Architecture of the impossible: Searching an(other) architecture within drawing through metaphor

Abstract

This thesis investigates the metaphorical thinking behind non-notational architectural drawings to propose that the intentional use of metaphors—metaphorical concepts—can initiate alternative, unconventional, 'other' ways of thinking—which will be referred to as metaphor-based design thinking. The study discusses the possibilities of what is considered impossible within conventional architecture to expand our perspective, hence our realities. Metaphorical thinking simply means understanding something in terms of another, and our conceptual system—which deduces and organizes abstract concepts that structure our perception, and guide us through our everyday life—is fundamentally metaphorical. This means that metaphors are not limited to language, but they are implicit in the ways we think and act. Along with non-notational architectural drawing which offers creative freedom to the practitioner and the possibilities that arise from it, the study aims to explore the impossible(s) in architecture, to compose a new way of thinking, and—I think most importantly—to lead to more questions than 'answers'. In K. Michael Hays' words, "Architecture is fundamentally an inquiry into what is, what might be, and how the latter can happen. Architecture is one way of attaining the verb 'to be.'" (2009, p. 2). George Lakoff uses metaphorical thinking and the methods that come from cognitive science and linguistics in the book Philosophy in The Flesh (1999) to rethink what philosophy can become and says that "Metaphorical thought is the principal tool that makes philosophical insight possible and that constrains the forms that philosophy can take." In other words, architectural theory and metaphorical thinking have similar interests to further their fields; and this research intends to do the same thing for architecture (to rethink what architecture can become) through drawing, thus doing this research through metaphor within architectural drawing seems appropriate. The potentialities of architectural drawing and metaphorical thinking are known and studied separately. This work, being at the intersection of the two, aims to create something new by combining pre-existing ideas. The intent is the emergence of a design thinking that can lead to architectures that are sensitive to the 'Other' and other ways of thinking. The research uses AD's digital archive for selecting drawings as its case studies among the articles which discuss 'imagination' and 'creativity', since the intent is to propose an alternative thinking. Then it suggests plausible metaphors for these works in accordance with the written materials and the theoretical works of the drawings' authors—in a reverse engineering method. Through mapping, the study interprets metaphorical concepts and the relational thought processes behind these drawings in order to support the study's claim that metaphorical thinking can be used as a tool—pedagogical, or else—with the awareness of its substantial use. The first chapter, the introduction, clarifies how/why this research came about, frames the aim and scope of the thesis; then, acquaints the reader with the key concepts—the Other, the (yet-)impossible, non-notational architectural drawing, metaphorical thinking—and their relations to each other in the realm of this research; and ends with how metaphorical thinking is used for the method of the research, and how the cases are selected. The second chapter consists of two parts. The first sub-chapter explains the theory of metaphorical thinking that is structured by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, its systematicity; differentiates between metaphor, simile, analogy, and allegory; and discusses the limitative use of architectural metaphors which is generally attributed to architectural form. The second sub-chapter explains why the research uses the term 'architectural drawing' instead of 'architectural representation'; outlines how the thesis approaches non-notational architectural drawing, and how it positions itself among other architectural practices, while briefly summarizing the pivotal changes about the views on drawing. It also mentions the issue of authorship over architectural works to explain why the research excluded reading the drawings directly. The third chapter establishes metaphorically-structured design thinking—the creative thinking practice that this research offers—by discussing other alternative thinking practices. The fourth chapter examines (possible) use of metaphorical thinking within the case studies (a.k.a. the study's protagonists) and offers a probable metaphor for each case. These suggestions are based upon the semantic references found in the articles. The chapter also discusses the degrees of relevance between the creative thinking behind these precedent-setting cases and metaphor-based design thinking—the practice proposed in the thesis. And the final chapter, the conclusion, is meant to be more than a final summary of the study. It not only mentions the findings of the thesis, but also questions what could come after. This is not a prescriptive study, which indicates an outcome, a definitive one; it is a descriptive work to offer metaphor-based design thinking. Unlearning situated thought patterns and thinking in an alternative manner is not unfamiliar to architectural practice; but metaphorical thinking takes it a step further, and offers itself as a tool for doing so. The case studies are the precedents that support this study's claim that the deliberate use of metaphors in the design process can lead to alternative, other ways of thinking; can lead to metaphor-based design thinking.