Introduction: Fetishizations

"I think the only thing I saw yesterday and a lot of the things I heard today were fetishizations of their own design processes. There is a very strange arrogance in assuming that anybody would be interested in how you design."

- member of the audience, Anyhow Conference, June 1997

Ever since the fall from grace of the deconstructivist avant garde and the exposure of its inability to provide the sought after 'newness' ⁽¹⁾, contemporary architects have begun to become obsessed with process. However, rather than a knee-jerk reaction to deconstruction's failings (some believing it was never more than a game of semantics) that resulted in a complete change of direction, the last 3-4 years of experimentation and discussion since around the time of the 1997 Anyhow conference can still be traced to the key players of the battle with binary oppositions.

The recurring trait that allows us to trace the family tree is found when one examines the relationship between author and creation. As it attempted to destroy accepted hierarchies through the collision of previously exclusive programs or texts, deconstruction was simultaneously eroding the location of the source of the creative act. As each arbitrary 'superimposition' occurred, the subject's control of the object becomes increasingly tenuous. Simultaneously, the hierarchy between the creator and the subject, or architect/building, begins to be levelled out. With this levelling we start to see some of the first examples of the quest for authorial objectivity. The search for the new questions the prejudices inherent in subjective will, and so erases it, in the hope that loss of self will provide a new unpredictable event. ⁽²⁾

If it is creative autonomy that contemporary practices inherit from their predecessors gene pool, then what is to fill the vacuum created by the death of the architect as divine creator? The intention of this dissertation is to examine how different approaches to the act of architectural production has become the primary source of discussion and, subsequently, what part the architect plays in that act.

The discourse is, at this point, split into two alternative approaches to the question of production. Each remains conscious of the need to work 'within' or 'between' the space bounded by creation and product, but the programmatic source adopted by the two camps is diametrically opposed. Firstly, we will construct an understanding of the move from the deconstructed 'interstitial' space into its contemporary version the 'systemic delay', and then investigate the opposing forces - primacy of form and primacy of program. When demonstrating specific examples of each approach it will become clear that the common denominator is the adoption of computer

technology being used by both fields. How is information technology being moulded to serve each of these ideologies simultaneously?

Finally we will examine the problem of the role of the architect. What is the relationship between the computer and the individual? How will we achieve the eversion ⁽³⁾ from the virtual to the real? How must we perceive our position alongside the machines that are changing the way architecture is conceived and constructed?

Essay 1: 'Systemic delay' the new 'in-between'

The term 'systemic delay' used by Ali Rahim in 'Contemporary Processes in Architecture' ⁽⁴⁾ is used to describe a moment in design within which the most fertile creative ground can be found. His description of the current trends in architectural thought brings with it a trail of markers that help us to see the evolution of the ideology becoming so pervasive.

The primary intent of Rahim's essay is to clearly define differences in contemporary processes. Methods that appear similar on the surface are separated out by discussing the various levels of authorial control. Whilst all use some external system to extrapolate new content from the project, Rahim demonstrates the difference between 'key-framing' and 'emergent' methods of creation.

Key-framing, a process associated with animated models made possible with high-end software, is described as an event with a pre-defined conclusion. Simply extrapolating between two or more key frames is seen as a failure in it's ability to find new, unpredictable form or program (for the moment we shall discuss both). If the content of key-frames is known then surely the resultant collision/morph is also known. This attack on the simplicity inherent in 'key-framing' is a criticism that reaches much further than the student projects he sites as scapegoats.

Key-framing as a combinatory technique of known systems is put forward as a variation on the technique of superimposition. The two or more key-frames represent the systems that are brought together without further alteration except for the act of collision itself. The resultant space between the key-frames can be described as a form of collage, where the constituent parts can still be read or reconstructed due to the linear nature of the process.

"These are linear systems, shaped by the forces acting on them. For example, collage is reliant upon available collageable material, and hence the potential latent within the collage is limited." ⁽⁵⁾

By examining the difference between the idea of collage and systemic delay we can begin to explore the way that architectural theory has developed over recent years and which of the key work and texts are the most informative.

One of the most talked about theoretical processes that dominated discussions of the architectural avant-garde until the mid to late 90's was superimposition, as one of the techniques of deconstruction. As already mentioned in the introduction, the central idea of this post-structuralist work, first proposed by the philosopher Jaques Derrida, was the questioning of accepted system hierarchies. Through his writing and critique of structuralist texts Derrida advanced the notion of 'undecideability' between binary oppositions. The eschewing of the subjective prejudice inherent in either side of a binary argument attempts a new critical clarity. Let us look at the source of the ideas behind undecideability, it's affects on theory and architecture and how this might lead us to a technique of superimposition.

