While it seems that the digital format might offer a playground of iteration- an antithesis to the practical limits that keep most new architecture (in what is actually realized) so firmly unartful, (that making a building is less an act of an experiment or care and more a ruthless distribution of aesthetic attempts (contempt?) and perverted senses of economy) its entrance into the field seems only to have cemented an emphasis on strange value engineering and efficiency. So much space and memory? For what?

I think true architectural experiment requires the actual making of the thing. No scalar or abstraction. Construction. With the scale of some architecture this has always been impossible, so the drawing or model becomes not only an outline or instruction for how to build, but also an outlet for quick rigorous experiment. In this way there has always been a sense of virtual reality. But this imagined reality ironically gained a coercive edge in the digital. A sort of certainty and flatness unrelated to the scale of graphite dulling on paper, faster if the lines are longer... We are convinced by these provided coded lines- devoid of any essential ambiguities, oppurtunities, scale...

What is this drawing for, this way of thinking? What is the type of bias that comes along with that origin- the plan, section and the elevation. That they are not, to the contrary of what senior year posters and enscape renderings and endless scrolling portfolios will have you believe, the final. Maybe that separation has always been there.

Does the precision of the drawing, the perfect detail, represent a beautiful and streamlined communication- or does it represent the devaluation of our human ability to communicate? What does all the time to perfect a render mean? What is our medium anymore? Could you write a plan for a building? Could you paint it? Cook it? Televise it?