Conference schedule
Finally! Here it is, the conference schedule:
Projective Landscape Conference Schedule (pdf)

The final list of speakers is:
Stan Allen (special appearance)
 Robert Somol
Sarah Whiting
Michael Speaks
Roemer van Toorn
Kamiel Klaasse
Reinhold Martin
Peter Trummer
Nikolaus Kuhnert
Diane Ghirardo
Hans van Dijk
Ole W. Fischer
Wouter Vanstiphout
Willem-Jan Neutelings
Naomi Stead
Lara Schrijver
M. Christine Boyer
Arie Graafland
K. Michael Hays

Selected Readings
For those who are interested in the topic of our conference and would like to know more, or prepare themselves for the conference we made a selection of readings which will give a good impression of the issues and arguments which are at play in the ‘projective practice’ debate.

-Roemer van Toorn, 'No More Dreams?' uit: Harvard Design Magazine no.21, Fall 2004/Winter 2005. p. 22-31.
-Sarah Whiting and Robert Somol, 'Notes around the Doppler Effect and other Moods of Modernism' uit: Perspecta no.33 'Mining Autonomy'
-K. Michael Hays, 'Critical Architecture: Between culture and form' uit. Perspecta no. 23
-George Baird, 'Criticality and its Discontents' uit: uit: Harvard Design Magazine no.21, Fall 2004/Winter 2005
-Bruno Latour, ‘Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,’ in: Critical Inquiry 30, Winter 2004. pp.225-248.
Problem statement
problem statement (pdf)

The current debate on a ‘post-critical’ architecture, often called ‘projective practice’ or ‘projective theory,’ has largely been held within an American theory forum. There are however strong connections between this and various European debates on such terms as ‘operative optimism’ and ‘new pragmatism.’ The main connections revolve around a certain optimism and a deep interest in the practice of architecture in the 21st century. Although the American debate seems extremely geared towards a reaction against the architecture and theory of Peter Eisenman, the European debate reflects a certain architectural praxis: an understanding that the capacity of ‘critical’ architecture only reaches so far, and that to address contemporary conditions a different set of tools may be necessary than the relatively common notions of societal criticism.

There is a sense of urgency and a sense of idealism, but both are conjoined with an interest in building, in navigating the complexity of 21st century reality without retreating into a self-enclosed design theory. This architecture is meant to be both idealist and pragmatist. It often takes serious account of such questions as collective values, while at the same time it is firmly embedded in the craft of the discipline itself. Its distantiation from 20th century ‘critical’ architecture is not merely a turn to affirmative and ‘easy’ commercial architecture. Rather, it questions these categories on a fundamental level, and is seeking out a new approach, that can both accommodate the complexity of the contemporary as well as take a position and not merely register reality. In this sense it is the problem of the postmodern condition itself: what certainties are there in a world that has lost its absolute values?

There is a sense that all these questions form a new direction for architecture in the 21st century: a direction that neither presumes to transform society with a single building nor carelessly falls intot he cynicism of producing buildings that follow the whims of consumer desires. This group of strategies has been approximated by various labels such as ‘projective’, ‘scanning’, ‘utopian realism’, ‘new pragmatism’, yet the heart of the issue is still fragmented. In other words, the problem with this debate, although one may be easily sympathetic to it for its optimistic and idealistic tendencies, is that it remains poorly defined, both conceptually and in terms of the actual architecture resulting from it. The abstraction of the debate leaves too many gaps in the arguments within the discipline. Therefore, this conference is intended to address a number of issues. It hopes to collect the many fragments that seem headed in the same direction but are defined (or labelled) differently. It intends to offer more space to the various European interpretations of a ‘post-critical’ architecture. And, perhaps most importantly, it will pose the crucial questions for the development of a ‘projective practice’: what will it look like? What are the underlying premises of projective design?

The Projective Landscape Stylos Conference wants to research and explore the similarities between a few -at first sight- seemingly diverse developments within the architecture debate taking place in Europe and the United States. These developments appear to offer a fruitful strategy for architecture in the 21st century. Because this specific debate is very scattered, the conference aims to map and clarify these different developments and hopes to come to a clearer formulation of what now is being referred to as projective practice. By which we mean an architecture that is engaged with the reality of the society in which it is embedded, but focuses on its own discipline instead of looking for legitimatization of its practice in just societal criticism or in disciplines outside itself like sociology and philosophy.