The Section That Reveals The Perch. by Katherine Roberts

The section that reveals the perch.

Katherine a. Roberts

The section that reveals the perch. The Clew.

The text of this Thesis document has been separated into two sections. The first [the black text] is the architectural argument underlying my design. It is the theoretical investigation into the subject of architectural representation. The second [the navy text] is the application of this theoretical argument to the designing of the architecture of the International Institute of Modern Letters. Additional information [the grey text] pertains to the architectural argument, accompanying the main body of text.

Contents. 5 The Abstract.

The Proposition. 9 9 10 The 'Perfect' Institute. 11 11 12 13 Section. 14 15 Housing the Desk. 16 17

The Proposition. The introduction. Architectural drawing. The 'Perfect' The Clew. The Gloss. The Section.

The Cut. The Cutting of Janet Frame's Desk - a section cut. 19 The Personalities. The Personalities of Representation.

Glenn Schaeffer House. 20 21 The First Personality. The artifact.

The Conditions for Architecture. The Intent of the Institute. 22 Using Tools. 23 23 25 26 27

The 5 Conditions of Representation. Example 1. Brodsky and Utkin. The Second Personality. The architectural representation. Telling a Story. Rules of Reading and Writing.

Cutting. An Exercise in Section. 28 30 35 37 38 41 43 The First Cut. 44 45 Demonstration and Arrangement. 46 47 49 The Next Cut. 50 53 55 56 59 60 67

Writer or Author. Writing the section. Example 2. Thom Mayne. Reading. Example 3. Daniel Libeskind. Misreading. The prelude. The setting. The scene. The Demonstrative Section: showing the cut. The death of the cut. The dissection that reveals the perch. Revealing through section. Telling the Story. Works Cited. Illustration Credits. Bibliography. Acknowledgments.

The Abstract. The term ‘Perfect’ [as used to title the architectural representation when acting as an ‘end’] was initially presented by Jeffrey Kipnis in his titling of the exhibition ‘Perfect Acts of Architecture’ at the Museum of Modern Art, New York in 2002. Architectural drawings and representations by five prominent architects were presented as ‘ends’, as architecture. The section that reveals the perch is an investigation into the second personality of representation, the architectural drawing. It proposes a case for the use of section as a device that ruptures the architectural text and activates the reader to utilize altered modes of interpretation to read the drawing, and consequently, to read the artifact. This work draws upon writings by Roland Barthes and Marco Frascari, and utilizes the representational works and writings of architects Brodsky and Utkin, Thom Mayne, and Daniel Libeskind to discuss reading, writing, and the pleasure arising from active interpretation of the sectioned drawing.

“the search for imaginative universals is seen as an outcome of a productive poetic mind.”1 -Marco Frascari

1 Marco Frascari, “A New Angel/Angle in Architectural Research: The Ideas of Demonstration,” Journal of Architectural Education 44.1 (1990): 11.

The Proposition. The introduction. Drawing: n. 1. a picture or plan made by means of lines on a surface, esp. one made with pencil or pen. 2. a sketch or outline.

In her writing The Architecture of Criticism, Miriam Gusevich identifies two personalities of architecture2: i. Architecture as building, as artifact. ii. Architecture as a canon; a body of work for contemplation, interpretation , and determination of value. Representation of architecture is similarly bipolar. The first personality being the building or artifact, and the second, the architectural drawing as an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;endâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; that is a discussion with architecture about architecture. It is the role of the second personality that is the basis for this discussion. It is the personality that will be used to find the architecture that will house the International Institute of Modern Letters.

The Proposition. The architectural drawing as an 'end' has the ability to speculate on the potentials of architecture. This design is a proposition for an architecture, that through use of section as a device for writing and rupturing the architectural language, has the ability to induce pleasure as a result of active interpretation of the drawing. It also proposes that the active interpreting encouraged by the drawing can subsequently be applied to reading and critique of the artifact.

2 Miriam Gusevich, "The Architecture of Criticism: A Question of Autonomy," Drawing/Building/Text: Essays in Architectural Theory, ed. Andrea Kahn (New York, N.Y: Princeton Architectural Press, 1990) 8.

Architectural drawing. Architectural drawing is defined by a set of conventions used to communicate architecture to a reader. It is a form of representation that uses codes and conventions inherent to the discipline and its mode of written communication. Traditionally the drawing has been a two dimensional execution using orthographic projections, paying particular attention to the ichnograph. Architectural drawing operates in many modes. These include and are not limited to, the instrumental drawing, sketching, collage, and modeling – both physical and computer based. They are used by the architect to explore and depict their architecture, illustrating its characteristics and qualities. Multiple modes of drawing are often employed, allowing the many aspects of their architecture to be represented. The architectural drawing functions as either a ‘means to an end’ or as an ‘end’ in and of itself.

Ichnograph: The Plan. Dependent upon competent use of compass and ruler. “ontologically the demonstration of a future edifice plan with lines, ropes, and boards on the ground of the selected site.”1 Orthograph: The Elevation. Vertical presentation of a future building. “demonstration of how the vertical raising of the building is done.”2 Sciographia: The Section. [Often misunderstood as Scenography or stage design] Although most often interpreted as ‘perspective’3 [due to a misreading of sciographia as scenographia] it has also been suggested by Daniele Barbaro to be the description of the ‘sectional drawing’. “The third idea, called scenography [sciograpfia], from which great utility is derived, because through the description of the profile we understand the thickness of the walls the projections of every element [membro] and in this the architect is like a physician which demonstrates all the interior and exterior parts of works”4 Frascari identifies Barbaro’s interpretation of this third drawing type as the profilo or profile, “a cut feature demonstrating the construction of buildings”5, upon which he elaborates in a later writing suggesting that “a profile is the demonstration of the stereotomy of the building parts, an anatomical representation of the building elements.”6 1 Marco Frascari, “A New Angel/Angle in Architectural Research: The Ideas of Demonstration,” Journal of Architectural Education 44.1 (1990): 16. 2 Frascari, “A New Angel/Angle in Architectural Research: The Ideas of Demonstration,” 15. 3 Marco Frascari, “The Drafting Knife and Pen,” Implementing Architecture: Exposing the Paradigm Surrounding the Implements and the Implementation of Architecture, ed. Rob Miller (Atlanta: Architecture Society of Atlanta in collaboration with Nexus Press, 1988) npn. 4 Vitruvius qtd. in Frascari, “The Drafting Knife and Pen,” npn. 5 Frascari, “The Drafting Knife and Pen,” npn. 6 Frascari, “A New Angel/Angle in Architectural Research: The Ideas of Demonstration,” 15.

The ‘Perfect’. The architectural drawing as the ‘means to an end’ is the drawing used to design and describe that which becomes the architectural artifact. In this instance the ‘means’ is the act of describing and/or designing, and the ‘end’ is the artifact, the ‘building’. The tools of architectural representation, or drawing, are utilized to provide a realistic depiction of ‘building’. The drawing as an ‘end’ is the architectural representation that does not need to precede or succeed an artifact. Thom Mayne describes it as the drawing which has the potential to “transcend its own descriptive function to become a work in its own right.”3 The ‘Perfect’ Institute. The architecture the International Institute of Modern Letters strives to be a ‘perfect’, a propositional drawing, investigating and speculating upon the potentials of an architecture that houses the creative writing course of Victoria University. The architectural providing the perch from which the students shift from writer to author.

