I will be writing my thesis in the upcoming semester, and so I've begun re-reading much of the material I've acquired in the past few years.
The books I'm looking to read/re-read include: "The Death & Life of Great American Cities", "The Smart Growth Manual", "The Image of the City", "The Four Books of Architecture", "On Architecture" (aka, Ten Books) and "Sun, Wind & Light".
I also will be listening to more lectures from Notre Dame School of Architecture, and various lectures by traditionalists.
In addition, I will try to "study" the work of architects such as Allan Greenberg, Andrea Palladio, Demetri Porphyrios, Edwin Lutyens, Frank Lloyd Wright (his early works), George Saumarez Smith, Joze Plecnik, Nigel Anderson, Otto Wagner and Quinlan Terry.
While I'm at school I'm going to try to read "The Long Emergency".
I have been challenged by my teacher to begin critically thinking about my position.
Some of the questions posed by my teacher that I should consider and think about are:
Style/Nostalgia can be anachronistic and superficial, how can I avoid that?
What does traditional architecture mean in a post-modern age. (not Post-Modern in style)
How can it address, or help conditions in the contemporary world?
What makes "classical" or "traditional" architects "better" than others? Are they better?
How can traditional architecture transcend style, what are aspects of it that can be basic principles?
As I consider myself a "traditionalist", I believe that our architecture belongs to a community rather than an individual, and we place ourselves immediately to be judged by all that comes before us. We have a "code" to live by, and to design by. How can we argue strongest for that "code"? How does that "code" address contemporary issues?
I'm interested to see how everyone else would respond and the perspectives of everyone else on here.
As mentioned above, this is all in relation to a thesis I will be writing in the upcoming semester...