¬An Argument for Architectural Interpretation“ Therefore, architecture is both substance and act. The sign is the recording of an intervention, an event and an act that goes beyond the presence of elements that are merely necessary conditions. Architecture can be proposed as an ordering of conditions drawn from the universe of form together with the act of designating conditions of geometry, use and meaning as a new class of objects.” Peter Eisenman, Maison Dom-ino and the Self-referential Sign, 1979“Bisexual”1 was a word used by Peter Eisenman to describe his max Reinhardt haus in 1992, an unbuilt architecture for the city of Berlin which can be formally read in two different ways. The first interprets the form as additive, two legs rising above the Berlin landscape and meeting at the top of the architectural object. The second interprets the form as subtractive, a void dug into the solid mass. This idea of ​​bisexuality is continually addressed and re-proposed by the agility of the Max Reinhardt haus: the project forces Eisenman to conduct formal gymnastics around an architectural context that presents him with a long list of two, often contradictory ones. These two elements, which present both formal and contextual obstacles to the project, are an integral part of understanding the result of the max Reinhardt haus. Furthermore, Eisenman's ability to produce a single coherent architectural object by maneuvering these two is extremely commendable, the result being a project that not only acted as a pioneer in the early digital period, but which still represents one of the defining moments of his career today . In Peter Eisenman's definition of architecture, outlined in his text Maison Dom-ino and the self-Referential Sign (1979), an architect...... half of the sheet ...... the third exchange is for the subject (viewer) to see the object (architectural object) and participate in a one-way exchange that organizes the space.35 For Eisenman, the optimal path of exploration is to allow the object to interact and exchange with the subject, destabilizing the previously inscribed concepts (e.g. floor, light, door) which are generally returned to the subject. Eisenman instead supports the need to restore ambiguity to the interaction, ensuring that the subject sensorially understands that there is something to understand, but without knowing what he is seeing, nor what needs to be understood. This is the idea of ​​the architectural object looking back, replacing the human subject.36 In particular this exchange is another to consider, the ability of the architectural object to complete a two-way interaction with the subject. Mobius Strip