Jeffrey Kipnis uses the term ‘Perfect’ to denote the architectural drawing or work as an ‘end’, which Bart Lootsma elaborates upon, implying the ‘Perfect’ to be “theoretical speculations with the medium of architecture – basic drawing, cross-section and outline sketch - as the end product.”4. The ‘Perfect’ is a drawing of the definitive object for a world in which we do not yet reside. It is a speculation, a proposition that might change the way we read and interpret the architectural artifact.

3 4

Thom Mayne, “Studio: Interview with Yoshio Futagawa,” Morphosis (Tokyo: A.D.A. Edita 1997) 23. Bart Lootsma, “Delays,” Hand-Drawn Worlds, ed. Kristin Feireiss (Berlin: Jovis, 2003) 28.

The Clew. The author must provide the reader a clew, a thread by with which they can find their way through the drawing. Dædalus provided Ariadna with the clew the enabled Theseus to find his way “by means of the thread gathered up again,”5 just as the author of the architectural drawing provides the reader with clews, points and lines of reference, as a means by which to navigate a path through the drawing. Ekphrasis is a device that can be utilized in the provision of clews. The term ‘ekphrasis’ can be used to describe the relationship between the the drawing and the story of the architecture it depicts. As discussed by Sarah Treadwell it is “a written description of a graphic representation, or a verbal narrative released by an image.”6 Making use of the tools of representation, ekphrasis “uses one medium of representation to represent another”7, to provide the linking information between the first and the second personalities of representation. Ekphrasis may be explicit in intent, performing as accompanying text, or subtly contained only within a title.

5 Ovid, The Metamorphoses of Ovid, trans. Henry T. Riley (London: George Bell and Sons, 1905) 269. 6 Sarah Treadwell, “Ekphrasis and the Architectural Photography of Laurence Aberhart,” Cultural Crossroads: the 26th International SAHANZ Conference (Auckland: 2009) 2 7 James A. W. Heffernan, “Ekphrasis and Representation,” New Literary History (1991) 300.

Ekphrasis: n. var. of ecphrasis. Echprasis: n. rhet. A lucid, self-contained explanation or description

The Gloss. Gloss: n. 1. a short or expanded explanation or interpretation of a word, expression, or foreign phrase in the margin or text of a manuscript, etc. 2. an intentionally misleading explanation. [added as notation to a character within text; acts to alter meaning or interpretation of sentence or passage.]

Gloss is a literary device by which additional information is added to a text. Its function is to provide explanation or interpretation to that which it annotates. It can also be used to alter interpretation, acting in an intentionally misleading and deceptive manner. Gloss can be used in architectural drawing to shift the 'presumed' reading or interpretation associated to the code of architectural representation. Through articulated use of the Gloss, the author can alter the codes of the drawing, manipulate the tools of representation. This alteration insists the 'reader' to decipher the drawing. For the reader to establish the truth or fiction of altered code they must alter their mode of interpretation. The reader cannot passively engage with the drawing, passivity revealing little of the whole.

Section. Section is used as a tool of research and design. It will be used in an orthographic fashion as a means for drawing, representing, and presenting the architecture of the Institute. It will also be utilized under a different guise as a method of design research producing an architecture that is constituted of many sections, or fragments. The architecture consists of drawings, collages and models. The intention is that fragments can be read independently, but that through reading the relationships between them, the separations and the links, that the architecture is revealed. These fragments, critiqued and interpreted together, give a reading of the whole. The fragments are the architecture revealed. The iterations and fragments are planes cutting through the architecture, revealing its construction and structure. They cut until they break. The break becomes the point from which the cut of the next plane begins. The next interpretation. 1. The International Institute of Modern Letters.

This is a development of an understanding of architecture. It is a testing and teasing of what architecture can be.

The Section. Traditionally, the section was used to understand the construction of a ship hull. It reduced the secrecy of the art, illustrating the sectional fragments as the parts, from which the whole was configured.8 Section takes place along both horizontal and vertical axis. The Horizontal cut is commonly referred to as the ‘plan’, with ‘section’ referring to the vertical cut. Typically, the cut is a plane running in reference to a main facade of the building, tantamount to the removal of the elevational facade. The result is a rational cutting pattern constituting the longitudinal section and the transverse section. The position and construction of the section is controlled and in compliance with the formal axis of the building. Its communicative qualities restricted. As posited by Vérin and Guillerme, the gnostic properties of the section are those of scale, analogy, and abstraction.9 The section deals with: varying amounts and gravities of cut while also being a referential occurrence, placing individual cuts as referenced to others of the same series; as forming a sense of reasoning in which the parts infer similarity and relationship; and as an extraction of common qualities as a process of forming understanding, respectively. Two types of section illustrate a dissemination of “parts [of ] the whole”10; The frame drawing, as executed by the carpenter, and the sectional drawing of the architect; both acting to provide “modes of intelligibility of the tangible”11, be it in relation to the form and material of the vessel or the space and time of architecture. Section encodes ‘architecture’ within the drawing. A reading of the section enables an understanding of the part as arising from a consideration of the whole and vice versa. A circulatory relationship of understanding12 is established by the coded articulation of the sectional drawing, what it references and what it includes or omits. 8 Héline Vérin and Jacques Guillerme, “The Archaeology of Section,” Perspecta.25 (1989): 242. 9 Vérin and Guillerme, “The Archaeology of Section,” 254. 10 Vérin and Guillerme, “The Archaeology of Section,” 242. 11 Vérin and Guillerme, “The Archaeology of Section,” 242. 12 Marco Frascari, “The Drafting Knife and Pen,” Implementing Architecture: Exposing the Paradigm Surrounding the Implements and the Implementation of Architecture, ed. Rob Miller (Atlanta: Architecture Society of Atlanta in collaboration with Nexus Press, 1988) npn.

12. Dent.

13. Line.

From the first place of liquid darkness, within the second place of air and light, I set down the following record with its mixture of fact and truths and memories of truths and its direction always toward the Third Place, where the starting point is myth.” 13 - Janet Frame, written at the sectioned desk. 14. Scrape.

Housing The Desk. The desk is housed within the International Institute of Modern Letters. As an object of importance within the Institute, the desk alludes to the notion of the life and the living ‘author’.

13 Janet Frame, To the Is-Land : An Autobiography (New York: George Braziller Inc., 1982) 11.

The Cut. The cut is a device. It severs, and while it may amputate, it does not promote solipsism. The section is a cut.

The Cutting of Janet Frame’s desk – a section cut. Janet Frame’s desk was cut in half. The cut was dramatic. It sectioned the desk with two roughly sawn cuts which did not meet. The cuts did not destroy the desk, but they did alter the meeting of the halves. The desk continues to be used. Whether the pieces are propped together or more formally connected with inserted material, the connection between them remains loose. The section cut shifted the relationship between the parts constituting the whole.

2. Andrew and the Chair.

The Personalities. Similarly to the two personalities of architecture as described by Gusevich, the representation of architecture can be said to comprise of two personalities.

Artifact: n. something made of given shape by man, such as a tool or a work of art, esp. an object of archaeological interest.

The Personalities of Representation. The first personality, the artifact, is representational in nature, demonstrating architectural practices and theories in built form. It directly addresses the Conditions for Architecture, dealing with site, programme, context, and gravity as is required by the built artifact. The second, the architectural drawing, speculates upon and demonstrates potentials for architecture. Not only does this personality address the conditions for architecture, but must also address the Conditions of Representation in order for it to retain its readability as architecture. From this point forward the term ‘architectural representation’ shall be used to denote the second personality, the ‘drawing’ personality, and will describe drawing, modeling, and collage14 as used by the architect.

