 Drewson is an architect and an architectural theorist and of lectures in history and theory studies at the Architectural Association in London. She's the editor of the journal Architecture and is the founder of an organization called This Thing Called History, which I'm going to read is an international independent research collective that aims to investigate and redefine the role of theory in architecture and to practice it collectively and in different forms. So the talk tonight is going to be very much about theory and urbanism and she's written a number of books that focus on theory and urbanism. One in particular that we were talking about, she's written a book about Manhattan, Venice as paradigm islands and she's also written The Unorthodox Ways to Think the City in 2018, which is her most recent book, yes? And so the title tonight is based on the book, Unorthodox Architecture as Paradigm. So thank you very much. Thank you for your questions. Okay, what I'm going to do today is really go through different ideas of creative paradigm and trying to break apart, starting from the city, going away from the city and from architecture and then eventually going back to architecture. No need to hide it. The idea is that the redefinition of the term paradigm can help us understand the making of the project in architecture especially in architecture, in context and in the city. I love those because they question words which are usually familiar and very easily used in our history and because it aims to produce the pause to rethink these words. This book from George Agamben, who writes about paradigm, especially in relation to philosophy, can work as a starting point. Paradigm actually presupposes the opportunity of the rule and I guess the possibility of the rule will be the guiding thread today when I talk. So the key question for me to start these considerations is if possible then to propose that the relational creation that the project of architecture performs in the city is paradigmatic and that the work of architecture in general is paradigmatic. And in order to do this and to address this question, the paradigm needs to be redefined as an iteration and the work of the paradigm must be considered as a cultural iteration as it produces a non-dialectical form of knowledge, a knowledge that acts in the environment without having to achieve the universal and to derive principles and therefore rules from it. What I aim to do is to propose that architecture's nature is in itself paradigmatic in the way it establishes and maintains a series of relations in order to be and to change. Agamben starts the resource through the Potomac argument. Potomac argument is rigid because it spies towards the existence of an ideal but it provides an interesting operating because it suggests the possibility to consider the paradigm as an element of mediation between opposites of the theoretical process. Then the confrontation no longer happens in the opposition of two but it takes place, briefly takes place, in the space of negotiation. The space of negotiation is what Plato interestingly calls measure and it needs to be reconsidered here not in relation to an aspiration to the ideal but as a place, as a locus of negotiation, as sort of a cloud of instances an idea in the midst I would say that it's not in the middle but in between it is in between where architecture operates. It's through questioning but also appropriating the idea of the scientific paradigm especially as defined by Thomas Kuhn, analyzing the linguistic, entire paradigm proposed by Onan Bar in his definition or rather approximation of the neutral embracing the philosophical argument for a reconciliation and the definition of the paradigm as suggested by Dr. Agamben that perhaps we can come to propose the idea of architecture as a paradigm. Architecture as a paradigm can be proposed in fact only through a paradigm approach through doing it to the ideal of the paradigm pushing it and working the space in between and in this case the space in between science philosophy and linguistics to then come to architecture. But to remain and eventually return to architecture we need to start from its context of excellence and therefore consider this issue. Contrary to the reductive common usage of the term, paradigm looking at the ancient Greek etymology, paradigm, means example, exemplar but it is a relation word that contains within itself the possibility of a variation movement. Paragine contains the good paradigm to show to compare. Deep meaning to show to indicate is itself relational. It establishes a three-way dynamics between a subject who shows or indicates a subject who is shown to and an object that's called small for the time being that is shown. So in this relation though the object is active too and it is important not for the way it looks or sounds depending on the object maybe but for the way in which it has been activated in this relation. It is also active because it continues to both make itself and change itself. And so the combination of the relational deep meaning with the compacting para in the making of paradigm is far from the complication that activates this relation. It indicates the possible continuation of a regulated action but also a distancing from it and the production of a difference or a shift which to anticipate where I'm heading is the space opened up for the making of the project. So the paradigm is not an object. It's doubly relational. It indicates a lot of random and so rather than an object or a fixed example or a result or a tool achieved or a requirement to feel is a way of working and relation it is an action. It contains within itself the possibility of variation and movement. It indicates oscillation and multiplicity rather than fixity and oneness and because it shifts it almost slips