I noticed on my comparison of camera types someone had asked, in so many words, how it related to architecture. While I understand the author's point of view (that, as a publication of the CAED, every piece should make some stance on Architecture), I do not agree with it.

Does every one of our articles have to explicitly refer to architecture? Similarly, does every image we produce have to include some sort of architectural construction? If not, why do we impose different rules on images as we do on text? It seems as though, if we are permitted some level of ambiguity in our images, we imply a similar ambiguity for our words.

"__________ is architecture, because..." seems an unreasonable path to follow, all the time. If we are explicit in talking about a particular subject's relationship to the built environment, that is fine; however, is there no room to allow a viewer of the book to draw their own conclusions?

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

this is a publication UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

per Justin's request, please upload your InDesign pages to our server.
it's okay if you don't have final or polished content.
just add whatever you have so we can collectively respond to it.

thank you.