14 I list here only three of the many demonstrative methods and representational techniques which may be utilized by the architect.

3. Site of the International Institute of Modern Letters. Kelburn Campus, Victoria University of Wellington.

4. The International Institute of Modern Letters.

Glenn Schaeffer House 16 Waiteata Road, Kelburn. The International Institute of Modern Letters is is currently housed within Glenn Schaeffer House [previously known as Berendsen House], constructed in 1939. It is situated on the Kelburn Campus of Victoria University of Wellington. Its physical address is 16 Waiteata Road, Kelburn, Wellington. When originally constructed, the spatial requirements defined by the original programme were domestic. The house has been adopted by various users since its construction, each of these moulding their programmatic requirements to the artifact. The artifact shifted from containing ‘rooms’ to containing ‘offices’, such as in 1983 when the university’s vice-chancellor’s office was moved to the house. While this artifact currently houses the Institute, it is not the architecture of the Institute.

5. The Artifact.

The architecture for the Institute has two sites. They are not unlike the two personalities of the representation of architecture. The first site is its current location at 16 Waiteata Road. The first site houses: offices for four academics, two administrators, and one writer in residence; a library; one room used for all workshops and classes for nine undergraduate and three post-graduate courses. It does not house the Institutes ten Ph.D. students. It is too small. The second site is where the architecture of the Institute is located. The architecture of the Institute houses the perch upon which the writer stands before becoming the author. The architecture of the perch is housed within the architectural representation. The section reveals the perch.

The First Personality. The artifact. Condition: n. 1. a particular state of being or existence. 2. something that limits or restricts; a qualification. 3. circumstances.

The first personality of representation, architecture acting as the artifact, addresses the conditions for architecture that enable it to respond to the reality of its construction, its non-fiction. The Conditions for Architecture. i.

Site.

The location in which the proposition resides. Commonly associated with physical parameters, such as road and building, topography and horizon, orientation and boundary. It may also be situated within a theoretical framework.

ii. Programme.

Addressing spatial requirements. Most often driven by the client and the practical usage requirements of that which is to be housed.

iii. Context.

Also related to the location of the architecture, context can refer to physical, social, historic, or political conditions that the architecture is responding to.

iv. Gravity.

Unavoidable. Non-negotiable. Taunting.

The Intent of the Institute. The philosophy of the International Institute of Modern Letters is described by the Institutes Director, Professor Bill Manhire, as where â&#x20AC;&#x153;emerging writers find their voice.â&#x20AC;?1 The Institute is where writers discover their potential as authors. Their development is encouraged through writing and discussing. They must release work. It must be published. They cannot remain on their island of insularity. The author must provide their writing the opportunity to soar.

6. 45 minute sketch.

1 Manhire, Bill. Personal Interview. 05 August 2009.

The 5 Conditions of Representation. i.

Using Tools. The Conditions of Representation are addressed and used as tools for the works comprising the body of the design based line of enquiry. The are adhered to and teased in their usage, exploring the potential of the drawing to depict and find the architecture of the International Institute of Modern Letters.

Convention.

Disciplinary universality of convention. The encoding of ‘architecture’ in the plan, elevation, perspectival, and sectional drawing.

ii. Medium.

The medium may vary in contemporary practice. Historically, architectural representations conform to the two-dimensional plane, and are rendered according to the manner in which they are to be read.

iii. Scale.

Application of scale to the representation portrays the ‘promise’ of the proposition. By referencing something other than the drawing, suggestion can be made towards an intention of realization. This places the work beyond the page it is ‘drawn’ upon.

iv. Notation.

Ensures the desired reading of the work. It allows for a control over the drawing whereby mis-readings may be controlled or eliminated, or intensified.

A declaration of credibility.

Title.

The above conditions become the tools used by the architect in writing architecture. The work is directed towards the reader of architecture through use of recognizable language. The way the architecture is written becomes vital to how the architecture is read, the story told by the drawing. As tools, these conditions allow the author to manipulate how the story is read. They include line, weight, scale, coupling, repetition, and relation. They are the ‘clew’ and ‘gloss’ of the architectural text, the altered truth and the lies. There is a caution. In manipulating these tools, reading shifts. The caution is in this shifting. It can shift too far and becoming unstable, indecipherable as architecture to even those with an acute understanding of how to read them. The architectural drawing falls prey to interpretation as mere picture.

9. 7-9. Details from Dome.

10. Dome. 11. Villa Nautilus.

Example 1.

Brodsky and Utkin.

The conditions for architecture are always addressed by the architectural drawing of Brodsky and Utkin. Issues of site, programme, context, and Gravity are explored through their manipulated use of the tools of representation. Their drawings are often arranged and presented as composite ‘analytiques’, composed of plan, section, elevational, and perspectival drawings placed within an unifying frame. Brodsky and Utkin treat the of the conditions for architecture in an intriguing manner, especially in their dealings with gravity. Structure is not addressed as a reality, but instead is depicted by precarious constructions built from of common materials such as timber, stone, and glass. Their drawings present whimsical and dramatic structural scenarios yet ultimately convincing architecture. Text and writing is a prominent feature in the drawings of Brodsky and Utkin. Behaving in an ekphrasisal manner, text acts to add information and narrative to the drawings, and is often poetic in nature. In most cases, as is typical of ekphrasis, it aids the reading of the architecture depicted by the drawings. Such is the case with Villa Nautilus where a body of scriptive text is used to identify and describe Dwelling No. 1 and Dwelling No. 2, as well as providing context for the architecture. An allusion to text is also prevalent in their works, indicating a possible explanation to the drawing. In Dome, ‘text’ has been included in the upper left corner of the drawing suggesting an explanation accompanies the image. However, upon closer investigation, the reader finds only indecipherable calligraphic notation. The existence of non-text is a ‘gloss’, deceiving the reader and depriving them of explanation. While providing no information pertaining to the drawing, the suggestion that there could be is enough of an elicitation for the reader to assume a narrative exists.

The Second Personality. The architectural representation. The second personality of representation is the drawing, the architectural representation. It is a drawing that acts as an ‘end’ without the necessity of the artifact. It is a development of ideas, explored through drawing, and without the constraints of the reality of ‘building’. The second personality, is a speculating upon potentials, a theoretical proposition. In his essay Delays, Bart Lootsma describes the propositional drawing as a means for suggestion and investigation. He states that “the point [of the drawing] is not to present a reality that can be built and stand in front of us tomorrow”15. It is a proposition for what architecture could be. The architectural representation facilitates a dis-connection between the making and describing of an artifact16, and the speculative nature of the drawing. It is no longer subservient to the building. “It is not a question of denying constructability, but of recognizing its limits and showing what it confronts at the limits.”17 The architectural representation becomes more than a document containing details of construction. “A drawing may be a graphic form of architectural theory.”18, a medium through which a “more discursive investigation”19 may be initiated and conducted. “An architectural drawing is as much a prospective unfolding of future possibilities as it is a recovery of a particular history to whose intentions it testifies and whose limits it always challenges.”20 The conditions for architecture are the limits. However, they may be shifted from the non-fiction shelving by the door, to the Shelf of Lies, the fiction shelving in the back corner, where the pages are dog-eared and annotated with the scrawled script of the peruser. 15 Lootsma, “Delays,” 36. 16 Artifact refers to the building as reality and conclusion of the drawing. The ‘end’ when drawing is used as the ‘means’. 17 Robin Evans, “Conclusion: The Projective Cast,” The Projective Cast: Architecture and Its Three Geometries (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1995) 357. 18 James S. Ackerman, “Introduction: The Conventions and Rhetoric of Architectural Drawing,” Conventions of Architectural Drawing: Representation and Misrepresentation (S.l: s.n, 2000) 35. 19 Thom Mayne, “A Conversation before Tangents and Outtakes,” Morphosis: Tangents and Outtakes (London: Artemis, 1993) 8-9. 20 Daniel Libeskind, “Daniel Libeskind: Countersign,” Architectural Monographs (London: Academy Editions 1991)14

