Reading Response 2

In attempting to relate this article to the struggle that I am currently pursuing, I have been severely confused by his the many ways in which he contradicts himself. Perhaps they are not contradictions, but rather, he is walking a very tight line of semantics. Many times in architecture, the term “program” and “function” are used interchangeably. When reading the section of the paper on “programism”, I thought to myself: “the problems with design that he will describe here most likely be relevant to my design process because I tend to focus on functional concerns.” But then he makes a distinct point to oppose the two against each other. Another example of contradiction/semantic wizardry that seems very applicable to my topic dealt with “flexible” buildings. He writes: “Buildings cannot be ‘flexible’ or ‘indeterminate’ either. They are hard and immobile no matter what.” But then makes a point to contradict that statement in parenthesis: “(although they may, with some effort, alter and adapt their forms to particular purposes)” I wonder if he ever confuses himself while tip toeing this line. But perhaps it is in these contradictions and my confusion with them that my struggle with the immediate conception of a thesis lies. I will make a point to keep revisiting these ideas as my projects begins to flesh itself out and perhaps by walking the same line of semantics I will gain a fuller understanding of the problem at hand.