Tectonics: Reflections In The Context Of Today's Discourses

Though "Architectonics" is becoming a topic discussed more and more domestically, people still have very limited understanding of it. Since the very beginning, the Chinese architects' understanding of Tectonics has been based on the opinions and practice of very few individuals overseas. It is lack of the recognition of the overall picture, particularly lack of understanding of Tectonics' current status. On the perception level, people often interpret "Tectonic" as "The clear expression of structure and construction". On the discussion level, most people focus on the differentiations between "Tectonic" and "Atectonic". The enthusiasm with Tectonics has always been more prominent than the promotion of Tectonics after serious consideration.While reading current opinions and practice on Tectonic, the author can not avoid noticing the conflicts and differences existing amongst them. On one hand, this could prove its fundamental status as cluster concept. On the other hand, it leads us to think how to treat and distinguish these opinions and how to understand a more and more important issue, current status of Tectonic. Therefore, in this paper, the author focuses on grasping a realistic and complex picture of current Tectonic and seeking the direction of Tectonics' future development. This means that this paper is a crosswise analysis and digging of the polysemousness of Tectonic. The main body of this paper consists of Part I and II, followed by an epilogue. Except for the epilogue where the Chinese specific opinions and practice on Tectonic are discussed, the main body of this paper defines its scope to the opinions and practice of Tectonic worldwide. In the Part I and II, the author tries to differentiate every issue by comparison. This differentiation does not just constrain itself to the differences between "Tectonic" and "Atectinic". However it addresses current divergences, disturbances and challenges existing within Tectonic. The former comparison covers the concepts that are seen as standard and have been widely accepted. The latter is purely the discovery and summary initiated by the author,which should be even more meaningful and constructive. It also reflects the author's opinions towards current opinions and practice of Tectonic. Via comparison, the author emphasizes the differences between them rather than prove that one denies the existence of the other. The main aim of this differentiating analysis is to explore the possibilities of multi-dimensionally developing Tectonic via existing or potential ways.