It´s not the canon, it's how you use it

What are canons? How do they come into existence and how do they develop? Is the idea behind them different from that of a paradigm? How do canons permeate architectural history narratives and come to frame the educational and professional fields? Why is this felt to be a problem? Are canons an inevitable trait of our field? Can we move forward just by shuffling, expanding or regionalizing them?  Or would this be a cure that made the poison stronger rather than eliminating it? This essay considers these issues and raises critical questions about the current meaning and use of architectural canons. It suggests that, for the moment, we should continue to use them but in less inappropriate ways, until it becomes possible to propose a non-canonical history of architecture and a non-canonical practice.