Architecture and coherence

Interpretation is ubiquitous in architecture, though occasionally regarded with suspicion. Interpretation is ‘the revenge of the intellect upon art’, ¹ according to Susan Sontag. It operates at one remove from the processes of imaginative production, and burdens creativity with layers of meaning, at the cost of an engagement with the materials and practices of artistic making. Sontag’s complaint is actually against a conservative style of interpretation, in which critics strive to excavate the ‘true meaning’ or the ‘latent content’ of a work. ² Interpretation surfaces in a positive light in the context of commentary and criticism about works of architecture, but still as an activity apart from design. In one of the few texts on the subject, Architecture and its Interpretation, Juan Pablo Bonta draws the distinction: ‘when a designer discusses his work, he is behaving as an interpreter, not as a designer’. ³ Designers can certainly interpret what they have created, but may not be as competent at interpreting as they are in designing. For Breatriz Colomina, interpretation is ancillary to design, but nonetheless crucial to architecture’s place as a profession. It is the means by which architecture is distinguished from mere building. Architecture ‘is an interpretive, critical act’, ⁴ according to Colomina. It has a linguistic aspect different from the practice of building: ‘A building is interpreted when its rhetorical mechanism and principles are revealed’. ⁵