The author begins but asking sets of questions. What is a detail, basically asking what is the conceptual framework of the detail in a building. The first definition is — There Are No Details in Modernism

Several points were noted while skimming through this section:

• Detail as passe: The detail is basically a mere distraction when the architects sought for the conceptualization of the building to be free of the detail. The detail is seen as a left over legacy of more the traditional building, where parts are readily read, such as sills, copings, mullions, etc. Some of these modern architects labels detailing as a sort of fetish, although the contradictions lies in that fine details needs to be develop pursue for the appearance of the lack of detail.
  
  AC- There’s a pursue of purity of these modern architects, but the building does exist in reality and will need to fulfill the necessary functions of waterproofing, durability, etc. Therefore, the game is to perform without seeming to be able to perform because ‘purity’ takes precedent.

• The Consistent Detail: Here the ‘detail’ is dissolved into the building where the same detail to used in all scales, perhaps from facade all the way to a door handle, in the same of consistency. A sort of total design where all the furnishings are a ‘model’ of the actual building. Ford notes that consistency is nothing new and Gothic Architecture embodied this methodology whereby a church and a furniture may share the same design language. The articulation of this is fine, where a strict adherence may lead to a unwieldy styles or as Kenneth Frampton says, a ‘tectonic condensation’ of a building, where the detail may inform the direct understanding of a building.

•