'The Muses are not Amused' Response

Silvetti’s ‘The Muses are Not Amused’, while seeming somewhat blunt at points, gets at a core issue that has come up often in recent in class discussions lectures. When Pablo Garcia came in to join our discussion last week, he mentioned that of all the definitions he had found for ‘thesis’ the most common word to come up was ‘bullshit’. It seems that Jorge Silvetti, in a very appropriate and logical manner, is getting at the point that it is okay for many of the metaphors that architects use to exist as a starting point, but once they are translated into buildings they become mere bullshit. These are not his words, but he does criticize the use of metaphor multiple times throughout the reading.
As has been the issue with some of the previous readings, Silvetti uses form as a mechanism to flesh out his understanding of programism, thematization, blobs, and literalism. I suppose the question that is raised from his analysis is at what point does that architect have too little control over the form? - Specifically to the point where the architecture has to later be ‘stuffed’ with meaning. This stuffing of meaning through the use of common rhetoric is something I’ve seen a lot of in architecture school, where students find reasoning post form-making. Perhaps it is time for academia to evaluate the true importance/definition of rhetoric and metaphor and where in the process they are most appropriate.