Architectural Thesis Inquiry System
There are fine divisions between two terminologies that are often operationalized when one is carrying out thesis research, i.e. Architectural thinking and Architectural knowledge. The term architectural thinking is related to the cognitive and emotive response to the built environment with respect to its ability to relegate affordance. The gap that exists between cognitive, emotive response and environmental affordance can be bridged by architectural knowledge, i.e. an individual capacity to rationalize architectural wisdom. The modern science believed that each issue or gap can be seen with respect to problem solving (System Theory), where each part is dismantled and understood in its capacity in networked conditions. The functionalism phase in modern architecture thrived on such belief, that architecture is nothing more than the prescriptive understanding of a few components. While in contrary to such paradigmatic thinking, the critical architecture dwells on deeper understanding of architectural thinking and the architectural questions related to it. There are four fundamental aspects of architectural questions and their responses. The each of them proceeds into further action areas, based on individual capacity and ability to comprehend the gap in the knowledge
Note: This is demonstrative model and do not exist in absolute sense. They are often overlapped with each other.
Generally the problem-solving questions of “architectural thinking” are typically associated with the professional mode of knowledge production, while discipline questions are characteristics of building larger architectural questions by research, empathy and a mode for an intellectual critique. The open ended nature of discipline inquiry often sets the tone of critical practice due to the individual ability to combine and enable both the processes as a part of the architectural questioning and thinking.
The first model typically mobilizes the architectural thinking of scales that are either restricted to limited geography or beyond the realm of the architectural responsive canvas. Often individuals who are unable to either expand the architecture question in the former position or are unable to correspond to the scale with their architectural knowledge resort to such thinking. Such mode of inquiry brings about a big discord between architectural thinking (research, inquiry) and architectural knowledge (reaction, forms)
The alternate model attempts to re-locate architectural question and thinking within the realm that is necessarily operational in the range of architectural inquiry (geographical and contextual). In this situation one is able to referential-ize the study, draw relevant literature reviews so as to enable the architectonic inquiry and mobilize architectural decisions. This model emphasizes the two important aspects of architectural research, i.e. the gap in existing architectural knowledge and critiquing existing or established knowledge systems
The response model for architectural questioning and thinking demonstrates that three important parameters of architectural response (architectural knowledge), i.e. formal, structural and environmental are able to generate various conditions. The tectonic and methodical inquiry is able to generate strong embedded conditions in architectural research while the discursive method requires to alter its path to make the inquiry system relevant to architectural knowledge.
betweenarchitectureandurbanism.com 