The T-machine

2011-02-09T14:31:00.003-08:00

2010 KAM Workshop: The Bankruptcy of Architecture

2010-08-09T15:29:00.000-07:00

In this year's "Bankruptcy of Architecture", the workshop will investigate the local conditions as a particular moment of a financial crisis. Can the crisis determine some strategies for architecture? The particular Greek moment takes an emblematic form: a positive, constructive look to this bankrupted world we built is needed. At the contrary some very strong concepts need to be redefined, such the concept of "nature" or the "politics of reuse". Some changes of the value systems have to be taken under consideration for the function of a workshop that always related art to architecture through theoretical investigation.
More Information at http://www.kamworkshops.com/.

apomechanes 2010

2010-07-05T05:26:00.000-07:00

Ahylo lab in collaboration with supermanoeuvre and kokkugia are pleased to announce the launch of the apomechanes 2010 studio (seminar and workshop) to be held in Athens this summer, from the 19th of July till the 6th of August.

Apomechanes is an intensive 3-‐week computational design studio held each summer in Athens, Greece. The studio is devoted to furthering techniques and concepts of algorithmic processes as means for design and fabrication. Apomechanes brings together individuals from diverse backgrounds and fields of study to discuss, exchange and collaborate on projects that investigate modes of algorithmic and machinic processes in architectural design. The title apomechanes is derived from “από μηχανής”, literally “from the machine”, and refers to the machinic nature of the studio in both an abstract/diagrammatic and a literal fabrication sense.
At present computational techniques are predominantly employed in the optimization, rationalization or surface decoration of more traditionally created wholes. This research instead focuses on the inherent potential of computation to generate space and of algorithmic procedures to engage self-‐organization in the design process. During the workshop, participants create their own custom algorithms leading to the fabrication of working full-‐scale prototypes appropriate to their research trajectories. Participants engage closely with computational processes in order to develop an aesthetic and intuition of complexity that resides in a balance between design intent and emergent character.
Along with the apomechanes studio there are four more events that are organized for this summer:

Karl Chu will lecture on the 2nd of June in Athens at 7:30pm in Benaki Museum. Karl Chu is principal of the architectural studio METAXY. Before taking on the professorship at the School of Architecture at the Pratt Institute, he was the founder and director of the Institute for Genetic Architecture at the GSAPP, Columbia University, New York. In addition, he is also a Co-‐director of the Biodigital Architecture Program at ESARQ, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona. He is involved in the research and development of genetic architecture and the ontology of the architecture of possible worlds. He has taught, lectured, published and exhibited internationally.
apomechanes is inviting the participants of the studio as well as a curated group of emerging designers to a weeklong sailing symposium around the Greek islands. This initiative is seeking to formalize, through a series of records of proceedings, an on-‐going dialog around the future of contemporary methodologies in architectural design and fabrication technologies.
An exhibition with all the working full-‐scale prototypes from the apomechanes will be held in September in Athens. The exhibition will be supported with projects from the instructors and invited architects and designers.
A bilingual (Greek and English) publication covering works from apomechanes, supported with articles and projects from the instructors and invited architects and designers will be published in September. apomechanes is now accepting applications, further information is available at: http://www.apomechanes.com

Towards Post-Capitalist Spaces: The Meaning of the Commons

2009-07-01T02:21:00.000-07:00

Two events on the commons, An Architektur at Athens Bienniale 2009, July 3+4

The notion of private property is crucial to capitalism. For the last 30 years the neoliberal agenda helped to transform the urban landscape into a field of commodities dominated by the claims of capitalist utilization: Its perpetual need to find further profitable terrains for capital accumulation resulted in the commodification and privatization of former public properties, services and spaces that had long been considered inaccessible vis-à-vis profitability calculations. These politics of dispossession, disfranchisement and exclusion led to increasing spatial and social inequalities.

The current crisis, however, has meanwhile led to a decreasing legitimation of these neoliberal politics. Yet the left seems to be lacking concepts to make use of the material and imaginary spaces that are opened up by the current situation: How to further resist and challenge the capitalist demands on the production of space? How to develop alternative models of urbanization and society?

We want to discuss the potential of the concept of commons as a political discourse and practice that sets a limit to capitalist accumulation but that also goes beyond it a strategy of de-commodification and re-appropriation that tries to recognize and articulate the already existing though maybe minor and often micro-level alternative practices. Commons are an optimistic alternative, a grounded vision based on existing struggles but fundamentally questioning the hegemonic logic of a capitalist society. We want to discuss the notion of commons in different historical situations and explore how it can be actualized today. What are its potentials, limitations and can it be turned into a social and political force and perspective towards post-capitalist spaces?

Friday, July 3: 7.00 pm -- 9.00 pm, at Floisvos beach, Athens
Public Interview with Massimo de Angelis and Stavros Stavrides

Saturday, July 4: 11.00 am -- 3.00 pm, at Floisvos building, Athens
Open Workshop with Massimo de Angelis, Stavros Stavrides and further guests from Athens

Massimo de Angelis is Professor of Political Economy at the University of East London
Stavros Stavrides is Assistant Professor of Architecture, National Technical University of Athens

An Architektur in cooperation with the Athens Bienniale 2009
as part of “live”, curated by Dimitris Papaioannou and Zafos Xagoraris

www.anarchitektur.com
www.athensbiennial.org

Thomas Daniell - After the Crash: Architecture in Post-Bubble Japan

2009-04-11T05:55:00.000-07:00

Thomas Daniell After the Crash: Architecture in Post-Bubble Japan New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008.

In ‘Arter the Crash: Architecture in Post-Bubble Japan’, Thomas Daniell is taking a thorough look into contemporary Japanese architecture.

More a collection of articles than a ‘proper’ book may be disconnected at some times, but in total it manages to capture all the different directions that Japanese architecture took after the big economical crisis that Japan went through in the beginning of the ‘90s. There are seven chapters in the book (genealogies and tendencies, domestic spaces, new prototypes, public spaces, revitalizing metabolism, nature and artifice and urban views) that touch upon projects of different scale (and maybe of different significance) where the author examines the work of Japanese architects like Kazunari Sakamoto, Kazuhiro Ishii, Jun Aoki, Toshiaki Ishida, Kazuyo Sejima, Toyo Ito and many others, along with projects from international architects like FOA and MVRDV.
Thinking that the western world is now going through its own economical crisis this book might also provide some insights into how Japanese architects handled the economical crisis of the ‘90s and managed to produce interesting architecture.

Μελέτη περίπτωσης βίαιης συνάρθρωσης δύο (ή περισσότερων) διαφορετικών ή ετερώνυμων συστημάτων:Σκέψεις για την εικόνα του ιστορικού κέντρου του Ταλλίv

2009-03-16T14:52:00.001-07:00

Γιωργος Καρατζάς,

Α. Εισαγωγή

Η Εσθονία ανακήρυξε την ανεξαρτησία της από την ΕΣΣΔ πριν από 17 χρόνια. Σαν ένα μικρό κράτος, πολιτιστικά τραυματισμένο από την υποχρεωτική ενσωμάτωση στην Σοβιετική Ένωση στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του ’40, έχει ‘επιτέλους’ την ευκαιρία, αλλά και την ανάγκη να επαναξιολογήσει τα χαρακτηριστικά της εθνικής ταυτότητας. Μια γρήγορη ‘ανάγνωση’ της εικόνας της Εσθονικής πρωτεύουσας, Ταλλίνν, από την ανακήρυξη της ανεξαρτησίας του κράτους μέχρι τις ημέρες μας δείχνει μια έκδηλη προσπάθεια των Αρχών οι οποίες είναι επιφορτισμένες με την διαχείριση των πολιτιστικών αποθεμάτων της χώρας, να επέμβουν στην εικόνα της πόλης και να δημιουργήσουν ένα αστικό τοπίο το οποίο θα απέχει από οποιαδήποτε αναφορά στο πρόσφατο σοβιετικό παρελθόν.

Η περίπτωση της ανάδειξης του ιστορικού κέντρου του Ταλλίνν, είναι θέμα το οποίο έχει σαφείς πολιτικές προεκτάσεις και ιδεολογική φόρτιση, ενώ παράλληλα αποτελεί μια μοναδική περίπτωση πολλαπλής ανάγνωσης του ιστορικού αστικού τοπίου. Το θέμα αναπαράστασης του παρελθόντος και ο επαναπροσδιορισμός της σύγχρονης ιστορίας της συγκεκριμένης χώρας, είναι στενά συνδεδεμένο με το θέμα της ιθαγένειας, το οποίο κυριαρχεί στην πολιτική ζωή.

Β. Σύντομη ιστορική ανασκόπηση του Εσθονικού έθνους και κράτους

Η Εσθονία είναι ένα μικρό ευρωπαϊκό κράτος στην βόρεια άκρη της Βαλτικής. Η ιστορία του Εσθονικού έθνους είναι πολύπλοκη και γεμάτη από αλληλο-συσχετίσεις με τα γειτονικά έθνη. Το έδαφος που κατέχει το σημερινό Εσθονικό κράτος έχει διεκδικηθεί, κατακτηθεί και εποικιστεί από τον Μεσαίωνα μέχρι σήμερα από όλες τις μεγάλες δυνάμεις της περιοχής: τους Σουηδούς, τους Δανούς (το όνομα Ταλλίνν άλλωστε σημαίνει η πόλη των Δανών), τους Γερμανούς και τους Ρώσους. Παρόλο το γεγονός ότι η ρωσική παρουσία χρονολογείται από το Μεσαίωνα, επιτυχείς προσπάθειες ενσωμάτωσης της περιοχής κάτω στην ρωσική επικράτεια επισφραγίσθηκαν με την Συνθήκη του Νύσταντ (1721), όταν η περιοχή πέρασε από την Σουηδική στην Ρωσική αυτοκρατορία. Παρόλο, όμως, το γεγονός ότι η επαρχία ενσωματώθηκε στο Τσαρικό κράτος, η άρχουσα τάξη παρέμεινε κατά ένα συντριπτικό ποσοστό Γερμανικής καταγωγής.

Οι απαρχές της Εσθονικής εθνέγερσης, συμπίπτουν με την κατάργηση του καθεστώτος της δουλοπαροικίας στα μέσα του 19^ου αιώνα και την πρόσβαση των ‘αυτοχθόνων’ εσθονό-φώνων στην εκπαίδευση. Εκείνη την περίοδο οι εσθονό-φωνοι άρχισαν να εγκαθίστανται στις πόλεις ενώ όσον αφορά το Ταλλίνν είναι σημαντικό να αναφερθεί ότι μέχρι τα μέσα του 19^ου αιώνα η πλειονότητα των κατοίκων άνηκε στους Γερμανούς της Βαλτικής (Baltic Germans).

Η πρώτη ανεξάρτητη εσθονική δημοκρατία ανακηρύχθηκε το Φλεβάρη του 1918, ενώ εγκαθιδρύθηκε ‘de jure’ τον Φλεβάρη του 1920, ακολουθώντας μια αλυσίδα γεγονότων τα οποία σχετίζονται με την Οκτωβριανή Επανάσταση και την ήττα της Γερμανικής αυτοκρατορίας στον Α’ Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο. Η Εσθονική ανεξαρτησία δεν θα κρατήσει πολύ όμως καθώς η χώρα θα προσαρτηθεί στην Σοβιετική Ένωση, σύμφωνα με τους όρους των απόρρητων τροποποιήσεων του συμφώνου μη- επιθέσεως Μολότοφ- Ρίμπεντροπ, τον Αύγουστο του 1939. Η Εσθονία θα παραμείνει Σοβιετική Σοσιαλιστική Δημοκρατία μέχρι τον Αύγουστο του 1991, όταν επανέκτησε την ανεξαρτησία της. Σήμερα, αποτελεί μέλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης (2004) και του ΝΑΤΟ (2004).

Γ. Το θέμα της πολιτικής ιθαγένειας. Η παρουσία του εθνικά ‘Άλλου’.

Ακόμα και λίγο πριν την ανεξαρτησία από την σοβιετική κυριαρχία, το θέμα του καθορισμού των χαρακτηριστικών της εσθονικής εθνικής ταυτότητας, καθώς και της αναπαράστασης του αναδυόμενου από την αφάνεια έθνους, είχε αρχίσει να επανέρχεται στην επικαιρότητα. Από τότε μέχρι σήμερα το θέμα της ιθαγένειας, το ποιος δηλαδή θεωρείται Εσθονός και ανήκει στην φανταστική κοινωνία (imagined community) και ποιος όχι, βρίσκεται σταθερά στην κορυφή της πολιτικής και κοινωνικής ζωής. Σύγχρονες απογραφές[i] υποδηλώνουν ένα αρκετά μεγάλο ποσοστό μη- εθνικά αυτό-προσδιοριζόμενων Εσθονών, ενώ υποστηρίζεται ότι υπάρχει μια συνειδητή προσπάθεια αποκλεισμού ατόμων (και απογόνων τους), οι οποίοι εγκαταστάθηκαν στα χρόνια της Εσθονικής ΣΣΔ από άλλα μέρη της Ένωσης. Φυσικά, το θέμα της ιθαγένειας είναι τεράστιο και ξεφεύγει από τους σκοπούς της συγκεκριμένης εργασίας, αλλά υποστηρίζεται ότι το σύγχρονο Εσθονικό κράτος προσπαθεί να προσδιορίσει τα χαρακτηριστικά του Εσθονικού Εαυτού’ (Self) σε πλήρη αντιπαράθεση με αυτά του ‘Άλλου’ (Other) των εποίκων, οι οποίοι είναι κυρίως φορείς της Ρωσικής κουλτούρας. Η παρουσία διαφορετικών εθνοτικών ομάδων σήμερα, σχετίζεται με την εγκατάσταση τους κατά την περίοδο της Εσθονικής ΣΣΔ, ενώ σύμφωνα με την (εθνικά) εσθονική ελίτ, σχετίζεται με την ‘βίαιη’ και φασιστική προσάρτηση της χώρας στην ΕΣΣΔ. Είναι σημαντικό, πάντως, να αναφερθεί ότι η περίοδος της Εσθονικής ΣΣΔ έχει πρόσφατα χαρακτηριστεί ως ‘παράνομη κατοχή’, σε πλήρη αντίθεση με την γραμμή της Ρωσίας η οποία αναφέρει ότι η ενσωμάτωση στην ΕΣΣΔ ήταν οικειοθελής και με την θέληση του εσθονικού λαού. Τον βαθμό της πόλωσης και της καχυποψίας μεταξύ εθνικά προσδιορισμένων και μη Εσθονών, πάντως, μαρτυρούν οι ταραχές που προκλήθηκαν τον Απρίλιο του 2007, κατά την μετακίνηση του μνημείου των ‘Απελευθερωτών του Ταλλίνν’ στο στρατιωτικό νεκροταφείο.

Δ. Ιστορικό κέντρο του Ταλλίνν

Pic 01: Μία από τις εισόδους του παλιού ιστορικού κέντρου στην οδό Pikk

Το Ταλλίνν, μια περιφερειακή πρωτεύουσα τον καιρό της ΕΣΣΔ, είχε την τύχη να μην εκσυγχρονιστεί και εκβιομηχανιστεί στον ίδιο βαθμό με τις άλλες περιφερειακές πρωτεύουσες της Βαλτικής. Έχοντας έτσι ένα σημαντικό κτιριακό απόθεμα ιστορικών κτιρίων από τον καιρό της σύντομης εσθονικής ανεξαρτησίας (περίοδος μεσοπολέμου) αλλά και παλιότερα, οι Αρχές συντήρησης έχουν στρέψει την προσοχή και τα κονδύλια τους στη αξιοποίηση του. Κτιριακές οντότητες οι οποίες υποστηρίζουν διαφορετική ανάγνωση του αστικού χώρου από την επίσημη εκδοχή του, γκρεμίζονται ή στην καλύτερη περίπτωση αφήνονται στην φθορά. Φυσικά το Ταλλίνν, ως η βιτρίνα του κράτους έχει μια ιδιαίτερη θέση στον ‘εθνικό μύθο’ και για τον λόγο αυτό χρήζει ιδιαίτερης προσοχής από τις Αρχές.

Pic 02: Κτίριο στην οδό Uus, αρχικά κτισμένο στις αρχές του 20^ου αιώνα και πρόσφατα αποκαταστημένο. Σήμερα στεγάζει ξενώνα. Η επαναξιολόγηση του κτιριακού αποθέματος του ιστορικού κέντρου είναι μια διαδικασία η οποία ξεκίνησε στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του 1990 μετά την ανεξαρτησία της χώρας. Μέχρι τότε, τα περισσότερα κτίρια του ιστορικού κέντρου, όπως και το συγκεκριμένο, βρισκόταν σε ερειπιώδη κατάσταση. Φυσικά, στην περιοχή παρατηρείται έμμεση εκδίωξη του αρχικού πληθυσμού λόγω της αύξησης των ενοικίων και των αξιών των ιδιοκτησιών, εγκατάσταση νέων χρήσεων, καθώς και εγκατάσταση υψηλότερων εισοδηματικά τάξεων.

Το ιστορικό κέντρο της Εσθονικής πρωτεύουσας, συμπίπτει με το μεσαιωνικό κομμάτι της πόλης το οποίο περιτριγυρίζεται από τα παλιά τείχη, ενώ η είσοδος σε αυτό γίνεται σε συγκεκριμένα σημεία. Στην πιο περίοπτη θέση του ιστορικού πυρήνα, την Toompea, βρίσκονται τα ποιο σημαντικά συμβολικά κτίρια της πόλης όπως το κοινοβούλιο, οι καθεδρικοί των χριστιανικών δογμάτων, αρκετές πρεσβείες, καθώς και διάφορα κτίρια πολιτιστικού περιεχομένου και ξενοδοχεία. Μια εμπειρική ανάλυση του κτιριακού αποθέματος του ‘ιστορικού’ κέντρου, θα δείξει ότι η μεγαλύτερη πλειονότητα των ‘αξιόλογων’ ιστορικών κτιρίων έχει αποκατασταθεί σχετικά πρόσφατα και πιο συγκεκριμένα κατά την τελευταία δεκαπενταετία, αφότου η Εσθονία απέκτησε την ανεξαρτησία της από την ΕΣΣΔ. Μια εξέταση των καταχωρήσεων της λίστας των διατηρητέων κτιρίων του ιστορικού κέντρου της πόλης, θα δείξει ότι η συντριπτική πλειονότητα των κτιρίων του ιστορικού ‘μεσαιωνικού’ κέντρου της πόλης έχουν κτισθεί μεταξύ 1880- 1940[ii], χωρίς βέβαια αυτό να αποκλείει την παρουσία αρχιτεκτονικών μνημείων αναγερμένα από τα χρόνια του μεσαίωνα μέχρι το 1880. Ποσοτικά πάντως οι καταχωρήσεις και φυσικά τα κτίρια της συγκεκριμένης εξηκονταετίας υπερτερούν κατά τι από τις καταχωρήσεις και τα κτίρια όλων των άλλων ιστορικών περιόδων (μεσαίωνας- 1991). Τα κτίρια, δηλαδή, τα οποία ανήκουν στην περίοδο της εθνέγερσης και της πρώτης σύντομης Εσθονικής δημοκρατίας του μεσοπολέμου, προτιμώνται από το Εθνικό Κέντρο Κληρονομιάς (Muinsuskaitseamet), και θεωρούνται ως τα πλέον κατάλληλα για να κοσμούν, τόσο το ιστορικό κέντρο αλλά και την πόλη γενικότερα. Αλλά είναι αυτές οι κατασκευές του 19^ου και 20^ου αιώνα η μόνη αρχιτεκτονική κληρονομιά του Ταλλίνν; Μια επίσκεψη στην πόλη, θα δώσει μια διαφορετική εντύπωση.

Ε. Αστικός Χώρος ως πεδίο προβολής ιδεολογημάτων και κοινωνικών κατασκευών

Έχει υποστηριχθεί ότι οι πόλεις δρουν ως κείμενα, στα οποία κωδικοποιούνται κοινωνικές, οικονομικές, και πολιτικές ιεραρχίες. Τα αστικά σύνολα μπορούν να ‘διαβαστούν’ και να αποκωδικοποιηθούν από τα άτομα τα οποία κινούνται σε αυτά, αφήνοντάς τα να οδηγηθούν σε συμπεράσματα τα οποία σχετίζονται με τα πολιτιστικά χαρακτηριστικά, κοινωνικές ιεραρχίες, κανόνες και αρχές της ευρύτερης ομάδας στην οποία εντάσσονται (Barnes& Duncan, 1992- Ashworth, 1998). Υποστηρίζεται ότι συλλογική πολιτιστική μνήμη και ‘ιστορικός’ αστικός χώρος (ιστορικοί πυρήνες των πόλεων) είναι άρρηκτα συνδεδεμένοι μεταξύ τους. Μνήμη και ‘ιστορικός’ χώρος είναι επίσης συνυφασμένοι με την νεωτεριστική κατασκευή ταυτοτήτων (Ashworth, Turnbridge & Graham, 2000). Το συντηρημένο παρελθόν νομιμοποιεί την καταγωγή/ προέλευση του παρόντος, εκφράζοντας ‘αιώνιες’ αξίες οι οποίες είναι σημαντικές στο συλλογικό αυτοπροσδιορισμό. Υποστηρίζεται ότι η διατήρηση του παρελθόντος, και συγκεκριμένα η διατήρηση της εικόνας του παρελθόντος, δεν έχει σχέση με την διατήρηση της μνήμης και της ιστορίας, αλλά με την αναπαράσταση και την επαναξιολόγηση του έτσι ώστε να ικανοποιεί απαιτήσεις του παρόντος (Munasinghe, 2005).

Η αστική κληρονομιά στον Ευρωπαϊκό Χώρο θεωρείται από αρκετούς μελετητές αποτέλεσμα παραποίησης και χαλιναγώγησης. Εξετάζοντας τόσο τους τρόπους με τους οποίους παράγεται, όσο και το ποιος παράγει το συντηρημένο/ διατηρητέο αστικό τοπίο, ο Ashworth (1998) υποστηρίζει ότι η απάντηση βρίσκεται σε τρεις βασικές ιδέες, οι οποίες σχετίζονται με την άσκηση της εξουσίας: α) την έννοια της νομιμοποίησης (political legitimation- Habermas, J. (1996)), κατά την οποία τόσο οι κυβερνήσεις, όσο και άτομα χρησιμοποιούν την αστική κληρονομιά ως μέσο για να δικαιολογήσουν την άσκηση εξουσίας, αλλά και την ίδια τους την ύπαρξη επικαλούμενοι συγκεκριμένα ‘στιγμιότυπα’ του παρελθόντος που απονέμουν αυτό το δικαίωμα., β) την έννοια της κυρίαρχης ιδεολογίας (dominant ideology thesis- Abercrombie et al. (1982)), κατά την οποία η κυρίαρχη ομάδα στην εξουσία επιβάλει τις αξίες της σε μια κυριαρχούμενη υπεξούσια, και γ) την έννοια του πολιτιστικού κεφαλαίου (cultural capital thesis- Bourdieu, P. (1977)). Συνοπτικά αναφέρεται ότι το πολιτιστικό κεφάλαιο δρα ως κοινωνική αναφορά εντός ενός συστήματος ανταλλαγών η οποία περιλαμβάνει την συσσωρευμένη γνώση η οποία απονέμει εξουσία και κοινωνική καταξίωση.

Pic 03: Μουσειοποίηση της πόλης- Επεξηγηματικές ταμπέλες οι οποίες ενημερώνουν τους επισκέπτες και τους ντόπιους για την ιστορία των κτιρίων.

Στο παραπάνω πλαίσιο, η αστική κληρονομιά υποστηρίζεται ότι έχει ‘φιλτραριστεί’ και το αποτέλεσμα αυτού του φιλτραρίσματος αποτελεί το σημερινό διατηρημένο αστικό τοπίο το οποίο στερείται ουσιαστικού νοήματος (Gospodini, 2004). Περιγράφοντας την διαδικασία αποφόρτισης και από-νοηματοδότησης του ιστορικού αστικού χώρου, ο Ashworth (1998) εισάγει τις έννοιες τις απαλοιφής (eradification) και μουσειοποίησης (museumification). Με την απαλοιφή περιγράφεται η ακούσια καταστροφή αντικειμένων-συμβόλων, αστικών χώρων, κτιρίων λόγω πολέμου ή φυσικών καταστροφών, αλλά και εκούσια λόγω εκσυγχρονισμού και αλλαγή πολιτικού καθεστώτος. Με την μουσειοποίηση περιγράφεται η αλλαγή της λειτουργικής διάστασης αντικειμένων, αστικών χώρων, κτιρίων και ο μετασχηματισμός σχημάτων έτσι ώστε να γίνουν κατάλληλα προς τουριστική και οικονομική χρήση. Είναι πάντως σημαντικό να αναφερθεί ότι στην κεντρική πρόσοψη κάθε κτηρίου το οποίο τελεί υπό κρατική προστασία και θεωρείται ‘μνημείο’ τοποθετείται μια καλαίσθητη πλάκα η οποία διαθέτει την τυπική αρχική κάτοψή του και αναγράφει την ιστορία του συγκεκριμένου κτίσματος στα εσθονικά και αγγλικά, αλλά όχι στα ρώσικα, μητρική γλώσσα του μισού περίπου πληθυσμού της πόλης (πράγμα που συμβαίνει άλλωστε και σε όλες οι δημόσιες πινακίδες της πόλης).

