1)  Allen starts off by comparing two arguments for the true sense of a work of architecture.  First argument states - the truest sense of architecture lies in the drawings and the notations and that the realized construction of it must always make compromises.  Second argument states - only the realized construction has the truest sense of architecture making the drawings irrelevant.  He appears to argue in the middle and claims that the continual shuttle between the drawings and the realized construction is the truest work of the architect.  Does this interpretation insinuate that all architectural work needs both the (at least potentially) realized construction and the drawing?  Is that too narrow of a description?

2)  Allen states, "The drawing as artifact is unimportant.  It is rather a set of instructions for realizing another artifact."  Later he states, "Architectural drawings are neither an end in themselves, nor are they simply transparent technical instruments."  Do you agree?

3)  Many famous sculptors in history were often not the sole physical creators of their work.  One could imagine that the sculptor, often working transiently between reality and drawing, produces a set of instructions with notations for an apprentice to carry out on the stone.  What are the similarities to the work of the sculptor in this case and the work of the architect?  What then, under Allen's argument, separates the two?  Can they be separated?  Do they need to be separated?  What about the engineer?  The military general?

4)  What if the architect is also the sole constructor of a building?  Does the work become completely autographic?  Must there be a division between architect and builder?  What if there is no set of instructions or drawings produced?

5)  Allen states, "technique is never neutral, and the mans of representation always leave a trace on the construction."  What are some examples of this?

6)  Why is the progression of modern technology, specifically communication, global economy, internet, modern warfare, problematic for architecture as a discipline?  Is notation truly the technique needed for architecture to engage today's city's focus on time and change?