A Falsified Inter-Discipline

The use of the 9 square grid by Eisneman. (House III)

"The Doppler shifts the understanding of disciplinarity as autonomy to disciplinarity as performance or practice." (75)

    The field of architecture, as it stands in the argument of Hays, rests at a "between" position (Somol and Whiting, 73). The hesitancy to take a stance on the performative function of architecture for many critics and architects has left a limbo of the purpose of architecture for society. "The initial problem...criticism become[s] compromised" (Tafuri, 41) puts to terms the lost foundation within the architecture community. Those that appear as the biggest critics sit behind pen and paper, creating a dividing line between the architect and those that make-up society. 

    The discourse in architecture is pivoted on the Doppler Effect through repetition of learning. What is lost to students and working professionals is although it is an act of repetition, it should never become a stance of identical thought. It is the responsibility of the professors to be aware of the difference between repetition and duplication. Repetition, for example, is the definition of architecture. Everyone knows what architecture is, but those that can define it have a different interpretation of what it means.

    The Doppler Effect, in consequence, takes on a new meaning for architecture. If every architect tries to input an overcompensated interpretation of architectural discourse, the idea of a reactionary idealism of architecture is lost. The profession has lost the integrity of design in which "architecture [is kept] from slipping into a cloud of heterogeneity." (Somol and Whiting, 75) The Doppler Effect is activated, at its core, through replication. The defiance of subtle duplication of pre-existing buildings degrades the moments of contingencies for a building.

    By remaining attentive to the lasting impression architecture as a whole has at both a micro and macro scale. To fit one's building into the woven fabric of society is a delicate balance that will either aid or weaken the foothold architecture has in longevity. Sooner, rather than later, will come the consequences of these micro interpretations of what architecture should be doing. "The unexplained phenomenon of apparent duplication" (72) should be evident to those both in and out of the profession in which the language of architecture can become articulated to any observant.