ABSTRACT
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
