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 Zack Matthews about his thesis titled, Untitled 01 170219.

What is the Thesis?

The purpose of this thesis is to re-tool the space of a contemporary social condenser through highly perceptual means, by generating a repertoire of spatial composition that enhance non-virtual social exchange - a pleasure progressively inaccessible without technology. How does contemporary public space augment social transactions for a culture who now only needs a smartphone to do so? By revisiting the masterful perceptual distortions seen in 17th century painting, these effects were abstracted, investigated and materialized as new possibilities for interior, collective space of the contemporary culture.

Caravaggio’s Seven Works of Mercy was the subject of investigation for the thesis, because for me it was the pinnacle of interactivity with figure and space via non-digital means. What elements are at play in The Seven Works of Mercy, that lead figures to distort and blur to their utmost limits? What makes the interactive tension? Inventing a repertoire of perceptual architectural elements that could choreograph this tension was the thesis.

What was the inspiration for the Thesis?

The largest inspiration takes form as a desire I had for the work. A thesis most often seems to be represented as a manifest destiny; a movement forward. For me, the desire to develop new work and a personal repertoire was a goal, but in addition to that, the thesis served as a moment of retrospective opportunity. Desire to rationalize subconscious tendencies and habits that had been developing in past work up until that point was the second part of that main inspiration.

There were less introspective inspirations which existed as well. As Untitled 01 170219 commented on media and technological saturation in contemporary culture, the work quite literally took cues from current media that kept me generally inspired at the time. Kendrick Lamar’s “Untitled Unmastered” was one of those references.

A thesis most often seems to be represented as a manifest destiny; a movement forward. For me, the desire to develop new work and a personal repertoire was a goal, but in addition to that, the thesis served as a moment of retrospective opportunity. 

More playful inspirations were challenging tropes of the GSD. In addition to the general value blackness has to the thesis for example, what would it mean to have a high-gloss, all black model in a school where the typical output is a matte, all-white model? Also, at a time when the school was transitioning from Scott Cohen’s project to Inaki Abalos’ project of thermodynamics, it seemed that any discussion around form was taboo. I wasn’t afraid to have that discussion, because my thesis was about formalizing perceptual elements in Baroque painting. This attitude around form in an anti-form moment took shape in a few different ways. If you look closely at some of the model photographs you will see that a large surface area of the work is a representation of a single ear. Ears were extremely important to Caravaggio's work, because they were used as benchmarks for heads of figures that were otherwise indistinguishable in other parts of the composition. Designing this ear into the thesis statement of my work was an ode to the work of Caravaggio, but ultimately represented a playfulness with form that summed up my attitude in a place where that discussion was seemingly fleeting.

How did it change over the course of the process?

The core of the thesis existed from the beginning. “Re-charging” contemporary public space using reinterpretations of highly perceptual Baroque compositional techniques was always the manifest of any move during thesis. The basis never changed. The thing that occurred over the course of the process however, was an ability to tune the work with more complexity, more intent, and more criticality. The design portion of a thesis most often takes the same amount of time of a regular design studio, yet theses have a lot more pieces in motion. It is extremely personal. The student working on it is naturally baking in personal affinities, attitudes, messages, and idiosyncrasies. Thesis is a luxury of having an uninterrupted amount of time enveloped in personal work that should be taken advantage of.

How does your thesis fit within the discipline?

Soon after my first semester at the GSD, a friend forwarded me an essay in LOG 30; “Can Tectonics Grasp Smoothness?” written by Wes Jones. This essay set up the criteria for the question above - how new work can effectively contribute to the thread of the discipline.

