Campo obligatorio; no debe dejarse en blanco.

I think I've had some sort of a moment tonite. I don't think architecture is about resolution either.

I know I have written about the difference between conception and resolution and how they differ but they lead into each other. Still the problem with say, detailing, or concretizing ideas is that they are an exercise in resolution but not necessarily in communication. This means you can draw a floor to ceiling detail in 1:100, 1:50 or 1:20 but the idea is still the same, adding little or no information to your narrative (obviously is not with the builder that we are trying to communicate here). Rather architecture is a medium for ideas, a form of expression. No of expressive matter, but rather of conceptions.

I am happy to say that I can firmly believe again in the idea of conception over resolution. The issue here is that resolution helps the conception or refinement of ideas.
What will make a project interesting/exciting is if you manage to communicate what you are trying to achieve with the project. This is not about hypostatizing, but about the power of evocation. When concepts can be translated into something comprehensible and readable by others. That is what is all about, and that is what can drive architecture as a medium, and not as an ends.

To emphasize my argument I wanted to talk about the computerization of drawing, or the ability of technology to render architecture, which follows a logics of productivity. This is clear when we look into computer software that easily reproduce and produces form. That replicates and mirrors form...There is not love command or exasperation tab. The computer cannot translate devotion as it cannot reproduce passion. All it can do is reproduce the dimension of passion. If passion is a square, it can replicate it and copy it and past it. It can cross passion, it can fade it or even stack it. But it can't produce passion, as it follows a logics of mimics.

I cant believe I am having this moment, or revelation. It is nice, as it leaves me again free to my wild imagination but back with the idea of social responsibility, which is super hype in architecture now.
I am happy to think that the beauty of it all rests in the conception of evocative form (form being anything we can comprehend). This means that architecture can be performance... or music...or a spit. I am happy to remember. Oh dear. It is funny, but I hope this is not a rational deduction, but rather an intuition. I think from now on I can free myself from the straightjacket of rationality and the idea of a constant oppressive capitalistic order (not that I have forgotten). I am just hoping that I am not being pro-monopolistic in my discourse slash thinking process.

I am going to try to finish my submission which is due on wednesday. I have to finally make sure that I communicate what I have to say, and I know that by no means my message is embedded in the tone of the concrete, but rather in the sets of relationships that the architectural object puts into motion.

I have always been dismissive of the idea of the architect as an artist but I think that as far as that he creates he is most radically, an artist. But he obviously does not produce art, but a watered down version of a vision, as far as the built form goes...Idk this is funny.

To finish, architecture relies on drawing to exist, but has most markedly a tense relationship with the built as they stand as different apparatuses with their very own landscapes. To this I have to say I have an ambivalent relationship towards the importance of the line work, as it takes place somewhere between the physical (it very own presence) and its ability to be physically elusive.

The medium becomes its very own prophet, as it acquires a life of its own...a carrier of content. A carrier of meaning. Then it becomes autonomous and its a bearer of meaning. Autonomous because its no longer dependant on its creator (an existentialist relief) or a trace of own owns existence. But at the same time reliant, as the readings of this form will be affected by its cultural context as far as it remains decontextualized from its original milieu (here is where the cultural-masterarchitect should be attacking). The validity of the work its no longer then so much about its formalities, but about its message and the relevance of this message in the very situation in which comes to life, i.e. the drawing.
Again we end up claiming context, form and meaning as three interdependent fluid mechanisms.

I might fall short to further explain any of these thoughts, but better to write to think (LiveTrace or LiveThink), than thinking to write, again, writing as a medium. Not as the gravestone, but as the way to evocation, and most precisely, expression, which precedes emotion. And yes, politics have not been mentioned once. (Hard core-hard bore of all substances...)