THEORY BY DESIGN CONFERENCE / OCTOBER 2012 ANTWERP

Notes
1

The diiculties for the inspired educator in

relation to this paradox seem obvious: 1) What is
the purpose of education if we cannot be sure
what knowledge really is and 2) How can we
teach anything if we ourselves have no possession
of this knowledge?

Virtue is discussed in Meno (96c), Protagoras

(319b) and Euthydemus (274e). At one point in
Protagoras, Socrates claims that virtue is
knowledge (361b).

This tacit way of knowing things should not be

confused with phronesis (), what we
would today call the intelligence or practical
wisdom, which Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics
(Book VI: Ch.4 1140b5) separated from wisdom
() as it does not lead to true knowledge.

References

One of the most entertaining examples of tacit

knowledge is probably the one presented by
Brown, J. R. (2005):
Expert chicken sexers are remarkable people.
They can classify day old chicks into male and
female with 98% accuracy, and they can do this
at a rate of about 1000 per hour...The skill is
considered economically important if you want
to feed those chicks who will eventually become
egg-layers, but not the others. How do
chicken-sexers do it? The ability to correctly
classify is so diicult that it takes years of training
in order to achieve the rare expert level; this
training largely consists of repeated trials... It
seems that expert chicken sexers were not aware
of the fact that they had learned the contrasting
features, nor were they aware of the exact
location of the distinguishing information... The
crucial thing to note is that the experts had some
sort of tacit understanding of where to look and
what to look for. It may seem that chicken-sexing
is similar to riding a bicycle. We may all know
how to do it, but we cant say what it is that we
know. These two diferent types of knowing are
usually called knowing how and knowing
that. (p.63)

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, The

Basic Works of Aristotle (1941). New
York: Random House
Badiou, A. (2005). Ininite Thought,
London: Continuum
Brown, J.R. (2005). Naturalism, Pictures,
and Platonic Intuitions. In Mancosu, P.,
Jrgensen, K.F. & Pedersen, S. (Eds.),
Visualization, Explanation and
Reasoning Styles In Mathematics (pp.
57-72). Springer, Netherlands

THEORY BY DESIGN

When considering unlearning as the consolidation of the brain function psychologists refer to it
as reverse learning

Research and experimental development

(R&D) comprise creative work undertaken on a
systematic basis in order to increase the stock of
knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture
and society, and the use of this stock of
knowledge to devise new applications.
(FRASCATI MANUAL, OECD 2002, p. 30)

Dilemma () = An ambiguous
proposition (Liddell, H.G. & Scott, R.,1940)

Aporia () = No passage, diiculty,

puzzlement (Liddell et.al., 1940)

For example: I do not see how normal works of

practice can be regarded as works of research
(Cross, 1999, p.9)

10

An extract from the chapter of students thesis

aimed at relecting on the learning experience.
(All photos and drawings by Yvonne O Driscoll.)

11

Grassi, E. (1962). Die Theorie des

Shnen in der Antike, Kln: Schauberg,
Serbian transl. by Klajn, I. (1974).
Belgrade: SKZ

Plato. Phaedo, transl. by Fowler, H.N.

(1966). Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press; London: William
Heinemann

Liddell, H.G. & Scott, R. (1940). A

Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford

Plato, Protagoras, transl. by Lamb,

W.R.M. (1967). Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press; London: William
Heinemann

Panofsky, E. (1939, 1967 reprint) Studies

in Iconology: Neoplatonic Movement
and Michelangelo, Oxford University
Press

Cross, N. (2010). Designerly Ways of

Knowing, London: Springer

Pausanias, Description of Greece, transl.

by Jones, W.H.S. Litt.D. & Ormerod, H.A.
M.A. (1918). Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press; London: William
Heinemann

Frascati Manual (2002). OSCD, Paris,

France
Frayling, C. (1993/1994). Research in Art
and Design, Royal College of Arts,
Research papers, Vol. I, Number 1,
London

Plato, Euthydemus, transl. by Lamb,

W.R.M. (1967). Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press; London: William
Heinemann

Gadamer, H.G. (2001). Beginnings of

Philosophy, New York: Continuum

Plato, Meno, transl. by Lamb, W.R.M.

(1967). Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press; London: William
Heinemann

Glanville, R. (1999). Design Issues, Vol.

