My claim is that analogue knowledge must be enacted and therefore cannot be documented explicitly, the emphasis lies in the process therefore architecture must address it in such a way. The architecture lends itself to knowledge as a carrier, of both a space for it to enact and to embody its processes and output. The process here is associated with craftsmanship, enduring and evolving where the craftsperson works to delay the image; they do not work to a set goal (the image) but only to further their own knowledge and craft, it is essentially a process of trial and error that evolves the ‘thing’ it is creating. Craft does not hold itself to exquisite products, quite the opposite; its focus is not on the thing it has created but the idea itself, the iterative act, that is craft. When coupled with the practice of analogue knowledge a proposition emerges, an architecture that embodies and addresses this knowledge as a practice archive. A space that pertains to the principals explored in theory however introduces a platform for craftspeople to inhabit and enact. A space that is not ephemeral, where analogue knowledge can endure and evolve as a practice. It becomes an archive not as accumulative practice, but as engaged or performative practice, the performance is the carrier of theory and enactment of knowledge.