“ Architecture’s relevance relies on the recognition of what is familiar, Architecture’s survival relies on what will always be foreign.”
The Rorschach test was devised by Swiss Psychoanalyst Hermann Rorscahch in 1921. The test is a method of psychological evaluation, not so much for seeking objective meaning, but to interpret the psychosis of the patient. The inkblot is neither formal nor formless. It is a formless-form, so empty of inherent meaning that it is brimming with potential content. It is a shape that acquires significance according to how it is perceived or used. The inkblot is a rich medium to engage in architectural discourse, as it pertains directly to the issues associated with the figure and ground, projection and ambiguity. The question of projection raises many questions about the way we read and make drawings. On one hand, we take architectural drawing as an objective, geometric construction of form, whilst the inkblot is an ambiguous and subjective assessment of a figure. How can architectural drawing mediate between this juxtaposition? Projection is a way of reading, whilst Rorschach’s inkblots were also a form of reading but to elicit a new viewpoint as a result of ambiguity. Hence what indeed is ambiguity in architecture? Ambiguity in architecture is usually what gives rise to interpretation and misreadings. How could architectural drawing perform the task of having multiple readings? And to what extent should buildings remain ambiguous?