15, No. 2, Design Research, MIT Press,
pp. 80-91
36

philosophy

RE-SEARCH STUDIO
OR DO SEARCH TWICE,
ITS ALL RIGHT
An understanding of design processes in the studio through the work of Jacques Derrida
and Giorgio Agamben

Vela Castillo Jos

IE UNIVERSITY, ARCHITECTURE, SPAIN

According to Pausanias (Book 10. 24) seven wise

man have dedicated to the god Apollo famous
words at the temple in Delphi: know thyself
( )

O Driscoll, Y. (2012). How does

ambiguity afect the meaning of a
building? (Unpublished graduate paper).
Department of Architecture, Waterford
Institute of Technology, Ireland

Cross, N. (1999). Design Issues, Vol. 15,

No. 2, Design Research, MIT Press, pp.
3-10

narratives and

Plato. Republic, transl. by Shorey, P.

(1969). Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press; London: William
Heinemann
Plato. Sophist, transl. by White, N.P.
(1997). Complete works, Cooper, J.M.
(Ed.), Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis
Plato, Theaetetus, transl. by Shorey, P.
(1969). Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press; London: William
Heinemann
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind.
60th Anniversary Ed. (2009) New York:
Routledge

On. Say on. Be said on. Somehow on. Till nohow on. Said nohow on.
Say for be said. Missaid. From now say for be missaid.
Say a body. Where none. No mind. Where none. That at least. A place. Where none. For the body. To be in.
Move in. Out of. Back into. No. No out. No back. Only in. Stay in. On in. Still.
All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again.
Fail again. Fail better.
SAMUEL BECKETT, WORSTWARD HO

(fig. 1)

This paper will address the question of designing architecture through the vantage point of the praxis
in the design studio understood as a space of research. I use the word praxis here, as I hope it will be
clear at the end, not addressing a simple practice devoid of any theoretical relection neither as an
operation of a mere technical making. Instead, I refer with praxis to a kind of facere (the Latin word
that in some ways translates the Greek poiesis) akin to integrate both thinking and doing, or better
saying, thinking by doing. And this doing is no other thing that the dis-position of a paradigm. The
main theoretical frame is provided by the work of Jacques Derrida, some of whose key notions will be
worked out through the paper (Iteration, grafting, example), but I will also delve into the work of
Giorgio Agamben on the notion of paradigm.
To begin with, since the point is trying to unveil how research appears in the process of teaching (and
learning) in design studio, a irst glance at the word research is needed: research, re-search, as is
stated in the title, implies repetition. Then, in the irst place I will tackle this topic, the re- of the research through the concept of iteration.
37

THEORY BY DESIGN CONFERENCE / OCTOBER 2012 ANTWERP

1
City/London. Author:
Pablo Romn. Full
paradigm.

THEORY BY DESIGN

4
City/London. Author:
Pablo Romn. Building
of paradigm as model.
Grafting into place.

2
City/London. Author:
Pablo Romn. Grafting
into the city 1.

5
City/London. Author:
Pablo Romn. Building
the paradigm: iteration.
Section/cut 1.

3
City/London. Author:
Pablo Romn. Grafting
into the city 2.

In the second place I will approach how this work of research is not something made in a void, in the
immaculate space of the Academia, but it has implications into the real space of life and city where
architecture is projected. The key word here is graft, which implies con-text. (fig. 2)
Finally, Ill go through the main topic of this paper: the question of the paradigm and how and why
building a paradigm is in some ways synonymous of designing. Paradigm: both process and object
distinct from theory that implies researching and doing, the paradigm follows the double logic of exemplarity, proposing a model that only appears as such in the very act of its producing and that operates a double translation between particular and general.
I will illustrate the article with images that came from
the design studio I have been teaching those past years
under the heading teaching (re)iteration, in which
the students were confronted precisely with this topic
of iteration and with the building, physically, of something like a paradigm (and in which the present theoretical relection was irst articulated). Images are from
the work of two diferent students, and try to show the
work in the studio in its constant retracing. They do
not show a inal stage of the design, and if this is a conscious decision on my part, it nevertheless relects
closely the development of the work and its fundamental instability. The whole process allows a particular
paradigm to appear in each design. The paradigm,
then, is an individual one that informs a personal way
of approaching design (through line, through drawing,
through diagrams, models and so on) and emerges
from the process as a virtual dispositive that not being ixed in a speciic form, nevertheless seems perfectly recognizable. There is no direct correspondence, nevertheless, between the low of written and
graphic discourse, both trying to frame the other in an
impossible closed re-trait. (fig. 3)

