Thesis Review is a collection of conversations, statements and inquiries into the current state of thesis in academia. Thesis projects give a glimpse into the current state of the academic arena while painting a picture for the future of practice. 

Each feature will present a contemporary thesis project through the voice of those that constructed it. This week, we talk to Nicholas McMillan about his thesis titled, Architecture of Peculiarity. 

What is the thesis?

This thesis seeks to explore some of the peculiarities of architecture and form, searching for a beauty in the weird, strange and peculiar. If a thesis is to ask a question and then speculate on an answer, this thesis ponders over the future of public space in the city, proposing that it may be found in alien shapes and form- the peculiar- that which makes something strange and odd but provokes a curiosity, an interest, a deeper investigation and an inquisitive look.

The thesis challenges architecture to breed a new typological public space, afforded by its deviant and strange forms which uncover the peculiarities of architecture, as a means of revealing and celebrating the peculiarities of society.

What was your inspiration for the thesis? 

Our thesis at USC begins with a detailed documentation of a historically significant architectural project, an architectural artifact. For me, this project was the São Paulo Musuem of Art, designed by the famous Italian-Brazilian architect, Lina Bo Bardi. With one simple gesture, Lina split the building into two volumes, one sunken underground and the other raised to float above in the sky, creating a free and black space between. Her unique social agenda and the intersection of the political, social and cultural laid the precedent for a project which explores the peculiarities of society and the implications and opportunities of focusing on the unusual. 

Historically speaking, I looked to Tschumi, Hejduk, Lebbeus Woods, the Russian Constructivists and Archigram for weird and fantastical architecture. Formally and geometrically, I drew inspiration from the likes of Neil Denari, Bryan Cantley and Wes Jones whose collective work show a similar disposition to alien objects and forms. I was also finding inspiration in odd and different inanimate objects of the world- concrete trucks, silos, billboards, mechanical plants. 

How did it change over the course of the process?

I learned that a thesis is very much a process and exploration of one's own self and interests. It is a time to develop an attitude and position within the architectural discourse from where one may not have previously existed. It seemed that my own thesis and even those of my classmates was changing every week as we made new discoveries or found new references or interests. This was something I came to accept and now in reflection, acknowledge as very crucial to its development and my own learning and development from it. 

I learned that a thesis is very much a process and exploration of one's own self and interests. It is a time to develop an attitude and position within the architectural discourse from where one may not have previously existed.

Nevertheless, I always began this process with an interest in public space and its potential within the city. At times throughout the process, I sometimes struggled, as I felt as if I were losing touch with this, as if I wasn't remaining true to the early thesis. By the end, however, it seemed to come full circle and the project was still making an interesting and provocative statement on public space and the city. This key change was the moment the project changed from being about the spaces created, to being about the objects and their influence on space. 

What are other angles do you want to continue working on?

Because of the structure of our thesis, and its connection to an already built significant architectural project, the final outcome and thesis was almost always going to manifest itself in an architectural project. Mine was about these peculiar objects and their interaction and implications for the city and the public through their insertion and play with a very significant public architecture. 

Therefore as a tangent, I am excited about the possibility of developing this language and exploration of objects through more artistic and sculptural angles, testing their potential as objects that may or may not be architectural, and therefore not subjected to the same disciplinary rigor, rather a focus on their weird and strange appearance and attributes.  

How does your thesis fit within the discipline?

Our thesis is structured so as to explicitly antagonize architectural history and directly engage the discipline by grounding itself in precedence in comparison projects of the past. Nonetheless, architecture has always existed primarily as public property of the world, as the physical domain of our public experiences and existence. As such, any project which engages the city and its spaces engages the discipline as the city remains and persists as the greatest challenge and question for architecture.   

What did you discover during the process that you did not foresee?

I did not foresee thesis being such the struggle that it was. I expected it to be difficult and consuming but I think there may be a misled perception that a thesis which may have twice as much time to produce than a typical project will be that much more refined and developed. I hadn't encountered a struggle like this before, and it always seemed as if it were two steps forward and one step back, or even one step forward and two steps back. 

Of course, the stakes are higher than usual, with the premise of a thesis making it much more engaged with a greater criticality and higher level of disciplinary thinking. It is perhaps, one of the few times in academia that student work becomes 'fair-game' and truly accountable to the real rigor of the discourse. As such, although expected, it is still a surprise and definitely contributes to the struggle, but does make for a more rewarding experience overall.  

How do you see your thesis professing into your career?

I feel like I was only scratching the surface with my thesis and where I wanted to take it as I could I keep working on it for the next ten years, and probably the next ten years after that. But what it did do was push me towards new lines of references and interests that I might not have otherwise discovered, whether they fit within architectural pedagogy and discourse or other creative and artistic disciplines. 

In this way, I developed a greater interest in where architecture meets and mixes with other creative disciplines like art, exhibition and sculpture, and how architectural pedagogy may be applied to these disciplines. Now more than ever architects can wear many different hats and engage architecture from many different angles and interests. As such, moving forward I have newfound interests in exploring architecture beyond that which just engages the built environment. This means exploring creative pursuits outside of architecture and building on possible derivatives from my thesis that may still inform my architectural career.  

What were the key moments within your thesis?

There were many moments that stood out along the way but two particular moments I often reflect upon. One relates to a key discovery and shift in approach while the other is more time specific in relation to the overall process of thesis. 

One of these related to a specific discovery of a formal method for form finding and form generation, which involved the development of a taxonomical approach to shape and form. This provided the toolkit, method and means to produce the architecture that expressed my interests and ideas. It was a simple approach which first generated a catalog of simple primitive geometries which could be aggregated and operated upon to create a number of strange object-like follies. It represented a shift in thinking about spaces to thinking about objects and their implications for space. 