away from the object example. It opens up, it's dynamic, it's subject to change and therefore open to heterogeneity and that's particularly relevant to architecture in the city or urban architecture. So the paradigm uses models but is not a model. As an example it is a performance one and its complexity must be unfolded in relation to the work of the project. As an intellectual operation it produces a distance and that is the crucial first step in the paradigm as a process. A distance of the object from itself, it removes the object from its singularity to then return it to another singularity. There are some examples of this. It also enables a distancing from acquired historical, morphological, technological preconceptions and classifications that are well known in architecture and urbanism. And in this sense the notion of the paradigm, the operation of the paradigm can perhaps illuminate the operation of the architectural project. The paradigm is what I would call the shifting model and so not a model that can be imitated without engaging in the production of the difference from each. And of course that is where the project as we know it is action decision production of discontinuity results. If we look at the dictionary definition of paradigm in the middle of the etymology, in a way we find information of the state of the world. The paradigm in the philosophy of science and unfolding indicates a coherent and articulated group of theories, methods and procedures that predominantly characterize the phase of the evolution of a certain science. So even in science the paradigm is not only fraudulent, it includes theories, methods and procedures that are also dynamic and subject to change, it's a phase of the evolution. So we don't have one paradigm but several paradigms and they change and they shift in different phases often that could exist. Why the paradigm? Because I used this word, I appropriated this word and I started to consider if you know what I call the paradigm, I would say the Manhattan and Venice and I felt it was my usual way to engage with the possibilities of the world. Here I propose the urban spaces of Manhattan and Venice and their making is the paradigms of the making of the city that remain effective and continue to operate today beyond the historical categorization of modern city making of city. Categorization that I argue there are blind and produce the division and often blind the possibilities of observing histories. So the idea of the paradigm that I intended to suggest there produced an articulation of complexity of a case study beyond considering as a formal model to imitate. It would make sense to imitate modern fashion or modernity of Venice today. It was more the spatial and non chronological intellectual short circuiting of the two metropolitan conditions and spaces that enabled me to study and to concentrate on issues of density, combination of planning with peace near growth, regulating developments with creative interpretation and transgression and on the division and infusions which established the conversation between two places that are apparently so different in geography, from ontological, historical conditions, scale, etc. So the working itself focusing on both the specificity of the examples and the complexity of the operations that are very different than I produced them crucially also attempted to establish between the two variations but not on the comparatively more dialectical or exemplary nature but half of them. My half of events were proposed here not as models to imitate but as paradigms to consider in their specificity and differences and placing the two in relation without comparisons and confrontations a lot for the activation of the space between them as paradigmatic. So the paradigmatic that I was proposing there was not offered by the two objects themselves but by the relational space between the two as established by the operations of the architectural decision. Also played here was the issue of insularity and then offered a combination of both natural and artificial boundaries which in themselves isolated my case studies and produced a lot of assumptions but also already immediately questioned the issue of the edges of boundaries of finitude and the nature of the territory and their opposition and combination of solid and liquid and separation of imploders and connections. So in the end what was relevant in this person approach for me was the movement as a tension between that is always already embedded in the paradigmatic formation to activate as a form of knowledge that is alternatives and maybe alternative and open connections without the aiming to produce a general rule. Venice, all architects who study Venice always at some point in their studies or career come across an afferage by a friend of Nietzsche which proposes a certain meaning of Venice. I couldn't escape this but what interested me here was the meaning of Venice or the miss meaning of Venice as an anticipation of the condition of isolation of the contemporary city an image for the man of the future. Now, we have a few problems here. What Nietzsche does is to extract Venice from Venice in a way the fragment he presents to the city that is divested by its cohesive and social dimension probably the first thing you could think of if considering Venice is the idea of the connective tissue of its physical volume social relations. Here Venice is reduced to items of what he calls solitudes. It's taking away in a sense from itself and it's projecting onto the contemporary of the properties which means that Venice is simplified, reduced removed from its original collective and leaves in nature and in turn into a paradigm from the properties. There is not a direct cause-effect relation between Venice and the city of the future and that here I take an interview