The role of Archinect’s series Cross-Talk is to bring forward the positive aspects of the polemic and allow for the resulting conflict to bring to life an otherwise still and comfortable climate of creativity—if there can be one. Cross-Talk attempts—if to only say that it did—to allow text the freedom that the image has accepted and embraced. Cross-Talk attempts to force the no, to contradict itself, to anger, to please and then anger again, if only to force a stance, to pull out the position of the self, of the discipline and of the hour as a means to begin and maintain conversations moving forward. 

Architecture is no longer a critical discourse; it is now a mediated discourse. You cannot be relevant in terms of media forever. Relevance has something to do with what is new, what is current, what is hot, it has nothing to do with any critical discourse. We live now in a world where what is relevant to media is what makes something relevant. That doesn't mean it is, that doesn't mean it is critical either.

I always thought architecture operated in a more introverted environment, which might be less true today. There are certain ideas within the discourse of architecture, within the discipline, that suggests things might be tried. People cannot change the evolution of history, they can try and stand against it, but I think it's the accidents of history that cause the most change. Although there has not been a clearly defined line between what is in the fullest sense architecture and what is not, there is a broad differentiation between the discipline as a whole and audiences outside of that framework. The history of architecture has tended to suggest that individuals who have been able to demonstrate their ability to operate autonomously from and in parallel with historical knowledge create the best accidents. Therefore, creating the most change within the discipline. The problem with a mediated discourse is that it is making it harder for architecture to figure out which individuals operate within this framework.

Although there has not been a clearly defined line between what is in the fullest sense architecture and what is not, there is a broad differentiation between the discipline as a whole and audiences outside of that framework. 

There are heuristic strategies that help one deal with the constraints and difficulties of practice that also help one instigate and inspire new work. The incompatibility that arises from the imagination of an individual and the needs of society comes down to the relationship between the architect and the public. Social media has stimulated the development of connectivity, new architectural agency, and archiving of projects because the digital domain is both boundless and uncertain, but the problem that I see accruing is a debate between self-marketing and self-preservation. Of course, we all know it was unethical for architects to market their services, along with doctors, lawyers and any other professional endeavors, in the 20th century. Today platforms like Instagram and Facebook have not only given individuals and companies marketing power for their own aspirations and ideas, it's also done so at minimal cost. Which means anyone, and everyone can do it. I've been questioning whether or not notable individuals from the past would have used these new tools to advance their careers. Most likely yes. But is it a critical tool for the discipline? I agree there is a fine line between practice and project. But where Peter Eisenman might have been wrong is that you need a sustainable practice to solve all aspects of your project. Social media is allowing more opportunities for individuals and groups to start a practice and get commissions. Perhaps the discipline needs this. Perhaps Peter Eisenman needs to get an Instagram.   

The project is the most important subjectivity for architecture. I see social media as a potential problem for the development of a critical project. I tell my graduate students to get off social media. It only complicates and distracts from the development of their work which should be produced within and reflect the intuitions that they align themselves too.  On the other hand, I tell my undergraduate students to copy everything they can. Posting, liking, tweeting, commenting, stealing, copying. All great things for a young architect to engage.

The project is the most important subjectivity for architecture. I see social media as a potential problem for the development of a critical project.

If social media is necessary to sustain a practice, perhaps it could be used as a tool to support a project. Recent examples include Andrew Kovacs Archive of Affinities, Davide Traducco's Conformi; the group shows by One Night Stand L.A, and Suckerpunch Daily, amongst others. I also see new progressive offices like Preliminary Research Office (PRO) using social media as a communication tool for connecting with new clients. But these examples have a definite project. I would encourage anyone who is interested in doing the same to get off all social media platforms until they understand and are willing to produce work for a project.

With the proliferation of information, archiving and data, history would suggest that forgetting the past and re-writing the future will be the most productive position for architecture to take; for now, at least. This may seem positive or desirable, but it's more of a position that must be made as a stepping stone for the generation after us. As many generations in the past have seen, you must have a great deal of empathy, open-mindedness, and risk-taking activities to allow uncharted and unpredictable historical notions to take place.

As we develop and produce drawings, models, buildings, and text, we should focus on their relationship to one another and their relationship to time. This is critical for the development of a project. But currently, we face both uncharted waters and unanswered questions.

Architecture is still a professional endeavor. But professionalism is being negated or undercut by the idea of the quick, the superficial, or for some people the most obvious choice of words; the now, right now, today, this very second. Social media has been an instigator of this activity. Uploading, posting, archiving, sharing, and viewing has generated a problem for architecture and its role in the public domain. One way of looking past this concern is for individuals to focus more on a body of work. As we develop and produce drawings, models, buildings, and text, we should focus on their relationship to one another and their relationship to time. This is critical for the development of a project. But currently, we face both uncharted waters and unanswered questions. A mediated discourse is quick, chronographic and extremely public. Something that the discipline of architecture has not faced. But with the small collection of individuals and groups online and in institutions I remain confident in the direction and developing pedagogy and project we call architecture.