Colin Rowe, Karl Popper, and the Discipline of Architecture

665140 VCU0010.1177/1470412916665140journal of visual culture<bold>Deyong</bold> Colin Rowe, Karl Popper and the Discipline of Architecture research-article2016 journal of visual culture Colin Rowe, Karl Popper and the Discipline of Architecture Sarah Deyong Slightly more than a year ago, Steven Bingler and Martin Pedersen (2014) published an op-ed piece in The New York Times on the trials of architecture that was quickly rebutted by another piece by Aaron Betzky (2014) in Architect. The articles rehearsed a long-standing debate, raising questions about the social and cultural role of architecture. On one hand, architects were seen to serve society, listening to and collaborating with diverse stakeholders. On the other, they were harbingers of the avant-garde, ahead of the pack in advancing culture with radical experiments in form making. Related to this debate are pedagogical questions concerning the discipline. While some educational systems situate architecture in relation to technology and the social sciences, others place it squarely in the humanities. Consequently, at research institutions, topics such as building performance, climate-change mitigation, health and wellness, and technological innovation are often privileged in the architectural curriculum,1 while at liberal-arts colleges, the creative arts and cultural studies tend to take center stage. This split within the discipline reflects a broader problem in higher education and relates to what CP Snow (1962) earlier called the gap between the two cultures of the arts and sciences. But whereas Snow directed his criticism at the British educational system’s neglect of modern science and engineering, today the situation is reversed, as we find ourselves struggling to insert the A into STE(A)M. In the world of higher education, there is growing consensus that the gap between the arts and sciences hampers our ability to educate students in the range of skills they require to solve real-world problems. So relegating the discipline of architecture to either the arts or the sciences is surely unproductive, especially when it is uniquely positioned to mediate such a division. In this regard, it is helpful to recall the arguments of the noted historian and critic, Colin Rowe, who not too long ago lamented a similar journal of visual culture [http://vcu.sagepub.com] SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC and Melbourne) Copyright © The Author(s), 2016. Reprints and permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav Vol 15(3): 372–376 DOI 10.1177/1470412916665140 Deyong Colin Rowe, Karl Popper and the Discipline of Architecture split for architectural and urban problem solving (see Deyong and Babe, 2012: 132). As a visiting scholar at Cambridge from 1958 to 1962, Rowe was dismayed by Sir Leslie Martin and the pseudo-scientific turn his school took in the name of research – research that attempted to quantify design into mathematical statements, such as parametric rules for urban density.2 However, Rowe was also critical (albeit to a much lesser degree) of what he then saw as the opposing faction to Martin’s circle of programmers: the Tendenza movement or neo-Rationalists. While Rowe was rightly critical of the pseudo-scientific orientation of high modernism, he was also critical of the postmodern preoccupation with formal typologies. Writing in the early 1980s, he described their respective limitations thus: One of these is the widespread presumption that an act of analysis will automatically result in an act of synthesis; and the other is no more than the inversion of this point of view – the presumption that a synthetic statement is intrinsically an hypothesis for the discovery of significant empirical detail. (See Rowe, 1996: 8) Because Rowe’s two-pronged criticism was based, in large part, on the epistemological insight of Karl Popper, it is instructive to refer to it here, not only because it clarifies Rowe’s position, but more importantly, it points to what is at stake in the division between two diametrically opposed traditions stemming from the arts and sciences – traditions that, in the history of architecture, are better known as formalism and functionalism.3 Briefly stated, Popper had challenged the inductive logic adopted by the empirical sciences on the basis that it erroneously presumes that facts of observation can lead to synthetic statements like hypotheses or theories. As Popper (1959: 32) put it, ‘there is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas, or a logical reconstruction of this process.’ For Popper, genuine discoveries are arrived at not through inductive analysis, but through a leap of the imagination, ‘a creative intuition, in Bergson’s sense’. As such, they cannot be verified, only falsified once they have been advanced. This did not mean that all theories are by definition invalid, only that they are subject to criticism, and thus, to continual improvement as well. ‘Theories are passed on, not as dogmas’, he wrote, ‘but rather with the challenge to discuss them and improve upon them’ (Popper, 1963: 66). Following this argument, it can be said that functionalism is based on the erroneous assumption that form is the de facto result of function. In other words, the various proponents of functionalism (from Martin and his circle of programmers to evidence-based design and parametric urbanism) suffer from the faulty logic of simple induction.4 But while the inverse position of formalism does not make this capital mistake – instead, it draws from precedents to arrive at a proposition – it intrinsically suffers from an inability to incorporate empirical facts in useful yet creative ways. It has a tendency to ignore local empirical pressures, such as those of program, context and users. Notwithstanding their separate deficiencies, however, it is important to point out that in books such as Collage City (Rowe and 373 374 journal of visual culture 15(3) Koetter, 1978) and The Architecture of Good Intentions (1994) Rowe’s project was not to abandon form and function altogether, but rather to show how they intertwined to produce a novel recipe for the modern movement. Referring to the work of Le Corbusier and Raymond Hood, in particular, he demonstrated how architecture is animated through the dialectical interrelation of program and paradigm (Rowe, 1981: 21). As Popper (1959: 32) once noted, ‘there is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas.’ But while it is clear that the invention of new ideas is not a rational process, this does not mean that there is nothing instructive we can say about the design process as it relates to the design project, the primary vehicle architects use to communicate and disseminate their ideas. Indeed, Popper’s understanding of how paradigm change works suggests otherwise. In architecture, students will often begin their project with research, and typically this research will consist of things like site and context analysis, case studies, research on programmatic, material and structural requirements, and so on. And it may also consist of research that involves our collaboration with other fields of expertise and with community stakeholders.5 This research may help the architect to identify a problem, frame a direction or ask informed questions, but in no way does it render the solution. Rather, a workable design solution must take the form of a thesis or hypothesis, expressed in the language of architecture and the idiolect of form. It must serve as a lens capable of re-organizing different kinds of matter into new constellations as well as new meanings (Deyong and Babe, 2015: 118). Given that architecture expresses ideas visually and in the four dimensions of space–time, we do well to recall that the first schools of architecture, such as the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, developed a unique terminology for elements, like motive and thesis, commonly associated with the academic essay. These design elements include: parti pris, composition, promenade, circulations, distribution, disposition, character, poché and figure-ground. In the French academic system, parti pris meant ‘to make a decision’ or ‘to take a stand’, and was intimately tied to composition, ‘the essential act of architectural design’. As David van Zanten (1977: 112–115) has noted, parti pris also differed from composition. It supplied the motive behind the choice of composition, as distinct from the latter’s further articulation into a unified entity as ‘seen together in plan, section, and elevation’. The ingenuity of the parti and composition would then be assessed by a panel of jurors and evaluated with pragmatic and aesthetic criteria, like the distribution and arrangement of the rooms, the grandeur of the marche, the eloquence of the promenade’s negotiation of axial views, and the efficacy of the structure and circulation relative to the composition. So defined, the design project was already, in the 19th century, conjectural and objective in the Popperian sense. Throughout the history of modern architecture, styles and technologies have always changed, but the way in which we frame architectural and urban problems and resolve them can be seen to endure in the design project. Deyong Colin Rowe, Karl Popper and the Discipline of Architecture At most schools of architecture, the design studio project still forms the centerpiece of the curriculum and, in my mind, there is no reason why this should not remain the case, not only at the graduate level of an accredited master’s degree, but of post-professional and doctoral degree programs as well (which, currently, is rarely the case). For as I have argued here, the design project is no less rigorous than an academic essay or dissertation. On the contrary, it provides a precise framework for presenting a novel visual idea, animated by the inter-relation of form and function, creative intuition and applied research. In so doing, architecture might make its mark within the educational system as it strives to bridge the gap between the two cultures, through meaningful, interdisciplinary collaborations.6 As Rowe astutely intimated, pigeon-holing architecture in either the formalist or the functionalist camp is probably a trap for the discipline. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. These topics are the preferred themes of the AIA 2016 Upjohn Research Initiative. For historical background, see Steadman (2013). Given that Rowe wrote his MA thesis at the Warburg Institute under Rudolf Wittkower in 1945, it may be of interest to point out that Ernst Gombrich (1950, 1960) was the first art historian to draw from Popper’s arguments. For more on Popper and Gombrich, see Azatyan (2010). Mark Foster Gage (2009) has criticized contemporary forays in ‘research architecture’, a term he derives from David Gissen. In this, Gage’s argument against mapping and other forms of data analysis in architecture follows Rowe’s critique of the programmers of his day. Gissen’s response to Gage can be found in ‘Territory: Architecture beyond environment’, Architectural Design 205 (May–June): 8–13. The grass roots, non-profit organization, Design Trust for Public Space, has done exciting work in this area (see http://designtrust.org). Contemporary examples include Interboro Partners, LCLA, and Lateral Office. These leading experimental practices have made design the centerpiece of their interdisciplinary and collaborative work. References Azatyan V (2010) Ernst Gombrich’s politics of Art History: Exile, Cold War and ‘The story of art’. Oxford Art Journal 33(2): 129–141. Betzky A (2014) The New York Times versus architecture. Architect, 23 December. Available at: http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/the-new-york-timesversus-architecture_o (accessed 12 August 2016). Bingler S and Pedersen M (2014) How to rebuild architecture. New York Times, 14 December. Available at: http://www,.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinion/howto-rebuild-architecture.html (accessed 12 August 2016). Deyong S and Babe J C (2012) Colin Rowe’s double-edge: ‘Program: Fact or fiction?’ In: De Vos E et al. (eds) Theory by Design. Antwerp: Artesis University College, 131–136. Deyong S and Babe J C (2015) Colin Rowe in the design studio: A 5-Step program toward design. In: Jackson M et al. (eds) The National Conference of Beginning Design Students. Houston: University of Houston Atrium Press, 117–201. 375 376 journal of visual culture 15(3) Foster Gage M (2009) In defense of Architecture. Log 16, Fall: 1–5. Gissen D (2010) Territory: Architecture beyond environment. Architectural Design 205, May–June: 8–13. Gombrich E (1950) The Story of Art. London: Phaidon. Gombrich E (1960) Art and Illusion. London: Phaidon. Popper K (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books. Popper K (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Routledge. Rowe C (1981) The present urban predicament. Cornell Journal of Architecture 1: 16–33. Rowe C (1994) The Architecture of Good Intentions: Towards a Possible Retrospect. London: Academy Editions. Rowe C (1996) Program v. paradigm. In: Caragonne A (ed.) As I was Saying, Vol. 2 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rowe C and Koetter F (1978) Collage City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Snow CP (1962) The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press. Steadman P (2013) An ‘artificial science’ of architecture. In: Fraser M (ed.) Design Research in Architecture. Surrey, England: Ashgate, 38–39. Van Zanten D (1977) Architectural composition at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts from Charles Percier to Charles Garnier. In: Drexler A (ed.) The Architecture of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 112. Sarah Deyong is an Associate Professor at Texas A&M University. She received her PhD at Princeton University and her BArch at the University of Toronto. She teaches history, theory and design studio, with a focus on modernism in light of contemporary issues, and serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians ( JSAH) and the Journal of Architectural Education ( JAE). With grants from the Graham Foundation and the Glasscock Center of the Humanities, she has published her research in the Journal of Architectural Education ( JAE), the Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians ( JSAH), Praxis, the Journal of Architecture, A Critical History of Contemporary Architecture and the MoMA catalogue, The Changing of the Avant-Garde. In 2015, her essay ‘The Legacy of the Sixties’ garnered the ACSA/JAE Best Scholarship of Design Award. Address: Department of Architecture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3137, USA. [email [email protected]]