This writing, unlike the other post, might have little or no architectural input, rather, a reminiscent over the milestone of the whole process of building the idea of the thesis, from inception to its conceptual completion - audio-visual presentation form. It shall not be one source of inspiration like it is intended to be one, the idea of writing this is actually a response in the form of personal interpretation over the idea of an architecture thesis, to readers who have constantly given attention reading, and supporting it. When the time comes, it shall be a guide or even a motivation as it is intended to do, good design intention should be shared as a common language. All the following ideas shall be only a personal interpretation and underlying ideas of how things were being put up. Of course, it shall be related to the current system of my school, together with the thought of the juries which help to concretize it.
Thesis, it is a theory generation proven to be workable.
Inception to Rejection
Thesis, it is a theory generation proven to be workable. The idea "Cultural Manifestation through Human Presences and Behavior: Rethinking Attributes of Central Market and Urban Fabric" first came about with the title, "Cultural Manifestation by Spatial Design through Transcendental Relationship between Human Presences and Behaviour: Rethinking Architecture of Central Market". I did not even want to be in the unit of Urbanism in the first place so that I do not need to get stuck with all the extra work, but when faith suggested, I will have to live with it and get through it, believing that the only thing matters most is the core principle or philosophy, environment is only a contextual difference while everything is a relativity within continuum, interrelated and justifiable in context to one another. So I took up that challenge with my core intention stays. Like most of you, I first do not know what I would be decided to do for the thesis, not until a critical review of the whole learning process that has been gone through, and particularly moments that the soul is pleased, and as well as the moment where we have a strong dispute towards one subject matter which is formed that has been a part of interests but requires a time frame of, say 1 solid year to be resolved, and thesis is seen as one great, once in a lifetime perhaps, opportunity to realize it. Categorization has been done to sort out what has been, and what has not been resolved throughout the entire period of architectural training, i.e. philosophy of life in housing, green sustainability to red sustainability, the definition of a public building, an so on. Until one point that there is no much to be resolved at that moment. And until then, the thesis is one kind which has never been resolved in mind, but seen as a duty to be created, it is a lifetime subject of interest, it is a research, and up to certain point, it shall serve a foundation as one architecture philosophy for the built environment to be able to be furthered and opened for criticism and debated. And this explains the reason the thesis is so extraordinarily difficult when there is pretty much nothing to be resolved and wanted to be done anymore at that moment!
In another word, the thesis is but a connection of a few seemingly unrelated matters, but intuitively can be done architecturally. It is for my soul, a new idea which requires resolution. When ideas being built up, The lengthy title clarifies intention, strategy, component, and aims. Of course, the system immediately questions it as it appears fancy, but deep inside, it is a philosophy and a duty to be resolved. Criticism landed, and title changed. The main issue is that it is being brought to a level where the essential aim of the thesis has gone, while to suit the system and school requirement, things that shall not be concerned at first should be paid attention. Underlying ideas no longer interest the juries as they do not understand, and even refused to understand it. In this case, the workload has been doubled, meaning to say, on one hand a work for crit session that has became a resolve over school requirement; on the other hand a work for inner-soul, a duty, the primary intuition, belief and intention that I shall keep by my soul to be developed, provided that 2 of them shall be interrelated, so that I would not be wasting my time in doing non-related thinking and production.
A Belief that Takes it to the End
One thought is being constantly reminded, that once the core value and intention of doing the thesis is set up, no matter what does the response suggest, the work in itself shall be in 2 fold, one being the work to please crit session in resolving technicalities questioned by juries within their understandings; while one is the most important, a philosophy to be developed deep inside the heart and mind that will be a resolution of the entire learning process over the years. So the way of the intended thesis is believed that, at the end of the production and thought process, it shall be a conceptual system or framework, a framework that is authentic and can be applied to the built environment. If not up to that point, more work is needed to be done. On the other hand, can the thesis question the existing convention? Be it a regulation - plot ratio, running distance, green index, a belief - tradition, culture, way of life, can it challenges them by reflecting it architecturally? The key is that the developed framework, not only appears authentic as it is being deduced wisely, it must be a form of criticism over the tradition, convention, or even regulation!
