Two Histories of Architecture

Abstract

Two ways of defining and writing architectural history have evolved side by side since the late Renaissance: a literary tradition that uses architecture as a source for the historical understanding of society, and a disciplinary tradition that leverages history as a frame for understanding architecture itself. These traditions diverged yet maintained contacts and exchanged methods and objects of study. Nowadays, the craft of architectural history overwhelmingly adopts critical approaches, derived from the literary tradition. However, beneath these approaches lurks the disciplinary toolkit, which cannot be dispensed with for producing historical knowledge in architecture. The fragility of critical autonomy in the face of pressures from contemporary theory suggests the field would do well to balance both historiographic traditions.