one of my guest jurors once emphasized how you should genuinely just try anything and everything you want to try in architecture school because in his words, once money gets involved real design gets more controlled I've thought about that a lot it's almost like an opportunity for indulgence we get here thousands of students given the chance to indulge in design not yet founded upon the very real constraints of budget not yet founded upon having to deal with clients on one hand we can do whatever we want which is good for this ambiguous journey of discovering how you design, what you're interested in but also i say this as someone whose previous projects got super conceptual and heady and abstract and thinky i worry, what if you indulge too much? what if you lose grip of the constraints that you will eventually have to grapple? i mean, we all would love to but we are not all goijg to be hyperwealthy architects. the rich get to build, it'd seem, the most grandiose buildings. the biggest ones. the greediest ones. the most resource-intensive ones! and we all try, how american and individualistic of us, but not everyone is bound to succeed in that way the universe may steer people elsewhere so, again, what if you indulge too hard? i guess to be more specific and less alarmist I find it scary to indulge too much in something too conceptual, too experimental and not technically founded enough a case of perhaps breaking the rules too early when you're already struggling to grapple the basics if graphic design is founded upon the assumedly two-dimensional principles and elements of design, then it's no wonder that architecture is so difficult to grasp, as it is the three-dimensional extrusion of such principles and elements