Rush of Adrenalin
Of course, like most of you out there, it has been a desperate period of production but contented. In order to resolve, I put up the complex components, trying to draw lines to connect the dots everywhere I go, and I sleep with it. In order to please the juries, I pulled up all-nighter, just so that the ideas that have been conceptualized will be much closer to completion so that it does not fade neither here nor there, but appears as a solid statement to be seen, debate, opened for discussion, even hated. It doesn't matter what will it cost, the core objective again, back to the initial idea, is to generate theory and prove it workable. By then, it pleases my soul as a duty, a life-resolving act that would reflect the built environment architecturally.
Contended, comes from a lot of the 'Eureka!' moment. When lines were finally being drawn across all dots, you realized the moment when it feels right and honestly, you feel pleased and you stop, every piece of thoughts finally make sense. The feeling of contended somehow lost when opposition appears, when juries do not even understand, want to understand or agree with it. The idea of opposition as usual, appears in the form of criticism during crit session does not prescribe things, rather, it describes another personal interpretation from a third party. Meaning to say, one does not take it as even a suggestion or any form of decision. The key is the way and perspective in taking criticism and come back with a thorough reflection over it. Again, the workload is doubled when much justification is needed to handle oppositions when core idea shall be insisted. Any ideas are believed to be firm within itself when enough thinking and refinement is done over time, one does not simply shift the core aim and intended philosophy of the project to be developed.
Untold Ideas
The succession of the thesis, in this case, say measured by merits given, although not important at all, has strongly related to what has not been told, rather than what is being presented! The core philosophy that has been worked out serves as the fundamental guide to move the inner soul of doing it and keeping things going. It unconsciously gives a drive to production even it is only to serve for presentation purpose during crit session, but the power of own authentically developed ideas is believed to be going to tell without having to speak out in whatever form it should be. In other words, the jury may as well unconsciously guided by the underlying ideas, soul-pleased, and see it with their own way on whatever the other requirement they want to see. Even though they do not know it, but it does not mean that they are not being affected by the ideas behind! With that being said, a firmed core philosophy shall be built until oneself is pleased, production comes later on. It movemoves the doer, as well as the audience.
Compromise
A work of 2 fold takes up 2 times the time required for thesis to be produced. If it is not due to the system and requirement, it shall be one further developed concept rather than doing all tedious production with less thinking needed. But who cares? Core framework of the thesis is still going to be developed within oneself anyway for own good, while production in other hand, is to be done to meet the deadline. Core value, balance and discipline is the key. A lot of hard works in this case, mingle around not being in forms of production, but rather, a cyclical planning-reviewing process that is crucial to stay on the right track, and being able to meet production deadlines! That is to say, goes to the 80/20 rules, 20 of planning job will determines the entire outcome of the 80! Of course, to compromise, ideation period has to sacrifice. End product now shall appears less philosophical in a visual sense, but does not mean that it is in itself not philosophical as it is intended to be. Criticism, core philosophy, presentation board, requirement, standards, all being put together as dots, constantly being review and planned before production is being laid.
The conceptual framework of the thesis, can be said completed during its first stage, with a lot of thinking and planning made (2 fold work). Theory can be listed out, and the existing convention of a system of measurement for the built environment can be criticized and challenged. A new theory or guide is formed. What happened is that the upcoming criticism from juries not only that they do not favour whatever appears, but rather imposing ridiculous and un-contextual related comments which require design to be reformed. In this case, again, the core principle is a realization of theory built into a proven workable concept. What has been done is again a compromization in term of time, and energy, the way to take criticism by not merely suiting it in changing the design, but a kind of passion to stay strong with the core belief, and by showing much hard work that say, ideas need to be well developed, well-thought building design can be in the same time manifested on the drawing anyway, as a completion in production sense, it is a 2 fold work anyway, what more can be aspired? And what more can it does to demolish the good intention? When the core value, life philosophy is going to be resolved anyway, honestly.