Telling a story. One of the most pertinent concerns of architectural drawing, as described by Walter Benjamin in “A Rigorous Study of Art”, is that “the most essential characteristic of the architectural drawing is that it does not take a pictorial detour.”21 For the architectural representation to retain its readability as ‘architecture’ it must ensure that it does not become limited to being read only as a picture. The “drawings are not objects in themselves, but they [are] demonstrations of architecture”22. It is important that the author understands and addresses the circumstances in which the representation will be read and by whom.

Rules of reading and writing. To aid in the architectural drawing being read as architecture, the conditions of representation must be addressed. As articulated by Peter Wood, and subsequently espoused by Byron Kinnaird, an image described within the parameters of these conditions will enable the drawn work to be recognized and discussed as architecture within architectural discourse.23 These conditions are based upon conventions and codes traditionally used within architectural drawing. They address the relationships between conventional drawing and the norms of classical composition. These conditions are the tools of architectural drawing that, when used by the architect, allow the reader to engage with the drawing, and to read it as Architecture.

21 Walter Benjamin, “Rigorous Study of Art: On the First Volume of the Kunstwissenschaftliche Forschungen,” October 47.Winter (1988) 90. 22 Frascari, “A New Angel/Angle in Architectural Research: The Ideas of Demonstration.” 14. 23 Byron Kinnaird, “A Critique of New Zealand Architectural Education,” BArch Exegesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 2007, 10.

Cutting. An Exercise in Section. ‘Cutting’ is an exercise in dissection and arrangement. Objects and body parts were cut from their original context, dissected from the conditions in which they were identifiable. These parts, when cut, became pieces, independent of their original narrative. They were then able to be read as individual pieces or parts arranged in no order other than that of linear symmetry. By collecting the parts into groupings of five and composing them in a ordered arrangement within an A4 sheet they became parts of a collection. The pieces became parts of a whole. As parts of a whole, the pieces are able to be read and interpreted by the reader. These compositions become stories. The information of each piece becomes integral to an understanding of the narrative of the representation. Scenarios or situations can be read from the combined images. The first level of reading occurs during the readers engagement with the images, the dissected pieces. The vertical placement of pieces implies a hierarchy, a top to bottom reading, the upper row behaving as the first sentence. The collective pieces allude to action or activity, space, and movement. Dimensioning of space can be deduced from the scale of the pieces, the closer hand viewed in relation to the further hand of ‘Intimacy’ gives to depth in the image, a foreground and a background.

15. The Pieces.

Again, the vertical alignment of pieces has a role in the reading. The placement of lights in the upper row of ‘Meat’ hints at spatial dimensions, and the specific lighting type hinting at atmosphere.

Text acts as the second layer of information, both as title and as image.

16. Tea

17. Hygiene

In ‘Intimacy’ the addition of text acts as ekphrasis, or a clew, suggesting the narrative of the grouped pieces. The text “Her His Leg Arm Over” and “Me” are separated into two bags and positioned on either side of the page. The shift from possessive pronoun to dative [objective] pronoun insinuates two characters, reinforced by the hands placed directly beneath. In contrast to this is the behavior of the introduced text in ‘Intellect’. Here the text acts as gloss. It is apparent that it has been added as notation, but to what the reader is unsure. The reader is intentionally misled. In both cases the title implies a general thematic to the narrative.

18. Meat

19. Baking

These dissections illustrate that, while only providing a small amount of information to the reader, they are able to provide a large amount of information to the narrative when combined with the other four of their group. The objects and body parts, plus the addition of text, act as means by which the reader can decipher a story from coded parts.

21. Intimacy 22. Intellect

While ‘Cutting’ is not an exercise in the creation of an explicit or 'buildable' architecture, it is an exercise in: the use of the tools of representation; the cutting and coding of pictorial pieces; and the interpretation of a ‘whole’ through an active reading of ‘parts’.

20. Party

Writer or Author. “...and even when I affirm, I am questioning.” 24 -Jacques Rigaut Roland Barthes addresses the difference between the writer and the author. The writer performs an activity, whereas the author performs a function.25 For the writer “language supports a praxis, it does not constitute one.”26 The author’s work continuously returns to him and “it is in this perpetual inconclusiveness that the author rediscovers the world.” 27 There is, however, a continuum between the writer and the author along which the architect walks. This is the author-writer paradox 28 or the paradox of the ‘both’. The architect acts as the writer of the artifact and the author of the architectural representation. The architect as the author of the theoretical speculation provokes “an interrogation of the world” 29, a mode of investigation that acts to shift how it is interpreted. For the author the architectural “literature represents [the world] as a question – never, finally, as an answer.” 30 Rather than presenting an answer to the reader, the author questions him through provoking an alteration of interpretation.

24 Jacques Rigaut qtd. in Barthes, “Authors and Writers,” 190. 25 Roland Barthes, “Authors and Writers,” trans. Susan Sontag, A Barthes Reader, ed. Susan Sontag (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982).186. 26 Barthes, “Authors and Writers.” 189. 27 Barthes, “Authors and Writers.” 187. 28 Barthes, “Authors and Writers.” 192. 29 Barthes, “Authors and Writers.” 187. 30 Barthes, “Authors and Writers.” 187.

The reader that is dependent upon the authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s articulation of the conditions of representation, as an active interpreter of the architectural drawing, engages with the drawing by the architectural author, deciphering the encoded architecture of the drawing. Through varying modes of interpretation an agreement is formed of the architectural proposition depicted by and contained within the lines and points of the drawing. The author is dependent upon the reader for their desire to read and understand. The author is also dependent upon the reader as an audience for his speculation, a participant in this discussion of architecture. Without the reader the author has no partner, no one to convince or to question. Without the reader, the author presents a monologue, a graphite soliloquy.

23. "Warning 36". The revealing of the story.

The section is an artifice; both a clever expedient and a skillfully contrived device capable of crafty and subtle deception. If the section is the artifice, the knife is the drawing pen with which architects cut through their buildings.31 The architect organizes his architecture through dissection. Through cutting he creates gaps. The author controls the artifice, using it to write the story and manipulate the reading of architecture. The authors section reveals the story. The story is a fiction, a proposition.

