Zarama, Pablo2020-08-102020-08-102020-05Zarama_cornell_0058O_10937http://dissertations.umi.com/cornell:10937https://hdl.handle.net/1813/7024114 pagesWhat does it mean to do a master's in advanced design? What would be the difference between a master and a bachelor level degree in architecture? Do you need to choose a topic to narrow and deepen your vision or, in the opposite direction, do you broader your vision and explore more? Those were the questions I asked myself to write this short essay, this introspection, about the process of doing a master's in Advanced Architecture Design at Cornell. Cornell offers a wide, very wide, vision of the discipline. Moreover, the mixture with undergraduates produces an enormous laboratory of ideas even though the discussions or research can be a little superficial. This essay is an attempt to answer the questions above. What has unified my experience has been a constant questioning about how the wide range of topics I have encountered at Cornell might be reflected (translated) into my own personal way of thinking and designing. I would argue that in this interdisciplinary world, where concepts and ideas are usually taken from a background outside architectural discipline it is imperative to discuss the method of translating those ideas into an architectural language. With that I mind, analogy presents itself as a useful tool for this ongoing, and probably endless process of translation and self-questioning. It is important to clarify that this essay is not an attempt to philosophically or linguistically define the term analogy, but a personal reflection about a possible methodological tool for designing. In fact, I would argue that ecology, urbanism, branding, and computational design, topics “far” from my usual discourse, have become integrated into my design thinking through both graphic and linguistic analogies. However, this essay will also show the limits of the method promoting a constant architectural debate.endissertation or thesishttps://doi.org/10.7298/vam4-tt72