The Book as Site: Alternative Modes of Representing and Documenting Architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Architectural space is usually documented in the form of orthographic projections, that is, plan, section and elevation drawings, with perspective and three-dimensional models. These render the space in a particular way and hence, have limitations and specificity. The artist’s book – that is, a book made as an original work of art, with an artist or architect as author – offers a different mode of presenting documentation and reading representation. This thesis examines the potential for the documentation of space by coupling the artist’s book with the content of post factum architectural documentation. Through an examination of the relationship between the drawing, the building and the book, and various case studies, the potentiality of the book as a site for architecture is examined. This thesis proposes the artist’s book as a complementary, three-dimensional architectural representation with a generational and propositional role within the design process. This examination repositions books within an expanded notion of the design process, which displaces the built object as the endpoint of this process, and investigates the critical facility of artists’ books. The creative work presented for examination comprises three artists’ books – 'Mies van der Rohe: Built Houses'; 'Ise Jingū: Beginning Repeated'; and '$1.45¢: Houses in the Museum Garden: Biography of an Exhibition' – which operate as case studies, within the text. These works are informed by the research of the dissertation and frame the reading of this text. Three other works, undertaken through the course of the study, are also presented, and further explore the ideas presented in the textual enquiry of the thesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".