ABSTRACT
Two issues constantly seemed to be in the air during the workshop and repeatedly initiated questions and occasional debate. I think both have a similar basis. The first was the contradiction between scientific study and architectural practice. Traditionally, an architect’s training includes a conscious attempt to teach him to loosen the constraints of the problems expressed to him. That is, he is encouraged to not accept the assumptions of the client, not to accept the standard way of doing things. Rather, he is taught to question assumptions; he should broaden his solution space and make the range of possibilities as large as possible so that he has “room” to innovate. Even the words used to describe a problem situation are brought into question. For instance, he may question the meaning of “living room” or “office” so that he may explore alternative designs that mix traditionally disjoint functions.