of conceiving the city of the future in the aphorism for instance Manhattan or New York. So the operation is an intellectual association Venice offers an image for the city of the future and this is assumed by Nietzsche as paradigmatic of the quality of the condition. What happens here is that the paradigm opens up and it generates multiple possibilities and differences. Once we remove or dissolve the connective tissue of Venice the solitudes are isolated almost literally insulated and Venice can become a condition and can be in relation to another future which is both individual and universal but not social. Venice in other words is rendered a paradigmatic. Now this intellectual operation that produces the image first defines the distance of the object from itself remove the object from its similarity Venice from Venice and then returns it to another similarity the city of the future the man of the experienced city of the man of the future and this is exactly the operation of paradigm as happens when it's activated by these prefixes paradigm and paradigm. It is only as a paradigm that Venice can be related to the metropolitan condition and directly to the non-public. It is the paradigmatic operation that removes from a similarity Venice from another similarity in a pattern working in the middle without generalization deduction abstraction of rules. The distancing performs not only the structure of Venice from itself but also from acquired historical morphological technological conceptions and established specifications of the CG that are normally used in architecture and everything. And so the paradigm is an operation makes it possible to perform this association to relate Venice abstracted from itself through sophistication of complex connections reduction to several islands etc to the modern metropolis. This new proximity is not based on rules that define styles prescribed forms of framed histories but lies instead in the series of operation that define the space of the two cities and this main perhaps niches very non-isolated men on metropolitan solid units. Now in this operation there are a few important points and of course I'll have to suggest that there are operations on the project. Isolation decontextualization definition of the singularity of the object for examples as part of the paradigmatic operation yet they're not sufficient to activate the paradigm. The fundamental step for the activation of the paradigm is the exit of the object from itself. The paradigm is not the object in this case the city but the cultural construction that is produced around it that movement of oscillation that does not follow and find direction but sets in motion and intention the object it addresses. So the paradigm here redefines and activates the object with and in its force field and it changes and indeed it is the force field. So maybe before attempting to marry these two possible definitions of paradigmatic operations in architecture I think I need to try and understand the implication of this process by looking at other linguistics, philosophy and science. Let's start with science and try to produce three brief summaries of the paradigmatic operation. 62 Thomas Koons publishes Structural Scientific Revolution a test which will then receive a lot of responses and critiques and he will return to a two options this work and life indeed. He is interested in explaining how knowledge is produced and how it changes in the sciences for he changes happened by revolutions rather than by accumulation or inner development of knowledge. He also suggests that it's impossible to give a linear account of such changes. Science is a very good society and in a historical dimension it is a cultural phenomenon and there is such a community understood within the context of the culture of its time. So he introduces in this context the idea of the paradigm to explain these changes. Far from monolithic bodies of laws or fixed rules paradigms for Koons constitute those yet to define improper bodies of knowledge that both define but are defined by a scientific community in a specific time we have this constant ground of negotiation. But what is the paradigm for Koons? And he will produce different definitions and he will continue to change what is very interesting. But to maybe oversimplify paradigms, preceed rules they are wider and more flexible than rules they are deeply contextualized cultural environment and conquest rules identify in certain research directions and identify and connect research communities. Every time I read this of course I think instead of science I think architecture but that's my professional information but I hope you have the same. So there is this notion of collective agreement and participation and the relational nature that are always already implied in the idea of the paradigm the scientific one for Koons maybe for us as well. And this is a very important step in Koons definition of the paradigm because it opens the possibility of the research without rules. A research that is happening as known as the least a shared recognition of common achievement. The paradigm does not prescribe definite rules but they name the style mean style collaboration, participation confrontational ideas and it will then be the prevalence of the confrontation that will devise the criticism of the established paradigm and the established paradigm may be allowed for the emergence of a new one just to be yourself direct of course. The paradigm tells the scientists about the entities that nature does and does not contain but interestingly the information provides and now whose details are elucidated by the mature scientific research. I don't know how good you are at your orientation but a map is open and welcoming. So as a map the paradigm is a tool that both informs but also remains open