THURSDAY NIGHT LECTURE ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR GEVORK HARTOONIAN TRANSCRIPT OF INTRODUCTION: GLEN HILL Gevork is currently Associate Professor in Architecture and Interior Design at the University of Canberra. He is the author of numerous publications. His books include Ontology of Construction: on Nihilism of Technology in Theories of Modern Architecture, Modernity and its Other: A Post-script to Contemporary Architecture, and his most recent, that he will be discussing tonight, Crisis of the Object: the Architecture of the Theatrical. Gevork earned his Ph.D. in architecture from the University of Pennsylvania, and subsequently taught at Columbia University. As many of you will be aware, before moving to Canberra he was a fellow member of staff here at our own faculty of Architecture. In spirit, I feel Gevork has never left Sydney. He still favours the cosmopolitanism of this city as his domicile. And he continues to be a familiar face around our university. He is a very active member of the editorial board of our own Journal, the Architectural Theory Review, and continues to nurse editions of the Journal into print. What has always impressed my about Gevork is his energy and dedication to the cause of Architecture. Reading his latest book was a revelation for me. The Architecture Faculty at the university of Sydney has for a long time prided itself in its stance on various ethical dimensions related to architecture, particularly environmental sustainability and social issues. But only when I read Gevork’s book did I full understand the possibility of there being an ethical position in relation to the core of architecture itself, architecture’s interiority, as Gevork might say. In Gevork’s hands the tectonics of architecture, the poetic relation between envelope and structure, become a site for ethical, rather than simply formal, debate. I only want to say two further things about the book, as its content is the subject of Gevork’s talk. The first is the density and scholarship of the writing. Every sentence seems pregnant with often numerous connections to architecture’s own rich history and theory. The second thing, and perhaps I noticed this because it is lacking in my own writing, is the subtlety of the argument Gevork presents. Even though he might see the tectonic approach to architecture as having greater ethical or critical potential than the digitally generated architecture that cares only for the spectacle of its own surface, the argument Gevork pursues is never so black and white. Suspect architects, such as Gehry (and perhaps even Lynn) are treated in such a nuanced way that they too are shown to have glimpses of potential for redeeming architecture from its present crisis. If my plugs have been too subtle so far: go out and buy the book! Please join me in welcoming Gevork.