31 Frascari, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Drafting Knife and Pen.â&#x20AC;? npn.

24. Distant Equation.

Writing the section. “Drawing may be proposed as the principle locus of conjecture in architecture”32 Writing of the section is an organizing of knowledge33. It is an organizing of information pertaining to the architecture, that revealed through dissemination of the representation. “Architectural writing is architectural cutting,” 34 the fragments occupying the most uncertain and transversable position between ideas and things. Cutting of architecture allows the reader to shift between the cuts. The writing of the section is an acknowledgment of the altering of architectural information. It is an active cutting of architecture, cutting through information to reveal. At the point of the intersection, the cut creates a separation, a detachment, a delineation between spaces, elements, things, and objects within the drawing. The reader organizes and obtains knowledge through assimilation. Sections require unifiers, threads tying together the whole. Notation is a vital condition for the author drawing the section. It is often the first thread indicating how to read a drawing. The reader interprets the section by means of its adherence to conventional notation used in the drawing of a section, including hatching that indicates cut solids and coding attaching the section plane to the plan. The ‘V’35 of the sectional reference line is a clew. It is a coding device used to place a fragment of the section within the plan. It is the point where an axial shift inserts a portion of the section within the plan, disallowing the section to stand independent of the whole. Yet, even as it disperses information pertaining to one section, it is the thread connecting this same information, with not only itself, but with other parts, other sections of the whole. A reading of the section can only occur with an understanding of the whole.

32 Robin Evans, “Architectural Projection,” Architecture and Its Image: Four Centuries of Architectural Representation., eds. Eve Blau and Edward Kaufman (Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture, 1989) 20. 33 Frascari, “The Drafting Knife and Pen,” npn. 34 Frascari, “The Drafting Knife and Pen,” npn. 35 The symbol placed at either end of the line showing the location of cut and indicating the direction of the section view, directing the Readers understanding of how the corresponding sectional image is to be read. Jennifer Bloomer, “Vertex and Vortex: A Tectonics of Section,” Perspecta.23 (1987): 42.

25.

27.

26.

28.

29.

26-30. Drawings for the Sixth Street House.

Example 2.

Thom Mayne.

The Sixth Street House. Designed by Mayne in 1986, the Sixth Street House was an investigation into the possibility of incorporating eleven found objects as functional elements into conventional frame construction. The drawings for the Sixth Street House illustrate a relationship between design proposition and the manner of representation. Drawn to show complexities of relation between the inserted objects and the architecture, the drawings focus upon the parts and their positioning as fragments of the whole. Ten of the eleven objects were drawn. Arrangement of the components is articulated to denote additional information. The sheet of paper, the site of the drawing, is treated as an elevation of the artifact. Location on the page correlates with their positions relative to the built architecture. For example, plans are aligned with the centre line situated on the page according to its vertical alignment in elevation. Each drawing consists of three components: a plan, section, or elevation; an isometric drawing of one of the eleven inserted objects; and notation. Conventional section is manipulated. The cut occurs at an oblique angle to, as opposed to in alignment with, the main facades. Construction of the section is not determined or controlled by the geometry of the proposed artifact but by the relationship between the described object and its position within the architecture. Notation is added to each drawing as reference points between the set. The letters A through J denote the location of the other components enabling the parts to be understood in relation to each other and their positioning within the whole. Notation also positions and locates the individual drawings within the series.

Reading. “All he could see was a labyrinth of lines crossing and re-crossing each other, which covered the paper so thickly that it was difficult to discern the blank spaces between them. ‘Read it,’ said the officer. ‘I can’t,’ said the explorer. ‘Yet it’s clear enough,’ said the officer”36 In Kafka’s In The Penal Settlement the explorer’s inability to read the sheets is noted by the officer who, understanding the necessity for the lines to be studied closely, states that he is “quite sure that in the end you would understand it too”37. For a reading to occur there needs to be a pre-existing knowledge of the structure and construction of the lines. An understanding of the underlying systems at work that establish the framework. The drawing not only needs graspable points of reference, but also a knowledge of how to read and interpret them. “The text only fulfils its function when it is read. Assignments of meaning arise from the interaction between the written and the read, and can always be specified anew via processes of interpretation.”38 The reading of the architectural representation is an extracting and revealing of the story of the architectural proposition through an engagement with notation, the lines and codes, that tell the story. Text and symbol are of equal importance to the descriptive line of the architectural drawing as a means of directing possible readings and misreadings of the representation.

36 Franz Kafka, “In the Penal Settlement,” trans. Edwin & Willa Muir, Metamorphosis and Other Stories (London: Vintage, 2005) 161. 37 Kafka, “In the Penal Settlement,” 161-62. 38 Marc M. Angélil and Anna Klingmann, “Militant Hermeneutics: Interpretation as a Method of Design,” Daidalos 71 (1999): 73.

As Barthes states, in The Pleasure of the Text, “the pleasure of the representation is not attached to its object.”39 It is found where the interpretive process breaks from the uniform, standard method of interpretation40, when the reader is an active participant. The real pleasure of the reading comes not singularly from the story being told, but from the mode of active interpretation a reading of the representation encourages. Pleasure is gained from both the way the story is told and the way the story is read. Mayne encourages the reader to engage with the drawings of the Sixth Street House by appealing to their desire to understand. A shift of the cutting axis and the addition of an axonometric drawing to the sectional composition instills a sense of curiosity, subtly teasing the reader into a closer examination. The notational clew provided by Mayne the letters A through J reference a point from which the ball unravels and the thread can be followed. Barthes asserts that the work of the author is a “monumental silence to be deciphered.”41 Points and lines of reference may bear “no immediately obvious formal relation to the object represented.”42 Yet they allow the reader to enter into an interpretation of the drawing, they are the threads, the clew threading through the sections, tying them together, and guiding the Reader in their assimilation of knowledge contained within the drawing.

39 40 41 42

Roland Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text (New York: Hill and Wang, 1975).55. Angélil and Klingmann, “Militant Hermeneutics: Interpretation as a Method of Design,” 76. Barthes, “Authors and Writers,” 190. Evans, “Architecture and Its Image: Four Centuries of Architectural Representation.” 29.

30.

31.

32. 30-32. Three pairs from the Chamberworks series.

Example 3.

33.

Daniel Libeskind.

Micromegas and Chamberworks are two examples of manipulation of the conditions of representation that provoke a shifted of reading of the architectural drawing. Libeskind’s works “present open text to be read, generating multiple layers of reading.”43 These works confront the limits of architecture representation, question and interrogating the means through which we determine and define architecture.

Micromegas.

34.

35.

The reading of the Micromegas series is a reading of architectural codes. The series of drawings utilize orthographic techniques as well as the tools of representation to create environments of lines and planes. Libeskind saw these drawings “as research into the origins of space and the representation of it.”44 There is a vast spatial dimension depicted within the drawings which are visually alluring. The circumstances in which the drawings can be read is controlled and merely looking and seeing is not adequate for interpretation. The title is the most forthcoming clew, the others must be sought. The means by which the codes are interpreted must change, shift. An active deciphering is crucial.

Chamberworks.

36.

The Chamberworks series pushes the reading and interpreting of the architectural text past Micromegas. Composed of fourteen couplings, each pair consists of a vertical and a horizontal drawing, comparisons can be made with the architectural section and its use of vertical and horizontal cutting. The language of the drawing operates esoterically, challenging the mode of interpretation of even the select few who can read the relations between code, line, point, and plane. The language of architecture is subjected to a rupturing, a dissection of the representation of architecture with its very own tools, line, weight, rotation, repetition, relation.

37. 33-36. Details from Leakage. From the Micromegas series. 37. Model based on a section of Leakage.

43 Angélil and Klingmann, “Militant Hermeneutics: Interpretation as a Method of Design.” 74. 44 Peter MacKeith, “A Radical Emperiricism,” Archipelago : Essays on Architecture : For Juhani Pallasmaa, ed. Peter MacKeith (Helsinki: Rakennustieto, 2006) 58.

