Such process is also what presumably generated the illusion of the end of semantics in architecture it seems that when

n metaphorical constructs stopped informing the semantics of this discipline, there followed a tendency to believe that the references of the architecture to external objects or ideas had become irrelevant - that architecture could and should, somehow, only refer to and represent itself and take a strong autonomous stance. This purported end of the intellect in the form of an end of semantics, was meant to pave the way to the haptic, affective and ultimately purely indexical rebirth of the discipline. The supposed end of meaning and one-sided turn to indexicality, in my opinion, is also what sparked the early notion of synthetic ecologies in architecture, as a replacement for what we formerly called buildings. So if we adopt the point of view of the non-intellectual but purely affective, the strong focus on the haptic per se and the lack of interest in semantic references engendered the illusion that the new objective of architecture was to produce totally autonomous and contextually independent environments. From the point of view of an advocate of pure indexicals, this shift would liberate architecture from the tyranny of context and the excessive intellectualisation of architectural means (like, for example, when a continuous long window is a symbol of democracy). the idea is that now the purported goal of a building is no longer to exemplify an intellectual proposition but to stimulate an affect or sensation by means of its own presence.

The main advantage of adopting allegory rather than extreme indexicals to consider these phenomena is that indexes truly belong to a different realm of being that is qualitatively different from semantics (in that they bear a physical connection to their referent, like in the case of a footprint on the sand). Talking of the above things as meaningless indexicals probably comes from the illusion that because the new constructs are so essentially different from the ones before them, they cant possibly be connected to them. But such an approach entails that their meaning is not related to the constructs they come from, but that they originate, so to say, from nothing. Allegory, on the other hand, as an aberration of metaphor, preserves a basic metaphysical connection to the construct it comes from (a remnant of meaning ()). The issue is that this connection is often more conceptual than anything else and it is difficult, if not impossible, to point at a specific moment where its semantic nature can be elucidated.

3) INDEXES OR MONSTERS? our main point is that the effect of new and autonomous described in the nave idea of synthetic ecology above, is not really produced employing pure indexicals (i.e. via the creation of totally non-referential autonomous constructs), but by a new form of referentiality that grabs objects that are normally unrelated and associates them in unusual and unexpected ways. These constructs are still referential and contextual (and bear a highly sophisticated intellectual form), even though in a very different way from the metaphorical ones.

we suggest that the sensation of a true indexical can be stimulated in the observer when the parts that make up the construct (the synthetic ecology) are borrowed from such far apart corners of the universe, or put together in such an unusual way as to produce unexpected and even unsettling or disturbing results. We call the results of these convergences monsters. The impression given by the monsters is that they are entities composed of new or multiple ontologies. The sensation they evoke is that of an unknown, autonomous and alien construct (something like a pure indexical or a new ecology) - and therefore seem to produce reactions in the observer that are uniquely dictated by the presence of this new object. but while the indexical might be a perceived effect, we maintain that it is a fiction or special effect philosophically speaking. The creation of a new ontology that does not refer to anything other than itself is too idealised a product to be believable in this context. The trick is achieved by means of a play on the morphology of the meaning of the entities that compose the construct. For example, they can be entities that seem totally unrelated or from far apart corners of the universe of discourse (stretched meaning). But many other semantic shifts and manipulations can produce the same effect (broken-up, jagged, intersecting, warped, cloned sets of conceptual and physical objects can evoke the idea of new or multiple ontologies by means of grafting and hybridisation). This, however, is just a trick of the trade aimed at producing a reaction in the observer, much like perspective or figuration in painting. (is it good or bad? ...its just a trick)

What is the allegorical? Defined by Walter Benjamin death of meaning to produce a new idea of meaningit is also between dialectics and deconstruction (so between metaphor and index) Difficult to frame it is codex in that it is both indexical and iconic It is nonlinear and hybridised in that the ontologies it contains are irreducible/incongruous It is the pursuit of the beautiful in this sense: monstrosityunites the skilful requirements of memetic translation aimed at the beautiful with the heralding foresight of uglinessmonsters share non of beautys uniquely reproductive qualities, but they nonetheless continue to produce reactions of awe and fascination monstrosity, the recombinant offspring of the beautiful and the ugly, is a moment of exquisite expertise, a beautiful meme twisted into an entire new genus of aesthetic speculation.