Ζ. Αποτύπωση εθνικής ταυτότητας στο διατηρητέο ‘ιστορικό’ αστικό χώρο

Η εθνική ταυτότητα σχετίζεται με μια ευρεία και αφηρημένη ‘κοινή’ μνήμη ενός υποτιθέμενου ‘κοινού’ παρελθόντος. Εξηγώντας την σχέση εθνικής ταυτότητας και (αστικού) τοπίου, ο Graham (1998, σελ.40) υποστηρίζει ότι ο διατηρητέος ‘ιστορικός’ αστικός χώρος υποδεικνύει συγκεκριμένους τόπους ως κέντρα του συλλογικού πολιτιστικού υποσυνείδητου. Τα σημερινά ‘ιστορικά’ κέντρα των ευρωπαϊκών πόλεων, υποστηρίζεται ότι έχουν σε μεγάλο βαθμό χαλιναγωγηθεί και παραποιηθεί, έτσι ώστε να προσφέρει αφηγήσεις (narratives) η οποίες όχι μόνο να συμφωνούν με τα χαρακτηριστικά της εθνικής ταυτότητας κάθε φορά, αλλά και να προβάλλουν τέτοια ευκολοχώνευτα στοιχεία τα οποία να νομιμοποιούν την ηγεμονία του εθνο-κράτους (Gospodini, 2004).

Έτσι, η διαχείριση του αστικού τοπίου έχει αποδειχτεί ένα ιδιαίτερα αποτελεσματικό εργαλείο της διαδικασίας της εθνοκατασκευής, καθώς το αποτέλεσμα μιας προσεκτικής και οργανωμένης διαχείρισης του ‘ιστορικού’ αστικού χώρου, προσφέρει μια δυνατή οπτική εμπειρία της υποτιθέμενης ιστορίας ενός τόπου, το οποίο με την σειρά του δίνει σάρκα και οστά στην πολιτιστική μνήμη.

Pic 04: Άποψη του συγκροτήματος κτιρίων μαζικής κατοικίας στην Õismäe tee στο δυτικό άκρο της πόλης. Το συγκρότημα- προάστιο κατασκευάστηκε την δεκαετία του 1960 και αποτελεί παράδειγμα καλής πρακτικής και σχεδιασμού για τα πρότυπα της εποχής της Σοβιετικής Ένωσης. Δυστυχώς στις ημέρες μας το κράτος δεν ενδιαφέρεται για την συντήρησή του ενώ λόγω του υψηλού κόστους οι ένοικοι/ ιδιοκτήτες αδυνατούν να το φροντίσουν από μόνοι τους.

Όπως και στην Αθήνα, έτσι και στο Ταλλίνν, η εικόνα του παλιού ιστορικού κέντρου δεν έχει καμία σχέση με τις γύρω περιοχές. Μια εξέταση του υπάρχοντος οικιστικού αποθέματος δίνει διαφορετική εντύπωση, καθώς το προσεκτικά διατηρημένο ‘μεσαιωνικό’ ιστορικό κέντρο πλαισιώνεται από κτίρια τα οποία χτίστηκαν κατά την περίοδο της Εσθονικής ΣΣΔ, τα οποία βρισκόντουσαν υπό την κρατική φροντίδα άλλοτε ενώ σήμερα αφήνονται στο έλεος του χρόνου. Το εσθονικό ινστιτούτο, η κρατική αρχή επιφορτισμένη για την διαχείριση των πολιτιστικών δράσεων, δραστηριοτήτων, και αποθεμάτων, αναφέρει στην ιστοσελίδα του Estonica ότι, ‘…η εσθονική κοινωνία δεν είναι αρκετά εύπορη για να κατεδαφίσει ολοκληρωτικά τα τεράστια, ψηλά κτίρια μαζικής κατοικίας, ούτε δύναται οικονομικά να μετατρέψει αυτούς τους ‘κοιτώνες’ σε αξιοπρεπή κατοικήσιμα περιβάλλοντα μέσω ανακαίνισης…’[iii]. Όσο αναφορά τα κτίρια που πλαισιώνουν το ιστορικό κέντρο, δεν πρόκειται μόνο για κτίρια μαζικής κατοικίας, όπως πολύ απαξιωτικά περιγράφονται στην ιστοσελίδα του Εσθονικού Ινστιτούτου, ενώ περιλαμβάνουν και διάφορες άλλες τυπολογίες. Αρκετά μεγάλο ποσοστό των κτιρίων αυτών χρειάζονται διαφορετικού βαθμού συντήρηση ή τουλάχιστον φροντίδα, το κόστος της οποίας είτε δεν μπορούν να αναλάβουν οι ιδιοκτήτες/ ένοικοι, είτε δεν θέλουν να αναλάβουν γνωρίζοντας τις προθέσεις των αρχών και την συναισθηματική φόρτιση προς αυτά. Έτσι, παραδείγματα κτιρίων τα οποία αναφέρονται στην σοβιετική περίοδο της πόλης διαγράφονται σταδιακά, είτε με άμεση κατεδάφιση, είτε εγκαταλείποντάς τα στο καταστρεπτικό πέρασμα του χρόνου.

pic 05: Άποψη του κτιρίου Olumpia το οποίο κατασκευάστηκε για να στεγάσει δραστηριότητες που σχετίζονταν με την διοργάνωση των αγώνων ιστιοπλοΐας που διεξήχθησαν στο θαλάσσιο μέτωπο Pirita, στο ανατολικό άκρο του Ταλλίνν, στα πλαίσια των θερινών ολυμπιακών αγώνων της Μόσχας το 1980. Η σχετικά καλή του εικόνα σήμερα οφείλεται σε διαχείρισή του από ιδιωτικά κεφάλαια και την μετατροπή του σε ξενοδοχείο αρκετών αστέρων.

Μέσα στις καινούργιες περιοχές οι οποίες χτίστηκαν, δημιουργείται η απορία γιατί οι αρχές δεν επεμβαίνουν στην διατήρηση τους. Δεν υπήρχε ούτε ένα δείγμα καλής αρχιτεκτονικής ανάμεσα σε όλα τα κτήρια που κτίστηκαν την περίοδο εκείνη; Γιατί το κτιριακό απόθεμα της μεταπολεμικής περιόδου, δεν θεωρείται κατάλληλο για προστασία και διατήρηση; Μόνο κτίρια μαζικής κατοικίας αμφιβόλου αισθητικής άφησαν πίσω τους οι Σοβιετικοί, όπως αναφέρει και το εσθονικό ινστιτούτο; Ή μήπως η σοβιετική περίοδος είναι μια περίοδος την οποία οι Εσθονοί προσπαθούν να διαγράψουν από την συλλογική μνήμη του ‘απελευθερωμένου’ από την κατοχή έθνους; Γιατί η μεσαιωνική, η νεοκλασικιστική, ή η μπαρόκ αρχιτεκτονική να ευνοείται παρόλο που είναι συνδεδεμένη με παρόμοιες περιόδους ‘κατοχής’ και εκμετάλλευσης; Η απάντηση είναι εμφανής, καθώς κτίρια τέτοιων αρχιτεκτονικών ιδιωμάτων είναι μέρος της Ευρωπαϊκής παράδοσης, ενώ διατηρώντας αυτά αποκλειστικά το κράτος υποδηλώνει και νομιμοποιεί σαφώς την σχέση του με την Δύση, καθώς δένουν όχι μόνο την εσθονική πρωτεύουσα αλλά και την ίδια την χώρα, με την Ευρωπαϊκή αστική παράδοση και συμβάλουν στην αποποίηση του πρόσφατου παρελθόντος. Επίσης, με παρόμοιο τρόπο, εξηγείται και η ευκολία με την οποία κατεδαφίζονται κτίρια της σοβιετικής περιόδου σε κεντρικά σημεία και σε περίοπτη θέση, ενώ στην θέση τους κατασκευάζονται ψηλά άμορφα ‘σύγχρονα’ κτήρια γραφείων, όμοια με αυτά που απαντιούνται σε όλα τα δυτικοευρωπαικά κέντρα του καπιταλισμού. Έτσι, μια ανάγνωση του αστικού τοπίου υποδηλώνει ότι το κέντρο του σύγχρονου Ταλλίνν, προέρχεται από έναν μεσαιωνικό οχυρωμένο οικισμό, όπως οι περισσότερες βορειοευρωπαικές πόλεις και ιδιαίτερα αυτές της Χανσεατικής Ένωσης, το οποίο άλλωστε χτίστηκε και από τους ίδιους της βορειοευρωπαίους, και το οποίο μελλοντικά θα περιτριγυρίζεται από μια σύγχρονη πόλη απαλλαγμένη από τα σοβιετικά κουφάρια του παρελθόντος. Ιδιαίτερα το μεσαιωνικό οχυρωμένο ‘χωριό’ στο κέντρο της πόλης, βοηθά όχι μόνο τους Εσθονούς, αλλά και τους επισκέπτες της πόλης να βγάλουν εύκολα συμπεράσματα για την πολιτιστική καταγωγή της πόλης, της χώρας και του πληθυσμού της.

Pic 06: Καινούργια κτίρια κατασκευασμένα στο οικονομικό και επιχειρηματικό κέντρο του Ταλλίνν, κοντά στο μεσαιωνικό κέντρο της πόλης. Άμορφες κατασκευές, δίχως ίχνος τοπικών αναφορών και τοπικού χαρακτήρα αντικατέστησαν τα κτίρια της Σοβιετικής περιόδου. Η εικόνα του οικονομικού κόμβου της πόλης παραπέμπει στα μεγάλα κέντρα του καπιταλισμού, και όχι σε μία πρώην σοσιαλιστική σοβιετική δημοκρατία.

Η/ Επίλογος/ Συμπεράσματα

Η Εσθονία επανέκτησε την ανεξαρτησία της πριν από 17 χρόνια. Ως ένα νεαρό κράτος, πολιτιστικά ‘τραυματισμένο’ από την υποχρεωτική προσάρτηση στην Σοβιετική Ένωση κατά την διάρκεια της δεκαετίας του 1940, έχει σήμερα τόσο την ευκαιρία, όσο και την ανάγκη να επαναπροσδιορίσει τα χαρακτηριστικά που συνθέτουν την εθνική ταυτότητά της.

Στην προσπάθεια εξεύρεσης της κατάλληλης εικόνας για να αναπαραστήσει το έθνος, οι κρατικές αρχές έχουν μέσα σε όλα τα άλλα, στρέψει την προσοχή τους στην συντήρηση και αποκατάσταση των ιστορικών κέντρων των πόλεων που βρίσκονται μέσα στην εθνική επικράτεια, και κυρίως της πρωτεύουσας του κράτους Ταλλίνν. Κτιριακές οντότητες οι οποίες υποστηρίζουν διαφορετικές αφηγήσεις για τις καταβολές, ιστορία και ανάπτυξη του αστικού χώρου και του έθνους, από την επίσημη, διαγράφονται ή στην καλύτερη περίπτωση αφήνονται στον εκφυλισμό και αποσύνθεση. Φυσικά το Ταλλίνν, ως η βιτρίνα του κράτους έχει μια ιδιαίτερη θέση και σημασία στην διαδικασία επαναξιολόγησης και επαναπροσδιορισμού της εικόνας του ιστορικού αστικού χώρου. Η ιστορική εξέλιξη της πόλης δημιούργησε ένα αστικό σύνολο το οποίο αποτύπωνε τις επικρατούσες κοινωνικές, οικονομικές και πολιτικές ιεραρχίες. Το ίδιο αστικό σύνολο χρησιμοποιείται πλέον ως κέλυφος, με τρόπο σκηνογραφικό, για να αποτυπώσει καινούργιες ιεραρχίες αλλά και την επαναξιολόγηση της αστικής και όχι μόνο ιστορίας. Η διαδικασία της επιλογής κατέχει κεντρική θέση στη σύγχρονη πολιτιστική διαχείριση, γεγονός το οποίο είναι έκδηλο στον ιστορικό πυρήνα του Ταλλίνν.

Η διαχείριση του αστικού τοπίου έχει αποδειχθεί ένα αποτελεσματικό μέσο προβολής κοινωνικόπολιτικών ιδεολογημάτων και κατασκευών, καθώς το κανονικοποίημένο αστικό τοπίο ως αποτέλεσμα της παραπάνω διαδικασίας, παρέχει μια ισχυρή οπτική εμπειρία της κατασκευασμένης ιστορίας μιας πόλης και δίνει μορφή στην συλλογική πολιτιστική μνήμη. Φυσικά τα μηνύματα που απορρέουν από ένα ελεγχόμενο αστικό τοπίο, στοχεύουν τόσο στον ντόπιο πληθυσμό, όσο και στους επισκέπτες της πόλης.

Υποστηρίζεται ότι η περίπτωση της ανάδειξης του ιστορικού πυρήνα της Εσθονικής πρωτεύουσας προσφέρει μια ευκαιρία στις αρχές να αποτυπώσουν με τον πιο ακραίο τρόπο τα χαρακτηριστικά της νέας εθνικής και πολιτικής κατάστασης. Ένα μεγάλο ποσοστό των κατοίκων της πόλης (ο Ρωσοεσθονικός κατά κύριο λόγο πληθυσμός), βλέπει τα αντικείμενα που νομιμοποιούν την παρουσία τους εκεί να διαγράφονται από τον αστικό χώρο, ενώ συνειδητοποιεί ότι τόσο αυτά τα αντικείμενα, όσο και αυτοί οι ίδιοι να μην έχουν καμία θέση στην επανα-προσδιοριζόμενη αστική, και όχι μόνο, ιστορία.

Θ. Βιβλιογραφικές αναφορές

· Ashworth, G.J. (1998), The conserved European city as cultural symbol: the meaning of the text, in Graham, B. (ed), Modern Europe, place, culture, identity, p. 261- 286, London: Arnold

· Barnes, T.J. & Duncan, J.S. (1992), writing worlds: discourse, text and metaphor in the representations of the landscape, p.1-17, London: Routledge

· Habermas, J. (1996), The European nation-state: its achievements and its limits, in Balakrishnan, G. & Anderson, B. (Eds), Mapping the Nation, σελ. 281-294, London: Verso

· Ashworth, G.J., Turnbridge, J.E. and Graham, B. (2000), A geography of heritage: Power, Culture & economy, London: Arnold

· Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B. S. (1982), The Dominant Ideology Thesis, London: Allen & Unwin

· Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

· Gospodini, A.(2004), urban morphology and place identity in european cities: built heritage and innovative design, Journal of Urban Design, vol.9, no.2, p.225-248, Carfax Publishing

· Graham, B. (1998), The past in Europe’s present: diversity, identity and the construction of place, in Graham, B. (Ed.), Modern Europe. Place, Culture, Identity, London: Arnold.

Munasinghe, H. (2005), The politics of the Past: constructing a national identity through heritage conservation, International Journal of Heritage Studies 11, no.3: 251-260.

[i] Statistics Estonia (Eesti Statistika) επίσημη ιστοσελίδα της κρατικής απογραφικής υπηρεσίας, “Population by sex, ethnic nationality and county, 1 January,” http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=

PO0222&ti=POPULATION+BY+SEX%2C+ETHNIC+NATIONALITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+1+JANUARY&path=../I_Databas/Population/01Population_indicators_and_composition/04Population_figure_and_composition/&lang=1 (πρόσβαση Μάιος 2008).

[ii] Εξέταση των καταχωρήσεων των καταλόγων της Εθνικού Κέντρου Κληρονομιάς (National Heritage Board- Muinsuskaitseamet) τα οποία αφορούν το ιστορικό κέντρο της πόλης. www.muinas.ee

[iii] Estonica, “Architecture, Socialist period,” http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html? menyy_id=542&kateg=41&alam=57&leht=7 (πρόσβαση, Μάιος 2007.

Naja & deOstos - Ambiguous Spaces (PA29)

2009-01-08T12:06:00.000-08:00

Naja & deOstos Ambiguous Spaces New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008.

Over the past few decades architecture as an idea and practice has increasingly limited its definition of itself. […] the reality is that architectural styles and forms are often the seductive packaging and repackaging of the same proven, marketable concepts […] beneath the cloak of radicalism the conventions of existing building typologies and programs, with all their comforting familiarity, still rule – and sell. What is needed desperately today are approaches to architecture that can free its potential to transform our ways of thinking, and acting.

The text above comes from the foreword that Lebbeus Woods wrote for the 29th issue of pamphlet architecture, that this time hosts Naja & deOstos. Unfortunately, it seems that we are actually in need to be reminded that the role of architecture is, as has always been, to transform our way of thinking and acting. Luckily this small volume does provoke our preconceptions of what architecture is, or should be – as most of the latest pamphlet issues were doing.

Naja & deOstos’ approach to architecture is a ‘literary’ one. Having as references Franz Kafka and Gabriel Garcia Marques, the architecture of the two projects presented here is clearly understood, as Brett Steele writes in the ‘second’ foreword of the book, as a form of language. The architects, using consciously their language, are offering two stories, two architectural narratives. The first story/project (Nuclear Breeding) explores the history and current condition of Oxford Ness, the site where the first British atomic bomb was initially tested. Investigating the way that craters are created as a result of nuclear explosions the project is a landscaping exercise (do we need again somebody to remind us that landscape cannot be just about planting trees?). The second story/project (The Pregnant Island) is exploring dams; the way that they affect nature, landscape and populations. Using a great amount of statistic data as input, another landscape project is generated that echoes the dramatic changes that dams impose on the landscape, and consists of a kinetic, artificial island.
Language of course is never neutral. And Naja & deOstos are using architectural language here as the vehicle for social and political criticism that generates an ‘investigative’ architecture that has as its starting point programmatic and infrastructural qualities. At the same time literature becomes the primary reference of architecture and is opposed as such to nature.
One could argue that some aspects of the projects remain in the written text while they fail to appear in the drawn one; or that there might be a lack of detail in the drawings that would help in the creation of that ‘magical realism’ effect that the architects are after. But in general the two projects are more than successful in offering a new way to think about architecture and landscape, about what they could be and how they can become bearers of critical ideas and meanings, which renders them really valuable in the contexts of the current situation of architecture that Lebbeus Woods is describing in the foreword.

Log 11

2008-12-30T16:55:00.000-08:00

Cynthia Davidson (ed) Log 11 New York: Anyone Corporation, 2008.

The 11th issue of log comes in black. The change though is not only in the color. It looks like the latest issue of the east coast based journal tries to point towards a ‘new’ direction in architectural theory. Not a surprise since theoretical discourse in architecture today is in a state of recession.

Log 11th’s attempt is metacritique. The idea of metacritique of course is rather vague by itself but the articles in this collection are trying to define the framework and to provide some examples. In that context one of the main points made here is the need to re-invent the political and social aspects of architecture which translates into a turn towards critical theory (it is no surprise then that in the footnotes we finds several references to thinkers like Adorno and Habermas). A return of critical theory in architecture today wouldn’t be of course very innovative; it would rather be a step backward. However, what makes things more interesting here is what in the editorial is called a “positive critique” referenced with Nietzsche’s double affirmation and proposed as an alternative to negative dialectics. I am not sure that after reading all the articles it becomes clear how affirmation and dialectics can go together but at any case there are several interesting articles selected here - like Georges Teyssot’s text on Aldo van Eyck’s Threshold (Aldo van Eyck’s Threshold: The Story of an Idea), Paul Hegarty’s On Fire: the City’s Accursed Share, Ana Maria Leon’s research on Tafuri and Klein diagrams (the Boudoir in the Expanded Field) and Pier Vittorio Aureli’s ideas about the ‘political and the formal in architecture’ (Toward the Archipelago) - that definitely promote critical thinking.

Actualizing Ornament with Shape Grammars

2008-09-12T09:26:00.000-07:00

by Magdalena Pantazi

In the past two decades, a shift in perception of the notion of ornament has occurred in architecture. Ornament, which was almost exiled from design for about a century, reappeared in architectural discourse and began to participate actively in the design process. The development of computer software seems to have had a significant impact on this shift: the use of new digital means in the design process introduced novel ways of approaching ornament design problems and, more specifically, renewed the architect’s interest in using algorithms to solve these problems. The use of algorithmic processes is expected to expand the potentialities of ornament design, leading to unique and novel artifacts. So far, however, little research has been done in this field and the reasons that led to the resurfacing of ornament in architectural design remain vague. This paper will examine the reappearance of ornament in architectural discourse and will argue that the emergence of computation facilitated this return. In order to examine how computation influenced the design of ornament I will study the way that shape grammars – a visually based computational design technique – introduce ornament into design. In this framework, I will attempt to develop a grammar for ornament design. In order to study the possible combination of the rules application and to produce many different results I will use the computer-based programming language processing.

Introduction

The current architectural building production reveals the reappearance and active participation of ornament in the design process. This is in fact the result of a shift in the perception of the notion and function of ornament that has occurred in architecture over the past two decades. Toyo Ito’s Serpentine Pavilion in London and Herzog and de Meuron’s Library in Eberswalde, Germany, as well as the Prada store in Tokyo are only a few examples that demonstrate this change in the perception of ornament. In these works ornament is no longer just a piece of sculpture, but rather a piece of textile, a piece of structure, a piece of surface or a piece of image adjusted to the building’s surface. In this new context, architects experiment with ornament in an attempt to construct new aesthetic effects. In the Prada store, a diagrid with carefully selected concave glass panels gives a quilted effect to its exterior, while in the Eberswalde Library the repetition of images on the building surfaces creates a serial effect. The Serpentine Pavilion project creates a differentiation effect by combining ornament with structure in a construction “based on an algorithm that produces an irregular pattern that is then cropped.”1 As opposed to what was the case several years ago, ornament is used today as an element that underlies certain characteristics of the building and attempts to improve the architectural results.

Until now, however, little attention has been paid to the reasons that led to the reappearance of ornament in architectural discourse. In this paper, I will argue that the emergence of computation facilitated the return of ornament in architectural design.

Ornament is defined as “a thing used to adorn something but usually having no practical purpose.”2 This definition best illustrates the general perception of ornament in architecture: decoration elements added to an existing structure. During the course of the last two centuries architects used ornament as an additional embellishment layer in the overall structure of the building. The role of the Modernist movement along with its aesthetic premises of clarity, simplicity and hygiene was especially influential in this direction.

The status of ornament in architecture, however, was different before the eighteenth century. The Italian architects Vitruvius and Alberti considered ornament to be an essential part of the building that revealed the “creativity and the beauty of the cosmic order.”3 Furthermore, the possible ways through which ornament was related to buildings, for example the various transformations and applications of shapes that resulted in different architectural products, expressed the potential ways that a building could be realized. Antoine Picon’s view on the work of ornament in architecture sheds some light on the way ornament has participated in the architectural compositions and on the way it contributes to the creation of potential architectural results. He defines ornament as a “virtual dimension of work in architecture.”4

It is this characteristic of ornament, its “virtual dimension,” that brought ornament back to the center of current architectural discourse. The interest in this topic is renewed today because of the wide use of advanced computer software in architectural design process. Computer based design tools that are available for architects today, such as Computer Aided Design (CAD), expand the architect’s ability to experiment with various forms and their potential combinations. Additionally, the equipment that accompanies computers, such as 3D printers and laser cutters, provides the possibility of actually creating those forms with high accuracy. Along with the new means of design expression comes a new challenge for the architectural design process: the perception of design as an algorithmic process, “a computational process for addressing a problem in a finite number of steps. “5 The above changes, on both the practical and theoretical level, influence and may in fact determine the use of ornament in design.

The purpose of this paper is to reveal the influence of advanced computer software and of computational techniques on ornament design. The paper will explore the work of computational techniques in relation to ornament and will investigate how ornament is imported into architectural design through the study of a computational method of visual-based design, that of shape grammars6. In this framework, I will examine two ways that shape grammars address the ornament design problem: they facilitate the analysis and understanding of an existing style and aid in the creation of an original composition. Furthermore, I will develop an example that refers to the second way that shape grammars addresses ornament design, that of creating an original composition. Through this example I will examine a possible application of shape grammars in the programming language Processing.

Ornament: a virtual dimension

In his 2003 article “Architecture, Science, Technology and the Virtual Realm,” Antoine Picon discusses architecture as a non-static condition. He perceives architecture as a “creative principle enabling the constant exchange between the built reality and the domain of knowledge, precepts and rules.”7 Therefore, architecture is always in a state of change, and in that sense attached to “virtual reality”, a term that is used here in a way that is different from the current common usage. Picon defines virtual reality as “nothing but a potential awaiting its full actualization”8 and describes architecture in a similar way, as a condition that embodies tensions and potentials that wait to be actualized. Among these tensions and potentials, he places ornament and defines it as a “virtual dimension” at work in architecture.

Etymologically the word “virtual” derives from the Medieval Latin word virtualis that sequentially derives from virtus/virtue; “the capacity or power adequate to the production of a given effect; energy; strength; potency.”9 Thus, the term “virtual” describes production, effects or potentials that wait to be actualized. Very often, people use the term “virtual reality” as a way to describe something that is not real, such as an image or an environment on a computer screen. This, however, is misleading. Virtual reality is by no means the opposite of the real; rather it refers to the potential states of reality that wait to become actual. Pierre Levy makes clear the distinction between "realization," which is the transformation of the possible to the static, and "actualization," which "implies the production of new qualities a transformation of ideas, a true becoming that feeds the virtual in turn.”10 Thus, “virtual reality” describes potential realities; some of them can be realized and some of them actualized.

In this framework, ornament is a characteristic of architecture that embodies potentiality; in the abstract conception of the form of various motifs, natural or geometrical, ornament encloses a variety of possible applications. It is in the different combination of these motifs and in the possible positions that these could take in the construction that the virtual dimension of ornament lies. A designer actualizes one of these choices and underlies with this action a design intention.

Architects and designers always search for techniques and devices that could address and finally fulfill the desire for variety, potentiality, novelty and continuous change of ornament design. The ensuring of a variety of possible combinations and thus, a variety of ornament potentialities is crucial in the process of ornament design. Additionally, techniques that codify these potentialities and provide ways of organizing and further developing them, help architects to understand and handle the design information. If a designer has a wide range of choices and is able to experiment with them, it is likely that he/she would find the one that best underlies the design intention.

