The German figure that joins the 19th century Enlightenment and the 20th century Chicago School, at least from a tectonics point of view, is Semper and his belief that architecture originates and is inspired primarily from textile production. Wright and his use of "wire-reinforces, tessellated block construction" in some of his most important works show this very textile nature of building. This is very interesting, because the nature of weaving is very culturally specific, and always has a functional idea engrained in it. What differentiates a Turkish rug from all the rest is perhaps not so much the surface pattern, but the actual weave itself. Intriguing as well is Wright's construction details, which reallly do show a clear understanding of material, how even glass can be woven in a wall. Frampton also argues that, unlike Semper, Wright indeed embraced technological advances, including reinforced concrete because they had the potential of bringing a new order of design that is less labour-intensive, and more democratic.

There is also a fascination with form and essence (form and spirit, form and content) that preoccupies German philosophy. Hegel would show the different manifestations of cultural form, from the symbolic, to the classic, to the romantic where form and content are disengaged. Botticher split form itself into Kernsform and Kundtsform (Core-form and Art-form). I could see a similar distinction in Chinese Architecture, between what Peter Rowe calls the "ti" and "yong." Ti would eventually be seen as the essentially modern and the yong as essentially Chinese. Now, he argues, there is almost a complete reversal, with the Chinese being the form, and the modern as the content.

When Frampton is describing the Greco-Gothic tradition, he extracts key moments within the 19th century and explains how each time, within a cultural framework, the tradition shifts. A period of doubt of the Classical orders occurred between Claude Perrault's Ordonnance in 1673, to Abbe Laugier's L'Essaie and the primitive hut in 1755. Soufflot's Ste. Genevieve (1755) to Labrouste's Bibliotheque Ste. Genevieve were important monuments that synthesized the trabeated columnar form and the vaulted form. Constructional logic and ornamental expression was not an arbitrary theoretical discourse, had an essential and vital role in the development of modern constructional methods and materials. The major crux of his argument is that the possibilities of reinforcement and the cultural and technological changes of the century allowed the schism between between the Greek and the Roman to be finally bridged.

Now that I'm back at home, I started to re-read Frampton's Studies in Tectonic Culture, hopefully to finally grasp the totality of his argument. And it is now increasingly apparent to me that within the core of Frampton's thought is an almost Christian belief that the act of creation in architecture is a sacred act that first marks a place on the earth, and then transforms it. The basis of architecture rests on its relation with natural forces, and the physical properties of its materials- what Frampton describes as "cosmogonic implications." Semper's separation of 4 distinct elements of construction, a counterpoint to Vitruvian thought, depicts architecture strictly as the interplay between structure and construction: the earthwork, the hearth, the framework, and the lightweight membrane. It is also interesting to note that in the foreword, there is the mention of Schinkel's Altes Museum, and how the language that he used- the Ionic pillars, the recessed wall, the staircase- resisted his contemporaries' structural rationalism. The gap between tradition and innovation can only be bridged by the tectonic, in the way the architect himself inflects cultural forces through construction. Architecture will always be in dilemma- constant dialogic/dialectic (what's the difference?). Veer too far towards tradition, and you end up with nostalgia that has no relation with today. Steer too far ahead, and architecture again becomes meaningless- a meaningless utopian object. The eternal present is something that relates both to Paul's teaching (to live is Christ) as well as a hope that architecture can indeed settle in the context of the present.