Iteration
4

38

Fail more, fail again, fail better. Jacques Derrida introduces iterability in his thinking as one of the key
features of any given text (together with inscription,
absence of referent and spacing), charging the word
with a precise meaning in the context of his dialogue
with Austin and the problem of performativity1. In any
case, beyond that polemical relationship, the important trait that sustains iterability is, for Derrida, its capacity of introducing the notion of alterity inside the
question of the repetition. Iterability is, for one side,
the necessary capacity of signs in general of being repeated in any given situation, opening hence the possibility of meaning2. The recognition of this or that
sign in diferent contexts calls for the possibility of (its)
understanding. But, on the other side, as Derrida says,
iterability introduces alterity. Linking the preix iter,
that designates repetition, with Sanskrit itara that
means other (Derrida, 1982, 315), Derrida can cope
with the necessary diferentiation that is always at the

39

THEORY BY DESIGN CONFERENCE / OCTOBER 2012 ANTWERP

6
City/London. Author:
Pablo Romn. Building
the paradigm: iteration.
Section/cut 2.
7
City/London. Author:
Pablo Romn. Retracing
the paradigm: iteration.
Section/cut 3.
8
Pine Tree Forest
(homage to Ponge).
Author: Marta Nez.
First trait of the
paradigm: the
individuals and the net.

core of any repetition, given that, inally, the meaning of a sign is determined by its context, and the
context, by deinition, changes in every circumstance. Then, the grafting of any chain text into another, which is for Derrida the general process of writing, cant be enclosed by any context, and any previous understanding is modiied by the present context in which the sign appears. Iterability, then,
calls for repetition and variation. (fig. 4)
What is of interest for this paper is the general applicability of iteration in the process of design, in
which every sign as drawing trait is constantly oscillating between these poles: repetition of the same,
appearing of the new.
Trait/re-trait/erasure/trait, this constant process designates always the sign of an absence (of a given
meaning), marks the failure of any origin as origin and sets in motion the possibility of meaning in its
breaking with any given context, in its spacing as emergence of the mark (Derrida, 1982, 317). This
process of iteration opens the very possibility of the pro-jection of the (architectural) project, of the
repeated trait of the drawing. Iterability implies constant transformation, the acknowledgement of the
previous experience but also the discovering of the new. Design is
then conigured as an open process that develops its own internal
logic through repetition and that goes forward through a spiralling
movement from the initial sign or graph, one that tries to give a
irst answer to the proposed problem, to a never ending inal state3.
The studio provides the environment to experience this consuming process and allows relection through time to guide its construction. (fig. 5)
In its ininite but de-inite deferral and diferentiation, in its diferance, the process of design is always on the move, constantly oscillating between what is new and what is known. The construction of the inal design is not only the repetition of a previous
architectural project, an iteration of a proposed architecture idea
(or style) that is grafted into diferent contexts, but the arbitrary
cut that gives sense to the process precisely because it leaves open
the possibility of its continuous reworking (the process will never
end, even if eventually it is built). Building a project, building the
project as one builds his/her own subjectivity (Bildung) is, then,
the task of the student. As many times as necessary (ventriloquist
and repetiteur). Not only to get it right, until the impossible exhaustion of its possibilities, until inally the magic cloth, the always retraced tapestry of Penelope will show, wonderful mirror,
the image of Ulysses returned, but to get it meaningful inside the
limits the circumstances of the project (the context) set. (fig. 6)

THEORY BY DESIGN

9
Pine Tree Forest
(homage to Ponge).
Author: Marta Nez.
Second trait,
topography/canopy.
10
Pine Tree Forest
(homage to Ponge).
Author: Marta Nez.
Third trait, building the
model.