Computers in the ornament-design process

As defined before, ornament belongs to the sphere of virtuality, an abstract field of thoughts that does not necessarily refer to specific and static forms, but rather to the potential results of their combinations. Designers expressed the ideas produced by the above process through sketches and drawings and further explored and improved the initial results by the same graphical means. The images and the environment that surrounded designers was their field of inspiration, a field that they tried to capture and translate into various ornament forms. Some designers were endowed with the ability to actually “see” the various form arrangements around them: that could discern the elements that consist these forms, detach them from the existing synthesis and combine them in a novel form of ornament. In many cases, however, the creation of ornament had nothing to do with novelty and rather referred to a mere copying process of existing forms. In the first case, designers explored the logic that governs a form so as to understand it and then applied it, transformed or not, to new synthesis, a process that led the architect and ornamental designer Owen Jones to the conclusion that “ in the best periods of art, all ornament was rather based upon an observation of the principles which regulate the arrangement of form in nature, than in an attempt to imitate the absolute form of those works.”11

Although there were cases where designers succeeded in understanding the logic of a form, the development of the work was limited to the methods of representation that were available at that time, such as sketches, drawings, plans, sections, facades or perspective and axonometric designs. Even in the creation of a physical model, the available materials and tools of each period were not always adequate in helping the designer to express himself/herself fully and develop further the ideas on the synthesis of ornament. As a result, some complex and complicate ornament arrangements were not expressed in their full potential.

In the last two decades, the ornament-design condition has changed tremendously. Advanced computer software has transformed architecture from a manually driven tool-based design to a computer-driven form-based design. This change occurred in sequential steps, with the role of computer differing each time. When computers were first introduced to architecture, the idea was that they could replace designers. This goal was abandoned, and from 1970 the machine was seen as architect’s assistant, a medium with which the design process, and as a consequence ornament design, could evolve.

On the practical level, new means of expression appear within the realm of the digital medium. First is Computer Aided Design, the well-known CAD system of design, that had as initial goal to speed up the design process and free the designer from the repetitive and monotonous parts of the design process. Additionally, CAD had the ambition of providing the means to explore beyond the manual design process. Secondly, the development of Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) and of prototyping machines provided another advantage to the designer in the construction of physical models. Designers were now able to construct a physical model of almost any shape in great accuracy. Through this process the designers were able to test issues related to construction strength, sustainability, friction and thus improve the model.

The development of design tools at the practical level is also reflected in the design of ornament. The introduction of new means of expression provides the designer with the possibility to represent complex forms and experiment with them both in the digital and in the physical world. The Advanced computer technology, however, has not yet reached its full potential. Its use in ornament design mostly refers to design representation and does not address to the development of a design idea. Therefore, the question is how advanced computer technology can go beyond representation and help in design composition. In order to answer this question, designers turn to theory and focus on the procedures that animate the development of form. The understanding of ornament design process becomes very important because “a procedure tells us how to carry out computations of a certain kind”12 and thus provide a deeper understanding of how form is defined and interpreted. Thus, the crucial question for designers is how and to which extent the abstract process of ornament design could be codified and translated into rules so as to create an appropriate input for the machine.

All this research on computational processes has renewed interest in algorithms. Although the algorithm may seem to be a new notion in architecture, that is not the case. On the contrary, algorithms are familiar to architecture; rules of designing, such as building regulations, instructions, or the program for a building, are few of the ways that architects use algorithms to address a design problem. Furthermore, algorithms can be used in design to solve, organize or explore problems with increased visual or organizational complexity; the use of algorithms allows the codifying of information, creating the rules in order to address a design problem. Thus, a computer device is not necessarily needed in an algorithmic process. However, if architects can transfer this process to a computer, they may produce interesting and unexpected results faster.

In this framework, various computational techniques have developed that tried to apply rules and create an algorithm so as to address the issue of ornament design. One of these approaches, that of shape grammars, tries to establish a different language of ornament design by finding different ways of arranging shapes and different ways of describing designs in an algorithmic process. The property of shape grammars is that the created algorithms are based on visual observations of form arrangements. This fact has a great impact on ornament design, because ornament is by default based on the visual effects of architectural compositions. The application of shape grammars on ornament design aims to explain design so as to improve its visual effects

Visual Based design -- The case of Shape Grammars in the design of ornament.

When someone uses the term “algorithm” and “algorithmic design,” he/she usually refers to a computational system of text, symbols and the equations between them. Design, however, mostly relates to points, lines and their possible arrangements to planes and solid geometries. Shape grammars were invented over twenty-five years ago by George Stiny and James Gips in order to combine these two seemingly contradictory fields, mathematics and design; shape grammars propose a way of calculating with shapes. Shape grammars were “one of the earliest algorithmic systems for creating and understanding designs directly through computations with shapes, rather than indirectly through computations with text or symbols”13. This language was invented so as to carry out spatial computations visually. It is a system that uses production rules so as to generate shapes and designs. A basic principal for the creation of these rules is that they are based on what we see. Shape grammars, thus, introduces a new way of approaching design through calculation and shows new paths of experimentation.

Ornament design deals by default with shapes and their possible arrangements in space. Very often the creation of ornament follows specific rules in respect to harmony and order of the composition. These rules, however, are not always obvious or are not consciously followed by the designer. Shape grammars provide a way of codifying the composition information in rules, through which form understanding is easier. Furthermore, new combinations of shapes and rules can result in different and novel ornament compositions.

Shape Grammars: Description

A shape grammar consists of rules and an initial shape.14 The rules apply to the initial shape and to shapes produced by previous rule applications to generate design. Thus, the basic components of a grammar are shapes of any kind, one dimensional, two-dimensional or three-dimensional. The arrangement of these shapes in space defines the spatial relations, which lead to the creation of rules that form the shape grammar. There are four possible spatial transformations that can occur between shapes: translation, rotation, reflection and scale. This process results in different designs.

There are two types of shape grammars: standard grammars and parametric grammars. The case of standard grammars refers to fixed spatial relationships; each rule is defined explicitly by a pair of shapes separated by an arrow. The shape on the left side of the arrow determines the part of a shape to which the rule may apply, whereas the shape on the right side of the arrow describes the shape that results after the application of the rule. On the other hand, parametric grammars allow a variation of spatial relations; instead of a specific shape rule, a wider rule in the form of schemata defines the shape relation implicitly. In this case characteristics of the shapes, such as line-length or angles between lines, can vary. The rules that control this variation result from values that are assigned to those variables.

Application of Shape Grammar to Ornament Design

The use of shape grammar in design addresses two architectural design problems. Firstly, shape grammars help designers to analyze and understand an existing style. Secondly, they allow the development of an original design composition, a process which involves the definition of new languages of design from scratch.

In the first case, shape grammars help the designer to construct the rules that will generate the existing designs and at the same time provide a field for creating new ones in the same style. Therefore, a designer first analyzes an existing shape, and then codifies this information into a set of rules – a grammar – that can be used to generate more shapes in the same general pattern. This property of shape grammars has beneficial effects on the design of ornament.

Ornament is attached to culture. Motifs, combinations of shapes, colors, exaggeration of forms or complete absence of them, all denote the expression of people, an expression related to the social and cultural condition of a geographical area in a specific chronological period. The design of ornament follows these cultural changes and adjusts its values to the social conditions and to the style of each period. Thus, design evolves in time; the act of passing from one stage to the next is followed by the loss of certain design characteristics, the addition of others, or the invention of completely new ones. In most cases, the basic rules that govern the synthesis of ornament remain the same for a long period of time, while their transformations serve as characteristics of areas of specific chronological period of time. The analysis and understanding of a specific style make possible the observation of the style’s travel through time and can result in its reuse in a new context in a new way.

The example of the “meander” motif on Greek geometric pottery is a very nice example that illustrates the beneficial effects of using shape grammars to analyze an existing style. A meander motif used in the ancient Greek period is transformed and used again in the twentieth century, in a new context. The only way to prove the connection between the two motifs is to find the common rules that characterize the two seemingly different compositions. The development of a shape grammar for the Greek meander, discussed on Knight’s article “Transformations of the meander motif on Greek Geometric Pottery,” reveals the basic rules that govern the synthesis of the simple meander design, which marks the beginning of the Geometric style. Knight presents the development of the meander motif through time and examines its transformations. She concludes that the use of the meander motif did not end in ancient Greek period, but continued and reached the twentieth century. The rules that define the basic meander motif made possible the recognition of a motif variation used by the Swiss architect Le Corbusier in his plans for the theoretical project “Radiant City.” The transformation of the meander motif, called redent, was the basic pattern for apartment buildings in the Radiant City. More complex patterns from the redent were produced in the same way that the Late Geometric Potters produced complex meanders: “rows of redents are stacked one on top of another and then shifted by different amounts to create different designs.”15 The second problem that shape grammars deal with is that of original design composition. In this process, the designer defines a vocabulary of shapes and a set of spatial relations between these shapes. Having as a starting point these spatial relations, the designer will try to generate designs by combining them in different ways. The implementation of this process in ornament design -- that is, the application of rules in a set of shapes -- could result in very interesting ornament compositions.

Ornament design deals with shapes and their possible combinations in new compositions. Shape grammars propose a combination technique, which defines a vocabulary of shapes with which the designer wants to experiment. The definition of certain relations in terms of rules between them may lead the designer to new compositional paths. A designer for example can select two rectangles as initial shapes and define a spatial relation between them . Various motifs could be generated in this way. Furthermore, if the designer carries out this computational technique in a computer with the help of the advanced designing programs, then he/she could quickly produce different results. Additionally, the computer can produce other complex motifs in new arrangements in space, motifs and arrangements that the human mind might not think of.

In both cases, shape grammars use a clearly defined set of rules to address the design of ornament. The repetition, however, of a specific set of rules and shapes, in the form of tiles, patterns and motifs, may lead to a monotonous ornament composition. Architects claim that the strict rules of shape grammars leave no space for ambiguity, which is an important characteristic of design, and thus may easily lead to meaningless repetition. It is this characteristic of shape grammars that serves as a main point of critique against them. Monotony, though, can be avoided if something unexpected happens – if, for example a new shape emerges.

Although shape grammars include by default the notion of “emergence” -- the appearance of something that is not explicitly identified in the rules that generated it -- Stiny and Gips did not refer to this notion from the beginning; it was not clear what was happening and thus they referred and treated anything unexpected as a “surprise”. It was only after Stiny realized that emergence is an essential part of design and thus a necessary condition for design that he started to examine possible ways that emergence could occur in shape grammars. Therefore, in shape grammars an “emergent shape is a shape that is not predefined in a grammar, but one that arises or is formed, from the shapes generated by rules applications.”16 In shape grammars, emergence involves not only the creation of an unexpected shape but also the appearance of parts of shapes in a computation process. That means that a shape is not perceived as a definite unit, but as a sum of many indefinite parts. For example, someone can see different shapes in the first shape in figure 9: two squares, four triangles, K shapes, polygons or various lines. According to Knight, this kind of emergence goes along with ambiguity where “shapes can be constructed from certain parts and then decomposed into their parts that become the basis for continuing the computation.”

In most of the cases, when a rule is applied on shapes, the results cannot be defined completely; we cannot predict all the possible derivations. The shapes overlap, intersect and combine their parts in many ways. As a result, new shapes appear that give an impetus for further exploration and experimentation. If it is true that “delight lies somewhere between boredom and confusion”17 then emergence is the vehicle with which we find delight in ornament design.

Practicing shape grammars with Processing.

As mentioned above, shape grammars provide a way of calculating with shapes. The designer defines the rules and then explores their various combinations. Although shape grammars is a computational method that do not necessarily needs a computer as it can be done manually, the use of computer facilitates the process because it produces different results faster and makes possible all kinds of combinations.

Today, the existence of various computer software gives designer the possibility of choosing the one that best fulfill his/her expectations. The present example uses the programming language named Processing, which is based on java and thus it is an object-oriented program. The aim of this attempt was to create a new ornament composition by applying shape grammars in the environment of Processing. The process of creating an original ornament composition needs a vocabulary of shapes and set of spatial relations between these shapes. In the present example the shapes are points, lines and planes. The set of rules defines geometric relations between these shapes.

A secondary goal of this project was to examine the possibility of finding rules and specific geometries in random composition. For this reason the process starts from a random arrangement of shapes and then the rules are applied in sequential steps.

The Process

At the beginning a random arrangement of shapes occurs. The example uses line as the initial shape. Then, the goal is to find relations that derive from the specific arrangement of lines. The process follows sequential steps. Although each step refers to the previous one, it creates a composition of each own, from which a new rule derives. Through this process the composition passes from points to lines and finally results to planes. The first step is to find the intersection points between the random arrangement of lines. Then the lines are erased and a geometric relation that links the points is defined. Each point is connected with a line with two other points: the nearest and the farthest. In the next step the intersection points are erased and pairs of lines are selected. The selection of each pair of lines is between lines of the maximum or the minimum distance. As the process goes on, a quadrilateral is created between the four points of the pair of lines and it is then filled with color. In the last step the lines are erased and I end up with a composition of planes.

Random arrangement of lines Find the intersection points Erase the lines_Keep the points
Create two lines from each point: Erase the intersection points. Select two lines The selection is between
To the nearest and to the farthest point. Keep the lines. the lines with the lines of min or max distance.
Create a quadrilateral between the four points Erase the lines.
of the selected lines_Fill it with color.

Conclusions

Ornamentation, seemingly absent for almost a century, has resurfaced in architecture in a new context and is leading to new forms. With the passing of the design of ornament from a manual driven process to a computer-driven, form-based process, new opportunities arise. In particular, the actualization of the ornament design process through the use of computational techniques, and more specifically the use of algorithms, increases the range of potential compositions of ornament that can occur. As a result, today, more than ever, ornament seems to have many more potentialities that wait to be actualized and is thus closer to fulfilling its “virtual dimension.”

A crucial point in this algorithmic process is how the ornament design information can be codified so that the designer can better understand and thus control the final results. The visual based computational technique of shape grammars provides a system of shapes and rules that attempts to answer the above question and introduce new directions in the design of ornament. The analysis and understanding of existing styles through the creation of appropriate rules provides the designer with the tools to develop new motifs in a new context. With shape grammars and their codification of forms and available shapes, the notion of diversification is intensified in design as opposed to the modernistic trope of homogenization. In addition, the creation of a vocabulary of shapes and rules from scratch could actually serve as the starting point for a novel ornament design, where ornament is not merely decorative style but a language to be communicated. This can be attained through shape emergence and ambiguity that defy any effort of classification and categorization when actualized.

In this framework, the combination of shape grammars with programming languages, such as processing could possible provide an answer to the crucial question of the codification of the ornament design information. Further research on the possible ways that these two techniques of approaching ornament design could be combined needs to be done, in order to achieve compositions characterized by specific logic. The properly structured starting rules will set the designer free to create different kind of compositions by combining the rules in various and infinite ways.

Decrease the number
of the starting lines
Increase the number
of the starting lines
Different results depending on the number of the number of the starting lines.

1 Farshid Moussavi and Michael Kubo, ed., The Function of Ornament (Barcelona: Actar, Harvard University,
Graduate School of Design, 2006).
2 The Collaborative International Dictionary of English, v.048, http://www.dict.org, accessed April 26, 2007..
3 Antoine Picon and Alessandra Ponte ed., Architecture and the Science (New York: Princeton Architectural Press,
2003), 298.
4 Ibid., 297.
5 Kostas Terzidis, Algorithmic Architecture (Burlington: Architectural Press, 2006), 65.
6 George Stiny, Shape Grammars (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006).
7 Antoine Picon, "Architecture, science, technology and the virtual realm," in Architecture and the Sciences
Exchanging metaphors, ed. Picon A. and Ponte A. Ponte (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2003), 298.
8 Ibid., 295.
9 http://www.m-w.com/dictionary, accessed April 26, 2007.
10 Pierre Levy, Becoming virtual: Reality in the Digital Age (NY: Plenum Press, 1998), 58.
11 Edgar Kaufmann, “Architectural coxcombry* or the desire for ornament,” Perspecta vol.5 (1959): 11.
12 George Stiny, “Computing with Form and Meaning in Architecture,” Journal of Architectural Education vol.39
No.1 (1985): 7.
13 http://www.mit.edu/~tknight/IJDC/frameset_abstract.htm.
14 George Stiny, “Computing with Form and Meaning in Architecture,” Journal of Architectural Education vol.39
No.1 (1985): 8.
15 Terry Knight,”Transformations of the meander motif on Greek Geometric pottery,”
http://web.mit.edu/neri/Public/Stiny, accessed May 1, 2007.
•16 Terry Knight, “Computing with Emergence,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Deign 30 (2003): 125–
155.
17 Ernst Hans Gombrich, The Sense of Order (Oxford: Phaidon Press Limited, 1984): 9.
Pictures
1. http://www.liaoyusheng.com/archives/architecture_design/.
2. http://www.nai.nl/e/extras_e/webfile_hdm/hdm_artists.html.
3. http://www.arcspace.com/books/architecture_now_3/architecture_now_3.html.
4. George Stiny, “Computing with Form and Meaning in Architecture,” Journal of Architectural Education vol.39
No.1 (1985): 8.
5. Terry Knight, ”Transformations of the meander motif on Greek Geometric pottery,” 152.
http://web.mit.edu/neri/Public/Stiny.
6. Ibid., 140.
7. ibid. 167.
8. “fixlecture1slides_final”, http://gb-server-1.mit.edu/search, accessed May 1, 2007.
14
9. George Stiny, “How to calculate with Shapes,” in Formal engineering design synthesis, ed. Cagan J. and
Antonsson E. (NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 1-2.

Bibliography:
Gombrich, Ernst Hans. The Sense of Order. Oxford: Phaidon Press Limited, 1984.
Kaufmann, Edgar. “Architectural coxcombry* or the desire for ornament.” Perspecta vol.5 (1959): 4—15.
Knight, Terry. “Computing with Emergence.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30 (2003):
125–155.
Knight, Terry. “Computing with ambiguity.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30 (2003):
165–180.
Knight, Terry. ”Transformations of the meander motif on Greek Geometric pottery.”
http://web.mit.edu/neri/Public/Stiny, accessed May 1,, 2007.
Moussavi, Farshid and Kubo, Michael, ed. The Function of Ornament. Barcelona: Actar, Harvard University,
Graduate School of Design, 2006.
Picon, Antoine. "Architecture, science, technology and the virtual realm." In Architecture and the Sciences
Exchanging metaphors, edited by Picon A. and Ponte A., 292-313. New York: Princeton
Architectural Press, 2003.
Levy, Pierre. Becoming virtual: Reality in the Digital Age. NY: Plenum Press, 1998.
Stiny, George. “Computing with Form and Meaning in Architecture.” Journal of Architectural Education vol.39
No.1 (1985): 7–19.
Stiny, George. “How to calculate with Shapes.” In Formal engineering design synthesis, edited by Cagan J.
and Antonsson E., 20-64. New York : Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Stiny, George. Shape Grammars. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.
Terzidis, Kostas, Algorithmic Architecture. Burlington: Architectural Press, 2006.
Thompson, D��Arcy. On Growth and Form. Cambridge: University Press, 2000.
Websites:
http://www.liaoyusheng.com/archives/architecture_design/, accessed May 14,, 2007.
http://www.nai.nl/e/extras_e/webfile_hdm/hdm_artists.html, accessed May 14,, 2007.
http://www.arcspace.com/books/architecture_now_3/architecture_now_3.html, accessed May 14,, 2007.

Blow Up: The Explosion of Meaning

2008-08-25T11:37:00.000-07:00

by Katerina Tryfonidou

“They do not mean anything when I do them, just a mess… Afterwards, I find something to hang on to, like that leg today…” says the painter pointing at a part of the painting- a painting he did six years ago. “It’s like finding a clue in a detective story.”

Blow Up is a film by Michelangelo Antonioni that was screened in 1966. The film has a loose plot close to a detective story set in London in the contemporary at the time Swinging 60s. Almost at the same time when Blow Up was first shown, in the middle of the intellectual discourse about linguistics, French thinker Roland Barthes discusses about the imposition of meaning, and the distinction in works of art between what he calls Work and what he calls Text.

This text can be seen as an eclectic surgical section in time: it looks at the film and tries to understand it in the linguistic framework that was developing at the same time. It also goes on to argue that Antonioni was well aware of the ongoing semiotic discourse and that his film is a commentary about the creation of meaning, its imposition on art, and ultimately, the explosion of meaning.

1. Introduction

There is a scene in the beginning of the Michelangelo Antonioni’s film Blow Up, where Dave Hemmings, the photographer in the film and also the protagonist, asks a painter friend of his, Bill, what is there on one of his paintings. “They do not mean anything when I do them, just a mess… Afterwards, I find something to hang on to, like that leg today…” he says pointing a part of the painting- a painting he did six years ago. “It’s like finding a clue in a detective story,” he continues.

In this short monologue Antonioni briefly throws some light on the problematics about the representation of reality or the message of an image. In a very clever way, he also forshadows the detective story that is to be unfolded later on in the film. The issue of the construction of a narrative will be the main idea of the paper -either this is done by a sequence of photos or a sequence of shots- . Questions like “How do we impose meaning?”, “What is the relation between the signifier and the signified?” or “Can reality be reconstructed in a work of art?” will be haunting us throughout this short text.

2. Roland Barthes’ “From Work to Text”

Roland Barthes writes the paper From Work to Text in 1971[i], five years after Blow Up’s first screening. He uses the terms Work and Text in the beginning referring to literary works but then expands the notions to painting, music and film. In this short paper Barthes introduces the idea of the Text and distincts it from Work, stating that Text is a broader idea, a more abstract one, a characterization that goes beyond the object. He goes on to define Text mainly by opposing it to Work, with an intention to define a new idea, thus being very explanatory, but without using any examples.

The research and literary work during that time forced the definition and articulation of text, as research was then talking about interdisciplinary-ity and fields sliding or blending in one another. In this frame of thinking, the Text is interdisciplinary because it emerges from the need to define notions with the tools of different disciplines[ii].

When Work is a fragment of substance, a material object, Text is a methodological field, a process and an activity. As Barthes says characteristically “Work can be held in the hand, Text is held in language.”[iii] That is, a work can be seen, exposed and demonstrated while a Text is the process of demonstration per se. A Work is meant to be consumed, it is an object or a product. Text, however, is the process of creating such an object, the process of breaking it, fragmenting it, superimposing it to others. In the notion of Text there is no focus on the subject and the object, this segregation does not exist, or better, it is not relevant, because it is the act and the process that the Text appeals to. Work can be seen as an organism that has certain characteristics, functions and potentials. The metaphor of the Text is that of a network, a combinatory system –to use, according to Barthes, a biological concept.- As a network it organizes different groups, ideas or works and subsequently redefines them. The metaphor of a network is also relevant to the etymology of the word text- textile, fabric, a woven material[iv]. The process of weaving together different elements approaches the idea of the Text as a process, a system and an activity, rather than a final outcome.

Blow Up has a lot of elements that makes one think that Michelangelo Antonioni was familiar with the semiotics and the linguistic research of the 60s. Although the latter cannot be proved, it is not impossible either: after all, Antonioni was known to follow closely the work of Adorno[v] and other philosophers. It can therefore be an anachronistic challenge to try to pursue an analysis of the movie in terms of whether it remains a Work or it can be seen as a Text.

Work	Text
one discipline	interdisciplinary
fragment of substance	methodological field
the object of demonstration	the process of demonstration
can be held in the hand	held in language
doxa	paradoxa
general sign	deferment of the signified
moderately symbolic	radically symbolic
interpretation	dissemination
father, auteur	no father, no auteur, author as a 'guest'
organism	network
object of consumption	activity, production, practice
pleasure of consumption	pleasure without separation
plaisir	jouissance

Copy of a diagram done in a seminar at Harvard University by Professor Michael Hays

2. Signification_ Meaning_ Signified

As we have mentioned before, the ‘vague’ plot of the movie looks at the life of a teddy-boy photographer in London during the swinging 60s and focuses on an incident where he takes some pictures of a couple in a park. As he processes the negatives, he realizes that he has shot evidence of a murder.

Let’s take a close look of the sequence where the photographer develops the photographs and starts to unravel the mystery. In the first shot he enters his lab, he takes his utensils in order to start the developing process. This is a long shot where he is shown to take all his tools and gadgets without any rush. In the next shot the door closes and there is the door and a red lit light covering the whole frame. The editing here is sudden and sharp, from a long continuous scene where the viewers control most of the space and the protagonist’s movements, to a close up of the door and the light next to it. The same double shots are shown in a slight variation, with the photographer holding the bands of negatives, and the door shutting again.

In the next shot, there is the man going over the negatives on a lit surface with the help of a lens, and then with the natural movements of a professional, he puts it in the projector and projects it on a vertical white paper on the wall to have the photo printed. The shot is long, the camera steady again. The director shows the exact process, exposes all the equipment, surfaces and materials needed in order to understand that the printed outcome is the result of a very real procedure. The sequence continues with him going several times from his lab to the lounge to pin up the wet, sleek pictures he just produced. There is a juxtaposition of long takes of the photographer working to develop the photos and moving back and forth, and of the photos themselves. There are shots where there is the man watching the photos and then on the next shot there is the object he is watching, the black and white photos. There are times when the camera moves from one photo to the other and other times when this is succeeded by the editing. In this way the narrative is constructed little by little: first there is the couple playing romantically in the park, in the next photo they are hugging and in the third the woman’s gaze is captured by something in the bushes.

