I think the definition of whether or not an architect is "de-con" or not
should lie in whether or not he/she actually BUILDS something. I read the
writings of Lebbeus Woods and Coop Himmelblau among others and find them
provacative and interesting..but I consider them THEORISTS and not
actually architects (considering that they rarely BUILD anything except
models) The point: I do not think we, as students and professionals,
should totally disregard the theories and works of these men and women.
We should instead consider them very seriously and apply them to the work
that we do
should lie in whether or not he/she actually BUILDS something. I read the
writings of Lebbeus Woods and Coop Himmelblau among others and find them
provacative and interesting..but I consider them THEORISTS and not
actually architects (considering that they rarely BUILD anything except
models) The point: I do not think we, as students and professionals,
should totally disregard the theories and works of these men and women.
We should instead consider them very seriously and apply them to the work
that we do