Interpretation is ubiquitous in architecture, though occasionally regarded with

suspicion. Interpretation is ‘the revenge of the intellect upon art’,1 according to

Susan Sontag. It operates at one remove from the processes of imaginative

production, and burdens creativity with layers of meaning, at the cost of an

engagement with the materials and practices of artistic making. Sontag’s

complaint is actually against a conservative style of interpretation, in which

critics strive to excavate the ‘true meaning’ or the ‘latent content’ of a work.2

Interpretation surfaces in a positive light in the context of commentary and