CALL FOR ABSTRACTS
Oase 82 Architecture and Philosophy
Editorial board: Véronique Patteeuw, Lara Schrijver, Hans Teerds
Advisory board: Bernard Colenbrander, Christian Illies, Jacob Voorthuis.

Although philosophy has contributed a great deal to the architecture
discourse in the second half of the twentieth century, this has been
primarily centered on continental philosophy (with prominent roles for
Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida). The analytic tradition of philosophy,
figuring philosophers such as Wittgenstein, Quine, Putnam and Searle, has
been relatively insignificant to architecture. Despite works of contemporary
thinkers that address issues of architecture directly and are situated within
this tradition such as Scruton, or share some affinities with it, such as
Harries, , the issues and methods put forward by analytic philosophy have
found little resonance with the mainstream of architectural debate.
In recent years, as some questions have proven difficult to address within
the realm of continental philosophy, the idea has begun to grow that
architecture and philosophy may not have much to offer one another. In this
OASE, we propose instead that the architecture debate may benefit from the
less central tradition of analytic philosophy, as it offers the means to
address complicated times with real and tangible issues in architecture.

In particular, some of the approaches of analytic philosophy may help rethink
the discourse on the issues of ethics and aesthetics. The balance between
these two notions is one of the fundamental elements of twentieth-century
architectural history. Within the line of thought of the philosopher Immanuel
Kant – and especially the continuation of his work within critical theory and
phenomenology, both issues (ethics and aesthetics) were seen within each
other’s extension. Although perhaps the most ‘natural’ equilibrium between
ethics and aesthetics is to be found within the history of architecture in
Classical Antiquity and the Renaissance (where ‘beauty’ was seen to imply
‘virtuosity’, and ‘virtue’ was deemed to be necessarily pleasing to the eye),
the modern history of this relation should not be dismissed. This can be seen
in light of such examples as the modernist assumption that architecture with
a functional and mechanical approach of the assignment would lead to a
logical aesthetic and the most ethical choice, to the use of the method of
“dérive” by the Situationists in the sixties, leading not only to the
liberation of architecture but to the liberation of the human being itself.

What can be said when we submit the relation between ethics and aesthetics
within the architectural discipline to the logical analysis and specificity
of analytical philosophy? This encompasses an approach that focuses on
language, logic and significance, but in an empirically oriented fashion.
This avoids the desire to return to a metaphysical system, but focuses
instead on the concrete and specific manifestations, while paying attention
as well to meaning and families of relation and to orders of things. What can
be said about the notions of ethics and aesthetics? Can we describe these
notions within the architectural discourse without using metaphysical
concepts, or can we be more precise in addressing both how they are used and
which abstract concepts they refer to? How can analytical philosophy
contribute to a more specific understanding of their relationship?

A number of topics have been selected that seem particularly interesting in
the sense that they sit at the junction of architectural and philosophical
questions.

[ethics]
- Ideology
Ideology has had a prominent role in architectural discourse. Analytic
philosophy, as a form of ‘thinking without abstractions’, may help to
untangle the complexity of ideology becoming built form. This poses the
question of whether architecture may embody ideals without resorting to the
total system of an ideology.
- Morality
Equally, the discourse has utilized a sense of morality within its aesthetic
propositions. Whether appealing to Ruskin’s ‘Lamp of Truth,’ Loos’ disavowal
of ornament, or Le Corbusier’s ‘architecture or revolution’, architects have
often appealed to a moral standard embedded within their particular
aesthetic. What might this imply in contemporary reality? How is this related
to the object itself? Can we discern a moral standard to be unequivocally
expressed through the object of architecture?
- Consumerism
The consumerist tendencies of the late twentieth century give rise to
questions of permanence and ephemerality. Is architecture a fashion, a
lifestyle, or a bastion of permanence? Is it a form of individuation for the
sophisticated consumer, or should it be seen as a community gesture of
cultural signification? In the recently increasing calls for sustainability
and moderation, is there a role to be seen for architecture?

[aesthetics]
- Style
The mechanisms of style in defining architecture and its relevance to society
have received little attention in past years. Might the ‘vocabulary’ of
architecture be due for exploration within the larger syntax of globalization
and heterogeneity? What do stylistic interventions tell us about the
standards they operate within? How do they work in relation to cultural
convention?
- Perception
Is it possible to derive information from perception without taking recourse
to an idealist (and by definition unknowable) reference? Strictly speaking,
without an a priori understanding of ‘design intentions’, these cannot be
understood unambiguously. Might a syntactical relation of perception and
families of meaning offer a new insight into architecture and its significance?

OASE invites both architects and philosophers to send in abstracts that deal
with issues or aspects of the ethical or aesthetic discourse in architecture,
with special attention for the methods and strategies of the analytical
tradition. We are particularly interested in papers addressing the notions
mentioned above, but are equally open to other suggestions. Abstracts of 500
words max. can be sent by email to p.j.teerdstudelft.nl no later than 22
May, 2009.