In one of these shots where the photographer observes the images, he notices that something caused the girl to turn her face. From that point on, there starts a process of blowing up the photo, that is zooming in the image and printing one piece of it bigger and bigger. The sequence evolves as in the first half: lab work- pin up- observation- stills of the photos. In the last part of the sequence there is the narration of the story by the succession of the printed photos. Then, there is no photographer: the frames are composed of gros-plans of the photos in the order of the story which is unfolding, with partial ‘explanatory’ zoom- in. The scene is created with such dexterity that the spectators are driven with the same curiosity with the photographer to go from one blow up to the other in order to follow the story. Little by little the photos become hard to understand, as the resolution gets poor and the grain in the photos more evident. Yet the transition occurs in such a way that there is a perfect succession of the photos, the one photo poses a question that the next one answers; till we reach a point that more blow up does not bring us to a next step, because the photo becomes full of grains, like one of those paintings the photographer’s friend is painting.

The sequence with the blow ups can be seen as a commentary in the direction of the semiotic discussion in the 60s. In his article The Photographic Message, published in 1961[vi], Roland Barthes attempts an analysis of the impact of photography and in particular, of the press photograph. In this article he claims that from all the representational arts, photography is the one mostly linked with reality. Photography owns its credibility to the fact that, unlike painting or sculpture, “in order to move from reality to its photograph, it is in no way necessary to divide up this reality into units, and to constitute these units as signs, substantially different from the object they communicate”. A Photograph is of course not reality, it is reducted in many ways, but it stays a direct analogon of reality. Thus, for Barthes, the special status of the image can be seen: “it is a message without a code.”[vii] This statement regards the photograph as a mere signifier which does not incorporate in its identity a system of understanding it. It is the society, or the different cultures, Barthes will say later on in the article, that impose the signification and create the signified.

But there lies a paradox: although photograph is on the one hand a denoted message, a message without a code, nevertheless there is also a connoted message underlining in this sign. It is the result of the action of the creator, the style with which the photograph was taken, that refers to a certain culture and a certain historic time. Hence, the photograph comprises of two messages, the analogon of reality (denoted message) and the ideological or aesthetic message (connoted)[viii]. The paradox lies on the fact that it is culture and society that imposes signification on a photograph but nevertheless the photograph per se carries in its creation an amount of this cultural meaning.

To return to the film, when the photographer develops the first photographs, before the blow ups, he is able to see the photographs- signs as signifiers that bare a connoted message: there is a photo of a couple hugging in the park, flirting and playing. [Due to the connoted message of the society he lives in,] it is easy to impose a signified on the image that is in front of him. However, after he starts blowing up the photographs and putting them in order, a totally different meaning is revealed. He starts seeing another version of reality or –in the semiotic terms- he imposes another signified to each photograph. Eventually he creates a series of photos that narrate a very different version of reality: the couple in the park was being watched by a man with a gun who finally shoots the man of the couple. The photographer constructs this different narration by looking at the photos in a different way and by extracting from them some parts of their signifier.

The narration is constructed by looking at the photographs in the right order. The one photo leads to the other, and with every next blow up, another clue contributes to the unfolding of the narration. Therefore the photographs constitute a system where, each one of them is needed in the right place in the sequence in order for the story to be revealed. Antonioni wants to make this very clear and he does that by showing the opposite; what if some of the photos would be taken away? Later on in the story Vanessa Redgraves, who plays the woman of the couple, steals all the photos and leaves just one. However, the one left behind is useless as a proof of the crime. As Sarah Mayers- comments “It looks like one of Pete’s paintings.” The photo remains as a signifier, emptied by the signified it used to have when being part of a system. Exactly like Bill’s paintings: he first draws them and then as he observes them, he gives them a signified. Antonioni literary puts Bill’s character to say that: “They do not mean anything when I do them, just a mess… Afterwards, I find something to hang on to, like that leg today…” The fact that there is this commentary on paintings in the film is to strengthen the point Antonioni wants to make on imposing signification and on the creation of the narration.

When this point has been made about painting and photography, it is easy for someone to go one step further and make the same correlations about film. Indeed, Antonioni makes a commentary on semiotics in relation to painting and photography to connote the same about film. After all, the character of the photographer- creator bares many similarities with the role of the director- also creator of a narrative. In this movie, more than in any other one of his films, Antonioni talks about the art of film making and the construction of a narrative.

Throughout film theory, many theorists have approached cinema through the evolution of photography[ix]. Bazin talks about the proximity of photography to reality to go on and claim the same documentary function for the cinema[x]. In Antonioni, the bond between photography and film is more than evident: he handles the composition of the shots with an extraordinary attention on the mis-en-scene; every single shot can be isolated and treated as a photograph. The framing, the angle, the elements that constitute each shot are parameters that both a photographer and the director have to deal with. In both cases likewise, there are stills put in order to generate a sequence. As the character of Dave Hemmings isolates some parts of reality manipulates and reorganizes them so as they make a narrative, respectively the director selects fragments of reality and constructs his own version of it. With the metaphor of a photographer constructing a narration by revealing a different version of reality , Michelangelo Antonioni discusses the role of the director in the film.

3. The process of Photography, The Materiality of the Photograph

In the previous paragraph we discussed how the director makes a commentary on the process of film making. Antonioni films a man that constructs a narrative by focusing on un-seen parts of reality and by organizing them together. Apart from the use of the story in this direction, Antonioni uses other methods as well in order to make the connection of Blow Up to the making of a film. One of the techniques that he uses is his persistence in the process of developing photos.

In the film, there are many sequences, the most characteristic of which is the one of the blow up of photos, where the process of developing and printing photos is presented. All the different equipment is introduced, as well as the dark rooms with their special furnishing, lighting, etc. For the spectators, it is as if we experience a course of developing photos: the director analytically shows every stage of the process, from the developing of the film, to the projection of the negatives, to the manipulation with the chemicals for the printing. Going through the process, we understand that the photographs are the outcome of a very material, articulated, ‘hand-made’ process. The reference on different lens and lighting, as well as the shot where the photographer takes a picture of a picture are direct comments on the parallel between film making and photography.

Furthermore, Michelangelo Antonioni insists on showing the materiality of the photographs and of the process of developing photos. For Antonioni, the photograph is a sign that communicates a message. A part of this message, as in Barthes, exists in the signifier and another part of it is imposed on the signifier by a person, a group of people, or society. However, apart from these different messages, Antonioni reminds us that a photograph is also an object generated through a process and that it has certain material characteristics. When Dave Hemmings holds the photograph and goes to hang it on the wall, the paper is wet and slippery, water dripping from it. In other shots, the reflections on the glossy paper do not allow the image to be fully presented on the screen. Furthermore, the fact that the image has certain capacities in terms of resolution, and that the image has grains after the several zoom- in, also give hints about the materiality of the analogic photograph.

In Blow Up, a thorough study of the photograph is presented. We explore the different messages of the photographic image, the photograph as a sign that functions as a signifier and has various signified(s) imposed on it. At the same time, however, we are constantly reminded of the object of the photograph with its material qualities and limits, as well as of the process that led to its production. Through the exposure to the process of the development, Antonioni introduces what happens behind the screen of the film, and takes the discussion of the photographic message a step further: he thinks about the message of the film, what it can or cannot communicate, and how transparent the process of film- making can be.

4. Work _Text

In Blow Up, Michelangelo Antonioni presents a line of thoughts about the photographer and his relation to the photograph in order to make the transition to the auteur and his relation to film. The two dualities, one exposed and one connoted, is the one as the alter ego of the other. The first one is evident in the film by means of the plot, the second one by means of the framing, the angles, the camera movements, the composition of the shots. We could in the pursuit to understand the two pairs of interactions, the film is trying to transform from a Work to a Text, the way Barthes defined the terms.

A film is a priori a work, an object of consumption, in Barthes’ words[xi]. In order for it to function as a Text, it has to turn from a fragment of construction into a methodological tool. To do that, a work or film should generate a new approach, or suggest the tools for a new reading of the work. In this way, Blow Up can be considered a text, because it introduces a way of filming where the director makes his presence evident, and the relationship of the film maker and the film is explored. It can be seen as one of the films that fold into themselves, and which phrase the question of what film is about. Therefore Blow Up introduces a new way for the viewers of experiencing a film, not just to accept what is on the screen but to try to get a hint about the process of making the work of art.

Process, activity and practice were some key words for the notion of Text. Barthes stated that “the Text is experienced only in an activity of production.”[xii] In Blow Up this activity of production is presented in different levels: first –and superficial- the developing of the photos in the plot, with the hand made process and the use of the equipment; second, the process of film making as a metaphor of photography; and third, the more general idea of reconstructing reality and imposing new meaning by means of film and photography. In various levels and readings in the film, certain parts of reality are chosen, blown up or manipulated and then put together again to construct a version of reality- a representation or a new text. The process of working in several layers –the plot, the role and presence of the director, the semiotics analysis- constitute a plurality that according to Barthes differentiates a Text from Work. Of course there are many works that function in different levels of meaning, and that does not turn them into Texts; however, Blow Up has the ability to suggest a tool, a mechanism or a network in order to weave the different threads of thought together. The activity of production or representation is studied in many different aspects: photography as production and representation, film as production or representation, and therefore it constitutes a passage from one meaning to the other.

Another of Barthes’ main arguments in the definition of a Text addresses the relation of the subject to the object. Barthes believes that in art there should be no distinction between reading and writing, playing music and listening to music, creating and experiencing. The two activities should be merged into one, the way children play a game or the way pagan rituals were held. Hence when talking about a Text, there is no respect for the author, because the Text is open to be broken, understood or changed by everyone. It does not belong to the author, the author can return to the Text as a guest, no longer privileged or authoritative. To better understand this point, he gives the two examples- the only ones that exist in the paper: Aristotle and the Holy Scripture are Texts that have been read, interpreted and changed without any attention to the authors. For Barthes, the Text should ask the question of who is producing it, so that audience and creator blend the one in the other[xiii].

In this sense of the Text, Blow Up does not fit in the definition. Although it tries a lot to involve the audience into the discussion of the construction of a narrative or the representation of reality, by nature it cannot resist the gap between the audience and the work. Blow Up was a film in the theaters, and people watching it are used to face it as an object for consumption, even in the case it causes interesting discussions and problematics. Blow Up has not managed to cancel the distance between the audience and the work on the screen. This is a challenge that Blow Up, or film in general, hasn’t yet achieved.

We can say that Blow Up balances between being a Work or a Text, in the way that Barthes phrases the terms. It goes beyond a work as an object for consumption, but does not succeed to be characterized as a Text. After all, as its title suggests, Blow Up constitutes an explosion: an explosion of images, signified(s) and meanings. And as an explosion it can be a very strong dynamic starting point, but it needs more elements so that the explosion can signal a new era.

[i] Barthes Roland, “From Work to Text” in Image-Music-Text, ed. by Stephen Heath, Noonday Press Ed., 1989.

[ii] Barthes Roland, “From Work to Text” in Image-Music-Text, ed. by Stephen Heath, Noonday Press Ed., 1989.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] In the movie La Notte, by M.Antonioni, one of the characters asks the other what did he think of the new book by Adorno.

[vi] Barthes Roland, “The Photographic Message” in Image-Music-Text, ed. by Stephen Heath, Noonday Press Ed., 1989.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] And others of course, see in other fields the precedents of film: Eisenstein believed that architecture is more than any other discipline related to film: When a person moves in a building or walks a certain path, his eyes create framings and editing in the same way that the camera and the director ‘see’, frame and edit sequences of images. (Eisenstein, Montage, October,)

[x] Bazin Andre, The Ontology of the Photographic Image, in Film theory and Criticism, ed. By L. Braudy and M. Cohen, Oxford University Press, 2004.

[xi] Barthes Roland, “From Work to Text” in Image-Music-Text, ed. by Stephen Heath, Noonday Press Ed., 1989.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Barthes Roland, “From Work to Text” in Image-Music-Text, ed. by Stephen Heath, Noonday Press Ed., 1989.

Space of Films, Space of Movie Theaters

2008-08-24T10:41:00.000-07:00

by Katerina Tryfonidou

This paper is very special for me because it was my very first effort on critical discourse about space and film at a highly challenging -and therefore stressful- academic environment like that of Harvard University. It was written in January 2006 influenced to a certain extend by the inspiring conversations with Professor Giuliana Bruno. And as a very first effort it is enthusiastic and ambitious: I touched upon quite a lot of issues, always trying to stay under the discussion of physical spaces and spaces of the mind and body.

I study two different kinds of spaces: the physical space of the interior of a movie theater and the experiential space that a film creates when seen in a movie theater. Using two specific examples, the first movie theaters of the Western world in the beginning of the 20^th century on the one hand, and a 2003 film by Tsai Ming Liang on the other hand, I argue that in both cases the notions of interiority and exteriority are challenged.

TRACK 1: Questions

I can’t say if it is an attempt to find my identity in a multi- ethnic environment like the academia in the United States, or a patriotic show- off, or maybe none of the two, but I would like to start this text with the Acropolis of Athens; and I would rather not consider this attempt of exposing my thoughts as a mere text, but more as a journey, a journey into thoughts of other people, thoughts of mine and a journey into time. As a vehicle for this journey, I will choose to use space.

Space is a notion with a variety of meanings, characteristics and qualities: space as an architectural expression where people live, drift into or out of, experience feelings and emotions, but also space that each one of us mentally creates, such as the social space of the city, the private space of our intimate thoughts, or the space formed on the screen when watching a film. All these spaces, so arbitrary defined and so unique for each one of us, usually have a three dimensional ‘representation’ in the city[i]. The merging of the architectural spaces like a street or the interior of a building with the mental spaces of individuals or of groups of individuals, particularly interest me in this journey I am about to expose. How different spaces are formed and the way they interact with one another is the kind of questions that will be traced throughout the way, sometimes with the illusion or confidence that they are led to an answer.

But let us start from scratch and stubbornly go back to the Acropolis of Athens, an architectural complex which reached its final form during the 5^th century B.C., the Golden Age of democracy in ancient Athens. It is a religious group of buildings situated on a rock in the middle of the city, where the Athenians worshipped Goddess Athena, the protector of the city.

The way the buildings are situated on the Rock as seen on a plan or a bird’s eye view, do not follow any logic, they seem scattered randomly over the place. A visible geometry or any kind of rational spatial organization are absent, and one can question the presence of any logic or structure behind the design. It is only at the level of the walker that the Acropolis sense and structure is obvious. One understands the reason why each building is situated where it is only when taking the route that leads from the city up the Rock to the religious complex. The buildings are revealed one by one, and presented to the walker from a certain angle. Seen from a perfectly calculated point of view, the Acropolis creates the desired effect of harmony, balance, and ‘metron’.

Understanding a place by moving into it, or towards it, is an issue film is very much related to. In this very idea lays the notion of different spaces coexisting or being formed by the walker. When the physical body moves in space, and thus uses this movement to experience the space, to feel it and to understand it, then a narrative is created. The body creates its own ‘story’, a ‘story’ composed of views, and framings that the eye creates, but also composed of thoughts and emotions that the ambience evokes. All the senses play a role in this collage of experience, and the final result – if ever exists such a point as final point- is a spatial narration.

But isn’t film such a narration as well? An assemblage of views and frames that challenge the audience to feel not just with their visual sense but with the whole body. The result of this challenge might be called the film experience, and the creation that is being held on the screen is actually the creation of space where the audience is asked to enter.

Eisenstein argues that the only difference between a person moving into a space and a person watching a film is that in film the body movement is being replaced by the camera. Apart from that, the sequence of views, the control of the picture and the participation of the person , all lead us to talk about spaces in both cases, architectural spaces and film spaces. The sequence of images, the movement and the necessary presence of time define a very strong bond between cinema and architecture. In order to make this point, and also in an attempt to trace cinema’s ancestors, Eisenstein uses the example of the Acropolis of Athens:

The Greeks have left us the most perfect example of shot design, change of shot, and shot length (that is, the duration of a particular impression). Victor Hugo called the medieval cathedrals “books in stone” (see Notre Dame de Paris). The Acropolis of Athens has an equal right to be called the perfect example of one of the most ancient films.

And then goes on,

It is hard to imagine a montage sequence for an architectural ensemble more subtly composed, shot by shot, than the one that our legs create by walking among the buildings of the Acropolis.

Eisenstein, 1989[ii]

Architecture and film are both about space. Architecture uses the three dimensional space of the city as the platform for its expression, while film has the two dimensional screen as a means. Both of them however go far beyond the space of their ‘tools’ and both of them introduce the users or the audience in very different worlds and spaces. Having the participation of the person as an indispensable condition, new spaces take shape. Spaces that coexist, that are superimposed or intersected; spaces that fold into one another, thus creating others. This unique phenomenon caused by film or architecture and the human beings who experience them, can be considered as the spectacle. As it may seem obvious for the film, spectacle exists in many other cases, and among them, in architecture. The walk up the Acropolis is a spectacle per se, one that the body and the space create together. It is one of my goals in this journey to try to trace how these spectacles are formed and how the folding of spaces in the city and spaces in film fold to form the experience of the spectacle.

With this Ithaca in mind, and the journey always as the focus, I will examine spaces particularly designed to create a ‘film effect’, such as the first buildings designed to host films: the movie theaters of the 20s. And I will later reverse this condition to see what happens when such a place becomes the protagonist on the screen; in Tsai Ming Liang’s film “Dragon Inn” a movie theater is the heart of the film, its main essence, where everything starts from and where everything leads to. With the examination of these two interactions of film space and architectural space, I will try to see how spectacle is formed and how different spaces can fold into each other to cause the spectacle.

Tracing the film’s past, before it was even invented as film, will help our journey because it will give hints about the way this experience was formed and handled in the past, beginning from the Renaissance theaters.

TRACK 2: Metropolis and the Picture Palaces

The rise of the metropolis coincides the birth of film; that is, the moment the city changes its image, its rhythms and its population, is the moment that the moving pictures are invented. This is not merely a coincidence. Film appears into the metropolis as a product of the metropolis, as if the city needed it to represent itself. The first moving images are mere representations of the big cities or of the technological ‘deeds’ that changed the city’s paces. Indeed, the moving pictures showed panoramic views of the city, crowded streets, or the new means of transportation such as the underground an the trains. The thematic of the first films focus on the new image of the city. The camera depicts in a way the flaneur’s gaze. The people in the cities stand astounded in front of this brave new world that is being created and in an attempt to familiarize to it, they walk in the streets, use the public spaces, drift around as Benjamin’s flaneur does. The crowded public spaces, the new vitality that the trains and cars suggest, the tall buildings and the steel structures all seem amazingly new. This gaze of amazemement and excitement, this look towards a new condition is very accurately depicted in the films of this era. Film finds in the city its favorite subject, as if the metropolis is the protagonist in every shot. On one hand, it is the city that represents itself with a totally new means, and on the other hand it is film that does its first steps in creating images of space[iii]. Film is urban a priori.

It is very interesting to see where these very first films are being shown, the spaces that host them. At that time, the moving pictures were part of a stroll in the streets, as people would enter an arcade, or a small store just to see some minutes of moving images. Film was considered a quick entertainment, approachable to anyone. It had to do with the movement in the streets, and it was part of a peripatetic experience.

The moving image becomes a part of the public life. It takes place initially as apart of the events in the streets or in the arcades, and it follows the fluid movement of the city dweller as he walks in the city stopping to anything that attracts his attention.

With the broader impact film had to the people of the big cities, it starts to have buildings created to host it. Little by little a transformation of the places of the screenings is held: from the streets and the arcades to the shops, warehouses and deserted hotels, film in the 20s has found a place on its own, the movie theater, a building built especially to house film. The movie theaters are created following the typology of the theaters or the Vaudeville theater buildings, entering at the same time the category of entertainment targeted to the higher classes of the society. When film “leaves” the streets and enters new buildings, this is not without consequences. Film becomes a spectacle of the interior, rather than of the street.

The movie theaters are luxurious buildings, with an access on the interior decoration. The border between the outside and the inside space is strong, and thus the relation with the fluid movement in the city is lost. The film spectacle has less of the spontaneity of the first years’ panoramas, and comes closer to the theatrical experience.

If one takes a closer look at the architecture of the moving theaters, especially of the interior architecture of the hall were the screening takes place, one would be amazed to see the variety and the ‘bravety’ of decorations. Heavy ornaments frame the screen and the walls, and baroque style decorations are found where the walls meet the ceiling or on the columns. The most usual theme for those decorations is nature. Leafs, flowers and fruit, colorful and three dimensional, give to the halls an oneiric impression of nature. Tropical scenery was often one of the favorite subjects as well, thus implementing traveling. If the walls were in a picturesque manner representing nature, the ceiling was undoubtedly the representation of the sky. Its blue color and the drawing of stars suggested an ‘outdoor’ experience in an otherwise very enclosed space. The exaggerated effort in creating a space reminiscent of the outdoors natural landscapes calls for a need to create a space similar in effect as the space of the film on the screen.

Cracauer argues that the movie theaters of the 20s in Berlin succeed in distracting the audience to such an extend that the attention is no longer at the center, that is the screen, but rather on the periphery, on the hall. He calls these theaters picture palaces or palaces of distraction and comments on the effect these places have on the audience:

This total artwork of effects assaults all the senses using every possible means. Spotlights shower their beams into the auditorium, sprinkling across festive drapesory rippling through colourful, organic looking glass fixtures. The orchestra asserts itself as an independent power, its acoustic production buttressed by the responsory of the lighting. Every emotion is accorded its own acoustic expression and its colour value in the spectrum.

Cracauer, Cult of Distraction[iv]

Cracauer explains these delirium of colors, light and décor as a necessity so that the people in the audience find their own place in the spectacle, in order to identify their position in these two merging spaces: the space of narration on the screen and the space of illusion in the hall. As he clearly states “The interior design of movie theaters serves one sole purpose: to rivet the viewer’s attention to the peripheral, so that they will not sink into the abyss”[v]

It is very interesting to notice the word abyss that Cracauer uses in order to describe the world on the screen. Falling into the abyss is an image that suggests a movement into space. Here the German thinker creates a very spatial image that implicates movement, entering and falling... in film. In a unique way this phrase talks about the creation of space in the film, and how the audience enters this space. In fear of being lost in the world of film, or falling into its abyss, one needs to have another space to stick on as a hint of where one previously was. In this case the heavy ornament of the movie theater creates the counter-balance of the interiority of the screen, thus suggesting a natural, sublime exteriority.

It seems as if the journey of the viewer into film should not be without a point of reference to where he started, and this is typical of many mythical dangerous journeys in unknown worlds.[vi] The entering into the unknown world of film, in order for it not to be without return, needed to be distracted by another space equally interesting and inviting. The idea of traveling is present in both worlds, both the interior world of the screen and the exterior one of the ‘exotic’ movie theater. One of the most pictorial cases that show the overlapping of those two spaces of travel is the case of the movie theaters in the States during the late twenties and thirties. There was at the time a trend of Egyptomania, and many movies were shot on the theme of the mysteries of the pyramids and the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt[vii]. The movie theaters therefore were decorated in an Egyptian-like manner, with golden colors and shapes reminding the Egyptian architecture[viii]. It would be as if the space depicted on the screen has passed that delicate border and invaded the space of the movie theater.

As we see from the Egyptian- like films and movie theaters, it is not easy to tell whether the creation of an exteriority helps the audience not to ‘fall into the abyss’ or whether this scenography merges so well with the film’s interiority that the audience is fatally doomed to travel into it. No matter what the case is, what is most interesting is the relation of the two spaces, and their interaction in provoquing the audience’s senses. There is no point in trying to compare them, but rather see them as a whole, as the intersections of different spaces that create the spectacle. Indeed, one can see these two spaces as two layers superimposed to cause an illusion, one that the film narrates.

The peripatetic experience that the film suggested in its first steps, when it was still part of the street’s life, is now transformed to a different type of movement. Although the spectator has lost his movement into the space of the city, yet in the movie theater of the 20s and the 30s another kind of traveling is implied. It is a mental, sensual travelogue that the space proposes, a transaction from the urban environment of the city streets, to an environment of exotism, sensation, and reverie. The illusion of the film blends with the illusion of the movie theater and together they suggest a voyage of distraction.

TRACK 3: Tsai Ming Liang, Goodbye Dragon Inn

Up to this point we have argued on the merging of the space of the movie theater and the space that the film creates, giving examples from the first days of cinema and from the early architecture of the movie theaters. Let’s make a big step into time now, and let’s travel to a movie theater in Taiwan of 2000, old and decaying.

In Tsai Ming Liang’s film Goodbye Dragon Inn (2003) we watch the parallel lives of people that find themselves in an old movie theater on the day of its last screening. The people from the audience, the female ticket clerk and the projectionist, all trace different itineraries in the movie theater, which at times intersect with one another. Many of the characters, as the Japanese tourist or the old actor for instance, stay mostly in the cinema hall and watch a movie- others wander around lost in their thoughts.

The film takes place internally into the movie theater. This mere fact consists a paradox. The situation with which the spectator is usually acquainted to is the screen- movie theater relation explained before. But in this film, a unique event takes place: the same situation is represented on the screen, with other spectators who watch a film inside the film. This self-referential condition creates a misoriented, dizzying effect. The spectator wonders of his role in the whole spectacle, which is the audience and which is the movie? Where are the limits of the screen’s space? If these questions were already difficult to be answered in the palaces of distraction of the 20s, Tsai Ming Liang puts the discourse one step closer to the abyss. The spectator can be drowned in the sea of the screen, ignorant of its limits. In Goodbye Dragon Inn there is the extreme condition of the blending of the space of narration and the space of the movie theater inside the film. There are several long shots of the spectators looking at the screen, or other shots of the movie theater taken with the camera ‘turning the back’ to the theater’s screen, reminding the paradox.

