?????

Architecture is an approach to make a sense in unduly sense in a word of the play. Life has nothing to do with an excessively
bound to an image of the city, yet, the inverse ontology of the impudent of the context, these the picture of describing things, has
aggressively, trying to cope within the life itself. Yet, we achieved the notion of the stillness in motion. The use of the stillness of
a scheme is to trace the gesture more than it should be. Nietzsche ever mentioned about the culture of gesture is older than the
creation of language. A gesture is a sign to communicate, rather than to describe. Has describing things arrived in somewhat
point that language is obvious and literate? Could be in this act is indulging that opposing the idea of idealism. I know it’s a bit
radical when we are trying to permeate the idea of being dull. Nevertheless, radicalism is also freedom, a tool to compromise the
deepest philosophy above terms and conditions that may be applied. Sounds unfamiliar with the things that might bound as the
historical pedagogy. Pedagogy might lead also to the specific image that bounds the specific territory of the context. As a
reference, we bound, as an image we formed, and as a picture, we made the obligated creation of the sustainable. Culture and its
sophistication is nevertheless the reference of morality. Identity and context are also bound to the image that back and forth,
result and process.

In this sense, I just want to claim the process of back and forth of the originality of the image. Let’s get back with the imageless is
the long-term process that depicting the ideal, but rather than describing the crisis of the ideal itself. Less-image is an approach to
answer rather than constitutes the presence. Without image, we found a presence as it is. Imageless doesn’t correspond to a
general nor specific practice that leads to a mystification about identity. Imageless is a tool to question its presence, also to
provide a basic framework of space autonomy. Without forgetting the holistic features in architecture as an urban object,
imageless is the possibility of the indulgencies emergence of what is necessary for architecture: Space and presence. Therefore,
this tendency also leads us to question the meaning of production. 
It is clear that Less-Image always deals with the basic of the attitude of the architecture. Less-image does not depict the quality of
the image that bound in itself, but to question the sustainable. This question leads us to accept the nonsense that happens in our
very reality.

“Joy in nonsense. How can men take joy in nonsense? They do so, wherever there is laughter-in fact, one can almost say that
whenever there is happiness there is joy in nonsense, it gives us pleasure to turn experience into its opposite” Nietzsche, Human
All Too Human.
Nonetheless, there are a lot of misconceptions about the process of our practice since we have difficulties in making it more
precise according to what it needs to be. It means that architecture never arrived as a solemnly man-made necessity. It is possible
that when architecture has no image, the quality extends to the anonymous and localize the simulacrum. It is strange that
architecture never arrived in the step of Barthes’s punctum and studium. To be more precise, I kindly agree that architecture
never arrived after the time, but before where everything stands. The image of architecture, yet, an image without quality, it
might lead us to the quantity of the absurd, just like the exact moment of Albert Camus L’Étranger. The image never bound with
the frame, as also Peter Märkli ever said about the representation of the building. Painting bound with image, we developed the
quantity of its context: neither blank of filled canvas. One of the results of the image of the architecture is the image of
causalities. The distanceless of the reference makes architecture has a double weigh on his virtue: to brings the identity as its own
pivotal mission. The compendium of an era that distinguishes themselves as monogamy of instrument. As a text, architecture
compels more than its being. I fascinated by those times when architecture spiritually imbued by the things outside the
profession. It makes the image derived from everyday life. Without having a certain amount of image of the architecture, the
knowledge to prevail the infinite reference that seems to be valid for a long time.
I am not sarcastically inspired by the monogamist of the art practitioner. This practice has always been there ever since we
consume the energy of networking. This critic has also evolved with the dichotomy both: the dystopian and the utopian,
therefore, less image could produce the heterotopia mode of pretext. It is not the product of the mystification of the modernist
since they abhorring the massive changes in the industrial revolution. To personalize the image of the architecture without
pretending about its blessing of the identity, which seems it is pretty clear that the term is overused the meaning of itself?