The essay asks whether new technology and the collateral techniques are only flexing formal possibilities instead of answering the question of its limitations. How is the built object put together using the new technique - what is its current relevance to architecture? In Jones’ words, “Tectonics first asks the selfish question about what the new material or technique can offer architecture, how it might enlarge the discipline. But then it turns the question around: How is the candidate already like architecture?  What internal discipline of its own does the material or process obey to thrive in this new architectural environment?”[1]

Untitled 01 170219 is interested in developing a formal and material repertoire by reinterpreting Baroque painterly techniques under the scrutiny of new forms of technology. As mentioned earlier, the discoveries from reinvestigation into Baroque composition aim to bring the obscurisms, distortions, and morphologies behind the visual sensations of works, such as Caravaggio’s The Seven Works of Mercy, to contemporary public space. For a highly visual, interactive culture, the interactivity experienced in Baroque painting for example, is seen as an avenue to “up” the interactive capacities of architecture - a quality seen as a necessity to better communicate or engage culture whose common currency is visual media, imagery, digital screens, etc.

This however, does not yet answer Jones’ condition to creating a new spatial technique - the condition of its limitations native to architecture, how it is already like architecture and what it can offer to architecture.

Baroque composition is involved heavily with the manipulation of light, boundary, and mass. For example, Chiaroscuro is a manipulation of light typical to Baroque painting where high-contrast atmospheres are made to obscure and blur the mass of choreographed subjects. The tectonic of the painting - the structure behind the experience of the scene, the assembly of form in light are all highly architectural.  A long-threaded discourse has been formed around architecture as this specific ensemble. Corbusier’s canonical quote in Towards an Architecture, “Architecture is the masterly, correct and magnificent play of masses brought together in light.” is just one line explaining the existing discussion. Untitled 01 170219 continues this dialogue and critically engages architecture as it manifests from a contemporary social issue.[2]

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

The unforeseen discovery was the process itself. As the thesis was about harvesting painterly and perceptual elements from Baroque painting and reinterpreting these into spaces for the contemporary subject, there was a necessary yet undefined process of identifying these elements, analyzing them, testing them, and then formalizing them. Furthermore, as there were multiple “elements” identified in the painting that the thesis wanted to work with (Gradient, Blur, Contour, and Folding), there was an additional layer of process in combining these to space-make. As the thesis was a chance to retrospectively rationalize tendencies and habits of past work, it was just as important proclaiming a Project around processing these identified highly perceptual “elements” into space and an Architecture.

How do you see this thesis progressing into your career/ What other angles do you want to continue working on?

The biggest discovery was process and the collateral repertoire of elements that came from this. At the time the thesis was presented, the elements were designed into the first combination; (Untitled 01). After having time to work each element more, each has assumed different roles depending on the context in which they are tested, proving the ability of the repertoire. Having the framework of the spatial tectonic in place, further deployment of the combinatorics of immaterial elements is something that has already progressed into new work and which will continue to develop.

What were the key moments within your thesis?

One key moment which was quite significant for the thesis was the midterm jury. Other than speaking with an advisor, this is one of the first times the work is placed in front of others to discuss. There are inherent gaps and leaks with what you are saying as well as with what you are showing. At least that was the case for me, because the thesis was the first manifestation of new ideas coming together. It would be too soon for an idea to be totally graspable. So, I remember the review being a bit of a struggle to piece together certain components in order to receive critique. As warranted, comments were equally coarse, where it became hard to parse out helpful feedback that was related to what I was trying to say.

There was one member of the jury who was taking notes on her phone and ended up emailing her notepad to me after the final review. She fully got it. The note was a roadmap of points that needed clarification, points that were or weren’t there, etc. If it weren’t for her, I do not believe I would have received from the mid-review the perspective necessary in developing the work the way it needed to. Using the rest of the semester to further develop the work as well as to include those points that this specific critic offered, only helped develop a sounder foundation around the ideas. These ideas are what you leave the institution with, so having more sturdy ground is invaluable moving forward.

What do you wish you would have known before thesis?

It is hard to wish that I knew any of what I know now before the thesis, because for me the thesis was much about an unscripted process. What I wanted the final work to be, what conversations I was going to have, how I wanted to represent the idea, were all unknowns. Having these unknowns, I found the most excitement in the unanticipated moments, overlaps, leaks, and questions. These questions required responses, and all of those novel responses ultimately led to discovery that would have not been found if I knew the questions prior.

