The profession of architecture is increasingly characterized by divergent architectural ideas and divergent political, social, technological, and economic agendas. Much of current practice focuses on the process of architecture (its how) rather than its meaning, effect, or reason for being (its why). This issue of Perspecta explores the practice of architecture after the breakdown of consensus. Designers, theoreticians, and scholars investigate an architectural landscape devoid of a dominant ideology or ethos. Their essays take specific points of departure—globalization, urbanism, pedagogy, irony, as well as form, theory, and ideology—to address broader questions about the social, economic, and political fallout from these modes of practice, considering whether the lack of an overriding ethos in architecture is liberating or limiting for the profession. And, after all, is it conceivable, or desirable, to return to an architecture derived from a single, dominant mode of operation?
Roger Connah—An Unlikely Degree Zero?
Emmanuel J. Petit—Botox-ing Architecture’s Hermeneutical Wrinkles: From Differential to Integrative Thinking in Architecture, 1965-2005
Christopher Hight and Chris Perry—The Manifold Potential of Bionetworks
Tom Wiscombe—Emergent Models of Architectural Practice
Noriyuki Tajima—Tokyo Catalyst: Shifting Situations of Urban Space
Dawn Finley and Mark Wamble—Relationships Supercede Dimensions
Michael Speaks—Intelligence After Theory
Ashely Schafer—Theory After (After-Theory)
Lebbeus Woods—After Forms
Sam Jacob—2000 Years of Non-Stop Nostalgia Or, How Half-Timbering Made Me Whole Again
Stanley Tigerman—Problems Connected with Hegemonic Reiteration