What is theory?

Theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one

based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Theory possesses no tangible form. It exists in large and heavy tomes as well as in short and
spirited manifestoes. It is found in the angle of a molding, the silhouette of a roofline, as well
as in the impassioned assertions of the confident practitioner.
Theory is at times imbued with revolutionary fervor, and it admittedly emanates or takes its
lead from larger cultural sensibilities.

So,

What is architectural theory?

Architectural Theory is the process of discussing, thinking or a system of idea, and writing the
principles about architecture.
Architectural theory, for all its occasional abstraction, is nothing less than the history of our
ideas regarding our constructed physical surroundings. If we accept this broad definition of
theory, we must also accept a wide-ranging approach to the problem of an anthology, one that
responds from many sides.
No anthology is intended to supplant the teaching of architectural theory or to constitute a
course in itself; this anthology is most definitely not presented to discourage the reader from
turning to the multitude of sources themselves. Anthologies are by nature restrictive, cursory,
subjective, even arbitrary in their selection, and always in need of revision.
At their best, anthologies provide a framework for ideas and encourage the reader to study
the material and its historical context with greater seriousness and depth.
Architectural Theory is how categories of architecture are developed. Architecture and
architectural theory are heavily dependant on each other, because like any art form,
communication and discussion with one’s peers is incredibly important. Since we do not live in
a void, separate and exclusive of each other, design is inherently based on the work of those
who came before us. Avoiding this fact not only would be foolish and arrogant, it does a
disservice to the history of Architecture.
Theory needs its context, just as any history of ideas needs its intellectual framework, and the
expense and materiality of architecture perhaps make it even more a closely guarded pawn of
political ambition, wars, and economic downturns. But ideas also move with a certain volition
and tempo of their own, fascinating in their own right.
Architectural theory has its unique distinctions. It comprises a broad body of ideas and debates,
which over many centuries has not only come to form a substantial literary edifice but also one
ever more complex and refined in its details and issues. With the articulate engagement of one
generation responding to the ideas of another, architectural theory is more often than not
contentious and instructive. It is not born in isolation. It reflects the aspirations of emperors
and the whims of kings, and again the insights of lay critics and the pride of competing
professionals.
As an intellectual enterprise, architectural theory draws upon the larger currents of its time –
political, social, scientific, philosophical, and cultural – and in this way it often cannot be
understood outside of these insinuating forces.
The architect should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds
of learning, for it is by his judgement that all work done by the other arts is put to test. This
knowledge is the child of practice and theory. Practice is the continuous and regular exercise
of employment where manual work is done with any necessary material according to the
design of a drawing. Theory, on the other hand, is the ability to demonstrate and explain the
productions of dexterity on the principles of proportion.
It follows, therefore, that architects who have aimed at acquiring manual skill without
scholarship have never been able to reach a position of authority to correspond to their pains,
while those who relied only upon theories and scholarship were obviously hunting the shadow,
not the substance. But those who have a thorough knowledge of both, like men armed at all
points, have the sooner attained their object and carried authority with them.
Its importance to architectural theory because it contains one of the oldest descriptions of
architecture that has survived into modern times.
It is very complex literary context since architectural itself contains many disciplines as the base
of what it wants to product, also those disciplines have their aesthetic sense that architecture
can develop. Where architecture talks about art and space, there are numerous theories that
contained within general discussions of artistic theory, especially when the emphasis is on
producing comprehensive categories embracing all the arts.
Decisive knowledge required for architects, for those who act as architects, or those who build
without architectural guidance, and for others who are requested, now and again, to give their
opinion on models or on unbuilt buildings, and who [are wont to] rely on their socalled good
taste or on knowledge entirely removed from the craft [of building], and who are in search of
some solid support.
Since civil architecture should take the guise of a science, and should be considered such, and
since apparently others have so treated it, one should demand principles that lead with
certainty to the fulfillment of those final aims toward which architecture tends, whatever these
aims may be, or however many. The integral parts [of architecture] need to be put in order, to
be clarified (since so far none of its laws have proven incontrovertible, nor its norms rational
and effective in the parts and in the whole).