This choice is per se a comment on space and on the merging of spaces. Tsai Ming Liang wants the audience to think of its place in the movie theater. It is a case where the spectators find a space in the film where their participation is needed; the spectators are asked to add their thoughts, reveries, memories and emotions into the long stables takes. There are certain moments in the film that the action totally stops, and the image either almost freezes, or there is a periodical movement repeated continuously. Two such takes are the take of the empty movie theater that stays with the audience for quite some time, or the scenes where we watch the woman walking with the same rhythm and the limping movement, practically making a promenade in the building. The time where no action happens is actually the time where each one of the spectators is asked to participate in the film, and add his/her own thoughts and emotions, thus creating an intimate, private space. In the same way that the characters in the Taiwanese movie theater drift around carrying with them their memories, the spectators are asked to contribute as well. The mirror effect inside and outside of the screen implied with the long take of the empty movie theater could be another way of showing how the space in the film is a reflection of real space.

This notion is quite similar to the flaneur’s promenade in the city, or Eisenstein’s way of experiencing architecture through movement. The woman in the film has such a peripatetic experience when she wonders around the theater, with or without a reason – it doesn’t matter. She feels the space and mapping out her own itinerary, thus leaving a trace. Her physical movement is not only necessary but in a sense redeeming. The audience sympathizes with her effort and her pain when going up the stairs, so as the importance of the body experience is accentuated.

The film or the spectacle of Goodbye Dragon Inn could never be complete without the psychological landscapes of the spectators. The space is left for the people who watch the film to define and use, to move into it, as the characters do. It is a topos of privacy, but which is at the same time very public. It is where the movie theater of Tsai Ming Liang and our movie theater become one, blend into one another, and the two topoi create a single one.

TRACK 4: Interiority/ Exteriority

Tsai Ming Liang’s movie theater has a lot in common with the movie palaces of the first decades of the moving images. They are both very introvert spaces, very self –referential, but in an interesting way, controversial they open themselves to the outer world.

Talking in architectural terms, movie theaters do not have any windows or other kind of openings. When entering such a place, when crossing the border, the only window to the world is the screen and the interior space. The screen is some kind of an ‘eye’ that allows the spectators to look at another world, but also a ‘gate’ for the beginning of their travel. And the interior space, as we have already noticed in the movie palaces act reinforcing the idea of movement and of traveling.

In Goodbye Dragon Inn the movie theater does not have any of the glory and luxury of the movie palaces in the 20s. It is a decaying building that is left to ‘die’ free of any attempt of embellishment of renovation. The feeling that it reflects is of a body dying, with merely any life left into it. The people that are in it adjust to this sense of lifeless-ness: at some points, as it is also stated by one of the characters, it is difficult to tell if they are alive humans or just ghosts, spirits from an other era. However, if we break the crust of the surfacial image of the movie theater, we will notice that some of the most important qualities that the idea of a movie theater stands for, are there in both cases.

The movie theater of Goodbye, Dragon Inn is a very introvert space, a place of total interiority that functions as a unique microcosmos. All the information that the film gives about the outside is that it rains, as if the outer world is nothing but water. An interior space like this movie theater surrounded by water seems a lot like an island. Indeed some characteristics of an island suit perfectly the conditions narrated in the film. The movie theater gives the impression of a place highly inaccessible for people who do not belong to its ‘microcosmos.’ It has very strong boundaries –water boundaries- and there is a feeling that the people in the movie theater are there forever, time functions in a different way in that world. Isolation is another characteristic of an island also present at the movie theater of Tsai Ming Liang. Not only nobody can enter it but it also seems very far away from ‘real world’ abandoned in its own state. The only element that can enter or exit is water: the element of fluidity and the means by which the theater becomes an ‘island’ is present in and out. It penetrates the building, and causes ‘catharsis’: there is a scene where the man takes buckets full of water and throws them out of a window. This is a relieving scene, as if much of the gathered tension, the anger, the unfulfilled desires and the unexpressed emotions are exiled out of the world of the movie theater with a strong, dynamic gesture. Seen as a beautiful metaphor, when the buckets are full, someone has to cross the boundary and throw the water into the outer world, so that the system can continue to exist.

In the case of the space Tsai Ming Liang narrates, water is the element of the exterior space that penetrates into the interior. In the case of the movie palaces, there are also elements of exteriority that are incorporated in the space. All the scenographic elements of nature and of the sky that are being used as decorations can be seen as a way that the enclosed space incorporates in itself elements from the exterior. The natural or tropical motifs, the design of the sky in detail, even the Egyptian decorations – all of these suggest that the enclosed space has selected certain elements of the outside to “open” its boundaries. The voyage is being done via the mind and the film on the screen, but the body also participates being in a space of in-between: an interior space that holds representations of the exterior- a place that prepares its inhabitants for the journey.

The movie palaces and the movie theater of Tsai Ming Liang’s are interior spaces that “open” themselves to the exterior not by conventional means, but rather with the use of iconography and the necessary participation of the user. Through the ambiance the space suggests, the mind travels and the enclosed space gets more open than any other. Spaces as such existed in the past and represented the need of narrating and of traveling –in a way forshadowing film. Such places existed in the Renaissance, usually related with the need of the Renaissance thinkers to depict the whole world in one single room or surface.

TRACK 6: Epilogue

French philosopher Gilles Deleuze has worked a lot on the notion of interiority and exteriority. For him, the words ‘interiority’ and ‘exteriority’ go beyond their spatial signifier. He describes as interiority a system that is defined by some kind of order or structure, a system with hierarchies, one of stability. For Deleuze, interiorities do not exist without exteriorities, that is some elements outside the structure of the system, that have the tendency either to resist the existence of the interiority, or try to destroy its structure.

When elements of the exterior manage to intrude an interiority, then happens the fold. That is the interiority is forced to move, to change form, to fold. And this state of movement, of unstability, of constant redefining – the folding- is the cause that creates everything new. A new quality is being born only by “creating an interior space absolutely coexisting with the outside on the line of fold”[ix].

The spaces of spectacles represented on this journey, starting from the Acropolis, to the movie palaces and Tsai Ming Liang’s movie theater are in a sense folded spaces. For they are spaces that give to the interior a whole new meaning, opening it to exterior worlds of memory, emotions and thoughts. Such places make us think about spectacle not just in terms of what one sees on a stage or a screen, but as a collective experience created with the participation of everyone in the room… and the room itself!

[i] I use the urban condition as the setting of my research.

[ii] Eisenstein S., Montage and Architecture, in Assemblage, v.10, 1980.

[iii] Bruno G., Atlas of Emotions, Verso, NY, 2002, pp.21.

[iv] Cracauer S., Cult of Distraction in The Movies, President and Fellows of Harvard College, USA,1995, pp.324.

[v]Cracauer S., Cult of Distraction in The Movies, President and Fellows of Harvard College, USA,1995, pp.326.

[vi] I cannot help but think of the mythos of the Minotaur: the mission of Theseas was to enter the labyrinth in order to kill the beast Minotaur. Theseas was given the edge of a clew of string to hold, when entering the labyrinth. His girlfriend, waiting in agony at the entrance of the labyrinth would hold the one edge, and Theseas would unfold the clew in his way inside so as not to lose his way. The reference of taking a hint of the exterior world when entering an unknown space is evident in many stories and myths.

[vii] Lant A., Haptical Cinema in October, v.74, fall 1995, pp 51-52.

[viii] It is very interesting to see how the Egyptian style has many similarities with the Art Deco movement of the time, but this is already another journey on its own…

[ix] Deleuze, Gilles Foucault Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988, pp. 117

For the Love of the Multitude: A conversation with Michael Hardt

2008-08-09T13:03:00.000-07:00

by Dimitris Gourdoukis

In 2000 Antonio Negri’s and Michael Hardt’s book “The Empire” was published to what proved to be a very warm welcome. Their analysis of the system of global domination, the ways that it functions and operates, was indeed an effort long anticipated and much needed. Four years later, in 2004, their second collaboration was published in the form of “The multitude”. This second book is standing in several ways at the opposite side of the Empire. Of course it continues from where the later stops while it shares the same principles. However, while the Empire was looking at the dominating system, trying to analyze it and understand it, the Multitude is looking at the alternatives that we can have, or we are already having, to that system. At the same time, the more academic style of the first book gives its place to a more ‘pop’ – in Deleuze and Guattari’s terms – approach. The Multitude moves from passages about the Golem or Dostoyevsky’s Demons to pages that could have been part of ‘city guerilla’ brochure. Being true to its Spinozian roots, it goes through war and the analysis of the Multitude itself to end in a very positive and optimistic way with democracy.

Here the t-machine is presenting a discussion that we had with Michael Hardt almost a year after the publication of the book, in the spring of 2006.

DG: To begin with, you have a new book, co-written with Antonio Negri, the Multitude, which, if I am not mistaken, is the first after the Empire, right?

MH: Yes, right.

DG: How is it situated in relation to the Empire?

MH: Well, while in the Empire we were relatively satisfied with how we treated the present global system, or the system of domination, it had relatively little to say about the possible alternatives to that. So we thought that this book should develop more the possibilities or the alternatives to the Empire. And not only the alternatives that we could imagine, but the alternatives that are already happening, like what are the movements today, what are their poles and directions and what kind of alternative global world today point to us. So that is generally the distinction between the two projects.

DG: So in relation to the Empire you are trying to take a step forward.

MH: Trying to take a step forward and rather than describing the system of domination, describing the alternatives to that. Even the title, in the Empire we talked a little about the Multitude, but we had to say little about the Multitude, so now we thought that the idea will be to articulate the Multitude philosophically and politically.

DG: And you begin your book with war.

MH: Yes.

DG: You dedicate one third of the book to describe what you call war in the society today. By ‘war’ I suppose you don’t mean only the armed combat, right?

MH: Yes.

DG: And you also inverse the Clausevich formula, which is interesting. I am wondering why you choose war to describe the situation today.

MH: Well, there is a first and maybe it is not a good reason, but it is an immediate reason, that is hard to think today, after September 11, or really after the US reaction to September 11, it became increasingly difficult to think about making for a better world. Because of the state of war, that the US declared on terror, and various other kinds of real military combats, in addition to the other things we are saying. Whereas it might have been difficult but it seemed easier in 1999 to think about how a better world could be, suddenly it seems like we are lost in the mist of a horrible situation, so war was like an obstacle that we had to deal with before we can actually talk about. Like I said, this might not be the best reason, but nonetheless I think is really true also, which is thinking of the reader who says “how we can even imagine a democratic world today when we face with Bush?” And so it seemed to us like what we had to talk about at first. Part of the effort of that third of the book is to try to articulate how the problem is not only Bush. And the problem is not only the US war on terror. That is much larger… one needs to think about war as a kind of obstacle that opposes to political projects or alternatives, as something that is much broader, that does unfortunately include military repression but also is a broader political and social obstacle. One of the things that we are trying to confront in that first chapter and then came back to it later and I think is one of those things that we don’t yet understand or have an answer to, is the problem of the relationship between force of violence and political activism. I mean, it seems to me at least, that it makes no sense today to talk about a war of liberation in the way we talked about it 20 or 30 years ago, that makes no sense to talk about it in that way today. But neither does it seems to me that political activism should exclude the use of force. I think that we have to rethink, and as I say I don't have a way of, and maybe the general way of saying this today, we have to think what the relation between force and the politics of liberation is. So in addition to thinking what war is, we start to think what war for liberation is today. And is not an easy answer it seems to me.

DG: And the actual wars or armed combats how are situated inside this idea? They are part of it.

MH: Yes, I mean this is like a sort of our way into the discussion for us, which is to try to understand in the various kinds of armed combats, I mean I am not sure which ones you mean, I am thinking of the obvious wars where both sides are bad in some way, like India-Pakistan, Sierra Leone-Haiti, you know, we have those ongoing wars throughout the world, and what seems to me as a first obligation or task for thinking about this is to recognize how each one has its own specific causes. They are also related to one another as a global system of warfare. Warfare that functions as a kind of social repression.

DG: Yes, because those wars seem like they are more like ‘traditional’ wars, with specific causes.

MH: They are but I think that in many ways there is a, not a danger, but there can be a miscomprehension when something that looks like it is repeating something old but in fact is masking its new relationships. Like for instance, and that's something different, outside Mexico, and I mean mainly in Europe and the US, when the Zapatistas started in 1994 the first reaction was “well that is just an old guerilla army, its just a repetition of the old” while in fact it was something new, it takes quite a while to recognize the novelty of that old form.

DG: This idea of war, its seems that there are other thinks interested in that too, for example Virilio… or Manuel DeLanda… There seems to be a certain proximity between those ideas and your ideas. Is there such a proximity or do you see those ideas as a different approach?

MH: Well both of those books, the Virilio book…

DG: Pure War…

MH: I was thinking of an earlier one, but things are also repeated in that one, and then the first DeLanda book. Yes there are a lot in common with those books. The one hesitation that I have is with the kind of statement that “war or the military drives history”. I think that this is a point which… I don’t know, I prefer to like machiavellian thinking, where force for Machiavelli is important of course, violence is important, but its really on its own the weakest form of power. And I think that's important to recognize today too. The US military is incredibly important and does horrible things, but on its own it’s really a weak form of power. I think what one has to recognize when trying to understand the global system of repression is how this military elements only function when being embedded within, and collaborating with, force of power in various other fields. And I think that even in the thinking of the US military, it can be very instructive to read the things produced by the advisors to the military instructors, a little bit like reading the diary of a psycho killer, you know, its disturbing but at the same time its interesting to see how they think. Well, I was thinking in this regard that what I find most interesting, and it’s not really new, movements within the military is this notion of a full spectrum dominance. I think that is interesting because what they mean by ‘full spectrum dominance’ is that the military has not only to dominate in terms of violence and force, it also has to affect all the other domains, so that's what the full spectrum is, it has to dominate also the economy, has to do it politically, culturally. The US military used to say, during the Vietnam era, that they have to win the hearts and minds, not just kill the Vietnamese, but also to defeat them culturally, or form them culturally. This is really an expansion of that, because now the US military has been involved in nation-building which is dominating them politically. So it’s dominating politically, culturally, economically, this all the charges of the US military, and in Iraq we’ve seen that task and the failures of that task. And one theoretical thing that interests me about this and which I was formulating wrong few minutes ago, because their charge is not so much to dominate them culturally, is to produce them culturally. The form of power is required to be productive rather than simply a kind of repression. Like in Iraq, is obscure when you see it because they recognize that this is a task that they are completely unprepared to do it. The military’s task is to produce an Iraqi political system. It turns out to be an incredible disaster. Nonetheless that's what they see as their charge. And I think in this sense they are lucid, recognizing that it is not just a matter of military power, as even being the foundation, it only functions when it is in coordination with this various other spectrums. All this because I was hesitating with the notion of military force guiding history. I think that it is easy to put too much weigh on the military power of the US today. And I don’t want to say… I mean in military I assume that it is far more powerful than any other military. But the military isolated is insufficient for its task.

DG: And then we have Deleuze and Guattari’s war machines. Could we say that what you are describing here is a war machine that became too big and too powerful, that finally is taking, or already took, the place of the state?

MH: Yes. Well, the way I see Deleuze and Guattaris’ war machines… you know the insistence that the war machines are exterior to the state. They are different things. But nonetheless the state always requires a war machine, and there is a support between the two. And it seems that what we are trying to do in way is to describe the war machine that coordinates its functions with the Empire. If someone thinks of the Empire as form of sovereignty, not really state, but nonetheless a new form of sovereignty, it too has a war machine. A war machine that is exterior to it. That might be a way to pose it in their terms. They say in the end of that chapter, now I am getting very academic about it, but the last pages of the chapter on nomadology, or the apparatus of capture, I am not sure, either 12 or 13 to get Deleuze and Guatarrian about this, the last pages almost seem to me as an exact proposition of our hypothesis of the empire, when they are talking about the war machine and the global integrating of capitalism, I thinks it’s Guattari’s turm.

DG: I think it's the nomadology chapter. What I was thinking is that they think of the war machine not only like something big, and they say that it can be a multinational company, but it can also be a small group of people, which in your idea comes to be the multitude, right?

MH: Right. And my question would be, and I don’t have a answer yet, is that if we agree, and I think that most of us agree, that there are times that the use of force is necessary in politics, so what is the appropriate use of force today, against the system that is repressing us? I think the answer is that what we had years ago are so clearly not appropriate today. Urban armed struggle, in the sense of taking weapons, like in the 70s, rural guerilla movements, and I am thinking of the 70’s in latin America mostly, these seem to me, on one sense counterproductive and suicidal, on the other sense seems to me like today they are martial fantasies. But once we recognize the difficulty, what is that kind of force that is useful today? And that is what I am not sure about. I said that because when you mentions Deleuze and Guattari’s war machine… you know a war machine can be a line of flight. They can be the band of outsides that become a war machine as a kind of escape. So it’s not clear for me what that could mean. It reminds me of another line, and I think it’s in the dialogues book, where he says, I think they were talking about the line of flight as an escape, and I think it sounded too pacific to him so he says something like “yes the line of flight always fly but as you are leaving, grab a gun”. Which is a nice line, I think is a reference to George Jackson actually, and you know, I too know that gesture, but I also know that for me if we were to think what we should do today, to think of ways employed in the 70’s, I don’t thinks that that is productive. Anyway, I shouldn’t go on with that, but for me, part of the question about war is this.

DG: In this work we have on one hand the Empire and on the other hand we have networks. You write somewhere that “it takes a network to fight a network”. Does it mean that the Empire might transform itself into a network and it might also get rid of its center or of its hierarchy?

MH: Well, not necessarily get rid of its hierarchy. Again, when you say that, it makes me think of these Hollywood movies like Terminator where the dominant thing is this network of machines, the imagination is something like that, but I think again if we read the literature within the US military about how their theorists think it needs to transform, they are arguing that it needs to become more like a network. Networks don’t yet say anything about hierarchy. Because what they argue for in the US military, by these reformers of the military, is not that it will lose its authority, but that it will not be structured as a traditional direct hierarchy, and in a way that there will be teams of soldiers that cooperate together. But they are still of course under a hierarchy. Networks of course, they don’t even have to have a center to have a hierarchy. To the extent at which the Empire doesn’t have a center, and I think there are some ways in which it does and some ways in which it doesn’t, to the extent that it doesn’t, it doesn’t mean at all that it doesn’t have a hierarchy. It's a hierarchy that functions in a different way. Like for instance: when we were talking, even in the initial part of our hypothesis, when we were saying that the Empire is form by a network of the dominant states plus the dominant capitalist corporations etc. Those dominant nation - states, there is already a strict hierarchy, for instance between the US and France. But they can still function as a network even with that hierarchy. And it does seem to me that the US military is recognizing the ways in which it has to become more like a network in order to combine the kinds of challenges that is facing.

DG: So, you are saying that despite this war and despite the Empire being so powerful, we have hope.

MH: Right.

DG: And we have hope not only because of the Multitude, but also because of the Empire itself, because it is the Empire that gives rise to various forms of resistance. And much like the Empire, the Multitude is also like a network. Which are the ways in which it gets organized or what are the reasons for which these singular units are coming together in order to form the Multitude?

MH: Well, someone will say “look, you say that the Empire is a network and then the Multitude is a network, so what is the difference?” So, one has to say that it is not the network form in itself, but the kind of network, the relations within the networks that define the difference. I would say that there are certain qualities of relationships that define the Multitude. The singularities are existing subjects so much as a political project. And it will be a political subject formed by the equality of the cooperating singularities, but they are different and they are remaining different. They‘re not merging into a single agenda, a single form of authority etc. They are rather a horizontal network. Then you say why or how do these singularities come together? Maybe there are two ways of approaching such questions. On the one hand one could, and I am sure that we do, try to address it theoretically, but sometimes its better to say “what is it that the people are doing?” “What are the people that are coming together, what are the kinds of projects in which this is happening” and look at that. Like I said before, rather than asking what is it to be done, start by asking the question “what the people are already doing?”. Because there is throughout the world a numerable amount of horizontal movements that are forming. Using them as a point of departure might be the easiest way of addressing these kinds of questions. Like movements in India or in Brazil, or like the assembly movements in Argentina. These are all, in their own ways, with their own peculiarities, they are different experiments in the formation of a local kind of Multitude. What’s interesting about those political reflection, is that it’s not really talking about a world that could be, it’s trying to give a name to what’s happening today. I will give you another example that is purely anecdotic or personal: I’ve been very involved, as I was coming to political consciousness, with the Italian notion of autonomy and that movements from the 70’s in Italy, and so I was interested during the last years that I was traveling in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, and each time meeting with activists that their primary term is autonomy, I mean like the picateros in Brazil or the Zapatistas in Mexico, and each timed I asked them “where does this idea of autonomy come from?” and they said “it comes from our own experience, from what we doing”, and I believe them. And it is a interesting phenomenon, I don’t know the answer to why, but it is an interesting phenomenon that, first having the absolute coincidence of using the same word, but it is more general, why today throughout the world are there being form alternative movements that are working with this process, that are trying to experiments with the concepts of autonomy and independence, or a horizontal network formation. My initial assumption or reaction is that “is it throughout the world activism or reacting to similar kinds of situations and challenges and that this notion of autonomy comes from that” I don’t even know why I went into that… oh the formation of multitude and how those things come together, yes, maybe its not so much in theory, “why they should do this” but maybe trying to realize “why they are doing this”.

DG: Also, the way that you describe the Multitude, it brings in mind the idea of the rhizome, as described again by Deleuze and Guattari. What do you think about that?

MH: Yes, I think that it reminds of it. But then again, the further complexity that you are already pointing to is that, you know when you read the beginning of “A Thousand Plateaus” you can think “ok, rhizome is good, tree is bad” and then its turns out that there are good rhizomes and bad rhizomes and that's in essence what we were talking about here. You can say the US military might organize itself as a network but that is not going to make it good, in fact it’s going to make a more “evil” kind of enemy. And so someone has to look at the criteria. But yes, I think that the notion of the rhizome, or the line of flights. In fact one of the most important it seems to me Deleuze and Guattari’s idea that's central for us here is that, when we think of the multitude as formed by an assemblage of singularities, now I sound like Deleuze and Guattari, and the most important thing is that these singularities are not fixed identities, they are always and each becoming different. And they are always and each multiplicities. And that will be a different from, now in the US context, it might not make sense from the Greek point of view, a difference from a certain perspective of identity in politics in which the assumption of identity is fixed and stable. Where the notion of becoming different is already part of the Multitude.

DG: At the same time those singularities are without knowledge of the Multitude, right?

MH: Right, that's another difference with the national identity.

DG: So there is no model to explain how people come together; each time they come together in their own ways and they form the Multitude.

MH: Yes… I think that's true, there is no original way of doing it and there is not only one way, but one shouldn’t discount how much communication has effect on these things. The old term in communist relations was about “a cycle of struggles”, that in a way the inspiration and translation of what is going on in St Petersburg for instance is translated in Shanghai in a different way and taken up etc. I think that today is not exactly the same thing but there is a kind of communication that does help in the formation of groups elsewhere. I mean that the recognition of how a community in Chiapas is formed does then help in Barcelona thinking in a very different context how these singularities might come together. I wish there were more communication… Let me give you an example: Toni and I were together in China last year and one of the things I was really interested in at the time and I kept talk about with people was the crisis in agriculture, the problem of the land and people having to move from the country to the city etc, and as I was talking to people, that were really intellectuals interested in agriculture, not the peasants themselves, but we kept saying “why don’t you start making contacts with the Lamas movement in Brazil, because it is different but they have a similar situation, especially when China enters into the WTO, and it was very hard for them to understand, we didn’t make much. And it seems very practical to me to seek for the translations of what is going on elsewhere to help in this formation of… I said all this because what I was trying to resist is the notion that it could sound spontaneous. Because I think that what is not spontaneous is in fact communication.

DG: You also write that the multitude has to be productive. It has to be productive in terms of labor, or in terms of politics or networks? Because it looks like this idea of productivity is important to you…

MH: It is. Now, stepping back a minute about this, it seems like there is for the last 30 or 50 years, there is a recognition of a problem, an obstacle, within a certain tradition of Marxism. That is productiveness. That puts such emphasis on the economic productivity, that in a way creates a new kind of prison, or even reinforces the same prison. The classic example of this is the notion of this guy in Soviet Union, (something between a myth and a real person) who was more productive than anybody else, and he was doing the work of ten so everybody should be like him. It seems to me that there two ways of responding to this: Because I too am reacting to this notion of communism as more work. There are two ways theoretically to react to this: one is to refuse the notion of productivity and therefore to seek liberation outside of it. As something that is outside of productivity, that has nothing to do with that. The other is, and this is the one that Toni and I are part of, is to work towards a better conception of productivity. That is not strictly economic, but its much better that what is considers a wage liver. I think that Deleuze and Guattari, since we are talking about them, are relevant to this. When they say at the begging of Antioedipus that everything is production, and when they are talking about all these machines, in a way I am trying to think of a very wide spectrum of productivity, it’s not just the productivity in the factory, but the productivity of desire, all of these things, so these are desiring machines, so all this productivity. That's a long explanation to get to the point where we were thinking… what’s really involved. What’s really requiring the production, and I think that's what politics are, is the production of society. It’s not society as a given formation but is something that is constantly produced or reproduced. So what it would mean for the proletarians to take power, for the Multitude to liberate itself? Would be autonomous to be able to produce society, I mean to produce society every day, to produce social relations. So it is a kind of an extension if you like of the notion that the communist revolution involves the ability of the proletarian to be able to produce without the capitalist class. It is a generalization of that to the entire society. And it is in away that seems to me to at least change that repressive notion of production as obligation. So in a way rather than creating a theory that moves away from labor, it transforms productivity and what it means. It's like Deleuze and Guattari which seems to me as a convenient example of that.