Derrida explores this position by making a critique of Plato's 'Phaedrus', specifically the part that deals with the question of hierarchies between writing and speech. Derrida is interested in the way in which Plato introduces the story of the birth of writing and the terminology used to describe it. Plato uses the discussion between Socrates and Phaedrus to tell the story of the an ancient Egyptian inventor-god called Theuth.

"...he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters." ⁽⁶⁾

All the inventions were to be brought before the King of Upper Egypt, Thamus, for approval. Each was presented in turn until eventually they came to writing or letters,

"...This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; for this is the cure of forgetfulness and of folly." (my emphasis) ⁽⁷⁾

The translation used here describes writing as a cure, but as Collins ⁽⁸⁾ points out the original Greek word pharmakon is much more ambiguous in meaning, simultaneously suggesting both cure and poison. In this way it is similar to the English word 'drug', inhabiting both good and bad representations. The pharmakon then, is undecideable.

Plato's story commits the word to one of the two opposing possibilities, and tells how Thamus decides that writing will in fact make men stop using their memories and become lazy. Derrida, however, continues to explore the reasons why the word pharmakon was used in the first place, deciding that writing is not so easily committed to either pole of the argument.

"Writing as pharmakon cannot be fixed down with Plato's oppositions. The pharmakon has no proper or determinate character. It is the play of possibilities, the movements back and forth, into and out of the opposites." ⁽⁹⁾

Thus begins Derrida's quest to destabilize the foundations of Western philosophy, by reaching a new understanding of the level of affect that accepted binary oppositions have had on logocentric metaphysics. The ontological search for truth exists only through its attempt to leave behind that which must be non-truth. To understand that which it deems to be positive, philosophy must, by definition, denounce the negative. The metaphysical journey then, can be said to privilege it's foundational term over any other that follows; the essence of 'being' is questioned by the notion of 'not-being'. Instead of simply overturning this hierarchy, Derrida searches for a way to disrupt from within and avoid re-enacting the hierarchy from another direction. Undecideability as a position of ambiguity that denies either pole becomes the method for destabilizing the flow of logocentrism. Elsewhere this has been described as analogous to the idea of the zombie ⁽¹⁰⁾.

This line of questioning began to affect the architectural avant-garde. Philosophical deconstruction and architecture had their most important meeting in Paris, as part of the process involved in the design of Parc de la Villette by Bernard Tschumi. Faced with the political, economical and ethical complexities of one of Mitterands 'Grands Projets', Tschumi began by aiming for an architectural 'mediation' or a conceptual framework that would accommodate the likely changes in brief and the introduction of other artists into the design. Effectively designing the system within which the park would occur, rather than the singular composition or gesture. The system was produced through three exclusive parts: points, lines and surfaces. The final event was brought about by the superimposition of each onto the site.

"Parc de la Villette project had a specific aim: to prove that it was possible to construct a complex architectural organization without resorting to traditional rules of composition, hierarchy, and order. The principle of superimposition of three autonomous systems of points, lines and surfaces was developed by rejecting the totalizing synthesis of objective constraints evident in the majority of large scale projects." ⁽¹¹⁾

Tschumi's work was greatly influenced by Derrida; Tschumi's essay 'Abstract Mediation and Strategy' ⁽¹²⁾ demonstrates a clear connection in it's terminology.

"Superimposing these autonomous and completely logical structures meant questioning their conceptual status as ordering machines: the superimposition of three coherent structures can never result in a supercoherent megastructure, but in something undecideable, something that is the opposite of totality." ⁽¹³⁾

Here we can see that the act of superimposition represents Derrida's in-between or denial of hierarchy. One of the most important shifts in ideology to be recognised here is the way that the position of the architect himself is also questioned. The role of the creator is an implicit part of the systemic hierarchies that Tschumi is trying to disrupt. By devaluing his own position within the system Tschumi makes the traditional understanding of his presence tenuous.

By understanding how Derrida's undecideability has led us to the question of an architects loss of self we can begin to make the first connection between this early example of deconstruction (arguably one of the few to have a clear understanding of it's philosophical background rather than just becoming a style or -ism) and today's contemporary theory. A connection that will help us understand recent statements such as,

"...Winy and I are very similar. We both hate to design..." ⁽¹⁴⁾

Superimposition can be described as an act of collage. The bringing together of two disparate systems to create a new, multi-valent object or space. Yet something has occurred since the time of Tschumi's superimpositions to make collage seem inadequate to architects like Rahim. If '...collage is reliant upon available collageable material...' what else can be brought to the process to move it out of this closed, self-referential position? The failings of collage can be described by considering the lack of 'feedback' within the system. Two new considerations are proposed by Rahim and his peers. Firstly, as we have already examined, there is the suggestion that superimposition is in fact not sufficiently unpredictable (if the disparate systems are known then so must the result) and secondly, that each system should be allowed to continue to progress through it's own deformations generated by the interaction with others, i.e. feedback. Collage or superimposition is accused of being a singular action that merely introduces the systems to each other but does not allow them to interact or affect each other.