and requires interpretation additions, updates but and I'm going back to Koons words and I go paradigms through my science not only with a map but also with some of the directions essentials for math making in learning a paradigm a scientist acquires theory methods and standards together usually in inexorable mixtures and then Koons gives us the example of the fact that the shared example of the paradigm enables us to learn something before is established a learning that is not acquired by exclusively verbal means and that is also very important in architecture because it's given together with concrete examples on how they work etc. Nature and words are learned together So this is a fundamental statement for the definition of the paradigm as a non-verbal and non-rule based form of knowledge another form of knowledge embedded in what it was shared examples but it is unfortunately in the game not less systematic or less analyzable than knowledge embedded in rules, laws or criteria of identification At this point we see also because of a grammatical reference to explain the difference between the idea of scientific paradigm that it proposes and establish the notion of paradigm in a way he makes paradigm of grammar himself and he very simply it's easier if I show it to you he distinguishes between the established usage of the grammar as an accepted model of popular pattern in a new way from replication that he proposes for the scientific paradigm I'm not going to leave you the quote but the idea is that the rule always already contains within itself a possibility of variation So there is an oscillation in the paradigm that enables variation includes exceptions and allows for spaces of mediation and this is made clear 10 years later after the publication of Kuhn's work When Ronald worked in the attacking the idea of a linguistic paradigm in his work I have to warn you that the connection is made not because word writes in any way referring to or responding to Kuhn's work Of course the fact that these things have been quite closed in time they are themselves really of some cultural, scientific, intellectual context What Roland Barth does is to it's actually a series of lectures he holds in Paris and much later they are translated in Paris as such they are not anything they are really like lecture halls in English as well also because as we will see the neutral cannot be defined and therefore cannot really be approached by governments the neutral between the capital and perhaps that Barth proposes is in this definition the entire paradigm we need to see what the entire paradigm is. It's a form of knowledge again alternative to dialectical oppositions and pre-exclusions not suddenly the cross and then you already had the introduction of the translation and they explain and I quote that language always demands the choice and identification of gender, person the design for one or the other of two opposed values the oppositions structurally in this terms of boundaries and semiology calls paradigm that is what Barth with the neutral is opposing or trying to dismantle cross and on here continue yes meaning is generated by fiction of one binary element against the other which forms the fundamental oppositions and such oppositions if you have chosen how this is within any speech art it is this friction or the space of this friction that interests or this fascination by the fiction by the fact that even having to choose between the binary masculine, feminine black, white whatever the present, future etc in language leaves a trace and the trace and the friction are absolutely the space that the neutral occupies and activates I define the neutral he writes or rather lectures first is then which outplays the paradigm or rather I call neutral everything that baffles the paradigm I'm not trying to define the word I'm trying to make the thing that's all you can do you can't define the neutral it can only be gathered around it is the anti-paradigm it is anti the opposition of two terms etc of course for me is neutral the anti-paradigm is blocked my paradigm but then I need to perhaps explain a bit better or more if meaning rests on conflict and choice are used all conflict is generally needed to choose one and refuse the other is always a sacrifice made to mean to produce meaning to offer it to be consumed and instead he wants to occupy what he calls this polymorphous field of the paradigm of conflict avoidance equals he writes the neutral so the neutral becomes a whole field of investigation to define alternative forms of knowledge and communication that are not necessarily based on language that are not based on choice between two mutually deficient oppositions and attempt to define and produce meaning in a different way in this space in between the neutral is what buffles the paradigm but the neutral doesn't mean confusion imprecision or indifference it is for a part what he calls strong activity the neutral doesn't refer to impressions rightness, neutrality or indifference my neutral here says can refer to 10 strong unprecedented styles it's a difficult burning activity to outplay the paradigm nor is the neutral the silence because the silence will produce another absolute opposed to speech and here things start becoming interesting because neutral is not silence and tries also to outplay silence as well science is excluded as possibility the neutral cannot oppose speech with silence with another absolute it can only be defined by minimal expenditure of speech argument to neutralize science as a sign this minimal expenditure of speech is occupation of a space of fashion of opposites is the neutral the game the neutral plays that keeps it playing opposites without ever resolving them and is it therefore exhausting but never exhaustive as an activity is it a never ending project that