Of course architecture should continue to explore on any front that anyone feels necessary. The problem lies in the claims and conclusions that are drawn. What is the hypothesis? What is the goal and purpose? And, ultimately, did it work, was it successful? The latter is what is missing in much of the theoretically driven investigations. No testing. No refelction on the process, just the process itself without a true development in any one direction. | Just a question... Would these surfers in cyberspace and beyond be making their never-to-be-buildable, habitationable or usable reasearches and plans IF they wouldn't be good material for beatiful presentations? It's just a hoax. There's no real life behind the curves. |
|
Wouldn't it be wiser to allow some portion of architecture to follow certain advanced questions wherever they might lead, whether or not the answers challenge conventional understandings? Isn't that what research is all about? Or is architecture somehow exempt from serious inquiry? |
Few architects can truly say they ''surf'' both dimensions of the Architectural range.
|
Quondam © 2006.12.09 |