Where does the notion of feedback arise? In 1995 Charles Jencks wrote 'The Architecture of the Jumping Universe', a 'friendly polemic' that was the first attempt to demonstrate the most recent influences from other disciplines. The 1993 edition of Architectural Design entitled 'Folding in Architecture' ⁽¹⁵⁾ had already examined the work of architects and theorists such as Greg Lynn and Jeffrey Kipnis, and their interest in Rene Thom's Catastrophe Theory. Jencks, however, makes a much wider critique and describes architecture's position in relation to the fundamental changes in science's understanding of how the universe is ordered. Most notably in the new sciences of complexity and nonlinear dynamics. Jencks is by no means the first to be interested in harnessing the powers of complexity. As Jencks himself notes, Venturi's 1966 book 'Complexity and Contradiction' ⁽¹⁶⁾ was a seminal critique of the forced reductivism of Modernism. The difference, however, between the 1966 exploration and Jencks' version of 1995 lies in the understanding of complexity as a generative process rather than an applied typology.

"Venturi's was the first stage of complexity in architecture: complexity as the collage of pre-existing, well-known solutions; complexity as the manipulation of classicism, Modernism, or any familiar ground. But it is more involved with the juxtaposition of static, pre-existing elements than the emergence of surprising new wholes." ⁽¹⁷⁾

Here we can begin to see the move away from collage towards emergence. For a demonstration of the theories behind emergence Jencks discusses the work on nonlinear dynamics of scientists such as Chris Langton from the Santa Fe Institute. The field of nonlinear dynamics is an investigation into the emergent properties of apparently chaotic systems. Roger Lewin's 'Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos' ⁽¹⁸⁾ describes the work done by Langton and other scientists working in the same field. The most useful example for us to examine here, is the discovery of emergent order in cellular automata.

Invented in the 1950's by Hungarian mathematician John van Neumann, cellular automata are individual objects with their own set of rules that are brought together to interact. The rules governing the state of each object are informed by the state of it's neighbouring object. Each cell continually reexamines itself in relation to those around it and adjusts itself according to the latest changes. If you imagine the objects arranged in a grid and it's change in state is made apparent to the observer and recorded as an animation, the behavioural results of the whole system can be examined as the local interactions take place.

"Complex, dynamic patterns develop and roam across the entire grid, the nature of which is influenced but not tightly determined in detail, according to the variety of the rules. Notice that global structure emerges from local activity rules, a characteristic of complex systems." ⁽¹⁹⁾

The patterns that emerge from cellular automata experiments have been shown to demonstrate different types of behaviour: fixed point, periodic, chaotic and a fourth type which moves between all three. This fourth pattern of behaviour exhibits 'universal computing', a term invented by Alan Turing in 1936 to describe a machine that could reconstruct its own purpose and output each time a new task arose ⁽²⁰⁾ . The work of Chris Langton investigated the relationships that occurred between the different patterns to understand what order they occurred in. By further experimentation with computers Langton was able to move through what he calls 'behavioural space' and discover that the fourth pattern resided in the space between the periodic and the chaotic. Langton began to realise the potential in what he called 'the edge of chaos' and took the proposal further by exploring how systems tend towards this moment of dynamic equilibrium without outside persuasion. The 'edge of chaos' is a crucial factor in the understanding of nonlinear systems along with the concept of minimum input resulting in maximum output. As a nonlinear system performs local interactions and events that feed the emergent global structure, it's behaviour actually tends toward the moment between order and chaos.

"It would be interesting enough if adaptive complex systems inescapably were located at the edge of chaos, the place of maximum capacity for information computation. The world could then be seen to be exploiting the creative dynamics of complex systems, but with no choice in the matter. But what if such systems actually got themselves to the edge of chaos, moved in parameter space to the place of maximum information processing? That would be really interesting: the ghost in the machine would seem to be almost purposeful, piloting the system to maximum creativity." ⁽²¹⁾

Jencks introduces this discussion to architecture. Firstly describing the importance that science has within our changing understanding of modern culture and secondly by drawing comparisons between nonlinear theory and the process of making architecture, demonstrating which practices are already developing new theories for 'maximum creativity'. Outlining the manifesto for what he calls 'cosmogenic' architecture, Jencks attempts to predict the new movement of complex, emergent design. Simultaneously an assault on the reductivist modernist movement, the exposure of early post-modernism as an applied typology and an escape from the fragmentation of post-structuralist theory, 'The Architecture of the Jumping Universe' is a key text in our investigation.