DG: And in the end you think that the Multitude can lead us into a democratic state, which means that it will give an end to the Empire and at the some time it will not give birth to something that will take the place of the Empire. And, I don't know but I keep thinking again of Deleuze and Guattari when they say that at the end of every revolution there is always betrayal and disappointment, and also that it doesn’t matter because what matters is the becoming of revolution… But you are actually saying something different, you are saying that the multitude can actually lead us to something that it will be better.

MH: Yes… I remember that in Marx’s 1844 manuscripts he says two things that are contradictory. In one point he says, and he is giving a dialectical formulation, and he talks about the way that communism will be the result of the contradictions within capitalist society, that will pose an end to history. And because it will resolve all the class conflicts etc, communism will be the end. And there is another point where he says thought, he describes that movement from capitalism to communism where he says communism which will be the next stage, the next step in human history, and then of course there will be something that comes after and something that comes after. So in a way you are asking me about this division here. Are we talking about revolution as the end of human history? And I agree with you: no we are not. It seems to me even undesirable. But also unreasonable. It doesn’t seem as the right way to think about it. That's not to say though that revolution involves just a repetition of the same. It would be in fact a better stage. I think there is not, and I don’t know if I should be critical of myself for this, but I can not think of those things without thinking in terms of progress. And why I say that I might need to be critical? Because I can recognize many critiques of progress scenarios. Which I think is justified. One that shows progress as an inevitable and even objectively proceeding course; and one that shows that progress has a telos and is leading history towards that. I think rather there is a telos, especially the way that Toni and I speak about it, there is a totally immanent telos that's guided by the desire of those who rebel. It is a peculiar kind of telos I think because it just means that we who struggle, want something different. So the construction of that, and the force of that desire, rebellion, etc. will be a better society. And even looking historically, we are reading history as a progression of progress that is the accumulation of the desires of the repressed or the struggles against repression. Which is another kind of progress. But I am ending one and one that's simple the continuing expression of the desire of those who struggle. At any case, I think you are right to point out that the project of the multitude isn’t a project for the end of history…

DG: Or one that will lead us to a stage where we can say “that's it!”

MH: Yes, right.

DG: Another question, that maybe goes back to what we were talking about before, is, since the Empire is a network and the Multitude is a network, how can we say which is which? I mean, aren’t there places where the limits are starting to blur and you can not really say where one ends and the other starts?

MH: Yes, I bet that there are many ways in which you can not tell which is which but that doesn’t mean that conceptually they are not different. Let me try to give an example of that: It’s not like everything in ones life in the whole world is easily categorisable. Like a Hollywood movie, you say that's an expression of the Empire, but there are also elements that pose an alternative to that and a possibility for other things, so I think that in most experiences the portions of repression and the possibilities of liberation can not always be disentangled or separated. But conceptually or in principle there is, you can not risk confusing authority and repression with equality and freedom. It sounds very old fashion but that what’s at stake here.

DG: You have this juxtaposition: transcendence and immanence. It seems important, right? So I was thinking if it is just a way to exclude any possible metaphysical explanation or if there is more into that, if there is another reason…

MH: I think there are several reasons. There is the philosophical perspective where like you say the reason is to avoid metaphysical explanations. Transcended power as a source. But politically, and there are many ways to pose it, transcendence means in many political frameworks the dictation of a central authority. So either in an old tradition of European, political philosophy, think of Hobbes for instance, that the power that stands above society, the state also the party, you know, various other institutional structures that stand above society, and then in a more basic, introductory kind of argument for immanence as part of the tradition of politics of the abolition of the state in its various forms. But also in a more immediate political organizational way. I think the importance for us arguing for immanence is against the politics of vanguardism. That the vanguard stands above. It's a kind of topology, if you know what I mean, because it’s metaphorical in the sense that the vanguard transcends, you know, stands above the political movement. But it is a way of linking in this way, an argument against a philosophy of metaphysics, of metaphysical explanations, of metaphysical powers and the politics of vanguardism and authority. So the proposition of absolute immanence for us tries to bridge those two and finally imagine a politics that doesn’t require hierarchy within a political formation.

DG: I was wondering how you write your books. I mean since you are two, what is the process that you are following?

MH: The process is this: First, after talking about things and feeling like we have something to say, we sit together and make outlines, usually for several days, weeks, until we work it out, at least the first version of what the argument will be, and then we divide up sections and each person writes a first draft of that section. But then we exchange the drafts and the other person rewrites what the first person wrote. Usually goes back again, rewrite again. Generally it ends up that we don’t remember who wrote what because it gets changed so much. And Toni writes in Italian and I write in English which also makes the things, you know, its gets translated and confused.

DG: So it is already something multiple…

MH: It’s already something multiple, yes. I love the first line of “A Thousand Plateaus”…

DG: That's exactly what I had in mind…

MH: I remember someone saying to me once “but don’t you sometimes disagree with what Toni says?” And I said “well, I often disagree with what I say”, which is like Deleuze and Guattari saying “we were each already many when we came together, so there was already a crowd”. It’s also true that sometimes Toni doesn’t understand what I am saying and sometimes I don’t understand what he is saying, but sometimes I realize I don’t understand what I am saying. You know when you try to work out an argument…

DG: Thank you very much.

MH: Thank you.

What comes first: the chicken or the egg? Pattern Formation Models in Biology, Music and Design.

2008-06-03T21:30:00.000-07:00

by Katerina Tryfonidou & Dimitris Gourdoukis

The popular saying that wonders if the egg is coming before the chicken or vice versa, implies a vicious circle where all the elements are known to us and the one is just succeeding the other in a totally predictable way. In this article we will argue, using arguments from fields as diverse as experimental music and molecular biology, that development in architecture, with the help of computation, can escape such a repetitive motif. On the contrary, by employing stochastic processes and systems of self organization each new step can be a step into the unknown where predictability gives its place to unpredictability and controlled randomness.

01. Music

The Greek music composer and architect Iannis Xenakis in his book Formalized Music ^{^[1]} divides his works -or better the methods employed in order to produce his works- into two main categories: deterministic and indeterministic models. The two categories, deriving apparently from the mathematics, are referring to the involvement or not of randomness in the compositional process. As Xenakis himself explains, “in determinism the same cause always has the same effect. There’s no deviation, no exception. The opposite of this is that the effect is always different, the chain never repeats itself. In this case we reach absolute chance – that is, indeterminism”[2]. In other words a deterministic model does not include randomness and therefore it will always produce the same output for a given starting condition. Differential equations for example tend to be deterministic. On the other hand, indeterministic or stochastic processes involve randomness, and therefore will produce different outputs each time that the process is repeated, given the same starting condition. Brownian motion and marcov chains are some examples of such stochastic mathematical models. Xenakis’ compositional inventory includes processes from both categories[3].

As said above, the use of stochastic models in composition has as a result a process that produces a different outcome each time that it is repeated. For example, using Brownian motion[4] (see figure 01: particles generated using Brownian motion[5]) in order to create the glissandi of the strings, means that the glissandi are generated through a process that includes randomness, therefore if we try to generate them again we will get a different output. At the same time, all the different results of the process will share some common characteristics. With that in mind someone would expect that such a musical composition would vary –at least in some aspects- each time that it is performed. However that is not the case with Xenakis’ works. While he was employing stochastic processes for the generation of several parts of his scores, he was always “translating” his compositions using conventional musical notation, with such detail that he was leaving no space at all for the performer to improvise, or to approach the composition in a different way. In other words the generation of the score involves randomness to a great extent, but the score becomes finalized by the composer so that each time that it is performed it remains the same.

Figure 01: Brownian motion. Object-e architecture: space_sound. 2007.

What is maybe even more interesting is that Xenakis did compose scores that are different each time that they are performed. However, those scores usually are employing deterministic mathematical models, therefore models that do not include randomness. In those cases the situation is inverted: the generation of the score is deterministic, but the performance may vary.

An example of the last case is Duel, a composition that is based on game theory[6]. The composition is performed by two orchestras guided by two conductors, and is literary a game between the two that in the end yields a winner. Each conductor has to select for each move, one out of seven options that are predefined by the composer. A specific scoring system is established and the score of each orchestra depends on the choices of the two conductors[7]. The result of this process is that each time that the composition is performed, the outcome is different. Therefore, a deterministic system where there are seven specific and predefined elements is producing a result that varies in each performance of the score. To make things even more complicated, the seven predefined musical elements are composed by Xenakis with the use of stochastic processes. To summarize the structure of Duel: Xenakis generated seven different pieces using stochastic processes, therefore seven pieces that include randomness. However those pieces were finalized by the composer into a specific form. Then those pieces are given to the conductors that are free to choose one for each move of the performance. The choice of each conductor however is not random: “… it is [not] a case of improvised music, ‘aleatory’, to which I am absolutely opposed, for it represents among other things the total surrender of the composer. The Musical Game accords a certain liberty of choice to the two conductors but not to the instrumentalists; but this liberty is guided by the constraints of the Rules of the Game, and which must permit the music notated by the score to open out in almost unlimited multiplication.”[8] So the choices of each conductor are based upon the strategy that he follows in order to win the game, and consequently upon the choices of the second conductor. Therefore the final performance of the score is different each time.

Xenakis was quite specific with his decisions regarding the use of deterministic or indeterministic processes. In most cases he employs models from both categories for each composition. More importantly, while he names his music “stochastic music”, the stochastic part, the place where randomness occurs, is always internal to the process and totally controlled by the composer. The final result - the score that reaches the performer, or even more the listener – is always specific. Even in the cases where the outcome may vary, it still does so in a set of predefined solutions already predicted by the composer.

02. Life Science

The study of morphogenesis, one of the most complex and amazing research topics of modern biology, aims to provide understanding on the processes that control the organized spatial distribution of cells during the embryonic development of an organism. In other words, how starting from a single fertilized egg, through cell division and specialization, the overall structure of the body anatomy is formed[9]. According to Deutsch and Dorman[10] there is a continuum of different approaches to the problem; on the one end there are theories of preformation and on the other end systems of self organization. The concept of preformation assumes that any form is preformed and static. Therefore any new form is always a result of a combination of the already existing forms. Taking a different approach, self –organization implies a de novo pattern formation that is dynamic and gets developed over time. Morphogenesis in the self-organization model depends on the interaction between the initial cells or units. Preformation is a top-to-bottom idea, while self-orgazination is a bottom-up system. In both cases, research uses computation as the necessary medium for the simulation of the biological processes. We will argue that according to the latest research in biology, morphogenesis can be approached as a process which involves both the notion of preformation as well as self-organization.

During morphogenesis, cells proliferate and specialize, i.e. they choose which subset of proteins to express. But how do cells know when to divide or where to specialize? How do cells know where to become skin or bone or how many fingers should they form? It turns out that the key to understanding morphogenesis is the way cells sense and respond to their environment.

Cells obtain information about their environment by using proteins embedded in their membrane to sense specific “message” proteins that are located around them. When such a “message” protein binds to a membrane protein, the cell “receives” the message and acts accordingly[11]. Therefore, during morphogenesis there is a constant interaction, through such “message” proteins, between each cell and its neighboring cells. This interaction helps cells to understand where in the body they are located, when should they divide and when do they need to specialize into some particular type of cell.

The above function, or better, sequence of functions, has been the focus of scientific research for the past two decades. Nowadays, molecular biology can accurately describe many steps of the reactions between proteins and how they are related to cell specialization[12]. It has been proved that these reactions follow specific physical laws which can be described by mathematical models. For example, given a pair of proteins, the properties of the resulting interactions are known. Because of the physical laws that are being applied, the model of the function of cells is a deterministic one, since it is made of many elementary interactions between proteins that have well defined inputs and outputs. Going this notion a step further, one could argue that the function of the cells implies the idea of preformation, that is, from two predefined elements only one possible combination can occur. In a way, the deterministic rules that the reactions of the proteins follow can be seen as a model of preformation, where there is only one output given a specific input.

Although the reactions between the proteins inside the cell follow specific rules that have been defined, yet there is a great degree of unpredictability at the life and function of each cell. Why science cannot predict exactly which will be the next “moves” of the cells, thus controlling all the functions in a (human) body? Although the nature of the outcome of the interaction between two proteins has been studied and analyzed, it is not possible to define deterministically when and where this interaction will take place, since proteins move randomly in space and they can interact only if they come into proximity and under proper relative orientation. This is true for proteins inside and outside the cell. Furthermore, it is not possible to define the exact location of neighboring interacting cells, when each cell will sense the presence of a “message” protein, when and how much will the cell respond to this signal by secreting its own “message” proteins, and when its neighbors will sense this signal. Given the number and complexity of the functions in each cell, as well as the vast possibilities of interactions with its neighboring cells, the large number of processes that could potentially happen cannot be expressed by deterministic models.

Since there is, to a certain degree, randomness in cellular functions, science turned to stochastic models in order to explain them. That is, instead of deterministic mathematical models, scientists use models that incorporate probabilities, in order to include the large amount of possible actions. Brownian motion, for example, is the stochastic model that describes the movement of particles in fluids, and therefore is used to describe the movement of proteins inside the cell. Stochastic processes can describe the spatial and temporal distribution of interactions inside cells and between neighboring cells.

To understand the importance of the stochastic component of cell function, here is another example: even though monozygotic twins have exactly the same DNA, they look similar but not identical. If the cell-response system was purely deterministic, then babies that have the same DNA should look identical. Nevertheless, this kind of twins look very much alike, but they are not identical. The small differences in their physical appearance occurred because of the stochastic nature of protein motion and interaction during morphogenesis. Even though the initial information was the same, and even though the outcome of protein reactions follows deterministic rules, the exact location of cells and proteins can only be described in a stochastic mode.

The stochastic part of cellular functions could, at a different framework, be seen as a model of self-organization. For people outside of the scientific biological community the introduction of randomness at research seems particularly intriguing. Instead of a process of preformation, (specific aspects of cells function that can be described by deterministic models) in the self-organizational model, cell function results in something different that cannot be described by deterministic rules. Cell functions depend on the fact that each cell is part of a whole. Together with their neighbor- cells, they react to external stimuli and to a large extent define the characteristics of the whole, as part of a bottom-up process. Deutch and Dorman, focus on the absence of distinction between organizer and organized in self-organized systems: “In self-organized systems there is no dichotomy between the organizer and the organized. Such systems can be characterized by antagonistic competition between interaction and instability”[13]. To a certain extend, the cell functions acquire a self-organizational character, because the transformations depend on the interaction of the cells with each other.

There are many examples like the above in molecular biology to make the point that both deterministic and stochastic processes are used to describe the phenomena of life. As an overall assumption, many of the microscopic phenomena in life science follows deterministic rules, but the macroscopic outcomes can be described only in a stochastic way. Following this thought we argue that models of preformation and self-organization, as described above, can exist simultaneously in a system. The case of the cell-cell interaction in general and in the morphogenesis in particular depicts the complex processes that occur and highlights which part of the processes suggest a deterministic, preformatted model, and part of it follows a stochastic model of self-organization.

03. Design

The two cases we already examined – Xenakis work in musical composition and the study of morphogenesis in molecular biology – are both dependant to a great extent on the same medium: computation. Xenakis used computer as the means to transform mathematical models into music almost from the beginning of his career. At the same time, it would be impossible for researchers today to study the extremely complex phenomena that are involved in the development of life without the use of the computer.

The use of the computer, of course, has also become one of the main driving forces behind design today. The encounter of computation with design happened rather late and in the beginning took the form of an exploration of the formal possibilities that software packages were offering. That initial –maybe “immature” but still experimental– approach soon gave its place to a widely generalized dominance of digital means on every aspect related to architecture: from design strategies to the construction industry.

However, using the computer in an architectural context does not necessarily mean that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and the power that computation has to offer. More often than not, the use of computers in architecture today serves the purpose of the “computerization” of already predefined processes and practices – aiming usually to render them more efficient or less time consuming. That might be convenient, it does not promote however the invention of new ways to think about architecture. As Kostas Terzidis notes, “computerization is the act of entering, processing or storing information in a computer… [while] … computation is about the exploration of indeterminate, vague, unclear and often ill-defined processes”[14]. While automating and mechanizing every-day architectural tasks may be useful, the true gain for architecture in relation to digital media lies in the understanding of what a computational design process can really be. Only this way we can use computers in order to explore the ‘unknown’; in order to invent new architectures. We believe that the already mentioned examples in biology and the music of Xenakis can offer the means to better understand where these creative possibilities of computation are laying. Of course computation has numerous applications in several different fields, the selection of those two specific cases as guidelines however, has a very specific motivation: The biological approach is providing scientific, highly developed techniques that have been tested thoroughly and at the same time can show us how computation and digital tools can become the bridge between complex processes taking place in the physical world and the way that space is created. Xenakis’ work on the other hand, is an example of computational techniques used outside their strict scientific origins; that is in order to compose a musical score. Therefore they can provide insights about how those methods can be used in order to create an art-form.

The work of Xenakis is pointing out one of the most import aspects that computation is bringing into (architectural or musical) composition: the introduction of randomness. One can argue of course that architects always had to take decision based on chance. However humans are not really able of creating something totally random. For example if we ask somebody to draw a random line; between the decision to draw a line and the action of drawing the line, there are several different layers that affect the result: ones idea of what a line is, ones’ idea of what random is, the interpretation of the phrase “draw a random line” etc. On the contrary computers are very good at producing randomness (see figure 02: stochastic algorithm positioning and scaling a box randomly). If we program a computer to draw a random line, then the computer will simply draw a line without anything external interfering between the command and the action. The ability to produce randomness, combined with the ability to perform complex calculations is defining the power of computational stochastic processes. And as we have already seen with the work of Xenakis, randomness can be controlled. Therefore the architect/programmer can specify specific rules or define the range within which the stochastic process will take place and then the computer will execute the process and produce results that satisfy the initial conditions. The advantage of such a process lays in the fact that through randomness the architect can be detached from any preconceptions that he or she may have about what the result should be, and therefore it will become easier to generate solutions initially unpredicted. By defining the rules and letting the computer generate the results, we open ourselves to a field of almost endless possibilities; designers can produce results that they couldn’t even imagine in the beginning of the process, while they can still maintain control of the process and the criteria that should be met.

Figure 02: Stochastic distribution. Object-e architecture: space_sound. 2007.

The most important aspect that is crucial to realize, and Xenakis’ work is making it easier to see, is that the power of algorithms used in composition lays in the process and not in the final result. If it is a building that we need to produce, then a building might be produced in the end, as a musical composition was produced in the end by Xenakis. However the importance is moving from the final result to the process that we use to generate it; the architect is not designing the building anymore, but the process that generates it. To point it out once again: computation is defining a process, not an output. And exactly because it allows us to focus on the process and not the results, those results can be unexpected.

Figure 03: student: Josie Kressner

While Xenakis emphasizes the importance of process over the final output along with the stochastic properties of algorithms, the example from biology, when applied to architecture, is highlighting another important aspect that the use of algorithms is raising: that of self-organization. Architectural tradition, starting with the renaissance, is heavily based upon the idea of the “master”: an architect with a specific vision, which he or she materializes through his/her designs creating subsequently a style. Self-organization however implies a totally different idea: the architect does not actualize through his design something that he or she has already conceived. On the contrary: the architect creates the rules, specifies the parameters and runs the algorithm; the output is defined indirectly. Through computation and after many iterations, even the simplest rules can provide extremely complex results, which are usually unpredictable. Moreover, by a simple change in the rules something totally different may arise. The top-bottom idea of architecture, with the architect being at the top level and his/her creations being at the bottom, is inverted: the process begins from the bottom. Simple elements interact with each other locally, and through the iterative application of simple rules, complex patterns start to emerge. The architect does not design the object anymore, but is designing the system that will generate the final output.

An example of a pattern formation model with self-organizational properties is that of cellular automata, which are extensively in use in several different fields, and lately also in architecture. A cellular automaton is a self organized system where complex formations arise as a result of the interaction and the relations between the individual elements. The simplicity of the model combined with its abilities to produce very complex results and to simulate a very wide range of different phenomena makes it a very powerful tool that allows the architect to be disengaged from the creation of a specific output and to focus instead on the definition of a process. (see figure 04: a one dimensional ca and a surface generated byt the acceleration of the rules.)

Figure 04: student: Lauren Matrka

The possibilities arising for architecture are virtually infinite: from the creation of self-organized and self-sustained ecosystems to the study and planning of urban growth. In the place of externally imposed “sustainable” rules, we can have internally defined rules that form the generative process. In the place of applying external “planning” strategies to the cities, we can study urban entities as organisms, as system that are growing following specific rules that define the interaction between its elements.

Yet, as noted in the example of the protein interaction, self-organization is not encountered on its own. It is always functioning together with other, deterministic or pre-formed, systems. The same way that Xenakis was using indeterministic processes in relation to deterministic ones.

What stochastic processes and self organization are offering to architecture, are the means to engage the unknown, the unexpected. The means to move away from any preconceptions that define what architecture is or should be, towards processes the explore what architectures can be. As Marcos Novak writes, “by placing an unexpected modifier x next to an entity y that is presumed – but perhaps only presumed – to be known, a creative instability is produced, asking, ‘how y can be x?’”[15]. In that sense, by placing models of self organization next to models of preformation, or stochastic processes next to deterministic processes, we are not only inventing new systems or new architectures, but we are also discovering new qualities of the systems that we already know – or we thought that we know.

[1] see Xenakis, I. Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Composition New York: Pendragon Press, 1992.

[2] see Varga, B.A. Conversations with Iannis Xenakis London: Faber and Faber limited, 1996, p.76.

[3] In the “deterministic” category of Xenakis’ work fall compositions like Akrata, Nomos Alpha and Nomos Gamma, while examples of the “indeterministic” approach can be found in compositions like N’Shima (Brownian Motion) and Analologigues (Markov Chains).

[4] Brownian motion in mathematics (also Wiener process) is a continuous-time stochastic process. In physics it is used in order to describe the random movement of particles suspended in a liquid or gas.

[5] Figures 1-2: from the project space_sound, Object-e architecture, 2007. Figures 3-4: student work, School of Architecture, Washington University in St. Louis.

[6] Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that studies the behavior in strategic situations, where an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others.

[7] For a detail description of Duel see Xenakis, I Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Composition New York: Pendragon Press, 1992. p. 113 – 122.

[8]Xenakis, I. Letter to Witold Rowicki. see Matossian, N. Xenakis New York: Taplinger Publishing Co. 1986, pp. 164-165.

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenesis, 03/22/08

[10]seeDeutch A. & Dorman S. Cellular Automaton; Modeling of Biological Pattern Formation, Boston: Birkhauser, 2005.

[11] see Sudava D., et al, Life: The science of Biology, Freeman Company Publishers, 2006.

[12] see Lodish H., et al, Molecular cell biology, Freeman Company Publishers, 2007.

[13] see Deutch A. & Dorman S., Cellular Automaton; Modeling of Biological Pattern Formation, Boston: Birkhauser, 2005.

[14] see Terzidis, K. Expressive Form, a Conceptual Approach to Computational Design New York: Spon Press, 2003, p.67.

[15] see Novak, M. “Speciation, Transvergence, Allogenesis: Notes on the Production of the Alien” AD vol 72 No 3 Reflexive Architecture, Spiller N. (ed.) London: Wiley Academy, 2002, p.65.

Architecture, science and the social: A conversation with Antoine Picon.

2008-06-02T21:20:00.000-07:00

by Dimitris Gourdoukis

Antoine Picon is a historian and theoretician that has focused with his writings mainly on the relation between architecture and science, or architecture and the technologies. A relation that in the current situation of architecture is extremely important, if we think about the impact of the use of computers in architectural design and the ‘uncertainty’ that new technologies brought into architectural practice. Writer of several books and numerous articles, while at the same time a Professor of the History of Architecture and Technology and Director of Doctoral Programs at the GSD, Antoine Picon is offering a better understanding of that relation, through its history, but also through a critical approach to its current condition.

This discussion presented here on the t-machine, took place in the spring of 2006, at Washington University in St Louis. The questions were made together with Matthew Toth.

DG: You write often about the relation of architecture to science. Also it is obvious that during the last years this relation has been strengthened. Why do you think this is happening?

AP: I think there are various reasons at various levels. The first one I think is related to the very specific context in architecture. I would say that we are in the middle of a state of incertitude regarding guidelines for architectural practice and reflection today. We are no longer entirely modern, we have abandoned the post-modernism, and even the kind of Koolhaas global architecture is wearing thin. So there is a need of trying to find one guiding principle. That would be a first reason. Probably a second reason is that science seems to be unfolding today a pretty fascinating world, which is pretty much tuned with what people perceive, for example, a world that is both computable and totally unpredictable, which is something that quite strikes me. If you take the financial market, for example, they are totally computerized and totally unpredictable. In a way, science is closer to some of the fundamental intuition that we have of our world. So this is another reason. And then a third reason is of course the computer, and the advance of digital culture and the possibility of circulation of models between the two domains. So I think that it is the convergence of all that that might explain this renewed interest in science today.

DG: You often argue that architecture was always virtual in the sense of design. How is that virtuality of architecture related to what we encounter as virtual in architecture today, in the computer? Is it the same notion or are we referring to two different notions that just happens to be described with the word?

AP: Well, historians will tell you that it is an expression of the same thing. I think virtuality is a fundamental component of architecture. This is what I tried to explain in the text you are referring to. Architecture is always as much a promise of unfolding as something that is already there; it is always something that is in between the ‘there’ and the ‘not yet there.’ I think this is something that has not changed. What has changed is the way it manifests itself. In the article that you mentioned (Architecture and Science) I mention how ornament was part of the former virtuality of architecture, which today is no longer the case. To go back to the problem of computation and form, the virtual has more to do with the relation between computation and poetics, in some ways, which is something relatively new.

DG: But in a way is it the same idea and the computer is only the medium to helps us experience it?

