E n D ®

which also requires a type of blind-variation-and-selective-
retention process.
Simon (1969) further argues that problem solving activity
"involves much trial and error" and "the more difficult and
novel the problem, the greater is likely to be the amount
of trial and error required to find a solution." However, "at
the same time, the trial and error is not completely random
or blind; as it was in biological evolution, but "...it is in fact,
rather highly selective." (Simon 1969) He states that "the new
expressions that are obtained by transforming given ones are
examined to see whether they represent progress toward the
goal. Indications of progress spur further search In the same
direction; lack of progress signals the abandonment of a line
of search." (Simon 1969) This might mean even if we do not
possess any prior knowledge or experience related with the
current problem situation, we can still determine the course of
our search tovyards a goal: "problem solving requires selective
trial and error." (Simon 1969) However, drawing a "search"
direction Is also a trial, and precedes our evaluation of whether
the line was progressive or not if it was not based on an earlier
wisdom of some type. In addition, a currently progressive line
does not guarantee that that it will remain so, or it will yield
a successful solution, respectively a currently regressive line
may turn into a progressive one if pursued further, and may
lead to a successful solution. It is obvious that architectural
problem solving Is not a random but a goal driven, intentional
activity. Sut the source of intentionallty does not lie in the
"making;' or in the "trials," but in the "selection" process. In
other words, in architectural problem solving, goals are not
totally attained through foreslghtful moves, but also by blind
"trials," and the selection of unsuccessful trials followed by
bearing on to explore the best-so-far trial lines. So we may
reformulate the argument as follows; creative problem solving
requires knowledge of earlier solutions and wisdom to start
with and proceed, but at the same time it involves a blind trial,
and selective error elimination, or more specifically, bllnd-
variation-and-selective-retention process.
Second account that seems to be conflicting with the idea of
blind-variation-and-selective-retention is that architectural
problem solving is purpose-oriented and teîeological.'' The
main purpose of the architectural problem solving activity Is
to construct a work that will -potentially- provide a solution
to the formulated problem.Typicaliy, an architectural problem
is stated in the form of a brief or a program. A popular view
of architectural design, which was perhaps descendant from
the functionalist doctrine in architecture, proposes that the
program is the only legitimate and neutral source and origin
of the form, an asset which directly implies, governs the
formalization process and the solution: Form or the solution
is something postulated as the purpose or posited at the
expense of function or program. This view of architectural
problem solving is problematic at least In two accounts: first,
the program can neither be objective nor comprehensive.
There will always be preconceptions and prejudices playing
an active role In the preparation of a program, and for this
reason, the program will always be selective and biased. (See
Rowe 1996) Second, even If such a program exists, there is no
algorithm, and no method that can guarantee a program to
be directly translated into a meaningful form or solution. This
problem was perhaps best stated by John Summerson (1957)
as follows: "The conceptions which arise from a preoccupation
with the programme have got, at some point, to crystallize
into a final form and by the time the architect reaches that
point he has to bring to his conception a weight of judgment,
a sense of authority and conviction which clinches the whole
design, causes the impending relationships to close into a
visually comprehensible whole." But he confesses that there
We may distinguish at least two main types of teîeological
achievements which an architectural problem solving activity
might concern: first is intrinsic to the activity or the process itself
and actually embedded in it. It concerns construction or design of
an architectural work that should provide a -potential- solution to
an architectural problem which was stated in the program or the
brief. In this sense "prog ram"or purpose is an element which actively
plays a constructive or formative role in the process. Second resides
beyond the process and the work. It concerns for example an
intended change in the environment through architecture; better
living conditions, a livable city, more accessible environment and
buildings, etc. In this case, the control between the work and the
intended modification or change is not direct and clear. The model
proposed here particularly concerns the first category. However, an
architectural work can still be considered as a "device" that has the
potential and responsibility to make a change in the environment,
which can be interpreted as a "trial."