Having examined the roots of undecideability and the in-between, we can now begin to see the connections between the post-structuralist process and Rahim's contemporary process through the medium of complexity science. Other work published in the years preceding Rahim's editorship of Architectural Design also clearly demonstrate the interest in emergent design. The 1997 edition of Architectural Design edited by Peter Davidson and Don Bates ⁽²²⁾ contains it's own versions of John van Neumann's cellular automata. Stan Allen's essay 'From Object to Field' discusses the behaviour of the flock or swarm ⁽²³⁾ and Jeffrey Kipnis' explains his fascination with schools of fish ⁽²⁴⁾, both displaying the qualities that constitute a complex, nonlinear system of feedback. Perhaps the most telling statement in Kipnis' text however, comes at the moment when he explains his typographical work for the Ohio State University:

"For God's sake, no collage, no codes, no clever meanings." ⁽²⁵⁾

In this essay we have shown some of the key evolutionary stages of architectural theory over the last 10 years. By demonstrating the roots of terminology such as 'undecideability' and deconstruction's affects on our understanding of the role of the architect, we can see more clearly the substantial background that exists behind essays such as Rahim's 'Systemic Delay'.

Following the post-structuralist flattening of hierarchies, the erasure of the architects ability to prioritise his subjective will creates a vacuum. The defining of the undecideable/in-between space allows theorists to reflect upon the moment that represents the act of making architecture, and the rigorous examination of process rushes in to fill the vacuum. Alongside this, the growing culture of scientific uncertainty ⁽²⁶⁾ creates new questions regarding Western society's ideas about the universe's dynamics. If the processes of nature demonstrate a self-organizing ability to find the most powerful creative/evolutionary moment, why shouldn't architectural creativity demonstrate the same? Complexity science exposes the source of that creativity and finds that it too exists as an undecideable.

Rahim and his peers have accepted the opening of architectural process begun by the deconstructed in-between and then proceeded to open it further. Collage is presented as only the beginning of the architectural act; to achieve truly unpredictable, new results the layers must be allowed to become activated like fish in a school. The feedback and interaction of ideas within the systemic delay creates a surprising emergent whole.

Essay 2 will examine the subsequent split in architectural discourse between primacy of form and primacy of program and examine how each searches for qualities of emergence using different techniques.

Essay 2: Primacy of form vs. primacy of program

Having reached a conclusion about the general position of current architectural theory, we will now look more closely at how different practices embark on different interpretations. Following the shift away from the focus on the creative individual comes the need to find a new subject matter capable of fulfilling the needs of the design process. Two possibilities are put forward: primacy of form and primacy of program. Separate ontological quests set off in these two fundamentally different directions and, as Michael Speaks has demonstrated, on two different continents. In a lecture given at the Berlage Institute in Amsterdam in 1997, Speaks outlines his interest in the two contenders:

"...this new urban disposition defines what is fresh and exciting about an emergent generation of Dutch architects, and moreover, that it is what distinguishes them from their North American and European counterparts." ⁽²⁷⁾

Speaks goes on to explain the components of this 'urban disposition' found in the Dutch architects. Firstly it includes what he describes as 'a de-emphasis on form development and a renewed focus on the analysis and manipulation of material and immaterial processes' and secondly it 'focuses on the limitations and constraints that architecture necessarily transforms into conditions of possibility'. Those 'limitations and constraints' represent the program that Dutch architecture is most interested in.

In the opening essay to 'SuperDutch' ⁽²⁸⁾ Bart Lootsma discusses the history of Dutch architecture. The pragmatism required for land reclamation, the self-assessment that has occurred through the forces of internationalization, a history of welfare state politics, it's cultural institutions, the cautious nature with which it approaches economic success ⁽²⁹⁾ and the growing culture of public consultation are all sited by Lootsma as instrumental in forming the present Dutch architectural attitude. Also discussed are the influences of Rem Koolhaas' approach to undertaking research and theoretical work and the financial support provided to upcoming students by the Dutch government - both of which were sited by Lars Spuybroek at the recent RIBA lecture:

"There are two forms of postgraduate architectural education in the Netherlands - the grant system and Rem." ⁽³⁰⁾

The affect of external forces, then, cannot be ignored and it is for this reason that we see a parallel with our discussion in essay 1 regarding the move away from the privileging of the creative individual. Rather than adopting the high cultural ground, the hierarchy of subjects involved in the process of architecture is, like the country's topography, flat.

"For every project the architect must study the power relationships within which it exists and create ways of manipulating them. There is no longer any question of architectural autonomy." ⁽³¹⁾

Their North American counterparts, however, have a very different focus. Whilst the emergent Dutch practices demonstrate a 'de-emphasis on form', contemporary American practices are the opposite, using questions of form as the primary vehicle for their investigations. We will return to the Dutch architects and their primacy of program later, firstly we will look at two American architects who most clearly represent an interest in the primacy of form.

Eisenman

Whilst the supporters of 'SuperDutch' speak out against architectural autonomy, some American practices and theorists would disagree. Most notably Peter Eisenman, whose book 'Diagram Diaries' has the search for his interpretation of autonomy as it's central theme. His essays ⁽³²⁾ propose the need to focus on what he calls architecture's 'interiority' or, to use a different phrase, it's internal ideology. Architecture should turn inwards and, as Speaks explains,

"...never, as modernism did, place itself in the service of any exterior discourse, such as politics, or philosophy, but should instead articulate itself as an autonomous practice of form following form." ⁽³³⁾

So, the interiority of architecture is seen by Eisenman as form and the task of the progressive avant-garde architect is to continually dislocate or change form, thereby questioning that which came before.

As the title of his book suggests, Eisenman tries to question the nature of this interiority by the use of the diagram. His essay 'Diagram: An Original Scene of Writing' ⁽³⁴⁾ begins by recognising the history of the architectural diagram and then continues to examine the new interpretations put forward by the philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Jaques Derrida. Essay 1 has already begun to explore the inspiration behind the current departures from post-modernism and deconstructivism; here, the foreword to 'Diagram Diaries' by R.E.Somol proposes the diagram as the most important influence in this departure. As Somol points out, the work of Michel Foucault and the subsequent text by Deleuze ⁽³⁵⁾ introduces the importance of the theory of the 'panopticon' ⁽³⁶⁾ , creating a new understanding of the value of diagramming. ⁽³⁷⁾

Whilst it is not possible to make a complete critique of Deleuze's work here, certain aspects are within the remit of the topic of this dissertation. Eisenman's interest lies primarily in Deleuze's comparison with the classical idea of the diagram as static and hierarchical; proposing instead that a diagram is,

"...a supple set of relationships between forces." ⁽³⁸⁾

A further point to consider here, following our discoveries in essay 1, is the way in which Eisenman is sure to clarify the difference between Deleuze's term superimposition and his use of the word superposition. In Eisenman's words,

"Superimposition refers to a vertical layering differentiating between ground and figure. Superposition refers to a coextensive, horizontal layering where there is no stable ground or origin, where ground and figure fluctuate between one another." ⁽³⁹⁾

We are reminded once again of the growing disillusionment with collage.

Diagramming the ontology of form, then, is how we might describe Eisenman's work. The intention of this essay, however, is to look at the methods used to perform that diagramming. Both the previous statements discuss qualities that Eisenman searches for in the use of computers. The first describes the concept of the vector and the second represents new methods of imaging using tools such as Photoshop, whose work space is layered in a manner that allows constant rearrangement and interaction between the parts. Ground and figure may be blended, blurred, differenced, made opaque or transparent, allowing them to '...fluctuate between one another'.

Whilst other architects we will examine adopt computers throughout their process, Eisenman focuses on diagramming as the starting point ⁽⁴⁰⁾ for his work, opening up several different paths to follow. Here, Eisenman describes how it allows him to work with vectors,

"We can draw an axis from the mind to the hand, thanks to our knowledge of the human body, but we can use the computer to represent a vector, which has nothing to do with an axis. A vector has direction, a force that we cannot draw. We cannot conceptualise a vector but computers can [...]. We open up a completely new world of architectural expressions and experiments." ⁽⁴¹⁾

A field of vectors, then, makes possible the construction of Deleuze's 'supple set of relationships between forces', since a vector cannot be understood as a singularity, it exists only as the result of all other vectors connected to it. Working with vectors has allowed Eisenman to progress his dislocations of the interiority of the house ⁽⁴²⁾ with his project the Virtual House, whose form is created by the computer calculating the results of interacting vectors as they perform according to pre-defined rules. Eisenman's version of the complex, nonlinear system.

Finally, in this section on Peter Eisenman, we will record the way in which the diagram is understood to work within the question of authorial control. How does Eisenman position himself within his work?

"The diagram acts as an agency which focuses the relationship between an authorial subject, an authorial subject, an architectural object, and a receiving subject: it is the strata that exists between them. [...] Here the diagram takes on the distancing of the subject-author. It becomes both rational and mystical, a strange superposition of the two." ⁽⁴³⁾

Derrida's notion of the in-between lives on as Eisenman's strata.

