Dichotomies in Architectural Research

Philosophically derived, the term dichotomy indicates the logical bipartition of a concept into two opposites: it is a rich and versatile principle that can be used to understand the complexity of architectural theory and practice while developing original perspectives and approaches to research. The dichotomy as a comparative tool is already widely employed by classical authors such as Vitruvius and Leon Battista Alberti (Tavernor 1998): binomials such as order-disorder, symmetry-asymmetry, and form-function reflect the intrinsic tensions of the architectural discipline and are addressed not as rigid oppositions, but as opportunities to develop a synthesis, understood as a reasoned composition of distinct parts within a comparison. A similar approach can be found in the work of Andrea Palladio, known for his reworking of classical architecture in response to changing Renaissance paradigms, framed in the tension, still relevant, between tradition and innovation (Palladio 1965). This contribution is constructed based on such considerations: first, five texts were written related to five actions considered relevant for the drafting of architectural research (defining what/why/how, reading, drawing, writing, and comparing), identifying for each action a significant dichotomy and a possible connection. Then, the texts were joined through “montage”1 according to a single logic: the identification of a perimeter for architectural research, understood as a possible ‘why’ of the present contribution. This investigation is central in the framework of doctoral research, but given its complexity, the result has to be considered open-ended, still constituting a good starting point for possible and desirable future additions.