Despite its due criticism of previous theory, Michael Speaks’s essay provides yet another reactionary theoretical analogy to gnaw at the roots of the profession.
The architecture coverage in the June issue was thoroughly engaging, though it was surprising to see that record had allowed itself to become a forum for political and economic ideology.
Architecture has long been considered an art and a science, although architects – in effort to raise design’s respectability higher than that of the “cappuccino crowd” – relentlessly try to clear the blurred lines between them.
I read the article on page 73 of the July Record. As you know, it's an argument between academics, which, the headline would suggest is about the end of theory.