C 10 57
The ever diminishing role played by theory
and thought in professional practice is, ac-
cording to Frampton and Moneo, one of the
principal challenges that contemporary ar-
chitecture is faced with. Add to this the great
transformations taking place in society, the
economy, and architecture itself, thanks to
which the traditional discourses, based on
concepts like Zeitgeist, rationalism, and faith
in progress, are ineffective. Not to mention the
precarization of the labor market, with its te-
rrible effects on young people. In this situation
Frampton and Moneo call for a more critical
reading of globalization, and also an ethic of
resistance grounded upon the principles of
the architectural discipline.
Kenneth Frampton (KF): We have known
each other since the mid-70s, a time in which
theory was very important for architects.
Forty years later, the role of theory and the
dimension of architecture is sort of dimin-
ished in the current debate…
Rafael Moneo (RM): I think that the at-
tempt to make architectural theory uphold
architectural practice is nowadays completely
gone, the battle has been lost. In the 1970s,
Peter Eisenman and others probably had the
idea that the pure visualism that was still
embedded in building after Colin Rowe could
be extended. Nowadays we say that theory fell
into the hands of writers inspired by post-
structuralism, French writers above all. It
doesn’t at all have the presence that it used
to have. Therefore it ought to be recognized
that even in the entire second half of the
20th century, the true way to try to find out
what architectural theory means ought to be
figured out by reading historians. In a way,
historians are depositaries, they have defined
the paradigm of what could be considered
‘modernities,’ something that has changed
radically in this new century.
KF: Yes, I think that’s right.
RM: The description of what architects
have sought is in the hands of historians.
You need to go through the reading to extract
what actually matters: the way history has
been told isn’t anymore as useful to what is
happening today. That would be the point.
KF: This is why I think that philosophical
discourse would be more useful. The question
of whether the old city can sustain any con-
tinuity, given the modern reality, is really a
deep problem. And one of the deep problems
associated with it is the idea of progress and
the question of whether that idea has real
validity anymore, not only from the point
of view of architecture, but altogether. The
question of belief in progress is a problem.
RM: We are no longer able to think clearly
in terms of progress.
‘Zeitgeist’ and Utopia
KF: I studied architecture in the 1950s in
London, and within the British welfare state.
It was possible then to think that the idea of
progress was modernity, that modernization
could only have a positive outcome for society.
It was a naïve moment. I think that this is still
reflected in the first edition of Modern Archi-
tecture: A Critical History. But, for whatever
reason, it took me ten years to write it, and my
views already had been modified – by coming
“I think that the attempt
to make theory uphold
architectural practice is
nowadays completely gone,
the battle has been lost”
