traverse

JD Of course, chora cannot be represented in any form, in any architecture. That is why it should not give place to an architecture ― that is why it is interesting. What is interesting is that the non-representable space could give the receiver, the visitor, the possibility of thinking about architecture. PE
Yes, that’s it! That’s it, that’s it, that’s it. JD While chora is impossible to represent, we can train. . . . PE
That is the beginning. How to think about the impossibility of representing this being. JD Of representing, for instance, an architecture of representation, of chora. PE Exactly. JD So, it’s impossible. That’s the limit, that’s the boundary. You have to draw a limit. It would be a solid limit, which could represent, so to speak, the limit that the receiver, the visitor, the reader would reach. PE Yes. But the more we begin to take these things into account, the more we assume materiality. We can’t just talk to them on the site. We have to efface all the forms we make, decontaminate traditional representation. No matter how much we say, “this is chora”, we don’t want the visitors to feel “no, it’s not, it’s a table.” We will have to erase and efface to get to chora. The way we get there is chora. JD And at the same time,
you have to keep something; you cannot erase everything. You have to keep . . . PE The mark of the erasure. JD Yes. It’s the form of the limit that is to be decided. PE Yes. If you take the whole of the table away, then you have nothing. What we have to do now is to write the program for the training of the readers ― to find a means of de-programming them from their traditional reading of architectural representation and of introducing them to the possibility of the discursive, rather than the figurative, in architecture. Nevertheless, we have to figure our discourse. Now for the question of the limits. What
is the limit of moving from the discourse, in and about your text, to figuration? What can be made figurative? Hence the need of a figure for your text.

​