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.