“An Artificial Science of Architecture” by Philip Steadman

1. I find the conception of the “Science of the Artificial” quite interesting and very relevant; however I start to have doubts when it begins to set up a guide for how to design. The role of “Artificial Science” in my opinion be that of a functional and historical analysis, not rules regarding the future of design.
2. I found this reading very difficult to care about. I believe this was a result of the intense descriptions of the scientific methods undertaken during the research and the relatively dry results that followed.
3. The biological analogy of allometry to the built environment was a very curious idea, but was totally undercooked. The work seemed to just be a categorizing of  buildings considering a space to wall ratio, with illumination acting as the driving force. In no way did they suggest or research a proportionally growing or living space, which is a far more interesting subject.

“Even More than Architecture” by Richard Coyne

1. Yet again the phrase “Master of None” has been used in regards to the Architect. Is our pursuit of outside knowledge leading to a perception in the field that we have no overarching skillset? We are masters in the field of Architecture, why are we not accepting of this role?
2. Researchers are having to take away time from their research in order to publish or post their work. I feel as though to a certain degree this is actually a positive, despite the time removed from research you begin to set hard deadlines and produce a series of documented process points that can keep people more genuinely  engaged in the research and ensure a culmination to the work.
3. Have keyword and other internet search techniques weakened the thoroughness of research. When one is able to immediately consume a quote or single chapter of a book, is the research then diluted to merely what you initially desired it to be and not truly genuine research?