Grafting, the operation of the graft, is one of the diferent textual traits that Derrida works out in Dissemination, but more in general it is a key word in his vocabulary and his thought. Grafting describes
the operation of (general) writing through which a sign/chain text is inserted into another, and performs the general condition of meaning: To write means to graft. Its the same word says Derrida
(Derrida, 1981, 355).
The process of writing for Derrida implies always a certain incision into a text and the grafting of another text (and its grafting onto diferent contexts). But more in general, this is the process of signiication, and is also the process through which architecture is constructed, both in design and in reality. Because always happens that build architecture is inserted into the existing architecture of what
is given, into the dense network of a city or the loose ield of nature, but also into an economic and
political context4. And at the same time, in the moment of design, and as in any text, the irst trait of a
graph(ical) sign is always inserted into a previous context (even the white sheet of paper deines a
previous context), and from that point on develops itself in its iteration, triggering the beginning of a
new process that nobody knows how will evolve5. (fig. 8)
Of course, this incision, this cutting that grafting demands, implies a certain violence exercised upon
the scion (the receiver) but also implies the caressing of a constant gardener. Grafting implies both
the in-corporation of a strange body and the extraterritorial inference of the grafter. Who is who in
the design studio? In the design/project? There is a paradoxical symmetry in this operation: for one
side, the design, the project of architecture in the studio acts as an observation point, as an added
paragraph that comments on (and limits) the space of built architecture; and at the same time the
real space of architecture, the space of the city and of community, the political space in which architecture necessarily operates, undermines the purity of the academic space and grefes through a deep
cut unto the design studio (from the proposed program to be developed by the students to the research the students must make in real space site, plot, building codes, political systems etc. and
its eventual interventions in the form of performances,
direct activism and so on). So grafting behaves both
ways, illuminating both contexts. The work of the student, then, is a double work, that comes back and
forth from graph to graft6 in a continuous
process.(fig.9)
The graft then sets the design in motion, allows reality
be introduced as con-text into the process of design,
disjoints the initial graph and displaces and disjoints
any given and pre-existing order, generating, through
repetition/iteration, its own order.

Paradigm
Graft
The space of the design studio is a space in continuous transformation, submerged in the submarine light of the deferral/diferentiation open process. But it is also a political space: a critical one.
A space of resistance. Design studio is not the segregated outcome
of an elaborate theory apart from practice and apart from the political and economical frame in which (architecture) is immersed.
Apart from the Real. Because it provides its contexts, necessarily.
Design studio elaborates a deformed parasite tactic, implodes into
the Real (an extended lacanian concept that tries to grasp what is
beyond any signiication, what is outside the symbolic order and
hence is only accessible through an extended pragmatic operation,
like the one is done in the studio) through the igure of the graft.

Third point: the paradigm. In his book The Signature of All Things, Giorgio Agamben develops some
insights about methodological questions, some of
them of special relevance here. In the irst chapter,
What is a Paradigm?, he lays out a certain genealogy
of the paradigm that is of interest in our context of
praxis, and in fact seems to explain the operation of
what happens in the studio. In that reading, the paradigm ceases to be the immobile and transcendent igure the divine architect translates7 into sensible world
as the usual understanding states, and turns to be a
mobile and productive igure of knowledge, a disposi10

(fig. 7)
40

41

THEORY BY DESIGN CONFERENCE / OCTOBER 2012 ANTWERP

11
Pine Tree Forest
(homage to Ponge).
Author: Marta Nez.
Grafting into
the forest 1.
12
Pine Tree Forest
(homage to Ponge).
Author: Marta Nez.
Grafting into the forest
2, detail.
13
Pine Tree Forest
(homage to Ponge).
Author: Marta Nez.
Grafting into the forest
3. Section/cut.

tive that is the result of a production as production, one that is developed in its very deployment and,
specially an hybrid igure that consistently ills the gap between theory and practice as separate spaces.
(fig. 10)

As is known, Plato in the Timaeus makes Timaeus say that heaven was created after the pattern of
the Eternal Nature8; and the word he uses for pattern is paradeigma. The whole world, then, is
constructed by a demiourgos according a paradigm, one that acts as a transcendental and eternal
model. This model is beyond the world of common experience, and is only accessible through contemplation (or theoria), being a given set of rules that the craftsmen or architect only have to copy,
and in fact, that can only copy, because it is beyond any possible modiication. (fig. 11)
Nevertheless, at least two remarks must be done. For one side, the Greek word paradeigma can be
understood not only in the sense that seems to use Plato in the Timaeus, but also as a mutable
rhythm governing a pattern of movement, as I. Kagis McEwen (McEwen, 1993, 42) shows; which
implies that the paradigm is something that must be build and rebuild, that is in constant motion and
is not given beforehand. For the other, as Agamben quotes (Agamben, 2009, 22), the same Plato says
in the Statesmen (278c) that a paradigm is generated when an entity, which is found in something
other and separated in another entity, is judged and correctly recognized as the same, and having
been reconnected together generates a true and unique option concerning each and both. Hence,
and just from the beginning, the very concept of paradigm not only oscillates between the eternal and
the contingent, the given and the constructed, but in fact seems to be connected with a praxis that relates both worlds beyond the contemplation of any higher truth, demanding a productive intervention
on the part of the craftsman.

