Last week's meeting was probably the first productive session this year. The results of the seminar was following: I should look at Stanford Anderson and his ideas on critical conventionalism, which might relate to Frampton's discourse on critical regionalism. Second, that the absence of the joint in blob architecture is evidence of how architecture has lost its critical language. Third, there's an amazing reversal that is happening with my thesis- that the Modern is now the essence, and the Traditional is dressing. The question posed is this- in the context of Frampton's proposal for the double hermeneutic- grounding practice in tectonic procedure while addressing itself in public appearance, does the architect mediate and invent culture, or does he play with found construction systems and cultural forces (like in critical regionalism).

I'm in a better position today than I was a week before. Last week, I was still struggling with focus. This week, I know what my thesis is, and where to direct my energy. Anyways, the point of my thesis is to approach it as a dialectic; striking the most beautiful chords with the most mediocre of site and program. Of course, the end result can be two things: first, it can become really banal. As in, there is no thesis. However, the great risk taken can reap rewards far greater than I've ever imagined. As in, a great thesis.

Anybody can do a museum, a housing project, or a cultural institution. Link it by starting with another discipline (be it biology, fine art, or literature) and you have a project. From what I've read, and with the mindset I have right now, I think this way of design and building is esoteric, superficially interesting, and culturally insignificant.

So be it that I'm doing a suburban shopping mall. So be it that I look at this typology in a different light, and turn it completely upside down. Don't let the real world scare me, or fool me into thinking that that's the only way to approach this building type. I've started a dialectic: let the ball keep rolling.

di·a·lec·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-lktk)
n.
The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments.

The process especially associated with Hegel of arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis.
Hegel's critical method for the investigation of this process.

The Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given contradiction is characterized by a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondary succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction. Often used in the plural with a singular or plural verb.
The Marxian critique of this process.
dialectics (used with a sing. verb) A method of argument or exposition that systematically weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to the resolution of their real or apparent contradictions.
The contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their continuing interaction.

Judging from the reaction to my presentations this past week, there are a few things that I need to work on. First, stop thinking about the task at hand, or trying to please the professors. The thesis has to stand on its own, the architecture has to stand on its own. So far, everything that I've read has been helpful in solidifying my thesis. However, I need to distill this information down to its fundamental spirit- my question ought to be, what is Frampton trying to say in his tectonic argument? Of course, my findings may be irrelevant in my final design, but at least it would be a step forward. I will also need to finish my reading of Gregotti as well, to get a firm basis of how his writings pertain to Frampton's argument.

At the same time, I have to somehow respond to DRM. So far, the project is splitting in separate parts due to the conflicting interests in Bressani's research and DRM. With Caroll, my project seems to be leaning towards the role of technology and placemaking. In every precedent I discussed, there was a strong focus on the structural poetic of architecture. Skin and structure both become tools to generate a critical dialogue with the site. How does the tectonic argument hold up to the nihilistic setting of the suburbs?