I agree with Stan Allen that diagrams may be significant in their offering of new ways of thinking about organization, potential relationships, etc., however, I am concerned with the possible bullshit factor behind them. Stan Allen puts forth the idea that diagrams do in fact contain gaps and are indeed flawless, but not to the extent or degree I find necessary. Diagrams contain more than the information of the proposed subject, they are driven to a great extent by the idiosyncracies of the maker. They are an extension of the author's experience, knowledge, skills, and perhaps most importantly their 'agenda.' I appreciate the Toyo Ito passage for addressing the dependence of diagrams on the 'self expression of the individual.'
I'm also interested in the reader of diagrams. How do they serve different audiences. For architects and students the connections and/or relationships may be easily read. For clients, or a variety of clients, they may be understood as complete and honest or perhaps meaningless-incomprehensible abstractions. I haven't studied this subject matter in depth, and it may be a bit premature to state that I'm all together cautious of them - not a true believer in their potential weight. Yes, they may be generative but I don't see how they are "open." The maker has already determined the starting point and set the course - so, if the reader moves on from those points, isn't it along a prescribed trajectory? I thought the Panopticon reference was great. I read about this as a kid and haven't visited it since, but if I remember correctly the design and diagram promoted an efficient system for prisoners and guards. The central location of the guards would allow them a view of the prisoners from a single, central vantage point.. blah blah, and Bentham's 18th C. diagram fully illustrated this potential. Well, the guards were located in this central position, surrounded by prisoners who were in fact watching them all the time! creepy.