Misreading. Reading is interpretation. Misreading shifts and alters interpretation. The complexity of altered coding draws the reader further into the story as he attempts to decipher the drawing using the code he knows. â&#x20AC;&#x153;The section becomes a text that can be read, that is, misread or rewritten.â&#x20AC;?45 A misreading encouraged through subtle shifts and manipulation of codes. It is as the reader deciphers the drawing, shifting him from passive to active reader, that a misreading may occur. Misreading leads the reader to further consideration. While it may not be immediately identified, the moment of a misreading feels uncertain. Uncertainty compels the reader to investigate deeper, to look for other clues as to the meaning. It encourages the reader to read again, to interrogate, to act as the inquisitor Misreading can be both detrimental and beneficial to the reading of a drawing. Libeskindâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Chamberworks series are an example of architectural drawings which could have been at severe risk of providing a misreading that was detrimental to interpretation. The peculiarity of these drawings is that the author has purposefully used tools of architectural representation in a manner which intrigues the reader, luring him in, challenging him to shift his mode of interpretation, to evoke pleasure.

45 Jennifer Bloomer, Architecture and the Text: The [S]Crypts of Joyce and Piranesi (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993) 136

The First Cut. The prelude marks the position of the first cut. It is from here that the dissection of the International Institute of Modern Letters begins. Incisions are made into the conditions for architecture that the Institute currently abides by. Its site is dissected, both it's artifact and its architecture. The cuts that will reveal the perch must begin here.

The prelude. The setting. The scene. It is here, in front of the fiction shelves, that the conditions of architecture are questioned and teased. Site may sit on the other side of the road, Programme no longer houses the practical, and Gravity becomes the taunted. The International Institute of Modern Letters has a Site; a physical address. 16 Waiteata Road. It is housed here, but it is not accommodated here. It has a second site. The writer. Literature. The page. The book? The International Institute of Modern Letters has Programme. It houses Writers. It also houses Janet Frameâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s desk. The International Institute of Modern Letters has Context. It is situated within another institute. Victoria University of Wellington. It has history and ritual. The International Institute of Modern Letters is taunted by Gravity. Or is it?

38.

39.

40.

38-40. Three arrangements from the series Arrangements 1.

41.

42.

43.

41-43. Three arrangements from the series Arrangements 2.

Demonstration and arrangement. Process of shifting from one design iteration into the next through a process of arrangement and shifting of the information from the preceded to the succeeder. Rearrangement and re-configuration of fragments to create a new whole. The shifted condition for the architecture of the Institute are being suggested and teased. The Publisher is a man sitting in the basement | sitting in the attic | a machine.

44. The Publisher. The International Institute of Modern Letters.

The demonstrative section: showing the cut. Frascari’s Monster is “a derivation of the Latin verb monstrare, to show or to point out, which in itself derives from the verb moneo, to make to think. In other words, these monsters show how to bring together a constructing with a construing, through a demonstration, rather than through a preposterous prescription.”46 The demonstrative section is a monster, an “infinitely obscure concept,”47 a cut that ruptures the writing of the architectural representation. The demonstrative section illustrates not only its architecture but the manner in which it was created, the iterations and the drawing. It is the “demonstrative nature of the architectural project, an art which shows the way in which it becomes.”48 The section becomes “a process of thinking, resolution, invention”49 showing its cuts, presenting its parts and dissections. The cuts are arranged and rearranged by the author and reader through an alteration of interpretation. “Through their transformations, architectural ‘monsters’ ... give guidance demonstrating the way dwelling should follow ... in a decorous way.”50 The section used as a tool of architectural representation, ruptures the language of the drawing, cutting and shifting the architecture, altering the manner of its reading. Pleasure is experienced by the reader who, in shifting their interpretation of the codes and conventions they recognise, can identify and decipher the clews and gloss of the section, the ruptured drawing. By rupturing the architectural text the architect allows pleasure to be gained through interpretation of the architecture. Marc Angélil and Anna Klingmann claim that this pleasure leads to a “redistribution of language.”51 This redistribution is a referral to what they call the ‘conforming’ and the ‘freer’ sides of language. The sides of the language of architectural representation, or the personalities as they have been termed in this discussion, are the artifact and the drawing. The artifact is the ‘conforming’ and the drawing the ‘freer’. The space between the artifact and the representation is revealed through sectioning. 46 Frascari, “A New Angel/Angle in Architectural Research: The Ideas of Demonstration.” 14. 47 Marco Frascari, Monsters of Architecture: Anthropomorphism in Architectural Theory (Savage, Maryland: Roman & Littlefield, 1990) 13. 48 ‘art’ as used here is defined as “the exercise of human skill.” (Collins Concise Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 1995), 49 Mayne, “Studio: Interview with Yoshio Futagawa.” 23. 50 Marco Frascari qtd. in Frascari, “The Drafting Knife and Pen,” npn. 51 Angélil and Klingmann, “Militant Hermeneutics: Interpretation as a Method of Design,” 77.

45. The Perch.

The death of the cut. Each iteration becomes an organizing element – an exercise in manipulated organization. A process critiquing itself through each iteration. Icarus chose over all else to pursue the heavens. He allowed himself to become intertwined in his pursuit of this goal, pushing against that which would disallow his reaching of the heavens. He flew upwards until the wax of his wings melted and the feathers fell away. Dissection of architecture, cutting and sectioning the representation, to cause the rupture is the architect’s pursuit. Cutting and dissecting architecture with each design iteration searching for the moment of shifted interpretation. It is “important to prolong, to delay and to deepen this “intervening stage” for as long as possible.”52 The process slows and the cut deepens. The rupture disseminates the architecture as far as possible, before the parts become indecipherable and irreconcilable, the pleasure of interpretation slipping away. The wax melts, the feathers detach. This is the aim. We want the wax to melt away. When pleasure ebbs, that is when we know we are close, and unlike Icarus, we can swim. We gather our feathers together again and critique where we went wrong. We can realign the feathers, remold the wax, and again we can soar.

52 Lootsma, “Delays.” 36.

The Next Cut. The Next Cut is the next exercise. It is an exercise which follows on from all those before, learning from each iteration, living and deceased. The next cut will be a searching through and for the fragments which comprise the architecture of the International Institute of Modern Letters. Through arrangement and organization of my increasing knowledge about the architectural drawing, section, and the reading and writing of each I will find the architecture of the Institute. From this point forth I will be utilizing this knowledge to conduct a rigorous interrogation of the consequence of line and the manner in which it is used to draw architecture. The fragments of the Institute must continue to be disseminated and gathered. Section will be my tool for finding and tooling these fragments, organizing their architecture. I will also be endeavouring from this point forth to actively engage with the manner in which my drawings will be, and are intended to be read. Through continued articulation and active manipulation of the conditions for architecture and the conditions of representation I aim to tease and activate the reader of my drawings to decipher and interpret the architecture the contain.

46. Details from 45 minute sketches.

47. Models from 45 minute sketches

I want to challenge the 'buildable' architectural project through re-addressing and re-interpreting the conditions for architecture. I am aiming to produce an architecture which does not need to imply artifact for it to be architecture. I am suggesting that we do not readily enough critique the artifact in terms of what it could become. I see this as a pertinent question now as in a time of decreased construction we have been presented with an opportune time to slow down, to review, and to rediscover the potential architecture has to provide pleasure. This I hope to address and discuss through my articulation of varying modes of drawing and modelling, exploring the potential for architecturally induced pleasure, and provide a critique of the manner in which we do read the architectural artifact.

