Commodity, firmness, delight becomes affect, effect, reflect gradually, as a reflection of the different challenges of the different times, ie structure was first an issue, so 2 of the 3 were concerned with this. Then it was meaning becoming reflect; but now it is affect as the new technology introduces the alien possibilities into the mix and their novelty is alluring.

How did this change happen? Gradually? When did they start to seem anachronistic?

Commodity is the one constant; firmness evolution of effect and delight to affect are well accepted, the first a reflection on improving technology, the second a reflection of broadening culture and generalizing sophistication

discuss the various definitions of affect, effect, reflect and show how the conversation alluded to in the Turing test text, in which the plasticity and breathing space is produced, is a product of all three, not just the narrow sense of affect as advanced architecture describes it, ie contest jeff’s definition of affect as “disciplinary tricks absent signification” by showing how that is impossible for anything human (another sense of that conversation)—but therefore precisely the sign of the alien when present.

As such a reduction, the installation format sharpens the distinction between those kind of architectural (ideas) that absolutely depend on the quality and manner of their execution, and those that are more robust. At the poles of this range of possibilities are ideas and effects. Leaving aside the question of whether pure effects are even possible, its easy to see that ideas are naturally more robust than effects. Ideas survive, but they may lose currency, while effects naturally transform and mutate with their embodiment

Ideas are for stakeholders, constituents, those with a continuing interest, while effects, which may begin as charming but soon enough become irritating, are for audiences, who are entertained, affected, and then leave. Since architecture collapses constituencies and audiences together (and vice versa, see NB), it can be almost impossible to separate ideas and effects in the architectural project. It is perhaps for this Darwinian reason that idea-driven work has survived better than effect-driven work, leading to the situation where there are just not that many examples out there.

The big divide is not between the digital and predigital, it is between authorship and not, sense and sensation.

Effects, as environmentally conditioned, are also historically conditioned, which is why they do not, cannot, last. This is what Heidegger talks about when he says the Work is different for each generation—because the World is different, the effects are different. This is somewhat paradoxical because of course the World impacting the experience of the effects is primarily “present” as ideas itself, or at least is not phenomenological. Further, while the exact, physical sources of the phenomenological conditions might be replicated for other generations, that does not preserve the phenomenological experience, the affect.