"the compulsive force of legitimizing arguments"

The van Berkel & Bos essay brings the illusive, theoretical language of Allen's article back into the real world for me. The point they make that diagrams are typically used as a post-rationalization, or a tool to convey architect's lofty theoretical ideas to the common man is disturbing to me. In school we are taught that diagrams are generators of ideas, and catalysts for creation, yet in my experience in practice, it only starts out that way. The diagram at some (early) stage of design development is put aside and in its place are snazzy renderings and cost estimations. Only post-construction or pre-publication is the diagram reintroduced, only now it has to reflect the thing that has been created. In a process such as this there is little to no generation of ideas coming from that inital diagram.

I find it facinating to think of a building as a diagram or as Stan Allen put is "an architecture that behaves like a diagram." A structure that has the ability perpetuate ideas, uses, and readings in minimal moves. Though I am not completely convinced as to how the examples he has given do this. Or perhaps it is that all buildings already act in this way... similar to how a renaissance painting can have new meaning and perpetuate new ideas for someone living in the 21st century. Perhaps all buildings, being "works of art" have the potential to fuction as a diagram, it all depends on who is looking at them. For example, Brian MacKay-Lyons spoke about in his lecture last week about how the simple vernacular houses on the coast in Nova Scotia were "diagram" of sorts that generated his theories and ideas of architecture despite the fact that his professors thought he was crazy and claimed that the houses weren't worth looking at.