basis to formulate a theory for architecture

many a time we delve into a design project, and then we find ourselves in the middle of a commission, caught in time, of not knowing quite if the building which evolves before our eyes requires any sort of examination, deeper or closer than pure visual assessment. wherefore at this point, we urge to ask if any philosophical position becomes necessary at all prior commencement of development of a architectural proposition. some have argued that a great work need not necessitate the having laid out a theory behind it, suffice to promote an experience or an engagement albeit purely of the physical sense, and not in any likelihood an intellectual one, least of all to have any basis or theory. it would be argued furthermore the approach and intent must foremost be checked against the will of the project. the will to win yet another competition or of sustaining a particular aesthetic or house style of the practice alone does not justify or give any validation for the unassuming propagation of a strong willed styled or visually appealing work or building. perhaps it is better to accept that the consistent act of procuring a series of architectural designs might merit the need for a theory to explain the philosophy, more than if it was one specific gesture, which in fact does not connect in anyway to the next attempt, so that any two buildings which do not have any common denomination for design or academic purpose or intellectual discourse wouldnt merit to give such intellectual value. so that in that case, a theory to validate the work would not yet have become into neccessity. yet, a theory of architecture sometimes might lead one to think its meaning is to help one to define or extract a definition for a process to be developed which informs the adopted methodology. something that corrects the thought process, making it more an acceptable formula to allow permissible or accepted norms of commercial design practice. worst to give it any validation for its commercial value. yet if one theory or conceived path can be applied to one building or series of buildings would that make the theory more critical than the building itself. therein lies the investigative remark. did we or did we not accept that the resultant work is more precious and should be defended rather than the intent or the validation of it. what if the intended building did not conceive a workable or meaningful experience or result. can a building which exhibit poor workmanship, bad detailing or deplorable planning merit a good theoretical premise before it was conceived or preempted. could such a thing be plausible. what if the theory was not sound or the concept was inferior but that the building itself permeates good sense and spatial delight. can it be argued that the theory or schematics did not produce the work rather it was the element of time and will that put it together. therefore to conclude, with not much of an exception, that a successfully executed project requires more than a theory to defend its existence, there was probably a good method or process to interpret the intent and deliver the desired effect. it is argued therefore the process and methodology merits the experience and not the intent on its own to warrant the desired effect.
@2015.huatlim. 5.10.2015