THEORY BY DESIGN

14
Pine Tree Forest
(homage to Ponge).
Author: Marta Nez.
Building the model 2.
15
City/London. Author:
Pablo Romn. Grafting
before the city 1.

Paradigm so understood is neither universal nor particular, but moves from singularity to singularity
(Agamben, 2009, 31). That relationship between singularities (between part and whole as part) shows
a direct relation with the result of a project of architecture. In that sense, paradigm implies iteration,
the mobile rhythm of a weaving that goes back and forth and is somehow the igure that operates the
grafting of one architecture into another as exemplar ones. (fig. 12)
The paradigm proceeds following the double logic of the example, the one that considers at the same
time the singularity of the exemplar and the multiplicity of the examples. An example that is paradigmatic, according to Agamben, deines the intelligibility of the set to which it belongs and at the same
which it constitutes (Agamben, 2002). This kind of logic can be traced to Kants Critic of Judgement
and his use of the example in the deinition of the aesthetical judgement as the example of a general
rule that nevertheless one cant produce (See Agamben, 2009, 20-21 and Derrida, 1988). As Derrida
will stress, an example is always singular, one example and hence something exemplar (that sets a
kind of rule of behaviour) and something general, another example, relating then singularities between them and not necessarily to a universality. This is important, because design proceeds in this
way: it proposes an answer to a given set of problem, one that is singular, but one that is always built
upon a logic of multiplicity relating diferent singularities without being universal. The work of the
students, hence, will always oscillate between these two poles. (fig. 13)
What inally emerges in the research of the project at the studio, in the production of the diferent examples or models as response to any given reality, is something like a contingent rule, but a rule that is
deduced or airmed in the deployment of the paradigmatic or exemplar case: ... the paradigm is not
already given, but instead the singularity becomes a paradigm (Agamben, 2002). And that happens
at the level of the individual (the design process of each student as the search for an answer proceeding through the construction of diferent models and its testing on
reality) and at the level of the whole studio, where the production of diferent design answers the original question (program)
through the proposal of as many rules as designs that nevertheless
can be considered as singular examples and general answers to that
(un)common rule that emerges in the collective process of design.
(fig. 14)

12

14

15

13

11

42

43

THEORY BY DESIGN CONFERENCE / OCTOBER 2012 ANTWERP

Notes
1

See the essay Signature, Event, Context, that

irst appeared in Margins of Philosophy the and
later was reprinted, in the context of a polemical
dialogue with J. Searle, in Limited Inc.

As soon as a sign emerges, it begins by repeating

itself. Without this, it would not be a sign, would
not be what it is, that is to say, the non-self
identity which regularly refers to the same.
(Derrida, 1978, 375).

That is the frame in which K. Michael Hays sets

himself when says, talking about the architecture
of Preston Scott Cohen but as a general
statement that to architect is necessarily to
repeat; the repetition of certain geometric
procedures contains experience, and experience
accumulates as architecture demonstrates its
present capacity for transformation, elaboration
and reconnection with other cultural materials
(Hays, 2010, 339). It is interesting to note the use
of the verb to architect, that is intended to
translate the Italian progettare (c.f. Note 1).

Peter Eisenman discusses precisely this question

of the triggering of a new architectural process in
terms of grafting in The End of the Classical.
The End of the Beginning, the End of the End.
In the broad context of the deinition of a
non-classical architecture, he deals with the
problem of origin and beginning, and of how to
begin in the present apart from the mythical
and value-laden origin of classical architecture.
In that context, grafting allows him to think this
beginning in terms of a new starting point
without value. Although his interest in the
graft is diferent from mine, it nevertheless points
to one important characteristic of the graft: its
being a site that contains motivation for an
action (Eisenman, 2004, 161).
Relationship between the incision (on paper) of
the graph and that (on reality) of the graft is
clearly recognized by Derrida: [...] graft and
graph (both from graphion: writing implement,
stylus) (Derrida, 1981, 202).

