Theory as a whole is a vast topic to cover, but when confined to the realm of architecture, terms such as architectural theory, contemporary architectural theory and theories of history come into play. From the article by Fil Hearn, as well as the collaborated work of Bruno Latour and Albena Yaneva, it is certain that[TT1] an architect cannot design ideal buildings without the guidance of architectural theory and intensive forms of practice. Despite their agreement, the two articles offer different forms of advice to the reader.
Taking architectural theory into consideration, which resides in any perception of what a building should turn out to be, Fil Hearn regards it to be both “a property and concern to all who evaluate buildings, either as observers or as users”, in his article, “Ideas that Shaped Buildings”. Hearn also states that the cutoff points of architectural theory are more tightly interpreted through validated treatises. Using the most well renowned treatises of Vitruvius, Hearn was able to come on terms with his declaration that with the impact of both theory and practice, one would not be able to design and build to the most ideal and effective ability. He goes on to strengthen his claim by declaring that “theory enables and inspires”. Despite his compelling declaration, he discloses the fact that because architectural theory delves with questioning and judging how architecture should be; it is generally forgotten about and used only as a vindication for a specific standpoint.
Bruno Latour and Albena Yaneva, however, state in their article, titled ““Give me a Gun and I will Make All Buildings Move”: An Ant’s View on Architecture” that architecture is being considered as a static object, and not the fluent series of metamorphoses that it really is. Taking the example of Etienne Jules Marey’s “photographic gun”, the article suggests that perhaps the application of architectural theory would be able to “transform the static view of a building” into a free-flowing “story” that is able to portray its actual face. However, when practice comes into question, the article states that the 3-Dimensional AutoCAD renderings are extremely impractical, as they cannot answer several questions, such as those regarding the budgeting, the evaluation of practitioners and logistical information. Latour and Yaneva claim that the classic method of drawing and making physical models, alongside architectural theory, form the foundations for designing and constructing a building. This is due to the notion that every time a new constraint comes into play, it is of utmost importance that a new
way to draw must be devised to make the design fit in place with the other constraints. The idea that several models and drawings form vital objects stimulate the imagination of the client and users further strengthens their claim.
It is evident from the articles that the authors Hearn, Latour and Yaneva all agree on the fact that without the influence of architectural theory and practice, architects would not be able to design and build “perfect” buildings. What is conflicting about the two articles is that the latter specifies that the use of making models and intensive drawing and sketching should be preferred over using computer software.
