ARCHITECTURAL THINKING AND ARCHITECTURAL KNOWLEDGE

Architectural Thesis

There are fine division between two terminologies that are often operationalized when one is carrying out thesis research, i:e Architectural thinking and Architectural knowledge. The term architectural thinking is related to the cognitive and emotive response to the built environment with respect to its ability to relegate affordance. The gap that exist between cognitive, emotive response and environmental affordance can be bridged by architectural knowledge, i:e an individual capacity to rationalise architectural wisdom. The modern science believed that each issues or gap can be seen with respect to problem solving (System Theory), where each part are dismantled and understood in its capacity in networked conditions. The functionalism phase in modern architecture thrived on such belief, that architecture is nothing more than prescriptive understanding of few components. While in contrary to such paradigmatic thinking, the critical architecture dwells on deeper understanding of architectural thinking and architectural questions related to it. There are four fundamental aspects of architectural questions and their responses. The each of them proceeds into further action areas, based on individual capacity and ability to comprehend the gap in the knowledge.

Architectural questions

ASPECTS                                                                                                                                              RESPONSE

Architectural knowledge as problem-solving inquiry                                            Rationalist

Architectural knowledge as formal inquiry                                                           Tectonic

Architectural Knowledge specific to the physical contextual inquiry                   Methodical formalism

Architectural knowledge as social - political inquiry                                            Discursive

Note: This is demonstrative model and do not exist in absolute sense. They are often overlapped with each other.

Generally the problem-solving questions of “architectural thinking” are typically associated with the profession mode of knowledge production, while discipline questions are characteristics of building larger architectural questions by research, empathy and mode of an intellectual critique. The open ended nature of discipline inquiry often sets the tone of critical practice due to individual ability to combine and enable both the processes as a part of architectural questioning and thinking.

The first model typically mobilizes the architectural thinking of scales that are either restricted to limited geography or beyond the realm of architectural responsive canvas and often individual who are unable either expand the architecture question in former position or unable to correspond to  scale with their architectural knowledge. Such mode of inquiry brings about big discord between architectural thinking (research, inquiry) and architectural knowledge (reaction, forms)

The alternate model attempts to re-locate architectural question and thinking within the realm that are necessarily operational in the range of architectural inquiry (geographical and contextual)). In this situation one is able to refrentialze the study, draw relevant literature reviews so as to enable architectonics inquiry and mobilize architectural decisions. This model emphasizes the two important aspects of architectural research, i:e Gap in existing architectural knowledge and critiquing existing or established knowledge system. 

The response model for architectural questioning and thinking demonstrates that three important parameter of architectural response (architectural knowledge), i:e formal, structural and environmental are able to generate various conditions. The tectonic and methodical inquiry able to generate strong embedded conditions in architectural research while discursive method requires toalter its path to make the inquiry system relevance to architectural knowledge.

IS THERE ANYTHING AS "ARCHITECTURE OF IDENTITY"?

For a long time the issues of identity have been coming up in several conversations, and perhaps also the questions raised often on account of making "identity" as an architectural question. In taking such a position arguably there are two fundamental questions that comes up, the first being, is the question of identity only related to tectonics or what does architecture manifest through contextual tokenism?’ and secondly, ‘are the questions of identity related to Socio- Political space?’. The obvious answers would be that they form one cohesive unit. The issues and concerns here are much deeper and require methodical understanding, especially even if one has to look at architecture, identity and the city, one is unavoidably entering into the discourse of spatial practices and politics of power.

If one begins to dissect the second question independently from the sociological perspective, it would define architecture as being "legible power of material form".David Harvey in his book "The Post Modern Condition" talked about the nature of relation between power and spatial practices in that they are interrelated, as he quotes "any struggle to reconstitute power relations is a struggle to recognize their spatial bases". Perhaps what literature implies is that the architecture of the city is nothing but the "landscape of power", the built environment is nothing but a“landscape of dominance and subordination”.

Now if one begins to dissect the first question independently, it definitely raises some fundamental issues of relationship between architecture and the city. If one ignores the relationship then one is left with the tectonics as a formal operation imagining to be the locating identity. Even if one decides to take such a route, it is indeed a precarious pedagogic position, because it isolates architecture as a narcissistic object, where identity through tectonic is assumed to be a mere symbolic token towards the spatial claim. 

If the relationship is of central concern then the reading of Aldo Rossi through his book "Architecture of the city" an important literature to begin with, where he discusses very important aspects of autonomous architecture which is a part of the city artifacts or the city structure. The word autonomous architecture is related to the way one, individually,  experiences the city as a series of urban artifacts within which the architecture is a mere purified typological variations inflicted on the city. These artifacts are seen collectively as a spatial structure ruled by laws and elements guided by architecture (of history) itself. The autonomous architecture tends to suspend itself between memory and the research object of an individual. Such negotiations give rise to a new identity which is constantly in transition. The identity is a meeting point between an individual memory, investigation and collective life and not just merely tectonics of an object frozen in time and space.

If one agrees on the initial argument about the 'Cohesive Unit’ then, lastly, the reading of cities through Michel Foucault's notion of "Heterotopia" is an extremely important literature to set the tone in theorizing identity. It gives an account of the counter spaces that are regulated and imagined within the city in its architecture. Such architectural imaginations are "counter sites" in which existing social and spatial arrangements are "represented, contested and inverted". Foucault sees such formation of real space and architecture (disciplined, regulated, controlled, associated, affiliated) as typical of the "primitive" infliction on existing social context and these "counter sites" are effectively enacted as utopia in an inverted reality or architecture as the spatial order of the Panopticon.

Photo Credit: Manoj Parmar Architects