enables possibilities but never decides now if we think of architecture in this context and of the project of architecture as enabled and defined by a moment of decision which we want to perform is the neutral the process that leads to it the process of design of options and different solutions all care to play and consideration before the decision that moves the process the project from design to building in other words can we think of the neutral as the design process is the neutral that trigger a moment of resistance before this becomes organized parts neutral is openly identified by him with the confection it's a non-neutral neutral it's active inventing it offers possibilities to over count the neutral but not through suspension abstention abolition but still the invention of another the third third complex not zero neutral it is I think yes one the linguistic tools of non-aradians non-intolerance and at this point he develops this idea of diversity of non-intolerance he looks at the again the etymology of the neutral from in my view to a tutorial neither one or the other the political neutral the one that leads on non-sidies but what is more interested in is a third that he says more interesting word that relates to the neutral it's the aterocutus which in grammar indicates the irregular words the words with the directions precedes from different themes irregular words irregular verbs the irregular the unforeseeable of one that follows the other without order which proposes the version of the neutral far from silence, exemption cancellation but produces a scramble through a revolving sequence of disturbed and disturbing so this neutral is not neutral it's not static it's not balanced it's dynamic it oscillates and I would like to suggest that the neutral as proposed can be defined by part in fact it performs what I have been calling the paradigm or the operation of the paradigm as an alternative possibility that works between opposition and in the space of this difference so a large definition or he prefers to call it the neutral in fact opens up the possibility to redefine the paradigm and then we need to further explore the paradigm in this operation the nobility of the paradigm is never proposed and in specific operation it consists in suspending and deactivating its empirical even less intelligent don't chagamban again in his essay what is the paradigm and here a gamba gives us a comprehensive history or that's a critical history of the notion of the paradigm in western philosophical and scientific thought he refers initially to the idea of the paradigm in the school and then moves to the philosophy and to look at the original term and the variations and trying to open the space between the example and the paradigm for a gamba there is an important shift in the reconsideration of the paradigm as productive of knowledge he says the universal logic here is replaced by the specific and psychological example not the example itself but its operations and here he discusses the the distancing process that I showed earlier with the idea of Venice and the appropriation of interest aphorism through well it definitely doesn't much better than me to look if you're interested to explain the paradigm not to the logic of the metaphorical transforming but the analogic of the example more keen to allegory than for the paradigm is a singular case that is isolated from its context only in so far as by exhibiting its own similarity it makes intellectual a new ensemble who was homogeneity it itself constitutes it is the the term functioning as a paradigm is deactivated from its normal use without the separation of the thing from itself in its activation the paradigm is not a paradigm only then can be moved not to another context but to inform that which cannot be shown in any other way we're talking here about a formal intervention of production of knowledge that is not alternative to that of the logical but coexists with it so the paradigm is made more, is made for everything in a specific context very important when the process of its season isolation assumes it as a paradigm makes it a paradigm and more than the object itself the paradigm then becomes this process of the showing that takes place if the object is removed from its context but more importantly from itself and in specificity isolation, decontextualization definition of singularity then the example object can become a paradigm and you're still seeing but I'm not so I'm talking about you the paradigm is a cultural operation towards production of a non dialectical form of knowledge it does not aim to achieve universal and derive principles and rules from the occupies in other space that of analogy a common cause and it's quite interesting actually to read this because it raises it back to Aristotle and this is Aristotle and I quote and for lack of you also speak the paradigm the paradigm does not function as a part with respect to the whole nor as a whole with respect to the part but as a part with respect to the part if both are under the same but one is better known than the other I've been told that to know all of you are architects but if you are this is absolutely contrary to what the idea of architecture is proportional and harmonic where the parts come together this is another way of thinking the relations of part and part between the trial and the death to produce a whole from this Agamben derives that why induction from the particular to the universal and reduction to the universal to the particular the paradigm instead is defined by third and paradoxical type of movement it goes from the particular to the particular the example here constitutes a peculiar form of knowledge that does not proceed by articulating together the universal to the particular but seems to dwell on the plan of the latter the particular