48. Arrangements.

49. Details from The International Institute of Modern Letters.

50. The Resident. The International Institute of Modern Letters.

The dissection that reveals the perch. Revealing through section. The section reveals the perch from which Icarus flew. It activates the author who writes the story of their architecture with cuts and clews. He organizes the knowledge of his architecture, using the section to â&#x20AC;&#x153;marks a connection between worlds.â&#x20AC;?53 The section reveals the perch. The demonstrative section is the point of rupture between the artifact [the conforming] and the architectural representation, the drawing, the speculation [the freer]. It dissects the artifact from the architectural representation, revealing that which the artifact cannot. It reveals and revels in its speculating on architecture. Section uses the architectural drawing to create a moment of altered interpretation through a modified and shifted treatment of the conditions of representation. Pleasure comes from this alteration of language, of interpretation. Altered interpretation can be then applied to the artifact, pulling it apart, investigating its potentials. The reader is activated into reconsidering architecture and what it could be. The reader alters their reading of the architectural representation, and consequently how they interpret the first personality of representation.

53 Bloomer, Architecture and the Text: The [S]Crypts of Joyce and Piranesi 116.

Telling the story. Manipulated use of the conditions of representation and section writes a story of architecture. This story proves that â&#x20AC;&#x153;the pleasure of the representation is not attached to its object,â&#x20AC;?54 but that architectural pleasure is induced by the rupturing of the language of architecture. A reading of the second personality of representation, the architectural drawing, is a reading of the architectural proposition. In becoming an active interpreter, the reader's interrogation of architecture is not limited to the drawing. Interpretation of the drawing is translated to an interpretation of the artifact, encouraging critique. The reader is encouraged to step onto the perch revealed by the section, to interpret and re-interpret, to be active in the reading of architecture. To reveal in the ruptures.

Janet Frameâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s desk is housed within the architecture of the International Institute of Modern Letters. It demonstrates the cut that shifts its configuration. It shows us the perch, the point where the writer becomes the author.

54 Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text 55.

Works Cited. Ackerman, James S. “Introduction: The Conventions and Rhetoric of Architectural Drawing.” Conventions of Architectural Drawing: Representation and Misrepresentation. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University GSD, 2000. 8-36. Angélil, Marc M., and Anna Klingmann. “Militant Hermeneutics: Interpretation as a Method of Design.” Daidalos 71 (1999): 72-79. Barthes, Roland. “Authors and Writers.” Trans. Susan Sontag. A Barthes Reader. Ed. Susan Sontag. New York: Hill and Wang, 1982. 185-93. ---. The Pleasure of the Text. New York: Hill and Wang, 1975. Benjamin, Walter. “Rigorous Study of Art: On the First Volume of the Kunstwissenschaftliche Forschungen.” October 47.Winter (1988): 84-90. Bloomer, Jennifer. Architecture and the Text: The [S]Crypts of Joyce and Piranesi. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. ---. “Vertex and Vortex: A Tectonics of Section.” Perspecta.23 (1987): 38-53. “Collins Concise Dictionary.” Ed. Marian Makins. Third ed. Aylesbury, Wrotham: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992. Evans, Robin. “Architectural Projection.” Architecture and Its Image: Four Centuries of Architectural Representation. Eds. Eve Blau and Edward Kaufman. Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture, 1989. 18-35. ---. “Conclusion: The Projective Cast.” The Projective Cast: Architecture and Its Three Geometries. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1995. 351-70. Frascari, Marco. “The Drafting Knife and Pen.” Implementing Architecture: Exposing the Paradigm Surrounding the Implements and the Implementation of Architecture. Ed. Rob Miller. Atlanta: Architecture Society of Atlanta in collaboration with Nexus Press, 1988. na. . ---. Monsters of Architecture: Anthropomorphism in Architectural Theory. Savage, Maryland: Roman & Littlefield, 1990. 56

---. “A New Angel/Angle in Architectural Research: The Ideas of Demonstration.” Journal of Architectural Education 44.1 (1990): 11-19. Gusevich, Miriam. "The Architecture of Criticism: A Question of Autonomy." Drawing/ Building/Text: Essays in Architectural Theory. Ed. Andrea Kahn. New York, N.Y: Princeton Architectural Press, 1990. 8-24. Heffernan, James A. W. “Ekphrasis and Representation.” New Literary History. 1991. 297-316. Ingraham, Catherine. “Lines and Linearity: Problems in Architectural Theory.” Drawing/ Building/Text: Essays in Architectural Theory. Ed. Andrea Kahn. New York, N.Y: Princeton Architectural Press, 1990. 63-84. Kafka, Franz. “In the Penal Settlement.” Trans. Edwin & Willa Muir. Metamorphosis and Other Stories. London: Vintage, 2005. 151-80. Libeskind, Daniel. “Daniel Libeskind: Countersign.” Architectural Monographs. London: Academy Editions 1991. Lootsma, Bart. “Delays.” Hand-Drawn Worlds. Ed. Kristin Feireiss. Berlin: Jovis, 2003. 26-38. MacKeith, Peter. “A Radical Empiricism.” Archipelago : Essays on Architecture : For Juhani Pallasmaa. Ed. Peter MacKeith. Helsinki: Rakennustieto, 2006. 54-64. Mayne, Thom. “A Conversation before Tangents and Outtakes.” Morphosis: Tangents and Outtakes. London: Artemis, 1993. 7-11. ---. “Studio: Interview with Yoshio Futagawa.” Morphosis. Tokyo: A.D.A. Edita 1997. 10-29 Ovid. The Metamorphoses of Ovid. Trans. Henry T. Riley. London: George Bell and Sons, 1905. Treadwell, Sarah. “Ekphrasis and the Architectural Photography of Laurence Aberhart.” Cultural Crossroads: the 26th International SAHANZ Conference. Vérin, Héline, and Jacques Guillerme. “The Archaeology of Section.” Perspecta.25 (1989): 22657.

Illustration Credits. Image No. 1-2. 3. 4-6. 7-11. 12-14. 15-24. 25-29. 30-32. 33-36. 37. 38-50.

Authors Own. Victoria University of Wellington, Faculty of Architecture and Design. Authors Own. Nesbitt, Lois Ellen, Alexander Brodsky, and Ilya Utkin. Brodsky & Utkin: The Complete Works. Debbie Litchfield, Turbine, 2001. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/turbine/spin.html Authors own. Kipnis, Jeffery. Perfect Acts of Architecture. Kipnis, Jeffery. Perfect Acts of Architecture. Libeskind, Daniel. "Endspace." Libeskind, Daniel. Between Zero and Infinity: Selected Projects in Architecture. Authors own.

