The Dualism between Theory and Practice

Architectural research helps you look where you would never have thought of looking before. It critically tries to intercept an unknown, unclear, poorly defined aspect, attempting to bring it back to light. And that is exactly why “this process may often seem ‘chaotic’ in the sense of ‘unstructured’ or even ‘random’ – and sometimes is. However, this is a self-reflective, iterative process where the findings of these seemingly “random” actions are again and again critically questioned and contextualized”.1 It is precisely this small spark of knowledge that intrigues us and generates self-reflection in architectural research: it is a crucial point. The non-scientific nature of design research is an aspect that makes me understand that issues of this type are necessarily intrinsically connected to an ethical and moral sphere. The production of quality research in this discipline “is first of all a problem of awareness: awareness of the importance of stating where we are”.2 I must first understand my point of view and my position on the topic. Since this process is based on extremely subjective reflections and perspectives, I find it difficult to imagine a field that affects even more pragmatic and concrete areas. The observations are on concrete things, but the product of the observations is still pure and intangible theory: thinking about a tangible thing does not produce a new visible one but an effect, an impact that this thought will have on something else in the future. It is constantly looking ahead. It is a steady internal struggle. A battle over developing reflections on concreteness and giving substance to an ethereal knowledge.