THEORY BY DESIGN

The question of translation poses also a very

interesting thread to follow; one that leads to
Benjamins concept of translation (as articulated
in The Task of Translator). Benjamins
remarks on the relationship between the
original text and the translated one as part
of some pure language seem to pose another way
of understanding the paradigm. Translation is
not a simple reproduction of (the content) of
some original into another language (so to say,
the translation in another media of an existing
paradigm), but the construction (or survival) of
this original as original. Hence, the paradigmatic
condition of the original is deconstructed and
called into question. This, of course, is
developed by Jacques Derrida, and also
expanded by Mark Wigley in relation with
architecture in his 1988 text The Translation of
Architecture, the Production of Babel.

philosophy

POST-COLONIAL TEXTUAL
NARRATIVE AS A PROGRAMME
FOR DESIGNING
LOCAL SPATIAL NARRATIONS

Plato, Timaeus, 38b.

Tseng Ching-pin
SHU-TE UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR DESIGN, TAIWAN

As Derrida would say, There is nothing before

the text; there is no pretext that is not already a
text (Derrida, 1981, 328).

References

narratives and

Agamben, G. (2009). The Signature of

All Things. On Method. New York: Zone
Books.

Derrida, J. (1981). Dissemination.

Chicago and London: The University of
Chicago Press.

Agamben, G. (2006). Che cos un

dispositivo? Roma: Nottetempo.

Derrida, J. (1982). Signature, Event,

Context. In Margins of Philosophy.
Chicago and London: The University of
Chicago Press.

Agamben, G. (2002). What is a

Paradigm? Lecture at European
Graduate School. Retrieved August 20,
2012, from http://www.egs.edu/faculty/
giorgio-agamben/articles/
what-is-a-paradigm/

Derrida, J. (1988). Limited Inc. Evanston

(IL): Northwestern University Press.
Derrida, J. (1987). Truth in Painting.
Chicago and London: The University of
Chicago Press.

Beckett, S. (1983). Worstward Ho.

Eisenman, P. (2004). The End of the

Classical. The End of the Beginning, the
End of the End. In Eisenman Inside Out.
Selected Writings 1963-1988. New
Haven and London: Yale University
Press.

Deleuze, G. (1991). What is a dispositif?

In Michel Foucault Philosopher. New
York: Routledge.
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and
Diference. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul Ltd.
44

Hays, K. M. (2005). Architecture by

Numbers. Praxis 7: Untittled Number
Seven, pp. 88-99. Reprinted in Sykes, A.
K., Ed (2010). Constructing a New
Agenda. Architectural Theory
1993-2009 (pp.334-345). New York:
Princeton Architectural Press.
McEwen, I.K. (1993). Socrates Ancestor.
An Essay on Architectural Beginnings.
Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT
Press.
Wigley, M. (1989). The Translation of
Architecture, the Production of Babel.
Assemblage 8. Reprinted in Hays, K. M.,
Ed. (1998). Architecture Theory Since
1968 (pp. 660-675). Cambridge, Mass.
and London: MIT Press.

In the process of architectural design, the setting of a design programme is important for design direction and the thinking of designers. From the viewpoint of creative design, this paper argues that
design programme may stem from knowledge of other disciplines or narratives about places and people that are related to the project. As John Hejduk states that the nature of programme may project
the potential course of forming the spatial identity of our living environment and the re-presentation
of our times, or in Hejduks words, representing certain aspects of the time.1 In other words, the
new programme can be a philosophic programme and something more than the functional concerns.2
As textual narrative is a composition of a series of events related to certain places or to the experience
of actors, or it is a story associated with a description of locations and so on, the paper would discuss
the utilisation of textual narratives as an architectural programme and would argue that literary brief
can be thought of as the forming of a masque in that something more than its sign is implied.
The narrative sequences and written language utilised in textual narratives play a role in transmitting
the events and their implications to the reader. In terms of post-colonial textual narrative, voices of
anti-colonisation and the writers experiences of being colonised are presented in association with
various colonial languages and the mother tongues of native people. Posed against the eradication of
cultural diversity of other, the innovation of post-colonial textual narratives by writers from formerly
colonised countries has been applied to express local and heterogeneous viewpoints, as well as to convey the events or political happenings which the writers might have experienced. The discussion of
post-colonial textual narratives is interrelated with the autonomy of formerly colonised countries
along with the awareness of the importance of local cultures, in which the cultural heterogeneity and
45