We seek session proposals that articulate architecture’s core: its curricular core, its core assertions, and its core techniques. This is neither a nostalgic, arrière-garde return, nor a critique of avant-garde disciplinary diversity, but rather a genuine questioning and probing of the vanguard in order to determine what currently matters to the education of an architect. If, following Rendell’s lead, we define architecture as a subject containing a number of disciplinary approaches, then this conference will focus on method, research and practice - categories of operation that specifically eschew content, but allow us to nevertheless glimpse inside Banham’s elusive black box. We welcome proposals that interrogate these categories, considering both their disciplinary bounds and the ongoing proliferation of promiscuous hybrids.
Methods: In the category of method, we seek sessions that address methodological intersections and their consequences for architecture. Does the current myriad of architectural methodologies contribute to a clearer understanding of the core tenants of architecture, or are they a distraction to the design process?
Research: In the territory of research, we invite sessions that explore how design research protocols are distinguished from established models of inquiry in the sciences and humanities. How does research access and articulate architecture’s disciplinary core while contributing to its evolution?
Practice: In the arena of creative practice, we seek sessions that examine modes of design practice emerging from this specific moment of cultural production. If disciplines are regimes of practice, then cumulatively, how do these diverse and innumerable architectural approaches constitute a disciplinary core?