AP: No I strongly believe that the computer alters the way, it alters even what we call materiality. The computer is as much a machine that redefines the experience we have of the world, as it is a pure computing device. So the experiential level, our relation to the physical world, is changing because of the computer. An example I always like to give is zoomability: we used to live in a world that images were static; now we are more and more accustomed to images that are clickable, and in a way an image that is not clickable is strange. So clickability, zoomability, has become a natural condition. It is this experiential dimension for me that is really altering. I mentioned images, but there are others too. Our relation to light is changing, because now light is something we can manipulate, in a much more detailed way, we can parameterize it. So a lot of things are changing and thus the way we perceive architecture is changing profoundly as well as the kind of promise architecture is about.

MT: Does that affect the way we produce architecture too? Or the way we perceive the images?

AP: Absolutely, although we do not know yet to what extend the way we produce architecture is going to change. I believe it is going to change enormously, but we have not yet fully realized that. For example, since everything in a computer process is theoretically reversible, you have to make choices, and the computer forces you to be more strategic. That is why the strategy of the path you follow is becoming more and more important. The computer is a machine that can produce so many different scenarios, that the selection is more crucial than before.

MT: It seems to me that the reverse would be true, that before computers you needed a strategy because you could only produce one variation, but now you can have 15 different variations, variations in the colors of the façade just by some quick clicks.

AP: Yes, but you can argue that it is a little bit like consumer culture, before, when you had only one product to buy, you just bought the product. If you have 50 available, you will have to ask yourself “why am I going to buy this?” The diversity of the computer forces you, in a way, to have a clear vision of what you want, in order not to get lost in the indefinite diversity. To give another example that always strikes me, think of the writing of a text: before, typing a text, using the typewriter, was such an ordeal that when you were done with it, you usually kept the text as it was, except if really there was something totally wrong. Today you can always redo or modify, so you have to make a decision on when this is over, on when the text is finished. It might look more arbitrary, but it is really what I call a more strategic decision. And for that you have also to set your goals more clearly, because the production of the text becomes so flexible, you can cut, you can paste, so you have to define what the aim you are pursuing is.

DG: There seems to be some certain thinkers connected with these new conditions in architecture, like Deleuze and Bergson. How do you think that those things come together? Do you believe that they can provide a theoretical background for digital architecture?

AP: Hmmm… I’ll be very honest with you. I like philosophy, but I think philosophy is always a provisory dress for architecture, and that architecture has got to find its own self-motivation. Of course there are intuitions in Deleuze, from Mille Plateaux to Le Pli, or later, that are in tune with some of what architects are pursuing. However, I am not sure that this is going to provide The Theory, because I think architecture needs to provide its own understanding of things.

DG: So it just provides inspiration?

AP: Yes, it provides a provisory to theorize things in a way that we have not yet totally come to terms with. That’s at least my take of the question. Of course there are a few things like what Deleuze writes on ornament, etc, that are in correspondence, which is natural, as architecture is a cultural production, is intoned with all other cultural production, but I do not think that architecture has never found in Emmanuel Kant or in Hegel its ultimate justification. It could be inspired by some of the concept of philosophy, but then it has to be a unique understanding of things.

DG: Then, do we need an architectural theory today?

AP: It depends on what you call theory. If you call theory a closed system of principles, then no, I do not think we need that. If we speak of guidelines, of a way to define objectives, then yes. To give another example, which is also one of my obsessions, I am pretty convinced that we have also to address social issues today. They’re back, so to say. And blobs are not enough. The real question is how to articulate new ways to do architecture, with new expectations from the people and so forth. It cannot be cynical any more in the kind of discourse in global architecture, or fashion design, that you find from Koolhaas to Van Berkel- even Koolhaas is changing these days. So I do not think we need a theory, but we need to reassess the way architecture relates to the social demand. We need to see how to relate to the social demand without falling back to the utopian discourse of modernity. So, I think architecture is in need of theoretical questions, probably more than theoretical answers.

MT: Is this architectural theory something that’s built or something that is written?

AP: I think it’s always in between the two. Architecture is something that goes back and forth between material production, very material production and lighting, images, and feeds on both. I think it feeds both on very material realization and imagination. Ahhh… How could I state it? Architecture must be inspiring. And you are not inspiring if you are only a beautiful object, you are inspiring if you suggest a different world, if you make proposals for a different world, a different way to perceive things. So there is always the need of the two: architecture is always both in the building and in the commentary of the building, if you like.

MT: So, is it possible to build a theory?

AP: Again, it depends on what you call a theory. I would say rather than a theory as a corpus of principles, something that identifies what matters at a certain point. If you look at Le Corbusier buildings, there is a certain number of things that matter, and “Theory” is about exploring what matters for a certain type of architecture at a given moment.

DG: Let’s go back to the notion of materiality in architecture; we could say that today we have reached a point where we can design the materials we are going to use. So, in an extreme situation, it is possible for an architect to design something and then say “now let’s create the materials to build it,” which I suppose changes the way we understand materiality. But at the same time using the computer, we find a new kind of materiality. When you have to work with a certain software package and use the geometries it employs (NURBS for example), you have to understand in a way the materiality of the software. So where do those things bring us, and how could we understand materiality in architecture?

AP: I think what you say is true, today we can design materials, although that doesn’t happen for the first time, today it is possible to an extend that was not before. Another thing is that today materiality is extremely abstract and extremely concrete. It is both in the software and in the codes of the software as well as in the very things you are going to touch. So the new materiality has probably to do with those very conflicting categories. That said I do not think that we are at a stage where we know towards where we are actually going.

DG: But you do recognize it as an important issue?

AP: I think actually it is one of the most important issues today. We are defined by the way we define what is not us, and materiality is very much about what is not us. Therefore there is this strange relation between redefining what is materiality and what is man. And we are in a period where the definition of man is changing.

DG: Could we also say that the computer gives a different value to the idea of materiality? An architect that has to work on the computer, in a way becomes a craftsman in order to understand the properties of the things he is working with. I suppose we used to think of the architect as someone that does not go to that level of craftsmanship.

AP: I am not necessarily persuaded… I will mention Kostas Terzidis, he thinks that architecture goes to an algorithmic level… I am not convinced this is always necessary. I think you can do a lot of things without knowing their principles. What you need then is to have a clear idea of what you want to achieve so that you are not trapped totally in what the machine or the tool wants. If you do not want to be a prisoner of the tools, there are various things you can do, one is to know perfectly well all the internal logic of the tool; another thing is to define your goal and choose the tool in function of the goal, which is a different way. I believe probably architects are prone to the second approach. The new generation that will come will be incomparably savvier in computer coding. But that said, I do not think that they will always have the time to play with the code, etc. because in the design profession there are so many other things to do. So my guess is we should return to the idea of the strategic, and that architecture is very much in need in defining better its goals today. The question is what you want to achieve with design, because it is clear you cannot achieve everything.

MT: That is why, as you say, the social issues are becoming the focus of the discourse again?

AP: Absolutely. Today we have reached a state where we have to redefine what architecture brings, or the question becomes too complex… Architecture was never a purely philanthropic activity, it is as much an art, but a bizarre social art, in which there is always the ambition to reshape sociability and society. So it’s a bizarre thing. It is more complex than planning. Planning is totally good citizenship… Architecture is more perverse. Today we have to reevaluate both all the internal goals of architecture and how do they relate to other goals which are of more social nature.

DG: There also seems to be an obsession with the form or the image. The visualization that the computer is producing.

AP: Yes, I think it is normal in some ways. Because we believe that beyond the images there is something; if it was just for the sake of the images we would be “ok, so what?” But I think beyond that, there are things at stake. A comparison I use from times to times is with the Renaissance, not necessarily because we are in a new Renaissance. When people were playing with perspective, they were playing with images, and they were totally fascinated with images. But images are important. They do reshape the world in which we live. So I would say that we do not know exactly how computer images are going to reshape the world in which we live, but we are pretty much there, already. So a play with images may seem a little bit superficial, and indeed some are totally fetishizing the image, but I think there is something deeper.

DG: Is the image always a part of architecture?

AP: Architecture has to do with images and there are two functions for images. The first one is to synthesize heterogeneity. This is why the architect reasons through images, because the problem of design is that it has to take into account very heterogeneous factors and problems. This is where it is different to engineering, engineering usually deals with relatively homogeneous types of problems. Of course any technical system can be extremely complex but it is more univocal than architecture, which has to synthesize very diverse things. And an image is something that unifies, you can put extremely different things on an image, and the fact that they are on an image unifies them. Look at a surrealist image, you have an apple next to a locomotive, but bizarrely because it is transformed into an image it makes some sense. So I think architecture uses images for that purpose. Also because images are part of the social imaginary, part of what people expect from the world. I think architecture is also a play on the expectation, raising expectation of meaning etc.

MT: Is the computer image the latest model of architectural style or trend? I am thinking of automotive design over the past century and the lifestyle implications, and the way a particular design suggests a certain society.

AP: Yes, and do not forget that the computer image is totally in continuity with videogames and that kind of things, which are powerful images today. Even if you look at the way we tend to circulate in models today, a little bit like Super Mario… And it has an impact on architecture; you could very well argue that the Foreign Office Yokohama Terminal is a manifestation of the age of video games, sliding, going up and down, attracted by topological holes, attracted by that kind of things. A French poet once said: “Nothing is more profound than skin”, images are just like skin, both totally superficial and extremely profound.

MT: When people think of computer designed buildings, they have a certain image associated with that and in that sense people in that line of work are pretty successful. You mentioned blob architecture. Is this image of the computer design important, is this a lasting image, is it going to be the next legacy, or is there something else about computers more important? Is it the process about using computers that will have the real impact? Is the multifaceted skin portrayed in three dimensions and constructed, is that what is important, that we are taking away from computers, or is there something else?

AP: I think we are taking away a lot of other things. Frankly, I do not know, I am not a prophet. I am interested in digital architecture regardless, not necessarily as the ultimate answer we can bring to questions, but more in what questions it raises. For example if you take the blobs, the blobs are what they are, they raise a couple of interesting issues, for example this issue of formal freedom, what is formal freedom today. Another issue raised is aesthetic judgment, we do not know if a blob is beautiful or not. That is another interesting question. So they raise a couple of interesting questions. That said, I am not sure if the blob is the only solution we can bring. I recently wrote a piece for a friend of mine, the architecture of whom is probably still in its infancy, but his idea is that we could also envisage a relation between thecomputer and the virtual, that could rather lead us to a new minimalism. I would say you have the blob in the one hand but minimalism is also an answer today. I do not think that the blobs are the only solution. I think they raised interesting questions. But I do not think they are necessarily the only future we have in front of us. I happen to be pretty eclectic on that matter. There are some blobish people I am interested in and others that I am not at all interested. Some projects of Jesse Reiser or Goulthorpe are even in a plastic term interesting, probably less convinced by some of Lynn’s creations, although the most recent ones, the more ornamental ones, are probably more interesting than the former ones. But we do not know yet where it is leading, and the worst thing to do is to be trapped believing that this is the truth. The good thing is that it has a kind of experimental dimension. It is a good time to be a young architect. For example there are all the things, you take sustainability, nobody knows what sustainability really means in architecture, and that’s why to give a meaning to sustainability will be a major challenge. And probably the computer will be one of the dimensions involved in sustainability today. To go back to architecture and science, one of the things that both architecture and science share today is this experimental dimension. Architecture is more than ever an experimental practice.

MT: So, what is the relation of architecture to sustainability?

AP: One of my strange obsessions these days is that the new limit of our world is no longer the digital. In the 1950s the digital was the frontier. The new frontier of the world has more to do with the levies of New Orleans, global warming, a lot of very concrete, old fashioned stuff that have to do with mechanics, hydraulics, that kind of things. And probably one way we have to cope with them is through an extreme level of calculation, and this is where the computer comes back into the picture. It is not the computer as a machine only. In order to find a solution, we better figure out a way to be extremely smart. But if you are to think like that, even a can of coke, remember there is this classical study on the can of coke, the metal comes from Australia, then it is treated in Sweden, the soda comes from one place… it is totally absurd. Even the can of coke. Today if the entire planet was to consume batteries in the rate it is done in the Western world, there would not be enough metal, cadmium. To figure out a solution it will take a lot of intelligence.

DG: What would be the role of a historian in these new conditions in architecture?

AP: To be honest, I do not think that the period now in architecture is especially prone to historical thinking. It is pretty clear that there is a steady decline in the presence of history in the schools of architecture, I am conscious of that. Contrary to some of my colleagues, I am not going to cry about it, first of all you have to be realistic and ask yourself why this is so, and it is not because students are not more stupid than what they used to be. I would say that the stupidity of student/professor is pretty constant from one generation to another. I think it has to do precisely with this period being so experimental. Contrary to the post modern where the problems were essentially seen as linguistic, you do not seem to need as much history today. That said, I do not think that history, I might be wrong, but I do think that history will ever disappear from architecture for various reasons. One is, I believe, that architecture is as much a tradition as a discipline, and it has to constantly rethink critically of what it has achieved in the past. Its definition of the past can vary; Babylonian architecture is of little interest to a school of architecture, let’s be clear, even Gothic is to the limit. But, rethink critically about itself is an important dimension to architecture. This is the first reason to be optimistic. Second reason is that I believe that some critical thinking is quite necessary, especially in a profession that is going to change a lot, which does not have the easiest economical and professional condition on earth. I think history can help a student to be a little more aware of himself and aware of the difficulty to make choices. I do not believe that history provides you with ready made solutions but history is, strangely, the study of the indetermination of the present. That is also why I am interested in the virtual. The fact that each present is full of potential. So, strangely, I believe history should be a lesson in freedom in the schools of architecture. You wouldn’t be a designer if you thought that everything you designed is totally determined, and over determined. History is really an exploration of this freedom of the designer. After all, it is not a drama that doesn’t attract crowds, there is the need of its presence. To give you a very personal thing, after the Croatian war, you know all the things that happened in former Yugoslavia, I felt a little despaired… You would have thought that people who had experienced the horror of the concentration camp and that kind of things, during the Second World War, would not do ethnic cleaning. This means one thing: that people have not necessarily learned. It is not because you show two slides of concentration camps to an entire generation of kids, that these same kids when adults, will not do horrible things. So do not expect history to be efficient in that respect. That said, if you stop producing history, and by history I do not just mean books for public at large, but research in history, then, gradually the exigency of truth disappears. Then, gradually, you will have people that will say, with total impunity that camps never existed, and so forth.

MT: Well, we have those people today.

AP: Yes, but fortunately they are checked by archives and historical research. Even in architecture, to be reminded that the latest fashion is not the ultimate truth, is also a good thing.

MT: If we can find an ultimate truth…

AP: Precisely, I do not think you can ever find an ultimate truth. But at least it becomes difficult to sell it to others as the ultimate truth. I think it plays a role of sanitation of the debate.

DG: It might also be an opportunity for history to be re-approached, since it is becoming less important, the chance of seeing architecture again and approach it in a different way or teach it in a different way.

AP: Yes, for historians also it creates interesting questions, because you have to ask yourself if the discipline’s position is weaker than it used to be, then it probably means that it has got to be practiced in a slightly different way. It’s not just a question for architects, it is also a question for historians.

MT: It is interesting to see the impact of speed in history. People have talked about the Post Modern era or whatever era we are in, in terms of an increasing speed of exchange and rate. Thinking of what is important to an architect practicing now, taking the argument for instance, which is not my stance, that Gothic or Greek architecture is no longer important, even modern architecture; we are doing computer renderings, then history is still equally as important, it is just the time, it approaches something of news.

AP: Let’s be clear. Let’s go back to the Greek, not only because we have a Greek person here. Not that I would argue that everything is [necessary] you could dispense with the Greek if you want and with the Gothic, but that said, if you want to understand Mies truly, then Mies is totally indebted to Neo classicism and, guess what, Neo-Classicism is indebted to a certain reading of Greece. If you want to understand Le Corbusier, the Acropolis experience, just like for many people of his generation, was totally essential. I would say you cannot know everything in the world, so there is not a single knowledge that is absolutely irreplaceable. But I would say, once you begin to be interested in the complexities of understanding what you are, then a lot of things reappear, because you are trying to understand where you come from. By the way, the reading we have of Greece is very far from what the Greeks had in mind at their time. So in a way, it is more about rethinking from what tradition we come from. And do not forget that these questions of lineage, paternity and so forth, are still so important in the psychology of people. I think for an architect to know where he comes from, and it is not necessary from the Greek, you can have other lineages, I think an architect has to reflect from where he sees himself coming from. But again, today, very few things are utterly irreplaceable. One of the merits of history is probably that it is the less systematic of the humanities and social sciences. Which is also why it goes pretty well with architecture. Where sociology was always more problematic because sociology is much more dogmatic so it goes less well with architecture.

MT: I would like to ask a last question. What do you think is important in the education of an architect, what is your advice for an architecture student?

AP: Well, do not forget that I was trained first in Science and engineering, so I am a hybrid… I do believe the core is the design practice, the studio is to me the core of architectural education, and it might be strange for this to come from a historian, but I strongly believe it. The core is not necessarily something that should contaminate everything else. You must have as an historian in the school of architecture, my firm belief is that, that in perspective it must be “useful” between brackets for students, but “usefulness” can be pretty distinct from direct application. I do not believe that a history class is directly applicable. I think it has a meaning to aim at.

I do not know whether I have really an advice for an architect. I will make the following remark: Which is that, the most difficult thing in architecture is to find the right proportion between being critical and a-critical. If you are too critical, you do not do anything, if you are too a-critical, you do stupid things. No, I am not joking. If you take design practice, design practice is not very critical contrary to what architects say very often, architects tend to resent… You still have the temptation to make design research as strictly equivalent to academic research. I think it is not true. Because design research has its own a-critical stands, because it tries to produce something. Which is why you must have disciplines like history and others that give you this critical dimension. And you must find your own way to manage these two so contradictory impulses. Just like the good architect is a bizarre blend of a man of action and an intellectual. Architecture is a form of action, but at the same time, you must be an intellectual, which is not very simple. To me this is why architecture is ultimately political. A great politician is a man of action, that gets the job done, but also has very contemplative stands that enable them to set vision, goals and so forth. Architecture is a little bit like that, and this is very hard to teach. This is why self-teaching is so important in architecture, because you must find the right equilibrium for you, and that’s not very simple. Especially these days, when I mention the rise of the strategic, I think there is this very strong urge to find new ways to be both a-critical and critical. I do not buy totally Sarah Whiting’s position on the post-critical, I think we still need to be critical, but there is also the need to do things without criticizing every step. It created a small debate in the east coast [the post-critical], not very fundamental. I think it is not so simple to be an architect, because you are neither in the realm of knowledge, and you are neither totally in the realm of pure action, and you are proposing always something that is in between the two.

DG & MT: Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us.

AP: Well, thank you.

Of diagrams and after. A conversation with Ben VanBerkel

2008-05-15T13:03:00.000-07:00

by Dimitris Gourdoukis

UNStudio has been one of the leading forces in progressive architectural practice since its establishment by Ben VanBerkel and Caroline Bos in 1999. They have designed a large array of private and public buildings, some of them published extensively. Their work focus on the development of a “non-hierarchical, generative and integral design process, organized in a contemporary way, and using technologies that allow for maximum exchange”, as they state on their website. And indeed, it is in those design processes where some of the most interesting and innovative aspects of UNStudios’ work are laying.

Here the t-machine is presenting a discussion with Ben VanBerkel that took place on March 3rd, 2006, during his visit in the School of Architecture at Washington University in St. Louis where he was lecturing. The discussion focused mainly on theoretical issues that UNStudio’s work is putting foreword; concepts like that of the diagram and the fold, which might sound ‘overused’ today, but are nevertheless still forming the base upon which experimental architecture is developing.

DG: I have a set of questions about diagrams and diagramming. You are using diagrams in many of your projects. Even if we say that the diagram is an old concept, today in architecture it takes a new meaning. Would you like to explain how you use the diagram and why do you think that is important?

BVB: Like you say, it’s not a very new concept. Diagrams have been used a lot in architecture, like the diagrams Gropius was talking about at the Harvard school, but they were more related to the modernist principle of reductiveness: you make a diagram and then you can reduce your thinking through the principle of the diagram. But the idea behind the way that we use the diagram is a little bit taken from the thinking around someone like Deleuze or Foucault that talk or write about the diagram. What we discovered by using a found diagram, or let’s say maybe even producing your own diagrams, is that it often allows you to take a certain distance towards the way that you sketch. Because if you sketch, then you have already a preconceived idea of the image of an architecture. But the diagram gives you a possible instrument for unexpected insights. That is the most interesting about the diagram for us. You have to distinguish how other architects are using the diagram because I am not the only one, Peter Eisenman is talking about the diagram, Greg Lynn also, you see it in the work of the other Dutch groups, like MVRDV and OMA. The difference is that they use the diagram often as an informational guideline, but we use the diagram as a map. So it gives a particular direction towards infrastructure, organizational possibilities of the organization of a project.

DG: You write somewhere in your site that the diagram liberates architecture from language, interpretation and signification. Its sounds good, but is it possible to imagine architecture detached from language?

BVB: No, no, architecture needs language, I am not saying that we can do it without language; otherwise we will not be able to build even. But what I am saying is that there is a whole history towards the way of how the notion of the concept or a theory has been used as a mask in order to suggest that through this theory or through this notion of the concept we can start to camouflage a way that architecture might go to. So what the diagram is doing is that it prolongs any form of linguistic interpretation before it becomes an organization. It prolongs any form of… de-signifiers. And often architects start already with a de-signifier, the symbol or the brand or the camouflage of a concept. That is the danger of conceptual architecture, or let’s say, highly academic, theoretical architecture. The way of how we use, or try to use, the diagram is as an instrument for thinking, so language is there, but through an interactive formal devise; it is interactive.

DG: And finally how do you move again from the diagram back to the building, the building you design?

Well, the most important is that the diagram is not… actually we don’t talk today anymore about diagrams… By repeating certain types of diagrams, like the moebius or the trifold, we discovered that they turn into a kind of design model, so it becomes a kind of a tool for selecting techniques and a tool for how you guide the design, so it becomes a kind of a prototypical system for designing. It’s very interesting. That is why we don’t do any projects with students; we first teach them how to develop their own design models, which are coming out of diagrams. This is a very critical question. What do you think about it? What do you think is wrong with the way certain architects used the diagram related to ideas of text or the linguistics of the diagram.

DG: Well, my understanding of the diagram is also deriving through my readings of Deleuze and Foucault, so that is the idea of the diagram that I try to apply. I think that the main problem appears when you have the diagram, and you try to go ‘back’ in order to create again something spatial. I have the feeling that you loose so many things that you have in the diagrammatic state when you try to make it into a building. In a way you are going to the place you begun from.

BVB: Like what, with the sketch you mean?

DG: Yes…

BVB: You don't have to do that. You have to make sure that the diagram… I mean you don’t have to build the diagram.

DG: Yes, for sure, but…

BVB: That's the first thing, that's tough, but at the same time you don't have to loose the diagram. That's why I talk about instumentalization of the diagram; it needs to be cleverly transformed. Going back to Deleuze…what do you think? Because in my opinion is far more interesting to read Deleuze on Foucault.

DG: Yes, I also thing that the book on Foucault is one of his most interesting…

BVB: When he writes about the cartographies and the story of the diagram…

DG: He also writes about the fold in that book, while most architects tend to reference only the book on Leibniz in relation to the fold…

BVB: Yes. But the fold is also another problem…

DG: It has many formal or visual connotations. So folding is becoming from a complex concept into an actual folding of a surface.

BVB: Yes. Of course I’ve been heavily experimenting with the fold too, but I was always interested in the idea that the fold, the notion of the fold or the collapse of a time moment is integral, so it is also constructive. You see a lot of architects playing with the fold as a pure formal device, but what I find interesting is that it is generating a particular kind of a specific, constructive, spatial, differential effect, if you can talk about an architectural effect.

DG: Yes, so you don’t represent the notion of the fold by creating a folded surface…

BVB: Exactly. But you use it more as an instrument. Actually in the Mercedes Benz museum we use it almost invisibly. You can not see it, but it is there, in the section. But the section is actually combined; even there you can not see it clearly. That's what I mean when I say that it is very important to think more about the notion of the surface as something articulated; or how you treat the surface horizontally or diagonally, how it can slowly turn into a wall or a volume; or how a line can be turned into a surface or a volume. But all that comes from the thinking of the diagram where you start to reformulate what a wall is. You start to rethink of the ingredients or the architectural principles and how you can reshuffle them. In that sense the diagram is… I mean, everybody is saying “oh diagram architects”… but it’s more about generating a form of thinking, that's maybe what’s more important: that it generates a form of thinking. But like I said, it’s more ideogrammatic, like the Chinese language, where the form is already in the language.

DG: And I suppose, like Foucault says, it is detached from the field that it codifies. I mean if we say that the diagram in the beginning is codifying (or de-codifying) something, finally it becomes something else, independent, that has a value of its own.

BVB: Yes, it plays a game between three different worlds. Because today you could say that the limits of architecture have been so much proved of all these possibilities like, you know, you can go to the most minimalist kind of strategy where you get the biggest pieces of material in one room and that is then generating a highly reductive approach, or what you can now do with the computer that is the most unlimited possibility of what you can generate in architectural form and space today. And that is where our critique is when it comes down to working with the diagram, and most specifically the design moment: that you need to guide this process, either be minimal or maximal or computational effects that you are after, it needs structure; in thinking.

You know, Foucault speaks very nicely about the panopticon, and of course that is today the most cliché architectural prototype. But it is actually true, that sometimes you need to come up with a cliché in order to illustrate what you mean. But in the panopticon what is hidden in potential, that it’s very beautiful, is that he says that the panopticon is the most interesting organization expressing an environmental condition of its time through political and social relationships. And that is actually what we, architects, are a little bit ignoring today.