and here the operation of the particular paradigm is associated to the analogy and I'm suddenly coming to architecture in its use of it Agamben is interested in how the paradigm produces knowledge how he asks how can the paradigm which is a singularity create a new analogical context and he observes we have to first neutralize traditional philosophical positions such as universal in particular general individual and even also form and content and again if you even if you are not architect you know the form follows function and the ideal function form where the key use of modernist architecture so here we live in a couple of sentences or paragraphs I have a tax a predestination in modernism so what are we going to do in the presence of in the presence of our contemporary decision it stands in that this is Agamben again is to stubborn neither a nor b not to take them out into a higher synthesis but to transform them into a force field transverse by polar now force field and polar tension of the electromagnetic field and this idea of an operational identity is something that is very often not appropriated from this discourse but used in the analysis or tends to understand the situation in the contemporary it's interesting that even in Agamben's work things start to become summation and architectural this is absolutely not this time that philosophy resorts to the space of the architecture to explain or to argue alternatives but so let's look at this spatially again we've seen the isolation, decontextualization the definition of singularity the object examples then are still not sufficient to activate this paradigm the fundamental step is that the paradigm is activated by making the object exit from itself the paradigm is not an object but the cultural construction that's produced around the object and the movement of oscillation does not follow a defined direction but it sets the object in motion in this tension in this magnetic field the operation is spatial it defines the activation of the object with and in the force field let's call it a context it is in the activation of this force field so zeneologically the paradigm defined in this way actually operates like the neutral part as defined as the end time paradigm at this point having redefined the paradigm a government suggests that it is the analogical third that produces this neutralization it doesn't refer to part but it talks about neutralization and internal discernibility activated in a vectorial force field of vectorial intensities so even if the two discourses don't directly touch one another strangely enough we have the recurrence of these terms which seem to bounce in the night from the discourse so like Bart's neutral a government's paradigm slips away from the logic of language and even from the attempts to define it from singularity to singularity without ever leaving with singularity of course in a company it transforms every singular case into an exemplar of a general rule that can never be stated in a theory can you call this a project this is my best can you call this a project a government does not talk about Bart or call the first to his work but he looks at pleasure and again if we suspend for a moment attention towards the resolution of the idea of implementation and we instead go on later to define this as a paradigm we have that and I'm paraphrasing paradigm is not even an object or a pre-existing likeness but it is produced and these are plagiarist words by placing alongside conjoining together and above all by showing and exposing placing alongside conjoining together showing and exposing and then again makes reference to the for example of declensions it is based more on the declension of word of nouns rather than verbs but again to suggest the possibility of the exception of the exception already embedded in the so to not force them together but to sum them up the grammatical in the case the irregularly that is the exception in the rule the endowment is that the exclusion of the included when rows becomes parallel from the declassion in rows etc. suggests the mirror of the inclusion of the excluded can we think of architecture as paradigm or as performing a paradigmatic and relational cooperation the paradigm in a government performs through analogy, oscillation between general and particular suspensions of particularity and without referring to an archaic the origin is it possible then to think of the paradigmatic operation defined in this way in relation to the work of the architectural project or in other words the thing of architecture as paradigm the project of architecture is it continues to happen in remake itself produces a form of knowledge that combines both practices of deduction and deduction but the project of architecture as operation is not and cannot be oppositional the project in its complexity must hold together differences and opposites keep them in play, produce instances of each close and then we open and then the question is here how does architecture learn from architecture if it's not by rules and more precise how does architecture learn to make architecture of course I don't have a fancy answer but I have an attempt to tackle this historically the discourse on architectural production of knowledge revolved as you know around imitation and even here we have problems because imitation of nature imitation of architectural models all the way to the production of typologies when we speak of typology and architecture today we usually implicitly refer to the modernist idea of typology for its function and separation of function but we need to look back I'm sorry for all this to begin and now that you have this back and forth but before modernist typology even beyond the illuminist catalogues of typologies we really need to look back at the notion of time of typology it