One thing I notice in conversation, especially when I hear architecture discussed, is the indirect language used.  Projects ‘talk about’, or ‘refer to ideas of’, or ‘suggest’, or ‘start to indicate’… It’s used all the time.  Why?  Because it’s a caveat.  It allows for flexibility, subjectivity of interpretation.  And while there is a place for that, it is used so broadly that it often becomes meaningless.  How can architects claim their designs embody their beliefs if they refuse to articulate them directly?

“The current weakening of the culture of description appears to be one of the fundamental risks of the time in which we are living, and the tendency to replace description by representation (images, metaphors, analogies) prevents us from venturing with confidence into the intellectual domain.”

– Juhani Pallasmaa, Encounters