Lynn

The second of our architects chosen to represent an interest in the primacy of form has a close connection with Peter Eisenman. Greg Lynn worked in the Eisenman office before starting his own practice, and the influence of his former teacher is evident in Lynn's work on vectors. Although, whereas Eisenman believes in the power of architecture's autonomous ideology or 'interiority', Lynn explores form as a result of external forces. Forces that were impossible to calculate or represent before the use of computers. A second important difference between Eisenman and Lynn's usage of computers is the way that Lynn continues to use the machine until the final form is complete, instead of just the initial abstracted diagram. There is commonality, however, in their interest in the vector (direction and force) and also the importance of the influences of Deleuze and Foucault. ⁽⁴⁴⁾

Lynn's book 'Animate Form' demonstrates a usage of words often misunderstood by his peers ⁽⁴⁵⁾. When questioned whether the result of the forces he maps should result in an animate architecture that actually moves, Lynn often attempts to explain the difference between the idea of the static and the stable. Two analogies are employed by Lynn, firstly the topology of the design of a boat hull and secondly the vector drawn by a dog chasing a Frisbee^TM.

The surface of a boat hull is the stable result of the force and motion it is designed to perform under. Rather than being conceived in the abstract space of Cartesian coordinates, the hull topology stores the multiple possibilities of its environment in its surface.

"A boat hull does not change its shape when it changes its direction, obviously, but variable points of sail are incorporated into its surface. In this way, topology allows for not just the incorporation of a single moment but rather a multiplicity of vectors, and therefore, a multiplicity of times, in a single continuous surface." ⁽⁴⁶⁾

An animate surface or form, then, is a type of Deleuzian diagram which retains the 'supple set of relationships between forces'. The second analogy helps us to understand the information contained within the vectors that construct such forms, once again defining the difference between a static model and a stable 'system of dynamic organizations' ⁽⁴⁷⁾. A Frisbee^TM, when thrown, has a direction and speed. The chasing dog also has a direction and speed and, if the wind is blowing, so does the environment. In order to intersect with the Frisbee^TM the dog must continually recalculate the results of all these vectors and successfully predict the point at which he and the Frisbee^TM will meet. If you were to chart the path of the dog then any point along it would be a representation of the magnitude of all the forces at that moment, or a dynamic stability inextricably linked to all other points on the path.

Lynn sees the ability of computers to create form in this method by working with three 'properties of organization - time, topology, and parameters' as central to his work. Time is a factor allowed by animation software which permits the possibility of key-framing and (as we have already explored in essay 1) it allows 'objects to interact dynamically with one another'. Topology is the area that allows surfaces to be formed using splines instead of points and lines. Splines are formed by the continuous sequence of vectors that define their shape, exhibiting,

"...both collective qualities of continuity and local qualities of heterogeneity." ⁽⁴⁸⁾

Finally parameters provide the rules under which the subject will deal with the passing of time and its changing topology. Parameters can be used to introduce a field with certain qualities to influence the form and generate an emergent new result.

As the study of motion, Lynn sees no other way forward than through the use of computer technology, it's environment providing 'a new medium for design'. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ His work also investigates the use of computers to manufacture the complex results of his process, utilising computer controlled milling techniques to produce the work developed with students at the Venice Biennale. ⁽⁵⁰⁾

Although Lynn uses external forces to shape his topographical architecture, his work can still be drawn alongside Eisenman's autonomy since it is ultimately critiqued through the quality of its form.

"The Embryologic Houses can be described as [...] most importantly, an unapologetic investment in the contemporary beauty and voluptuous aesthetics of undulating surfaces rendered vividly in iridescent and opalescent colours." ⁽⁵¹⁾

Michael Speaks, who introduced us to the differences between these North Americans and the Dutch, believes that the reason for this is what he calls a 'structural condition' in American architectural theory which restricts its progress. The Dutch, however, are more interested in finding animate forms of practice rather than animate form. ⁽⁵²⁾

NOX

To more clearly understand the concept of being 'uninterested in form' we must realise that what is being questioned is any type of prioritising of visual appearance over the program or event. Lars Spuybroek - principle architect of NOX - expressed this position at a recent RIBA debate. Speaking of the photographs of an installation he had completed in an art gallery, he said,

"Photographing this work is very difficult because there were no aesthetics in advance, the image doesn't play a role." ⁽⁵³⁾

The most important aspect of the program or event is, for Spuybroek, the emphasis on physical experience.

"The most important sense [...] is that of proprioception, the body's sense of disposition and movement." ⁽⁵⁴⁾

In buildings such as the H₂O eXPO in the Netherlands, the visitor is allowed to interact with the fabric and multimedia systems that define the spaces, such that, the physical experience is the building. Thus surpassing the usually dominant form of merely visual critique.