was amazingly developed and defined by architectural theorists of the Enlightenment so the idea of the current fluid recombinable and yet precise arrangement of the known denomination the irregular foreseeable that Bart would call the Enlightenment and it can be traced back to the concept of type of the theory of Enlightenment and its potentials for re-elaboration and only partial addition to issues of function 1825 Antoine François Stone Catherine Merde, you can see writes the dictionary of architecture part for the and he offers here an incredibly modern definition of time and he continues to be considered and critically discussed today his time time has no form and it is without a predefined function and he says that all is more or less vague in time the time is a nucleus for the complexity of spatial arrangements adaptable to a function but not generated by function and so this type is not a static form but a multiplicity of variations where time operates in time like a sort of nucleus about which are collected into which are coordinated in time the developments and variations of forms which the object is susceptible 1825 of now and this is extraordinary because it's a non-definition of space and he offers time as a sort of a dynamic four-dimensional protoform that it's at the same time original in geography but also very much in cumulative because as it generates it just wants itself so today the suppression of the functionalist typology calls for it instead flexible tool that is not only old functional but also in formative rather than formal and this time cannot be represented as a form but only as an idea but it's not the idea of playful it's not the idea of the before it's an idea that continues to be approximated maybe reached but never quite reached because it transforms in the process of trying to approximate it's a form in constant modification molded according to the occasion to the formist critical agents it works in the context and it's the main reason this type that questions the stability of form and opens the classical nature of this oscillation of the political the interesting thing is that this definition this aspect of this definition is sort of conveniently forgotten or ignored for well into the early 19th sorry into the 20th century and so we need to wait until after modernism and the first response is the dissipate post modernism to see a return of attention to this and this is how it goes in the 60s and it produces this incredibly interesting idea of logic rationalism and the logic rational is not logic and it's not rational of what it says he's very interested in what Emy Kauff from the historian had called the revolutionary architect Rossi writes particularly about Roulet he designs in relation to Roulet is interesting in the research of form which is separation from the idea of the function and therefore he uses the idea of logic rational it recognizes the efficiency of the mediocrity offered by the results achieved only in a rational way and raises the demand to break the rational construction from within posing a continuous contradiction between the system of principle and the personal expression what we have here is not a self-destructive rational but a central rational which allows him to question the outcomes of rationalism it is free to work in and through contradictions without claiming to offer a one resolution but allowing the contradiction and the contradicting forces to inhabit the project for Rossi it is a personal dimension that allows to break this sort of sense thing so that the logic rationalism almost paradoxically is actually enabled by memories by feelings, by personal histories but not only also of the individual but of the collective and that with taking back the decision so the personal dimension for Rossi is the decisional moment in the project and on the project and that allows him to break this rational opposition and ultimately to make the project happen to be in it and again here we see the project and work with the spacing between the dialectical positions called the friction inhabited by phrases to this end Rossi theorizes and employs analogy populating this project with a sort of a private mantra of architectural education personal memories and then the combinatoric proliferation combined in this sort of imaginary of this in a way subjective poetics it is this that he calls analogical opposing it to a form of self expressible only in words and through the dialectical constructional speech here Rossi is not making things up he is going out of architecture and actually the definition of analogical that he performs in his projects is the definition of thought which is archaic and express practically inexpressible in words and is opposed to logical thought that is instead expressed in words and direct to the outside world in the form of discourse and what interesting we Rossi does here is to claim for architecture this area this part this kind of knowledge that is not verbal that is not rational but that it is other it cannot be expressed in words it is almost like a silent non-silence of art and therefore the need to operate in this case images and representation that both anticipates spaces but also anticipates the impossibilities of space and these are just some of the examples of his work and how uses them and generates the project Manfilo Tafulli writes about Rossi's work and he observes that the early architectural project in both his design and his writings in theory perform a search for form of a work of Tafulli calls critical work internal to architecture is this self-criticality and there is this sense of a strange science abstraction non-suspension of life in the early projects is almost a stubborn construction through architecture of this enforced distance which is necessary with the operation for the