|
Call for Papers
1. Haecceity Papers
2. Quarterly Architecture Essay (QAE)
1. Haecceity Papers
Vol. 1 / issue 2, Spring 2006 "What Now Architecture?"
Broadly speaking, critical architectural thought as it exists in the profession
and academy today can be identified to belong to three broad categories of approach,
each identified by a certain concentration of practitioners and thinkers. On
the one hand there exists a well-published and disseminated technological paradigm
championed by the likes of Kas Oosterhuis, Mark Goulthorpe and Bernard Cache
to name but a few of the more distinguished names; on another front there exists
an articulation and demand for a strong and critical ideological-theoretical
need and strain in creative architectural thought represented at its respective
élan by Peter Eisenman and Bernard Tschumi; on the third front their exists
a call for architectural thought and creativity to co-opt and immerse itself
in the logic and practice of neo-liberal global capitalism and commercial networking,
represented most pronouncedly by the practice of AMO and the writings of theorist
Michael Speaks. To these three broad directions of thought we may add a fourth,
although not theoretically articulated, but nevertheless forming an ever-increasing
importance in the curricula of architecture schools the world over, that of
the pressing ecological paradigm in architecture.
With the recent deaths of first Jacques Derrida, and then Philip Johnson -
two figures who in different ways and with differing legacies influenced the
course of architectural speculation during their respective careers in our time
- we wish to ferment a speculation on the present and future direction of architectural
consciousness and subjectivity as it bears on critical and creative practice
today, in light of their deaths, and in light of the varying stances of criticality
in architecture today.
With all death, comes a reflective evaluation on the legacy of a body of work
and thought on the part of the living. A death may also be construed by some
as the passing or termination of an era, if not literally, as times may have
moved on while they were still alive, then figuratively. The death of Phillip
Johnson has been surmised as the death of the modern era, an era that was cemented
through his co-writing and publication of the International Style, which was
later re-evaluated and superseded by his embrace of postmodernism, but nonetheless
always remaining true to the tenets of modernism. The death of Jacques Derrida
on the other hand might be construed by some as the symbolic termination of
theoretical speculation in architecture, something that marked the vibrant deconstructivist
period of architectural thought and practice in the '80s - and still echoing
through to the present - , but which has arguably been on the wane since the
mid-nineties.
In light of the deaths and contrasting legacy of these two highly influential
figures on the architectural scene, and in light of the diverse and contrasting
nature of contemporary architectural thought and creative practice in our present,
are we at a threshold of a paradigm shift in critical architectural thinking,
or in our approach to it? We may rightly ask, is the respective deaths of Derrida
and Johnson - albeit with starkly differing, but nonetheless individually influential
contributions to architectural subjectivity - the end of a certain type of speculation
in architecture? Is the tide turning, or did their respective body of work merely
lay the groundwork for something that still warrants relevant further and closer
scrutiny and debate? Is architectural thought at a crossroads, in need of, or
in search of new direction, and if so, what is that direction? What might the
metaphoric 'analyst's couch' yield to architectural thought today? Put simply,
what is the present flavour and direction of winds in critical architectural
thinking, and in light of an ever-present burden of the present that surrounds
us and the responses mustered to it? What does thought and life summon to architecture
today, without forgetting our recent past, indeed in light of it? Above all,
what is the substance of micro-segmentarity that might echo through the subjectivity
of architecture in the present and in its morrow?
In the context of this legacy, and in the counter-context of the present situation
as outlined simplistically at the beginning of this introduction, we wish to
posit a call and question for speculation on what is paramount in critical architecture
thought today, to return architectural speculation one more time to the analysts
couch and probe deeply into its ontology of presence. The second issue of Haecceity
Papers asks the question: "What Now Architecture?" in the context of the burden
of the present and hope of the future, and in light of legacies and changing
times.
Deadline for Submissions: 31 January 2006
Papers should be a maximum 6000 words. Please send electronic submissions only
in Word attachment to the Editor: dpav@haecceityinc.com
It is requested that you email an abstract to the Editor on the earliest possible
date to notify of your intention to submit a paper.
2.
Quarterly Architecture Essay (QAE)
Haecceity Inc. is seeking dissertation length essays of approximately 15,000-20,000
words on specific and relevant themes in, or contributing to, contemporary discourse
in critical architecture theory. Themes are open and at the discretion of the
writer's current research focus.
Deadline for Submissions: open
Please direct all enquiries and submissions to:
dpav@haecceityinc.com
|