Most of the electives I took in architecture school were history and theory classes. One of them in my last semester focused on postmodern and contemporary history/theory and this book, which had just been released, was the textbook. It collects more than 50 essays in 11 thematic chapters; this partitioning is helpful, so somebody interested in phenomenology, for example, can focus on chapter 9 ("Phenomenology: Of Meaning and Place"), or those wishing to relive the glory days of Deconstructivism can take in chapter 3 ("Poststructuralism and Deconstruction: The Issues of Originality and Authorship"). Many of the essays are difficult reads, particularly for students, but Nesbitt's introductory notes for each essay are helpful for understanding the importance of each piece as well as for finding areas of critique. The book covers key decades in architectural thinking, and with the supposed death of architectural theory it also acts as a sort of summation of a particular way of writing about architecture. ( )

I have always been interested in architectural theory, but never knew where to start. The number of theory books is simply daunting. The key, I have discovered, is to find a book of texts edited by a clear, intelligent editor who can help ease you into the topics. That is exactly what we have here.

Because it's an anthology, there is nothing new here. What IS here is a good selection of readings from the major figures of the last 40 years, sorted by topic. Each reading is accompanied by a short introduction by the editor, explaining the context in which the article first appeared, and some background information on the author. There is also a very thorough (and highly recommended) introduction by the editor which gives background information on each of the topics covered. By the end of the book, you will, at the very least, be familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of architecture from Postmodernism on.

Granted, there's no guarantee that you'll understand what the authors are talking about. Even after reading the chapter on Deconstructionism twice, Derrida remains a complete enigma to me. On the other hand, I really enjoyed Vidler, Rowe and Frampton. As a result of reading this book, I was able to pursue further the authors and topics which most interested me (and, more importantly, skip the ones that didn't). This seems to me to be the mark of a good anthology. ( )