to understand, all the texts are introduced by a very clear text. References and literature is everywhere and exhaustive.
Rating:
Summary: Greatest Hits
Review: This is a great book for students and professionals alike. As a collogue once said, "A Hayes book is like buying a greatest hits CD, all the good things are there". Hayes compilation saves time by retrieving the most influential articles since 1968 and places them in one place, most with a preface to the article. Must have for any student. Pages are also east to underline and annotate in the margins.
Rating:
Summary: Greatest Hits
Review: This is a great book for students and professionals alike. As a collogue once said, "A Hayes book is like buying a greatest hits CD, all the good things are there". Hayes compilation saves time by retrieving the most influential articles since 1968 and places them in one place, most with a preface to the article. Must have for any student. Pages are also east to underline and annotate in the margins.
Rating: 
Summary: interesting info, but where are the graphics?
Review: Very thourogh delvation into Arch. theory, but the lack of graphics sometimes makes this read a little slow. This book is however, a primer for Architectural education. If you are a student, professional, or just curious about how we got from Sullivan to Gehry in the last century, get this book!
<< 1 >>
| 
