80 EAAE no 35 Teaching and Experimenting with Architectural Design: Advances in Technology and Changes in Pedagogy
course, they have differences: differences that stem from the approach of the “actuali-
zation”. It seems to me that the differences between the two perspectives are stronger
than their similarities. This is of course true. It is true, if we limit ourselves within our
personal, subjective world, enclaved within the point of the teacher, as a self-deter-
mined factor. This happens, because we forget the “hetero-determined” factor, which is
appeared without any programming, without any intention, at least from the teacher’s
view point. This happens, because we as teachers, preoccupying with our own subjec-
tivity, forget that the proposed educational “play” has another part too. We forget the
other part: the part of student’s subjectivity. But if we owe something, epistemologically
speaking in terms of the new perspective of the educational process of the architectural
design, this is owed to the student’s subjectivity: the “differentiating” perspective stems
exclusively from the student’s desire. Their own desire has urged them to develop in the
form of a proposal the “topological and the virtual”. We just accept it. Lets not forget
them again. Lets not forget the “other”. It is needles of course to say, that the “other”
is the only hope, and not only in terms of the gender perspective.
Bibliography
Agrest D. (1991) Architecture from without. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Benedict M. (1991) Deconstructing the Kimbell. NYNY: The Site Books.
Bennington G. (1989) "Deconstruction is not what you think", in Papadakis et al., Deconstruc-
tion. London: Academy.
Colomina, B. (ed.) (1992a). Sexuality and Space. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Papers on Architec-
ture.
Colomina, B. (1992b). “War on Architecture”, Assemblage 20, pp. 28-29.
Colomina, B (199). Privacy and Publicity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
De Landa “Deleuze, diagrams and the genesis of form”, pp. 30-3, in Any. Diagram work, 23.
Deleuze G. (199) Difference and repetition. NY NY: Columbia University Press.
Di Cristina G. (2001) “The topological tendency in architecture”, pp. 7-13, in Di Cristina G. (ed)
Architecture and science, West Sussex: Wiley – Academy.
Eisenman P. (1982) House X. NY NY: Rizzoli, pp. 33-160.
Foreign Of f ice Architects ltd, Polo-Polo A.Z & Moussavi F. (1997) «The production of the vir-
tual», in Sakamura K., Suzuki H. (eds) The virtual architecture. Tokyo: Tokyo University Digital
Museum.
Johnson B. (transl.) (1981) "Introduction" in Derrida J. Dissemination. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Langer B. (2001) “The house that Gilles built”, pp. 2-69, in Ablsolute motion. Datutop, 22
Spring.
Picon A. (2003) “Architecture, science, technology, and the virtual realm”, pp. 292-313, in Picon
A. & Ponte A. (eds) Architecture and the sciences. Exchange metaphors. Princeton NJ: Prin-
ceton University Press.
Sellers S. (ed.) (1988) Writing Differences. Readings from the Seminars of H.Cixous. Milton Keynes:
Open University Press.
Tentokali V. (1999) "A play with the achitecture of the social 'absence'", in Kaiji L., Youguo Q.,
Lingling Z. (eds) Architecture in the 21st Century. Academic Treatises, Vol. 2, (Proceedings of
The XXth UIA Congress Beijing '99), The Architectural Society of China. Beijing: Baihua, June
23-26, pp. 307-311.