Skip to main content

Heteronomy and Necessity: How Architects Design for Architectural Competitions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sociology of the Arts in Action

Part of the book series: Sociology of the Arts ((SOA))

  • 166 Accesses

Abstract

Architectural competitions have often been analysed as key institutions for the historical differentiation of architecture as an autonomous field of cultural production. This chapter proposes an alternative reading based on two ethnographies of architectural firms. Firstly, the high degrees of autonomy characteristic of competitions constitute a practical problem. Accordingly, the design process is oriented towards the reconstruction of heteronomy, that is, the definition of non-architectural constraints. Secondly, competitions are not primarily oriented at exploring new possibilities but at producing necessary responses. The primacy of heteronomy and necessity render competitions in key spaces in which architectural projects are assembled as facts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1996). Le travail de la conception en architecture. Situations. Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale, 37(1), 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., & Muniesa, F. (2005). Economic Markets as Calculative Collective Devices. Organization Studies, 26(8), 1229–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuff, D. (1992). Architecture: The Story of Practice. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as ‘Epistemic Objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farías, I. (2015). Epistemic Dissonance: Reconfiguring Valuation in Architectural Practice. In A. B. Antal, M. Hutter, & D. Stark (Eds.), Moments of Valuation. Exploring Sites of Dissonance (pp. 271–289). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Houdart, S., & Chihiro, M. (2009). Kuma Kengo. An Unconventional Monograph. Éditions Donner Lieu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennion, A., & Farías, I. (2015). For a sociology of ‘maquettes’: an interview with Antoine Hennion. In Ignacio Farías and Alex Wilkie (Eds.), Studio Studies: Operations, Topologies & Displacements (pp. 70–85). London, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpik, L. (2010). Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kjaer, A. B., & Mouritsen, J. (2007). Budget-Variances and Circulating Accountability: Mobilising the Budget in a Construction Project. In Managing the Construction of Buildings. Copenhagen Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreiner, K. (2009). Architectural Competitions – Empirical Observations and Strategic Implications for Architectural Firms. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 21(2/3), 37–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwartler, M. (1985). Zoning as Architect and Urban Designer. New York Affairs, 8(4 Special Issue – Real Estate Development and City Regulations), 104–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, M. S. (1994). Architectural Competitions as Discursive Events. Theory and Society, 23(4), 469–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2008). A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design (with Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk). Keynote Lecture in conference ‘Networks of Design’ of the Design History Society in Falmouth, Cornwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipstadt, H. (2003). Can ‘Art Professions’ be Bourdieuean Fields of Cultural Production? The Case of the Architecture Competition. Cultural Studies, 17(3), 390–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez Oyarzún, F. (2007). Behind the Competitions. ARQ, 67, 10–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Till, J. (2009). Architecture Depends. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vásquez, C. (2007). The Architectural Program in Competition Rules. ARQ, 67, 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaneva, A. (2005). Scaling Up and Down: Extraction Trials in Architectural Design. Social Studies of Science, 35(6), 867–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ignacio Farías .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Farías, I. (2022). Heteronomy and Necessity: How Architects Design for Architectural Competitions. In: Rodríguez Morató, A., Santana-Acuña, A. (eds) Sociology of the Arts in Action. Sociology of the Arts . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11305-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11305-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-11304-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-11305-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics