Against the backdrop of the increasing institutionalization of the digital turn, architects began looking to the “discipline” and its histories as a means of generating novel forms. Working between recognition and dissonance, this group was often accused of “postmodernism,” and yet this disciplinary turn generated a great deal of new discourse surrounding geometry, preservation, data, forms, meanings, and what allegiances could be formed to best tether the digital to a broader mission of architecture. This discussion is not-interesting, unironic, building-oriented and somehow regulated.