Poiesis or semiosis in architectural design practice

Abstract

We inquire into architectural design theory1 to find ways out of the gridlocks thatoccur in the design process. When mining for guidance, it becomes clear that - toparaphrase biosemiotician Victoria N. Alexander - ‘we need to better understand creativity (poietics) to supplement and enhance our understanding of already established habit (semiotics).’ (Alexander, 2013) Knowing the difference between a habitual association and a radical novelty allows us to define convention and invention more accurately. It leads to an important implication for architectural design theories. We will learn that prescriptive theory that intends to provide direct solutions - or positive feedback - can only instruct on conventional design decisions- already-established habits. By implication, if we want prescriptive theory to guide toward innovating design ideas it can only do so by reflecting on what creativity isconstrained by. Thus, an essential part of theory should provide negative feedback and address clearly what not to do, which conventions should be put up for debate,both on an individual level as well as on the level of the discipline.