What do you think?
Rate this book
Writing Architecture #24
Architecture’s Theory
A collection of illuminating essays exploring what theory makes of architecture and what architecture makes of theory in philosophical and materialized contexts.
From poststructuralism and deconstruction to current theories of technology and nature, critical theory has long been closely aligned with architecture. In turn, architecture as a thinking profession materializes theory in the form of built work that always carries symbolic loads. In this collection of essays, Catherine Ingraham studies the complex connectivity between architecture's discipline and practice and theories of philosophy, art, literature, history, and politics. She argues that there can be no architecture without theory.
Whether considering architecture’s relationship to biomodernity or exploring the ways in which contemporary artists and designers engage in figural play, Ingraham offers provocative interpretations that enhance our understanding of both critical theory and architectural practice today. Along the way, she engages with a wide range of contemporary theorists, including Giorgio Agamben, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Graham Harman, and Timothy Morton, considering buildings around the world, including the Palace of Culture in Warsaw, the Viceroy’s House complex in New Delhi, Mack Scogin and Merrill Elam's Wolfsburg Science Center project in Germany, and the Superdome in New Orleans. Approaching its subject matter from multiple angles, Architecture’s Theory shows how architecture's theoretical and artifactual practices have a unique power to alter culture.
From poststructuralism and deconstruction to current theories of technology and nature, critical theory has long been closely aligned with architecture. In turn, architecture as a thinking profession materializes theory in the form of built work that always carries symbolic loads. In this collection of essays, Catherine Ingraham studies the complex connectivity between architecture's discipline and practice and theories of philosophy, art, literature, history, and politics. She argues that there can be no architecture without theory.
Whether considering architecture’s relationship to biomodernity or exploring the ways in which contemporary artists and designers engage in figural play, Ingraham offers provocative interpretations that enhance our understanding of both critical theory and architectural practice today. Along the way, she engages with a wide range of contemporary theorists, including Giorgio Agamben, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Graham Harman, and Timothy Morton, considering buildings around the world, including the Palace of Culture in Warsaw, the Viceroy’s House complex in New Delhi, Mack Scogin and Merrill Elam's Wolfsburg Science Center project in Germany, and the Superdome in New Orleans. Approaching its subject matter from multiple angles, Architecture’s Theory shows how architecture's theoretical and artifactual practices have a unique power to alter culture.
272 pages, Paperback
Published April 18, 2023
4 people are currently reading
15 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 17, 2025
2.5*
These essays don’t direct you anywhere; they don’t conclude. They notice. They are essays of noticing. I don’t like essays like these too much.
To look for connections, links, relations without leading anywhere—it’s such a strange intellectual exercise that it reminds me of Graham Harman (final boss of substanceless, hollow, empty deliberation), who’s also mentioned in the book.
I like examples, but what I cannot stand is when examples are used as if they are expected to do ALL THE EXPLAINING. Like, you can’t deliver your point just by saying, “well, this is just like that,” or “that isn’t that different from this.”
I honestly don’t believe that you can just introduce new references and concepts, compare them to others, use witty remarks, and then miraculously hope that the reader will deduce some conclusion from it when you don’t offer one yourself. It feels so self-referential, so lonely, so not interested in having a discussion about things.
There were a few good essays—two, I think. I liked the last one on linearity in writing and architecture, and the opposite of it (the donkey way).
I just hoped I’d learn more from this book.
These essays don’t direct you anywhere; they don’t conclude. They notice. They are essays of noticing. I don’t like essays like these too much.
To look for connections, links, relations without leading anywhere—it’s such a strange intellectual exercise that it reminds me of Graham Harman (final boss of substanceless, hollow, empty deliberation), who’s also mentioned in the book.
I like examples, but what I cannot stand is when examples are used as if they are expected to do ALL THE EXPLAINING. Like, you can’t deliver your point just by saying, “well, this is just like that,” or “that isn’t that different from this.”
I honestly don’t believe that you can just introduce new references and concepts, compare them to others, use witty remarks, and then miraculously hope that the reader will deduce some conclusion from it when you don’t offer one yourself. It feels so self-referential, so lonely, so not interested in having a discussion about things.
There were a few good essays—two, I think. I liked the last one on linearity in writing and architecture, and the opposite of it (the donkey way).
I just hoped I’d learn more from this book.
July 12, 2025
One interesting cogent idea out of every ten. Biomodernity and A Natural History of the Stock Exchange chapters were the most striking - the cruelty of constructing, containing, bisecting humans and animals and air and space and the possibility to carve humanity out of such necessary harshness
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews