AbstractIn contemporary architectural discourse, new terms and concepts from different disciplines more and more are being inserted as our profession becomes increasingly complicated following global social, political, and cultural changes. Architects are asked to expand their vistas of expertise on fields that a few years ago were unknown to them, and propose solutions for demanding and thorny social, environmental, or economic issues. A great burden has been placed on them as they have responsibilities that traditionally were not conceived as part of architectural practice, and they have blurred the limits of the field. Architecture as practice and knowledge is a product of cultural values; however, nowadays, architecture, its translations, and interpretations more and more favor this fact rather than an internal and abstract formal system that is on the other side on the critical field. This phenomenon has led to simplistic proposals and critiques that attempt to grasp the great deals of our epoch but fail to form an actually critical environment. As architectural history has taught us, when one of the two poles of discourse is overemphasized architects fail to address theoretically and practically the greatest demands, resulting in more problems with their proposals. Thus, it is important to explore the potentials of the formal analysis in architecture nowadays, and its deployment as a critical tool for the revaluation of architectural practice.