Bibliography. Agrest, Diana. "Representation as Articulation between Theory and Practice." Practice: Architecture, Technique and Representation. 2000. Blau, Eve, and Edward Kaufman, eds. Architecture and Its Image: Four Centuries of Architectural Representation: Works from the Collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture. Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture, 1989. Burke, Gregory, ed. Palazzo Nero and Other Projects / Alexander Brodsky & Ilya Utkin. Wellington, N.Z: Wellington City Art Gallery, Wellington City Council 1992. ---. "The Projects of Brodsky and Utkin." Palazzo Nero and Other Projects / Alexander Brodsky & Ilya Utkin. Ed. Gregory Burke. Wellington, N.Z: Wellington City Art Gallery, Wellington City Council, 1992. 8-24. Clark, Justine. "Drawing on Architecture: Gender, Subjectivity, Surface." Victoria University of Wellington, 1997. Cochran, Chris. "Letter to Terence Broad. Janet Frame's Writing Desk.". 10 Mar.1997. 31 July 2009. <http://www.victoria.ac.nz/modernletters/reading/frame.aspx>. "Daniel Libeskind." Architectural design 59 (1989). Darden, Douglas. Condemned Building: An Architect's Pre-Text. New York, N.Y: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993. Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. 1st American ed ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1976. ---. "The Violence of the Letter: From Levi-Strauss to Rousseau." Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976. 101-40 Diani, Marco, and Catherine Ingraham, eds. Restructuring Architectural Theory. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press, 1988. Eco, Umberto. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. London: Macmillan, 1984. Eisenman, Peter. "Digital Scrambler: From Index to Codex." Perspecta 35.53 (2004): [40]-53. 60

---. "The End of the Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of the End." Perspecta.21 (1984): 154-73. Evans, Robin. "Daniel Libeskind: Chamber Works, 6-29 October, 1983: In Front of Lines That Leave Nothing Behind [Exhibition Review]." AA files.6 (1984): 89-96. ---. "Mies Van Der Rohe's Paradoxical Symmetries." Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays. London: Architectural Association, 1997. 233-76. ---. The Projective Cast: Architecture and Its Three Geometries. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1995. ---. "Translations from Drawing to Building." AA files.12 (1986): 3-18. ---. Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays. London: Architectural Association, 1997. Frame, Janet. To the Is-Land : An Autobiography. New York: George Braziller Inc., 1982. Frascari, Marco. "Professional Use of Signs in Architecture." Journal of architectural education 36 (1982): 16-23. ---. "A Reflection on Paper and Its Virtues within the Material and Invisible Factures of Architecture." From Models to Drawings: Imagination and Representation in Architecture. Eds. Marco Frascari, Jonathan Hale and Bradley Starkey. Critiques. London: Routledge, 2007. 23-33. ---. Sortes Architectii in the Eighteenth-Century Veneto. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Frascari, Marco, Jonathan Hale, and Bradley Starkey, eds. From Models to Drawings: Imagination and Representation in Architecture. London: Routledge, 2007. Hill, Jonathan. The Illegal Architect. London: Black Dog Publishing 1998.

Hoffman, Dan. "Foreword." Morphosis: Tangents and Outtakes. Ed. Architects Morphosis. Zurich: Artemis, 1993. 5 Ingraham, Catherine. Architecture and the Burdens of Linearity. Theoretical Perspectives in Architectural History and Criticism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Jencks, Charles. "Drawing a New Architecture: Libeskinds Micromegas." Libeskind at the Soane: Drawing a New Architecture. London: Sir John Soane's Museum, 2001. na. Kafka, Franz. Metamorphosis and Other Stories. London: Vintage, 2005. Kahn, Andrea, ed. Drawing/Building/Text: Essays in Architectural Theory. New York, N.Y: Princeton Architectural Press, 1990. Kinnaird, Byron. "A Critique of New Zealand Architectural Education." BArch Exegesis. Victoria University of Wellington, 2007. Kipnis, Jeffrey. "Drawing a Conclusion." Perspecta.22 (1986): 94-99. ---. Perfect Acts of Architecture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2001 Libeskind, Daniel. "Architecture Intermundium." Restructuring Architectural Theory. Eds. Marco Diani and Catherine Ingraham. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press, 1988. 11421. ---. Between Zero and Infinity: Selected Projects in Architecture. New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications, 1981. ---. Daniel Libeskind: The Space of Encounter. New York: Universe, 2000. ---. "Endspace." Daniel Libeskind: Countersign. Architectural Monographs. London: Academy Editions, 1991. 14-35. ---. Fishing from the Pavement. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 1997. Libeskind, Daniel, and Kurt Walter Forster. "Special Feature: Daniel Libeskind." Architecture and urbanism.8 (1988): [75]-142. Libeskind, Daniel, and Paul Goldberger. Counterpoint: Daniel Libeskind in Conversation with 62

Paul Goldberger. New York: Monacelli Press, 2008. Litchfield, Debbie. Turbine. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/turbine/spin.html. 2001. MacKeith, Peter, ed. Archipelago : Essays on Architecture : For Juhani Pallasmaa Helsinki: Rakennustieto, 2006. Mayne, Thom. Morphosis: Buildings and Projects 1993-1997. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1999. ---. Morphosis: Tangents and Outtakes. London: Artemis, 1993. Mayne, Thom, et al., eds. Morphosis. Tokyo: A.D.A. Edita 1997. McKinley, Walker. "Where Does Architecture Live? Presentation, (Re)Presentation, and the Represented in the Work of Asymptote." Conventions of Architectural Drawing: Representation and Misrepresentation. S.l: s.n, 2000. 223-39. Nesbitt, Lois Ellen. "Man in the Metropolis: The Graphic Projections of Brodsky and Utkin." Brodsky & Utkin: The Complete Works. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991. 3-12. Nesbitt, Lois Ellen, Alexander Brodsky, and Ilya Utkin. Brodsky & Utkin: The Complete Works. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991. Noever, Peter, ed. The End of Architecture?: Documents and Manifestos: Vienna Architecture Conference. Munich: Prestel 1993. Orton, Fred. "A Conversation before Tangents and Outakes." Morphosis: Tangents and Outtakes. Ed. Architects Morphosis. Zurich: Artemis, 1993. 7-11. Pelletier, Louise, and Alberto P茅rez G贸mez. "Architectural Representation Beyond Perspectivism." Perspecta 27 (1992): 20-39. P茅rez G贸mez, Alberto. "Architecture as Drawing." Journal of architectural education 36 (1982): 2-7.

---. "Ethics and Poetics in Architectural Education - I." Scroope: Cambridge architectural journal 16 (2003): 25-[29]. ---. "Ethics and Poetics in Architectural Education - II." Scroope: Cambridge architectural journal 16 (2003): 30-33. Purini, Franco. "The First Forty-Three Stories: The Schools of Architecture at the Venice Biennale [Exhibition Review]." Lotus international 73 (1992): 6-23. Rashid, Hani, and Lise Anne Couture. "Analog Space to Digital Field: Asymptote Seven Projects." Assemblage 21.43 (1993): [24]-43. Reiter, Wellington. Vessels and Fields. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999. Silver, Michael, ed. Reading Drawing Building. Vol. no. 19. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. Sontag, Susan, ed. A Barthes Reader. New York: Hill and Wang, 1982. Tafuri, Manfredo. "Peter Eisenman: The Mediations of Icarus." Houses of Cards. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. 167-87. Thirlwell, Adam. "The Last Flippant Writer: An Introduction with Three More Stories and Two Appendices." Metamorphosis and Other Stories. London: Vintage, 2005. ix-xxvii Treadwell, Sarah. "Architectural Drawing: A Statement of a Position." New Zealand architect.1 (1986): 33-[35]. Vesely, Dalibor. Architecture in the Age of Divided Representation: The Question of Creativity in the Shadow of Production. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2004. Vidler, Anthony. "Neoformations: Metamorphoses of Modernism." Morphosis: Buildings and Projects 1993-1997. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1999. Appendix III. 1-13. Wood, Peter. "Drawing the Line: A Working Epistemology for the Study of Architectural Drawing." University of Auckland, 2002.

Acknowledgements. Mark Southcombe and Peter Wood. for inspiration and encouragement. Byron Kinnaird. for the conversations. and. The Saturday Interrogators. for the discussions.