A goal (from a manifold) of my graduation project is to fluidify the traditionally rigid boundary between process and product. This implies to leave the hierarchical mode of concept driven essentialist architecture. Instead, I want to make a shift towards the non-hierachical ecological(ontologically flat) field of potential(context), from where the objectile becomes. This ecological praxes might, as Gilles Deleuze explains, “be defined as a search to identify in each partial locus of existence the potential vectors of subjectification and singularization.”1 It is about getting rid of the preconceived mind to find the difference that makes the difference. The process is best describe like the notion of “walking as controlled falling”. I am set in motion by a particular desire. To fulfill this desire I will have to move. To move is to go through a “phase transition” which enables new discoveries. “Walking as controlled falling” is surrendering to constraints like gravity and those of your body, whilst having a certain degree of freedom. As Brian Massumi explains, “you move forward by playing with the constraints, not avoiding them. There’s an openness of movement, even though there’s no escaping constraint.”2 It is about the reciprocal determination between freedom and constraint that can only be found upon experimentation. Inevitably there will be mistakes, as risk implies both success and failure. But without risk, there will neither success nor failure and the project will end up in a state of aesthetic purgatory! How can I to avoid this? Bruno Latour would give me the following anwser: “Drawing and modelling do not constitute an immediate means of translation of the internal energies and fantasies of the architect’s mind’s eye, or a process of transferring ideas from a designer’s mind into a physical form, from a powerful “subjective” imagination into various “material” expressions. Rather, the hundreds of models and drawings produced in design form an artistically created primal matter that stimulates the haptic imagination, astonishes its creators instead of subserviently obeying them, and helps architects fix unfamiliar ideas, gain new knowledge about the building- to-come, and formulate new alternatives and “options,” new unforeseen scenarios of realization.”3 It is about problem finding instead of problem solving. It is not about judging content at face value. It is about findingthe intent which makes content.4 It is about thinking in the relationality between objects which allows for a manifold of interpretations, thus, affords a different (or similar) outcome. It is about searching. To search in the field of potential is to discover. Rediscover. Doubt. Decide. Doubt. And Make! It means to integrate and embrace all possible constraints early in the project. It means, for example, no fundamental hierarchical difference between the installations or urban environment. It is truly about beeing in the middle. About the milieu. About everything at once at the same time!5 NOTES 1. Felix Guattari, The Three Ecologies, 1989 Continuum, P. 4 2. Brian Massumi, Mary Zournazi, Zournazi Massumi Interview 3. Bruno Latour, Albena Yaneva, “GIVE ME A GUN AND I WILL MAKE ALL BUILDINGS MOVE”, 2008, Birkhäuser, P. 84 4. Richard Sennet, Quant www.richardsennet.com 5. From this “phase space” research question can come to light. These questions would not necessarily need to be resolved, however (and more importantly), they need a thorough quasi-objective investigation. My most recent question, for example, investigates the possibilities to translate the positive spatial conditions of a field condition into a vertical diagram. It could be that there is no “ultimate” resolution or model to do this. However, the investigation can trigger new questions, thus, cascade into an entirely new vision. This vision could not have been envisioned if the original question had not been asked.