建築中如何談論身體，特別是創作者的身體位置，是工匠、建造者或儘是外部性的視覺審美者？這不同的位置之間，存在著因為身體位置的差異所連結的身體感的思考與論述。因此，這不同的位置不是身分的問題，而是建築創作中如何以身體作為起點的本質論題。身體與物質、機器、技術、環境與歷史，乃至是一種創作當下事件發生的思考與論述間的論題，身體與這諸多因子共同運動，如何進一步延展至「身體性」的美學論題，而非根基於視覺中心，僅是外部性審美者的美學基礎。另一方面，是否可能對這一不同起點的身體論題進行實踐與論述的開展，形成不同於傳統建築方法論的差異點，而這差異點形成探問「建築」本質的驅動能量。身體運動作為起點的位置轉向有著兩種層次。第一種是從系統性的元素轉向到身體「介入」的「結點」生成，進一步創造身體運動中超越純視覺的「觸視」。第二種層次是更積極地偏移至介入性的施作者。這施作位置的偏移，不僅是身體與物質間細微距離的生產，更是必要性地切斷系統性的邏輯思考，讓身體處在鄰觸、未明的「感覺」狀態中。
本論文的研究即在於透過參與建築繁殖場團隊的共同創作與自身一系列的創作實踐，論述自身創作位置的改變與其相應的實踐與思考，進一步發展創作∕研究者關於「觸視」的「溢遊」建築。這一系列的創作實踐是透過身體介入進行身體感官共同作用後的「感覺」生成，與讓「感覺」自身作為事件發生的能量和一種不透明狀態的生成運動，這事件能量與不透明狀態的產生，形成身體和物質與環境間的連結並形塑場域。因此，「溢遊」論題存在著非視覺性的開展，更是一種關乎觸覺的運動生成，堆疊著身體、物質和環境間的關係；身體透過物質、機器和場址中的因子運行溢出自身的「感覺」運動，也因為這樣的溢出，動態的連結身體和所觸之物，形成某種物質的肌理、繁複的力量構築與共振的場域。

How does architecture approach the body, particularly the positioning of the physical body of the practitioner? Is the practitioner a craftsman, a builder, or merely an external appraiser of aesthetic beauty? Between the different positions that can be occupied by the body, there is the potential for thought and discourse regarding the body’s sensations linked to the variation in the positioning of the body. These different positionings are not a question of identity; rather, they relate to the fundamental issue of how the body can be taken as the starting point for architectural creation. The relationship between the body and material substances, machinery, technology, the environment and history posits issues of thought and discourse arising out of the act of creation. The challenge is to consider how the joint operation of the body and these various factors can be extended to address bodily aesthetic issues, rather than restricting oneself to an aesthetic foundation that is visual-centric and limited to external observation of aesthetic properties. At the same time, one needs to address the question of how practical experimentation and discourse can be developed in relation to the issues of the body in its various different starting points, thereby creating something distinct from traditional architectural methodology. This differentiation can provide the motive power for exploring the essential nature of “architecture.”
When discussing the positioning of the practitioner within architecture, there are two distinct levels that must be considered. The first level relates to the question of how they can instead shift their attention to the material, to develop a “haptic” that, in integrating the practitioner’s body with the material, surpasses the purely visual; through this “haptic” transformation of bodily positioning, it should be possible to create a new kind of bodily experience and generate a corresponding dynamic relationship from elements to conjunction. This “haptic” represents a kind of conjunction revolution of the senses and the opening up of new bodily possibilities, creating a new starting point for thinking about the essential nature of “architecture.” The second level permits the bodily positioning of the practitioner to shift in a more proactive way towards the role of an interventionist “builder.” This relocation in the positioning of construction involves more than just closing the distance between the body and the material, in such a way that a sense of the unknown enters the body, inevitably disrupting the process of systematic, logical thought, and allowing the body to exist in an isolated, amorphous state of perception.
The research presented in this paper makes use of the author’s participation in the collaborative architectural creation of the Interbreeding Field collective, as well as the author’s own creative work, to outline the changes in the author’s creative positioning and a corresponding practical implementation and thinking, so as to develop a new concept of “Drifting” Architecture. This series of creative endeavors involves personal participation and the generation of “sensation” through the conjunction operation of the body’s senses, with “sensation” itself becoming a source of energy for the instigation of events and also the generating force giving rise to a kind of non-transparent state. This energy, and the generation of the non-transparent state, create a linkage between the body, the material and the environment, and also provide a venue for formation. “drifting” discourse thus develops in a non-visual manner, and involves the generation of a field of action that relates closely to the sense of touch; the overlaying of relationships between the body, the material, and the environment gives rise to a kind of material texture, and provides a venue for complex interplay between structure and resonance. Acting through the factors of material, machinery and place, the body can emit its own perceptual momentum, and this process of overflow links the body with the objects that it comes into contact with in a dynamic manner, thereby creating a space in which events can occur.