form defining strategies

But the question of architectural form has undergone some sort of crisis during the last two decades, turning too many architects into something like rash adolescents incapable of handling the enormous questions implicit in a design problem. This crisis stems in part from the incredible powers of computers to generate just about any form, give and take on the predetermined limitations of the software used. In this period, architecture has turned from a programmatically or ideologically driven production of form (well exemplified by Modernism) to a laissez-faire making of unmotivated form. In some camps, this has led to an increasing uneasiness and frustration with the contemporary In the wake of any crisis, there are conseproduction of architectural form. quences and responses. In addition to those who are happy with the state of affairs, one gets the conservative and reactionary (“pull back and return to past certainties”), the radical and daring (“push on quickly and see what happens”) and inquisitive and probing (“what, why, how…”). Each camp can produce good architecture; after all, there is no prescription for that. But the latter group, the inquisitive and probing, is most likely to produce the next moment of release and further development – particularly since it pursues and seek to unravel the underlying structure of what is at hand.