What other thesis projects were on your radar?

Every single project of our thesis class was on my radar. Although each thesis in the GSD was extremely unique and not appearing to be like your own, being a part of the collective energy that everyone shared was a pinnacle experience. The studio was always packed, and everyone was plugged in. Because all your classmates were on one open floor of Gund Hall, work was out, and seeing the level of drive and production of others pushed my work further. It was extraordinary being in a space where inspiration came naturally because there was so much quality work around.

How did your institution help or guide you through thesis?

Close reading of Baroque painting and composition is not an avenue that would have much life at any institution. At the GSD, as well as the larger University however, people who have spent their careers work developing research around these topics are a room away. The knowledge is easily accessible, and there are endless resources within an arm's reach.

Each thesis is shuttled in and out. It is sad for the thesis student to have a window of one hour to “install”, present, conduct a discussion. At this point the sensation is equal to any other studio, and it really devalues thesis in general. This moment was the epitome of institution-as-machine, and it was disappointing to have this realization during a thesis final jury - a moment which is perhaps the most personal to a thesis student over the course of their life at the school. 

The specific painting I was reading was Caravaggio’s The Seven Works of Mercy. Ironically enough, during the thesis semester, there was a seminar focused specifically on Caravaggio in Harvard’s History of Art and Architecture department. Although the timing seemed ironic, it is those opportunities that are always around and endorse an institution’s role in contributing to one’s personal design research, whether it is in the specific school or not.

What do you wish could have been different?

There is one difference that comes to mind that does not have to do with the work, but rather the scale of the institution. The life of your thesis within the school exists no longer than the closing remarks of your review. Essentially a yearlong effort of research and work is boiled down to a maximum of one hour. At the GSD, space is limited while the roster of students is large. Each thesis is shuttled in and out. It is sad for the thesis student to have a window of one hour to “install”, present, conduct a discussion. At this point the sensation is equal to any other studio, and it really devalues thesis in general. This moment was the epitome of institution-as-machine, and it was disappointing to have this realization during a thesis final jury - a moment which is perhaps the most personal to a thesis student over the course of their life at the school. A wish I have for current and future thesis students, is that the school helps facilitate a showcase where life of the work in the institution can live past the final jury.

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

Finding a definitive answer for this question is proving itself difficult. I still feel very much in the wake of conversations with my advisor, with the final jury comprised of many formative mentors, and with close colleagues. Ideas and discoveries in the work are still very much in a state of becoming. A stasis has not been reached where it is possible for me to identify things I would change - I hope to never get there.

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

Trying to evaluate a singular definition of Thesis in Architecture is difficult, because families of theses take so many different forms depending on the institution you are looking at. Some theses are more technical, proving proficiency at the culmination of school, some are more projective and are aimed at teeing up a larger Project, and some are not theses at all.  Schools like USC are using nomenclature such as “degree project” instead of “thesis” for their undergraduate students.  During my undergraduate course at USC, there was one advisor that was discouraging me to call my thesis a thesis because it did produce the level of scientific research necessary in developing a thesis in a STEM based focus, for example. It was ridiculous and surprising that a well-regarded critic within a school of architecture could even foster this attitude. For me this is where a small crisis still lies.

I look to institutions like SCI-Arc which are very much thesis-based schools. There are systems in place that not only encourage students to develop towards a thesis, but also provide support in preparing all students to make a statement specific to them. It shows through in an indisputable level of production and care around the delivery of a thesis presentation. Models like these are references for improvement. If a school wants to cultivate energy around thesis work, it is absolutely possible.  Having critics who help cultivate that interest is the first step.

[1] Jones, Wes. "Can Tectonics Grasp Smoothness?" Log, no. 30 (February 2014): 29-42.

[2] Corbusier, Le, and Frederick Etchells. Towards a New Architecture. Connecticut: Martino Publishing, 2014.