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 Zahra Safaverdi, Recipient of Harvard Graduate School of Design's James Templeton Kelley Prize.

What is the thesis? 

Frames with their latent ability to exist in two paradoxical mode of existence simultaneously, that of separation and that of connection, have the capacity to expand and become a place of in betweenness and a state of limbo. This thesis is essentially testing out a way to construct an alternative way of space making to blur the vivid line between real and imagery by taking advantage of frame’s dual status as separator and connecter. St Patrick’s church located in Soho, London is the physical context. This neoclassical church is built on top of what used to be the ballroom for an 18th century mansion, famous for its lavish masquerade balls and dreamlike soirées. In this speculative construct, The church turns into an empty shell: A restricted playground to test out different affects and architectural atmosphere and a container to be stuffed with three latent realities juxtaposed next to each other via an expanded frame. These latent realities are consist out of three main imagery realms each of which representing a cardinal direction in architecture and reviving a lost element from late 18th century London. The element which connects these heterogenous imagery worlds to each other is a continuous topological frame which has been expanded to become occupy able. This framing system holds everything together while separating them.

What was your inspiration to do the thesis?

Finding a way to make connection between incompatible worlds.

How did it change over the course of the process?

My proposal, connecting one incompatible imagery world to another, and the device I chose, farms with spatial qualities as liminal zones, remained the same; however, over the course of the thesis the context I was framing my argument changed identity. Initially, I was grounding those incompatible world within the context imagination; as the mechanism that receives the data, schematizes it, and makes an image out of it. The further I went it narrowed down and became very specific to something more tangible like an image as opposed to imagination.

What is other angels do you want to continue working on?

Looking back now, I realize the take away is that I’m not looking for sensical or rational connection between these incompatible worlds, I’m looking for a rational and consistent way of looking at the image. These feral frames are essentially spatial devices inviting one to consider a situation where one could step in and out the pictorial realm. I’m interested to see in what other ways these spatial / pictorial devices could manifest themselves. 

How does your thesis fit within the discipline?

Boiling it down to one sentence, my thesis tries to propose a niche in which spaces could serve a certain function. It’s architecture as such 

How How do you see this thesis progressing into your career?

Retrospectively speaking, I see these frames as one way of thinking through moves in and out of representation as a productive working process; however, the eventual goal is to pose a question of what if we could get inside of an image. Those frames have became part of a bigger ensemble. I’m using this ensemble as a pictorial device to take the audience on a fantastical decent to different universes each image open up for them. By using this device, the claim that I’m making is not about having a certain forms or particular aesthetic affiliation. My claim is that the image gives us an easy way to fall between different worlds to the point where it is possible to fall easily from the most domestic interior space essentially into another world … and the fall does not have to be antagonistic.

What were the key moments within your thesis

I was hoping the subject of my research work could become a platform to jump start a longer trajectory. Having that in mind, I saw this thesis as an opportunity to gather as much as feedback as I could. Every meeting and every presentation was a key moment helping me go forward in the right direction.

What other thesis projects were on your radar

Simultaneously with my thesis, I was taking a media theory seminar in the faculty of art and science. The class size was small, even by seminar standards. The professor held an audition at the begging of the semester to curate a collective with dissertation topics ( thesis in my case) most relevant to the course and relatable to one another.  Every person from that seminar was coming from a different background. We had someone from the media lab at MIT, a visiting post doctorate student from Rome, someone finishing up a phd in anthropology, an architecture student from the design school, me, and so on. During our weekly meetings, we’d not only discuss the topic of the week and assigned readings, but also check on the progress of each person’s semester long paper. I found something relatable and exciting in each topic presented by members of the seminar and it was a pleasure following the evolution of each concept. I like to think I was pretty consistent with the progress of my work but everyone’s relentless rigor in that seminar motivated me to work harder. 

How did your institution help or guid you through thesis

Having done this thesis in a research based institution where the primary goal is production of knowledge and extending the periphery of scholarly material further, turned out to be fruitful. Aside from great resources, from vast literary materials to our fabrication lab, professors were also accessible and willing to make time in their schedule for a meeting to share their point of view and help guiding the research to a productive direction. My advisor, above all, had a great role to make the thesis year meaningful and productive. Although this work was a thesis and self driven in nature, we had weekly meeting to check the progress and discuss topics that I found relevant to my research. I’d record our meetings and go over it the day after to note topics that I missed. Those meeting minutes are amongst the most valuable take aways from my thesis. There were certain weeks that the design process was too agonizing, moments of self doubts too often, and the research would go nowhere new; however, after every meeting with my advisor I’d walk out feeling inspired realizing that I’ve actually taken huge steps forward. 

 What do you wish could have been different

This might not seem directly related to my thesis as it is related to a seminar I took a year prior, but a thesis is a work long in making. In hindsight, I should have taken more advantage of that seminar as I realize, now, what I did for its final project, or rather the process of image making that I developed for the final project, became an instrumental piece in the development of my argument for my thesis. 

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

Probably my final presentation. I would spend a little less time reading over dense material and a little more time showing each detailed drawings and curious moments in analog models.  

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

Every institution approaches thesis so differently that I’m afraid any comment I make would end up being premature and overgeneralized. This says something about the current state of thesis within architecture discipline. For better or worse, it is eclectic …