project to then become a critical act in this case a critical piece in decision later projects Tafulli is quite critical of so much so that then the polemical exchanges of the two become part of their publications and public exchanges there is the idea of the assassination but interesting having this skill is analogical language it's only in the 80s that Rossi uses the collaborative Troy collage of the analogical city so what is this analogical clue bonus provided by Rossi to read this project he deploys the analogical to escape the categorical distinctions predicated by the logical so his logical rational is absolutely far from the script logical and opens a space for an action that does not work by oppositions or by scientific resolution but assembles disassemble and decomposes and does not reach or aim to reach a stable synthesis and here again we have the reference to the analogical thought in in new that which operates across the gaps of unspoken censorship and it is this approach that allows Rossi to move from the architectural object of his earlier projects to a complex from what he calls manufacturing the artifact the object as a process and as a proper sorry not a home design to a consideration of the city as a system of relations and collective association but not of structural ones and with this move process introduced and with all the terms to the idea of the architecture of the city he has theorized but will be writing about 20 years earlier before this as an architecture of multiple authorship collecting memory as the project of the city as a process in time so why am I showing you this of course I don't want to suggest that process collage drawing 40 years ago offers a solution for contemporary architecture of the city but not this image and this project does the analogical city shows the process that takes place in the project of architecture as a way for the project to move away from the descriptions of modernism from the articulations of urban morphology from the oppositions of the dialectical architecture and propose and practice what he had called logical rationalism and it is this kind that Rossi proposes that can only be articulated through a project that is set free that can offer an alternative to linguistics, dialectics and perform perhaps paradigmatic but redefine paradigmatic operations so the analogical city and then beyond the image itself is interesting because of what it does it exposes and denies how architectural work or mind work in an architecture that works in a tension space between distinction that covers oppositions so many architecture is can be paradigm it is parallel if parallel is redefined as I have attempted to do not as an object or as a moon but as an operation that is not redefined but proceeds by hope through repetitions changes that the project can produce each time architecture becomes architecture so parallel is a series of operations oscillation as a third element in the dialectical process not as a mediation of solution but as a further issue that allows for a reconfiguration of complication of the problem and for the removal of rigid frameworks and thus redefine the paradigm requires a continuous adjustment of perspective of its vocabulary a sort of navigation that embraces and inhabits contradictions I am trying here to make a summary of this non-definition we have the non-prescriptive room as the merchant and constellation of beliefs as a non-normal between singularity and singularity and as a dynamic problem and this will be the paradigm in science we have the neutral as something in the middle but as a third possibility that breaks into the middle and interferes in place the dialectical and gathers and opens to otherness in the neutral as breaking of same knowledge we have the paradigm as a dynamic production of knowledge alternative to discourse and language that does not proceed to in-established rules but moves from a particular to a particular in a non-inductive non-inductive way as a human useful singularity that works through anonymity in philosophy we have the architectural time as a fluid and recombinable nucleus of aggregation of possible variations that postulate the round four in architecture and again in architecture across this work we have logical rationalism as a third element between normative systems and personal expression that breaks the rational construction from within and its analogical project as a key to a collective process so all these apparent contradictory terms here form an enter into an attention field of relations in which they are mutually challenged and redefined towards I hope a redefinition or rather an activation of the paradigm as an open operation of the relational architecture so architecture as as a paradigm is a model so primed by it's a dynamic action that contains within itself possibility of variation of representation of individual history it does not work only on the objects that it produces and fits as paradigms also more importantly it performs what I call the paradigmatic operation in the space in between the space of the city then escapes dialectical definitions and it becomes the space for these experiments where contrast are occupied and take place rather than be dialectically resolved and this space changes and its configurations are never final so any architecture the paradigm part of anything to be in fact or rigid works in this context in a way that is always tentative, partial and played with forces that it cannot control and can only partially represent and with which it can interfere paradigm divides within architecture as a gradual process of adaptation as the making of a dense space that is constantly transforming as the making without a predefined figure that allows for and invites the incorporation of an adaptation to other languages and knowledges