There is a book, Tectonic Culture written by Kennes Franpton. We read this book in the half-year seminar for graduate students around 2 years ago. We went together to the library and researched many drawings from many modern architect's books, introduced in this book . This book was so interesting that I read again in the monthly study session at my office. After reading twice, I understood his view basically, but there was the hardest part to figure for me.

Why is it good to be tectonic? This, the most important point, didn't sound right to me.

However what I thought during the project of GA magazine, featuring materials, gradually over wrapped tectonic, some time after reading the book, Tectonic Culture , twice.

What I thought about in this magazine seemed to include technological philosophy, furthermore civilization.Hiroaki Yanagida, who used to be a dean of Nagoya Institute of Technology, told us the importance of technology by using “techno democracy”. In his lesson, he told that technology must not be black-boxed.

I think there is something in common with this lesson in architecture. Architecture is taught in engineering department in the university with regarding it as even low technology and many research progresses are introduced and invaded into several parts of buildings as a black box. Do you know or see what happen inside the wall, under the roof and under the floor. Yanagida said that it didn't work that nobody could care about things behind black boxes in case something wrong happens.

Skeleton of technology is one of the idealized vision of technology and therefore “ Shousouin” , which is advocated as one of techno democratic architecture by Yanagida, and “tectonic architecture”, which is insisted by Franpton, are somehow over wrapped.