I wish I had been better read and in touch with architectural theory and pedagogy. During my thesis I was simultaneously absorbing as much architectural discussion and discourse as I could through lectures, journals and essays. 

Another key moment was a time-specific moment, an 'oh-shit' moment when I realized that I had to start making stuff for real. Under the tutelage of my advisor, I had always planned to make a large physical model and had planned to begin production on that about six weeks before final review. It was at this point, that everything became 'for keeps' and I had to physicalize my ideas and no longer had the safety net of CTRL+Z'.     

What do you wish you would have known before your thesis?

I wish I had been better read and in touch with architectural theory and pedagogy. During my thesis I was simultaneously absorbing as much architectural discussion and discourse as I could through lectures, journals and essays. I wish that I had placed more significance in doing so in the years before so that I already had all that knowledge and those references in my toolkit from the beginning. 

During school, it can sometimes seem counterproductive to invest time in reading that pulls away from studio and design, but the ability to position a project within the discourse, both in terms of history and contemporary dialogue is very important, more so for a thesis than any other project in one's academic career. 

What other Thesis projects were on your radar?

My thesis advisor at USC was Yaohua Wang of Preliminary Research Office so from the beginning I was looking at both his thesis projects from SCI-Arc and the GSD, in particular, Latent City from SCI-Arc. Because of this influence, I was looking to other thesis projects from the GSD and SCI-Arc that had similarly been published or received academic awards.

Based on my own thesis and my interest in architecture as it stands at the intersection of social, cultural and political factors I also looked to projects coming out of Europe at schools like Bartlett and the AA. For me, these projects engaged the discipline differently to projects emerging from the US and particularly resonated with me, given my project's location in São Paulo, Brazil.

A specific thesis I came across and took an interest in was a project called Amazonia Pier, by a designer Julien Nolin, which took a fantastical approach to free trade in the Brazilian amazon through a reinterpretation of manufacturing and production. 

I was fortunate to have a few select younger mentors at USC, who had relatively recently been through their own thesis, both on the west coast and the east coast and represent a new age of academia and architectural pedagogy. 

 
How did your institution help or guide you through thesis?

Not only did my program have a specific thesis structure with a specified list of deliverables, my graduating class was a large cohort working on similar themes with significant parallels and overlap from one project to another. While there are many different opinions when it comes to the degree of freedom and independence which should be afforded to a thesis project, the specificity of our program intended to bring each thesis into a common conversation. I found this to be beneficial in situating my own project within the discipline and a broader conversation about architecture. 

Moreover, while I was studying under a single thesis advisor I was fortunate that being part of such a large class, afforded me a large range of faculty to draw upon, bringing together different academic and professional backgrounds. Additionally, I was fortunate to have a few select younger mentors at USC, who had relatively recently been through their own thesis, both on the west coast and the east coast and represent a new age of academia and architectural pedagogy. 

What do you wish could have been different?

It's always interesting to look at how different schools structure their thesis programs and the results and projects that emerge from them. Our thesis program at USC is very heavily invested in grounding the theses to traditional architectural discourse. As such, the results are more traditional projects. 

Although grateful for this experience and a project which engaged a more traditional architectural conversation, I wish I could do another thesis, one which could explore how architecture can manifest and intersect with other disciplines, be it art, technology or sculpture and where the final product isn't necessarily a traditional piece of architecture. I feel like such projects are afforded different freedoms and liberties. I wish I had the chance to do a second thesis and go down the rabbit-hole, see how or if I could come up, and see what discoveries or relevance it could have to architecture if any? 

If you could do this again, what would you change?

I don't think that there is that much that I would change if I could do it again. Of course, I wish I had more time and could have produced twice as much work, with twice as much development and refinement. But nonetheless, Architecture is a field where there is always more to be done.

Nevertheless, if I were to do this again I would try to do it with fewer preconceptions and visions for how it might turn out, as difficult as that may be. One's own individual thesis carries a certain attachment, a certain bias and personal investment which makes maintaining a critical distance difficult. Everyone aims for the perfect project, but it is the 'imperfect' project which is sometimes most interesting. 

What do you think the current state of Thesis is within Architecture and how can it improve? 

Every school seems to have its own stance and attitude towards what an architectural thesis should be. My program has a very specific approach that begins with an architectural reference from history, which establishes a yardstick for the thesis that follows. Initially, I was skeptical about a thesis with such specificity, one that was seemingly bound and rigid, but I came to appreciate its tighter focus, developing a newfound understanding that a thesis isn't wholly about originality and difference. It may ask a question, but its answer may not be an answer, but rather another question, another direction or another lens. 
In this regard, my experience only made me realize how broad and diverse the premise of a thesis is within the current state of architectural academia. There are so many things which may be uncovered from a thesis, so much discovery and so many ways in which it can contribute to one's own pedagogy and place within the discipline. This is something I hope preserves through academia as it offers a chance for an extended exploration of a project, a different lens through which to interrogate an idea that may not be possible with any other studio, a very personal lens.

As a consumer of architecture across different media the academic products that I take notice off are almost always thesis projects. It is thesis projects which seem to be most published in journals, blogs and referenced in academia. This is proof of their validity and significance and although some institutions may place diminishing significance on thesis it still represents the pinnacle in academia for students and faculty alike, with the these being produced now seems just as relevant as those that have come before. 

So, with that in mind, I don't necessarily know how it could be improved, but rather given the appropriate time and weight to allow ideas to ruminate and discoveries be made.