In an essay prepared for the DEAF96 exhibition, Spuybroek outlines the extent to which he believes physical experience events should shape architecture,

"Imagine that architecture is swallowed up by technology so that it becomes completely capable of absorbing and enhancing the body's rhythm. That means that the body's rhythm will affect the form. And conversely it means that the form's rhythmicality will in turn activate the body. This can never be captured in a series of rules. In fact, the program, such as we know it, is purely a mechanistic interpretation of the body and its activities." ⁽⁵⁵⁾

Whilst, on the surface, the discussion of form has parallels with Lynn, the fundamental difference is that the qualities of the resultant form are never put forward as the measure of success or failure. The focus remains on the event. Elsewhere in this essay Spuybroek also discusses vectors, flock behaviour and, the subject of this essay, the split in discourse over form and program.

Lootsma explains the importance of the computer to the NOX office,

"Lars Spuybroek sees the computer primarily as an instrument that will effect a revolution comparable to the discovery of perspective in the Renaissance, an instrument that enables us to visualize the real world in a different way, including aspects of that world that are imperceptible to the naked eye." ⁽⁵⁶⁾

The way the computer is employed by NOX takes on the qualities that we have already discussed in both Eisenman and Lynn. The H₂0 eXPO building used the computer throughout the design process and also the construction. It's complex shape being made possible by the exporting of information form the CAD model. The project entitled 'A Line is Just a Badly Informed Curve' presented at the RIBA conference began by using animation techniques to generate and distort a diagram using predefined parameters. This was then frozen at various stages and turned into a paper diagram which was worked on by hand. Finally this was returned to the computer to allow the construction elements to be produced using computer controlled milling, or as Spuybroek described it, '...stupid plywood meets high information...'.

Spuybroek's perception of what a computer represents reminds us of the Universal Turing Machine described in essay 1. On the subject of authorial control (again at the RIBA conference), Spuybroek has said that the prospect of moving towards a position of mechanistic production is in fact more frightening than the creative individual. What interests him most is the idea that we could produce machines that can make things that are 'fuzzy', or in other words unpredictable and emergent.

UN Studio

The office of Ben Van Berkel and his partner Caroline Bos, most clearly represent the ideology of primacy of program. Theirs is a process which opens up to more than either notions of architectural 'interiority' or abstract representations of external forces. Their 'united' studio is a platform for the bringing together of the many social, political and professional diversities in the built environment.

The term they use to describe their working methods is 'inclusiveness', it's intention is to ensure that all possible influences on a project are allowed into the process with equal priority. We have now travelled furthest from the work of Eisenman at the beginning of this essay. UN Studio completely dismisses the idea of autonomy.

"We should start by acknowledging that all architecture is deeply rooted in the public field." ⁽⁵⁷⁾

And then proposes how to ensure the public field is allowed to shape the design process by absorbing,

"...all aspects of a project; its material and virtual systems and its underlying values are all taken into the equation." ⁽⁵⁸⁾

Also, we should note the denial of any form of style. The inclusive system is deemed to rise above any shallow aesthetic.

"The inclusive organisation tolerates any style, any concept." ⁽⁵⁹⁾

One aspect of their work, however, does demonstrate a link with architects such as Eisenman; UN Studio also employ diagramming in their investigations. Initially in the form of drawings, Van Berkel has begun to utilise 'found' diagrams as well. The tradition of acknowledging the influence of Deleuze's work on Foucault continues with the diagrams of UN Studio.

Elsewhere I have examined their use of the diagram on a project for a private house in the Netherlands ⁽⁶⁰⁾ , a more recent example of diagramming using a computer can be seen in their work for the competition set in West Side, New York (ultimately won by Eisenman). Following extensive recording of site specific information regarding inhabitants, commuters, city users, goods exchange and metropolitan businessmen; UN Studio use computer modelling to develop the information into a 'Deep Plan' which 'incorporates economics, infrastructure, program and construction in time'.

"The procedure of the Deep Plan involves generating a situation-specific, dynamic, organizational structural plan with parameter based techniques." ⁽⁶¹⁾

The computer, then, is the ideal tool with which UN Studio can realise their 'inclusive' architecture. Earlier in this essay we discussed the non-hierarchical techniques possible in software such as Photoshop. That technique will serve as a suitable analogy here since, as their book 'Move' illustrates ⁽⁶²⁾, it allows the user to easily move back and forth between the complex layers of information in the project. Whilst at the same time being able to make new connections across any number of layers, ensuring that,

"...the project is not founded on isolated concepts being worked out in a linear process." ⁽⁶³⁾

In essay 2 we have demonstrated how pervasive the theories outlined in essay 1 have been in the work of the small number of architects chosen. Hopefully the reader has seen the commonality of terminology as well as the direct connections I have drawn myself, despite the fact that the two ideologies explored, form and program, seem diametrically opposed. What is most important to us at the end of this section of the dissertation is how each perceived the role of the computer in their work.

In the final section we will draw some conclusions about the task this new relationship sets for the future of architectural processes.

