In the design studio formal analysis is frequently both the end and themeans, and its use relies predominantly on the plan as a representative forarchitecture. Cultural criticism, on the oter hand implies the need to ad-dress the link between Ideas and forms. This paper presents and discussestechniques originally used in research on cultural images and architecturalform which have been applied in the studio. These enable a student to revalsome of the cultural massages embodied in architectural form, and to con-sciously use them in design. Teaching with the assumption that architecture is a medium for culturalcommunication has several logical consequences for architectural design: first that architecuture is defined as an expression of ideas which must beunderstood in order to be well-communicated. Seen in this light, architec-ture is more than simple manipulation of form, and the degree to which theform accomplishes an intention is of critical importance. The second conse-quence is that architecture is to transform habit into ritual and to createfrom the taken-for granted nature of things, specialness. The third and finalconsequence is that the responsibility of the architect becomes that of mani-festing in form the shared cultural ideals of society, not simply, expressinghis/her own ideas. The professional must neither be alienated from the or-dinary lives of other people, nor a conduit for the lowest cultural denomi-nator, but rather a cultural critic who expresses ideas from within the cul-ture.The approach described here derives from that used in a research projectthe purpose of which was to define the architectural difference between in-stitution and home. This was framed in the form of two opposing principlesfor design and was presented in the from of paired sets of drawings accom-panied by explanatory annotations and a checklist of architectural elements.After examining innumerable slides and developing a preliminary checklistof items we thought our drawings should include, we began to darw our stre-otypic notions of these two principles. But in the uprocess of drawing wediscovered that out of our hands came architectural features we hadn't no-ticed in the slides. The drawing process tapped a deep nonverbal coherentimage. Only because the drawing process requires a sequence of lines did webegin to unravel individual features embedded in the image. Thus we discov-ererd the power of the stereotype in forming our design norms. The visualimages of which we had been previously only vaguely aware were reformedin drawing form.. We then used words to record the individual architecutu-ral elements and to hypothesize why they had a given effect.This research experience led to the similar use of drawings models andwords In the design sutido. Drawings become a device to tap the unconcious,words to capture the unconsicious Ideas, and the concept of type as a vehiclefor revealing cultural experience. The projects which illustrate this ap-proach are diverse. In each project of different form of cultural critique isbrought to bear on: in two cases more theoretical projects, and in the thirdcase an academic problem very much linked to a particular place and a set ofpragmatic issues. Design is inherently and act of culutral criticism. While there are manywell-developed studio teaching methods which address the formal questionsof of how to make architectural form, there are few methods which addresscultural values. The projects and methods peresented here engage in theprocess of exploring that can and ought to be done as well as addressing thequestion of why the proposed arcihtectural form is appropriate.