Conclusion: The Self Preservation Society

The concluding statement of my essay completed during the previous academic year was frustratingly non-committal. Left hanging precariously like Michael Caine in a bus full of Italian gold bullion, my thoughts have been dogged by it ever since. Briefly, it left open the question of whether the architect should continue to strive for authorial objectivity. Seduced by the words of Van Berkel Bos, who, as we have seen in essay 2 are a key proponent of the possibilities inherent within the program, I have been fascinated by their simple mantra: 'But it has to sound right' ⁽⁶⁴⁾. A sly reminder of the fact that the presence of the architect will never be fully erased and whose affect in some form is unavoidable.

Writing this dissertation has helped me to form a new conclusion about the state of the role of the architect. Let us return for the moment to the theory of the Universal Turing Machine. The concept, as we discussed in essay 1, is that the Universal Machine itself has no predefined purpose. For the machine to function it must be able to deform to the requirements of each new task it is given (the radical nature of Turing's vision is clearer when you remember it was originally perceived as something mechanical) as well as provide the result. Each problem the Universal Machine is set must also contain the instructions for how to solve it. Now, it is of course easy to see how this is precisely the way in which a modern computer performs, with it's dumb hardware supplied a purpose by the software; but it also reminds us that this Universal Machine is the perfect embodiment of objectivity. To use Eisenman's terminology, until the task in hand is commenced, it has no 'interiority'. It is formless.

It is widely accepted that the benefits of using a computer are found among such things as its ability to perform complex tasks quickly, sort and store large amounts of data and, in an abstract fashion, shrink or expand linear restrictions of time and space. All the architects we examined in essay 2 utilised these capabilities to some degree. However, what I would like to focus on here is what the computer represents in the design process, rather than what it actually does.

What it represents is the answer to the question of how to 'open up process' ⁽⁶⁵⁾. The continued search for objectivity or releasing of authorial control is over, since it is resolved by the presence of the Universal Machine. Since we are incapable of achieving true objectivity, we have introduced a stand-in that can.

Now we can begin to see the importance of Van Berkel's statement, 'But it has to sound right'. Providing the source of objectivity is not the end to our quest; somebody must feed the Universal Machine. The one factor that all the architects we examined have in common, regardless of which side of the discourse they reside, is that they must all deal with their relationship to their machine. The most difficult task becomes how to move the process into and out of the machine, performing the eversion from the virtual to the real. We must find new ways to interact with the results of our emergent processes and position ourselves within our work.

We must all learn to live with our square-headed girlfriends.

"...the diagram was frozen and the resultant plan was printed out. The points are connected with paper clips and then I began to draw lines between the points." ⁽⁶⁶⁾

The Universal Machine has freed the architect to become a creative individual again. Wait a minute lads, I think I've got an idea...

Notes:

1. "Derrida's failure to offer a project of the new in fact became a kind of sour refrain mouthed especially by Jeffrey Kipnis during much of the conference." - Michael Speaks describing the Anywise conference of 1992. Architectural Design Profile no.133, 'It's Out There' p.28. Academy Group. 1998

2. see my d12 Theory & History - www.annable.co.uk/post/d13/theory1.html

3. eversion n. 1. The act of turning inside out. 2. The condition of being turned outward. Dictionary of the English Language

(or)

eversion: casting the virtual world unto the real, multi-threading virtual/real and actual/possible. - Architectural Design Profile no.133, 'Transarchitectures and Hypersurfaces' , Marcos Novak, p.86. Academy Group. 1998

4. 'Systemic Delay: Breaking the Mold', A. Rahim, 'Architectural Design', Profile 145, 2000. Academy Group.

5. ibid.

6. 'The Dialogues of Plato' Vol. II, B. Jowett, 1875. Oxford University Press.

7. ibid.

8. 'Derrida for Beginners', Jeff Collins, 1996. Icon Books Ltd.

9. ibid (quoting Derrida).

10. see 'Pharmakon for Architecture (or how I learned to love zombies)', Yr 3 essay: The persona held in limbo between life and death becomes unleashed as a new and indescribable force unrestricted by any normal patterns of behaviour.

11. 'Architecture and Disjunction', Bernard Tschumi, 1996. MIT Press.

12. ibid.

13. ibid.

14. Lars Spuybroek speaking at the RIBA 'SuperDutch' conference about the comparisons between his practice 'Nox' and Winy Maas of 'MVRDV', Oct 31 2000

15. 'The Architecture of the Jumping Universe', Charles Jencks, 1995. Academy Editions.

16. 'Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture', R. Venturi, 1966. Museum of Modern Art.

17. 'The Architecture of the Jumping Universe', Charles Jencks, 1995. Academy Editions.

18. 'Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos', Roger Lewin, 1992.MacMillan Books.

19. ibid.

20. The Universal Turing Machine is now recognised as the first theory to describe and inspire the invention of the modern computer.