DG: It is like a diagram of the society that it belongs to, but at the same time it can be detached from that society.

BVB: Yes, it is the principle in the way of how we distribute ourselves towards the idea of… or better, it is the organizational principle, the distribution principle, towards the idea of form and architect, well, not form, sorry, towards the idea of how we generate through that [form] a specific contemporary spatial experience and a concept of control, like in the panopticon, and then out of that an other kind of understanding of form. So, in that order we need to rethink the use of architectural principles: from geometry to organization and construction. But the nice thing, again about the design model and the diagram, is that if you think it through its external forces, political, social etc, and its internal regulations then you have a tool. And I think that tools and techniques are not commonly discussed in architecture today, I mean not enough in my opinion.

DG: You are also dealing with this idea of the outside and the inside and blurring the limits between those two, and you try in many of your projects to do that. You can say that it is something like one of the principles of your work. Why do you think that this relation is so important?

BVB: Between the outside and the inside?

DG: Yes, I mean you can say in general that architecture is trying to eliminate this binary oppositions, but why for example not solid and void, or up and down and it is inside and outside that you are interested in?

BVB: Well, you know there is always a physical boundary when you are making architecture and I like to think that this is not so important. Although, if you take what Peter Sloterdijk is talking about, he talks about spheres, that we all live in a particular sphere. I like this interpretation, maybe inside is this space that we are now and maybe outside is two meters further, so we have a kind of sphere, we have a kind of social interaction. I am thinking often a lot about what is inside and what is outside. What is inside perception and what is outside recognition, even when I am always outside maybe, because in a way you are always outside.

DG: And in a way is again the idea of the fold that comes into play…

BVB: Yes. Because the fold is giving a little bit of a more open concept. Like in Poincarés’ theory.

DG: What do you think is the role of theory in the discourse about architecture today? You can say in a way that theory is moving in the background of architecture. On the other hand you have philosophical concepts like the fold, the diagram etc. coming into the architectural discourse. Do you think that we don’t need theory anymore, or is it that the designer is becoming a theorist for himself?

BVB: We need theory. But we don’t need to be so complicated about theory. I mean often you have the theorists on one hand and the practicing architects on the other. But I do believe that this is a little bit nonsense. You know I even believe a lot in after theory. I don’t think that is so important to argue about when theory is important, if it is ‘before theory’, or speculative theory, or after theory. But it is necessary. Actually it's a kind of technique. Theory is a technique for just testing if you formulate your ideas well. If you don’t know how to formulate it I think that is often a bad idea. So it's a very simple, brutal answer maybe. I could make the answer more complicated but then I will go more into the history of architecture and the scientific aspect of the practice. Because on one hand we are scientists but on the other I still believe in the Vitruvian combination, of the scientist being a philosopher as well.

You could be negative about a notion of an after theory. Because you know, you do something and then you build more theory around it. But you just have to make sure that you are using that theory very strongly again in your next project (laughs).

Cecil Balmond - Element.

2008-05-15T12:46:00.000-07:00

Cecil Balmond Element. New York: Prestel Verlag, 2007.

Element is the latest book by Cecil Balmond, the first one after Informal. However, it is significantly different in content and scope from the later. Someone that expects to find here information on his latest projects or on the algorithmic processes and techniques that he employs will be disappointed. Element is primary a ‘photo album’. Cecil Balmond is capturing with his camera elements of the space around us and then he sketches on top of them trying to point out what might not be visible at a first glance: hidden structures and patterns. Text and diagrams are only complementary and they remain in an abstract or poetic form avoiding becoming more systematic or explanatory.

Cecil Balmonds approach to the generation of form is almost a metaphysical one. And this book is definitely reinforcing this idea. The observation of nature and the subsequent use of algebra and geometry are leading to the discovery of what was always there. That seems to be the thesis of the book; what this collection of photographs and sketches is trying to point out. Nature is understood in the context of this publication as an endless ‘book of learning’, that we have to study and observe in order to understand and discover its deeper structures.
Of course one can question that approach: why should we look at nature as the ultimate reference, and consequently try to discover what is hidden there, and not employ instead generative methods in order to invent new, artificial or manmade, structures and patterns that maybe never existed before. A rather deep philosophical question, that seems to be also in the core of contemporary architectural discourse. This book is showcasing a version of the first approach in a very poetic and abstract way, which is relaying heavily on photography in order to make its point. However, knowing Cecil Balmond’s work, I would expect that the book would go deeper in that direction. Because, no matter how beautiful the photographs are, I am afraid that the book does that which it is advising the reader not to do: it stays on the surface, never taking a step further, and ultimately is not saying something new; it just repeats things that are already known. But then, maybe that was the intention.

Allogenesis and Architecture: A conversation with Marcos Novak.

2008-05-15T12:00:00.000-07:00

by Dimitris Gourdoukis

Marcos Novak has been one of the pioneers in the field of ‘digital design’. His texts and works were always one (or several) steps ahead of the place that architecture was, pointing out the direction. However, even if time has proven him right more than once, he doesn’t seem willing to ‘rest’. He keeps looking for the other, the alien, that which architecture can or will be.

Here we present on the t-machine a discussion we had we Marcos almost four years ago, which for several reasons was never published as intended. The discussion took place on November 13^th2004, in Thessaloniki, Greece, one day after the lecture that Marcos Novak gave at the Aristotle University under the title “From Metamorphosis to Allogenesis: Transversion and Speciation”. Unfortunately, the text is available only in Greek. A translation in English might be published here in the future.

Δ.Γ.: Είχα παρακολουθήσει το 1999 τη διάλεξη που είχες δώσει στο Γαλλικό Ινστιτούτο στην Αθήνα. Το κοινό είχε αντιδράσει τότε με μία σχετική αμηχανία. Νομίζω ότι χθες η αντίδραση του κοινού ήταν αρκετά διαφορετική, ως προς το πώς δέχτηκε την παρουσίαση. Που νομίζεις ότι οφείλεται αυτή η αλλαγή στον τρόπο που ο κόσμος δέχεται αυτό που κάνεις;

M.N.: Εν μέρει μου φαίνεται ότι έχει να κάνει με το ότι αν κανείς ρωτήσει μια σωστή ερώτηση και την ακολουθήσει όπου πηγαίνει, όσο παράξενη και να είναι η απάντηση, αν δεν προϋποθέσουμε δηλαδή ότι η απάντηση πρέπει να είναι κάτι γνωστό ή κάτι συμβατικό, απλώς ρωτήσουμε αυτό που ρωτάμε και πάμε όπου μας πάει η ερώτηση, και η απάντηση είναι σωστή, τελικά τα πράγματα θα μας φέρουν εκεί. Φαίνεται ότι ίσως τα πράγματα το 1999 να φαινόντουσαν εκπληκτικά, αλλά από το 1999 στο 2004 είναι 5 χρόνια στα οποία όλα τα καινούργια στοιχεία που έχουμε συγκλίνουν προς τέτοια συμπεράσματα. Ο ίδιος ο κόσμος έχει παρατηρήσει καινούργια πράγματα. Και φυσικά ο στόχος μετακινείτε πλέον σε άλλα θέματα που μπορεί πάλι να φαίνονται εκπληκτικά αλλά σε 5 χρόνια δεν θα φαίνονται εκπληκτικά.

Δ.Γ.: Φαντάζομαι ότι το γεγονός ότι οι υπολογιστές χρησιμοποιούνται πλέον από όλους έπαιξε κάποιο ρόλο.

M.N.: Και βέβαια έπαιξε ρόλο. Εγώ θυμάμαι μεγάλη αντίσταση απλά και μόνο στη σκέψη ότι μπορούσε κανείς να χρησιμοποιήσει υπολογιστές. Το ότι κανείς χρησιμοποιούσε υπολογιστές ήταν μάλλον στίγμα, όχι μάλλον, ήταν σαφές στίγμα, ανάμεσα ακόμα και στην avant guard της αρχιτεκτονικής. Υπήρχε μεγάλη υποψία.

Δ.Γ.: Έχεις δημιουργήσει πολλές νέες λέξεις: ρευστές αρχιτεκτονικές, transarchitectures, αόρατες αρχιτεκτονικές. Υπάρχει αυτή την περίοδο μία τάση να καθιερωθεί το όνομα ‘non-standard architectures’[1], ίσως σε μία προσπάθεια να μπουν κάτω από κάποιο όνομα όλα αυτά που γίνονται σήμερα. Πως βλέπεις αυτή την κίνηση, τόσο ως προς το όνομα αλλά και γενικότερα σαν ενέργεια;

M.N.: Οι αρνητικοί ορισμοί δεν μας βοηθάνε καθόλου. Μου φαίνεται ότι μπορεί κανείς να καταλάβει γιατί δεν μας βοηθάνε αν σκεφτεί τι σημαίνει να πει κανείς άπειρο μείον ένα, που άπειρο μείον ένα συνεχίζει να είναι άπειρο, δεν υπάρχει διαφορά. Ο αρνητικός ορισμός είναι σαν το άπειρο μείον ένα. Δηλαδή το non-standard δεν λέει τίποτα. Ενώ το ένα συν ένα είναι δύο, το μηδέν συν ένα είναι ένα, δηλαδή κάθε θετική έκφραση προχωράει. Και το άπειρο συνεχίζει να υπάρχει, δηλαδή το να πει κανείς ότι κάτι είναι, το να πει ας πούμε αόρατη αρχιτεκτονική, δεν κλείνει πόρτες, δεν μειώνει το μέλλον, αλλά μας δίνει ένα τρόπο να προχωρήσουμε. Νομίζω ότι κάποιες φράσεις όπως το non-standard architecture είναι για την ώρα μία μόδα και θα ξεχαστεί, γιατί δεν λέει τίποτα.

Δ.Γ.: Παρόλα αυτά γενικότερα γίνονται πλέον αρκετές εκθέσεις αυτού του είδους: Η ‘non-standard architectures’ στο Pompidou, η Biennale της αρχιτεκτονικής που συμμετείχες και εσύ[2]. Σε προβληματίζει καθόλου το γεγονός ότι αυτές οι προσεγγίσεις της αρχιτεκτονικής μπαίνουν πλέον και στα μουσεία; Δηλαδή μήπως υπάρχει κάποιος κίνδυνος όλη αυτή η κίνηση από ένα ενεργό γίγνεσθαι να περάσει στο χώρο της ιστορίας;

M.N.: Θα μετατραπεί σε κάτι ιστορικό, σίγουρα. Αλλά το θέμα είναι ότι δεν με πειράζει τα έργα τα οποία έκανα να μετατραπούν σε ιστορία, με πειράζει να μετατραπώ εγώ σε ιστορία προτού τελειώσω. Αν τελειώσω δεν με νοιάζει καν τι θα γίνει. Για αυτό μάλιστα στη Biennale που είμαι, χαίρομαι που βρίσκομαι στο τέλος [της έκθεσης], όπου ενώ όλα τα άλλα [εκθέματα] είναι ψηφιακά το δικό μου δεν είναι. Το δικό μου είναι ψηφιακό και βιολογικό, είναι το μόνο που είναι τέτοιο και για αυτό βρίσκεται σε αυτή τη θέση. Χαίρομαι που συμμετέχω σε αυτή την έκθεση που είναι πράγματι ιστορική, αλλά με ενδιαφέρει που διαφεύγω από την ιστορία και αποδεικνύω ότι όσο καταλαβαίνω και όσο μπορώ προχωράω.

Δ.Γ.: Δείχνεις με αυτό τον τρόπο και κάποια κατεύθυνση για τη συνέχεια ίσως.

M.N.: Είμαι σίγουρος ότι σε κάποια Biennale σε δύο, τέσσερα, έξι ή οκτώ χρόνια η αίθουσα θα είναι γεμάτη από άλλο-βιολογικά σχήματα και ελπίζω εγώ να κάνω κάτι άλλο.

Δ.Γ.: Φαίνεται ότι πέρα από την ενασχόληση της αρχιτεκτονικής με τις νέες τεχνολογίες είναι και η σκέψη του Deleuze που επηρεάζει σε μεγάλο βαθμό τη σημερινή αρχιτεκτονική πρωτοπορία. Νομίζεις ότι υπάρχει κάποιος συγκεκριμένος λόγος που γίνεται αυτό ή είναι συγκυρίες που μας οδήγησαν να ξαναανακαλύψουμε στην αρχιτεκτονική τον Deleuze;

M.N.: Η σκέψη του Deleuze… Νοιώθω κάποια άνεση με τη σκέψη του Deleuze. Αλλά πρέπει να παρατηρήσω ότι αυτή την άνεση τη νοιώθω και με τον John Cage, και με πολλούς καλλιτέχνες, ποιητές κτλ. Αυτή η σκέψη είχε δημιουργηθεί μέσα μου πριν από τον Deleuze. Δηλαδή διαβάζοντας τον Deleuze αναγνωρίζω κάτι που ήδη ξέρω, το οποίο έχω μάθει μέσα από τις δικές μου παρατηρήσεις και από άλλα ερεθίσματα, και συγκεκριμένα μου φαίνεται ότι στην ποίηση, όπως για παράδειγμα στο Lorca, βλέπει κανείς τη σκέψη που εκφράζει ο Deleuze. Αλλά και κάθε ποιητής, θα μπορούσαμε να διαλέξουμε ένα σωρό Έλληνες, όπου υπάρχει κάποιος τρόπος σκέψης που μπορεί να συνδυάσει αλλοπρόσαλλες έννοιες, ερεθίσματα και σχήματα και να δημιουργήσει ισχυρές εκφράσεις. Αυτός ο τρόπος σκέψης δεν ανήκει στον Deleuze, δεν ανήκει σε κανέναν, και δεν είναι καν σύγχρονος είναι αρχαίος. Κάθε ισχυρός ποιητής κατά κάποιο τρόπο κάνει κάτι ριζωματικό με την έννοια του Deleuze. Απλώς ο Deleuze του δίνει μία μορφή. Δίνει σε αυτή τη σκέψη μία μορφή.

Δ.Γ.: Από τα πρώτα κείμενά σου προσπαθούσες να εξηγήσεις ότι οι υπολογιστές δεν είναι ένα μέσο αναπαράστασης απλά, αλλά ένα μέσο που μας βοηθάει να δημιουργήσουμε αρχιτεκτονική και παράλληλα ένα μέσο που αλλάζει τον τρόπο με τον οποίο καταλαβαίνουμε την αρχιτεκτονική. Την ίδια στιγμή όμως αναφέρεσαι και σε πολύ σημαντικά φιλοσοφικά θέματα που προϋπήρχαν της ανάπτυξης των νέων τεχνολογιών. Τελικά είναι οι υπολογιστές ένα μέσο που μας βοηθάει να προσεγγίσουμε αυτά τα θέματα ή αυτές οι φιλοσοφικές ιδέες μας δείχνουν τρόπους για το πώς μπορούμε να χρησιμοποιήσουμε τους υπολογιστές. Δηλαδή ποιο είναι το αντικείμενο και ποιο το εργαλείο;

M.N.: Θα έλεγα ότι αυτή η σχέση πάλλεται, παλινδρομεί. Γιατί αφενός μεν με ενδιαφέρουν οι διάφορες φιλοσοφικές σκέψεις και χρησιμοποιώ τους υπολογιστές για να εξερευνήσω αυτές τις ιδέες. Αφετέρου όμως με ενδιαφέρουν οι υπολογιστές γιατί μου επιτρέπουν να εξερευνήσω πράγματα τα οποία δεν μπορούσα να εξερευνήσω. Δηλαδή η ίδια η χρήση των υπολογιστών ανοίγει ερωτηματικά τα οποία πριν φαινόταν να μην υπάρχουν, και με ενδιαφέρει και αυτό. Μάλλον χρησιμοποιώ τα πράγματα αυτά σε κάποιο κύκλο, γι’ αυτό και στην εργασία μου και στα μαθήματά μου υπάρχει πάντα αυτή η διπλή παρουσία της θεωρίας και της πράξης αλλά όχι ανεξάρτητα. Δηλαδή στα μαθήματά μου όταν έχω studio το μεγαλύτερο μέρος πρέπει να είναι πράξη, αλλά υπάρχει και η θεωρία, και όταν έχω σεμινάριο θεωρητικό το μεγαλύτερο μέρος είναι θεωρία αλλά πρέπει να υπάρχει και πράξη. Δηλαδή οι φοιτητές μου πρέπει να κάνουν και τα δύο και στα δύο αλλά σε άλλες αναλογίες.

Δ.Γ.: Οπότε δεν θα είχε νόημα να περιοριστούμε σε μία κατεύθυνση.

M.N.: Έχω κάποια αλλεργία με τους περιορισμούς. Την είχα από μικρός. Υπάρχουν διάφορα ανέκδοτα. Όταν ήμουν έξι εφτά βρέθηκα μπροστά σε μία πόρτα κλειστή, που έπρεπε να είναι ανοικτή, τη χτύπησα με το χέρι μου και έσπασα το γυαλί γιατί δεν μπορούσα να ανεχτώ ότι αυτή η πόρτα που έπρεπε να ήταν ανοικτή ήταν κλειστή. Δεν ξέρω πως, αλλά αυτή η έννοια του ‘centrifuge’, αυτή η φυγόκεντρος δύναμη, είναι κάτι βασικό μέσα μου και δεν θα περιοριζόμουν από τίποτα. Μόλις νοιώσω ότι κάτι είναι περιορισμός το ένστικτό μου είναι να σπάσω τον περιορισμό. Από το άλλο χέρι τους περιορισμούς τους χρειαζόμαστε. Δηλαδή αυτό που μου αρέσει επίσης από τον Deleuze είναι η σκέψη ότι οι ορισμοί, οι περιορισμοί, η γνώση, το ‘striated knowledge’ που λέει, έχουνε χρήση. Κατά συνέπεια μπορούμε κατά τη διάρκεια μίας συζήτησης να πούμε ότι αυτό είναι αυτό, ένα αντικείμενο είναι αυτό το αντικείμενο σε αυτή τη διάρκεια, και σε κάποιο άλλο πλαίσιο παύει να είναι αυτό το ίδιο αντικείμενο.

Δ.Γ.: Όσο αφορά την έννοια του χρόνο ως ενεργό στοιχείο της αρχιτεκτονικής διαδικασίας: νομίζεις ότι σήμερα η αρχιτεκτονική έχει πράγματι αρχίσει να ασχολείται ενεργά με το χρόνο σαν ένα μέρος της διαδικασίας της;

M.N.: Έχει αρχίσει, έχει αρχίσει, αλλά μπορεί να κάνει πολλά περισσότερα πράγματα. Η αρχή αυτής της αρχιτεκτονικής είναι βέβαια η αναφορά στον Ξενάκη και στο Philips Pavilion του 58, αλλά το πρώτο κτίριο που έγινε συνειδητά με στόχο να εφαρμόσει αυτές τις ιδέες στο σώμα της αρχιτεκτονικής ήταν το water pavilion του Oosterhuis και των Nox, που έγινε με συγκεκριμένη αναφορά στη ρευστή αρχιτεκτονική, που είναι δημοσιευμένη κτλ. Του δόθηκε βέβαια η ευκαιρία να κάνει ένα κτίριο που είχε σχέση με το υγρό στοιχείο, ήταν ένα μουσείο για το νερό, αλλά ήξεραν τα κείμενά μου και εμένα προσωπικά και αποφασίσανε να κάνουν ένα κτίριο που είχε μέσα εικονική πραγματικότητα, είχε αισθητήρες, είχε μουσική, είχε φώτα που άλλαζαν και μηχανισμούς μου μετακινούνταν κτλ. Ήταν το πρώτο σημείο, αλλά και αυτό είχε τους περιορισμούς του. Γιατί χειρίστηκαν το κτίριο, το χρόνο και το χώρο, αλλά δεν χειρίστηκαν την τηλεπαρουσία. Γιατί στην έννοια της trans-αρχιτεκτονικής είναι ότι υπάρχει ένα κτίριο, το οποίο είναι δυναμικό και ενεργό, αλλά υπάρχει και κάποιο άλλο, κάπου αλλού, και ενδιάμεσα είναι η virtual architecture, η εικονική αρχιτεκτονική στον εικονικό χώρο, η οποία δημιουργεί μία γέφυρα ανάμεσα σε διαφορετικούς τόπους. Αυτό δεν είχε γίνει ακόμα, και τώρα γίνεται σαν teleconferencing, δεν γίνεται όπως ακριβώς θέλω, όπως φαντάζομαι ότι ο εικονικός χώρος είναι μέρος της αρχιτεκτονικής. Γίνεται σαν απλές εικόνες όπου άνθρωποι συνεργάζονται.

Δ.Γ.: Με την έννοια της eversion που έχεις αναλύσει, όπου τα πράγματα που συμβαίνουν στον εικονικό χώρο προβάλλονται στον φυσικό χώρο, ο χρόνος πως “μεταφέρεται”, πως προβάλλεται από τον εικονικό στο φυσικό χώρο;

M.N.: Από εκεί βγήκαν οι αόρατες αρχιτεκτονικές γιατί η έννοια του eversion έχει να κάνει με το πώς δημιουργούμε επιθυμίες στον εικονικό χώρο τις οποίες τελικά θέλουμε να τις φέρουμε σε αυτόν τον υλικό χώρο. Αλλά τα πράγματα στον εικονικό χώρο είναι ρευστά, είναι πολυδιάστατα, μεταλλάσσονται συνέχεια, και έχουν κάποια ελαφρότητα δηλαδή είναι… (προσπαθώντας να βρει τη λέξη στα ελληνικά) …virtual. Όταν προσπαθούμε να τα φέρουμε σε αυτόν τον χώρο υπάρχουν διάφορες πιθανότητες. Η μία πιθανότητα είναι ότι τα παγώνουμε, δηλαδή αφαιρούμε το χρόνο, και τα δημιουργούμε σαν αντικείμενα. Και τα περισσότερα πράγματα που γίνονται τώρα είναι αυτό. Δηλαδή ότι φέρνουμε πίσω κάτι και το κάνουμε υλικό και παγώνουμε ακριβώς το μέρος που είναι το πιο ζωντανό, το πιο ζωτικό του ψηφιακού και εικονικού χώρου. Αλλά και αυτό καλό είναι, δηλαδή έχουμε δημιουργήσει κάποια αναγέννηση στην αρχιτεκτονική κάνοντας αυτό. Ενώ η αρχιτεκτονική δεν κινούσε το κοινό τώρα βλέπουμε ότι κτίζονται κτίρια και ο κόσμος τα αγαπάει πάλι, είναι πολύ σημαντικό πράγμα, και από την άλλη έχουμε κάποια ποικιλία κάποια έκφραση. Όμως, όπως είπα, το πιο ζωτικό μέρος είναι το ζωντανό μέρος της εικονικότητας και για να επιτύχω αυτή την έκφραση του πιο ζωντανού μέρους αυτό που χρειαζόταν να γίνει ήταν τελικά η πιο, ελληνικά θα λέγαμε ‘ριζοσπαστική’ κίνηση, που ήταν να αφαιρεθεί τελείως η ύλη από την αρχιτεκτονική, για να μπορέσει η αρχιτεκτονική να είναι και εκείνη ρευστή σε αυτόν το χώρο. Έτσι βγήκαν οι αόρατες αρχιτεκτονικές, που είναι τελικά αρχιτεκτονική από σχέσεις, αισθητήρες και effectors.

Δ.Γ.: Τα projects σου μέχρι τώρα είναι είτε εγκαταστάσεις είτε virtual projects. Το γεγονός αυτό υπονοεί μήπως ότι η αρχιτεκτονική με την οποία ασχολήσαι, για να είναι πιστή στις αρχές της πρέπει να είναι είτε εφήμερη είτε virtual;

M.N.: Όχι, αυτό είναι μάλλον ένα από τα διάφορα ατυχήματα που ο καθένας πρέπει να χειριστεί, οι περιστάσεις. Δεν θα με πείραζε να κάνω κάποιο κτίριο, και μάλιστα μου φαίνεται ότι θα κάνω, μπορεί να κάνω και πολλά, ποιος ξέρει, έχουμε χρόνο. Αυτό που ήταν σαφές από τότε που ήμουν φοιτητής ήταν ότι είχα σκέψεις και ιδέες που δεν θα μου επέτρεπε κανείς να κάνω αν δούλευα σε κάποια εταιρία. Υπάρχουν δύο τρόποι να λειτουργήσει κανείς: ο ένας είναι να περιμένει να έρθει κάποιος και να του πει τι να κάνει και ο άλλος είναι να κάνει κάτι και να βάλει τον εαυτό του σε μία θέση ώστε οι άνθρωποι να έρθουν να του ζητήσουν να κάνει αυτό που θέλει να κάνει. Ο Frank Gehry έχει καταφέρει να κάνει αυτό το πράγμα. Στην αρχή έκανε μάλλον απλά πράγματα αλλά σε κάθε βήμα, σε κάποιο μέρος του κτιρίου έκανε κάτι που ήταν χαρακτηριστικά ‘Frank Gehry’ μέχρις ότου οι άνθρωποι έρχονταν και του ζητούσαν να κάνει αυτό και τώρα μπορεί να κάνει ό,τι θέλει όπου θέλει. Κάποια τέτοια στρατηγική υπάρχει, δηλαδή θα ήθελα να κάνω άλλα πράγματα αλλά δεν θα ήθελα να τα κάνω με τους όρους άλλων, θέλω να τα κάνω με τους όρους που το ίδιο το πρόβλημα θέτει και συνεπώς πρέπει να βάλω τον εαυτό μου σε μία θέση ώστε να γίνει η εργασία μου και η σκέψη μου αρκετά γνωστή ώστε να έρθουν αυτοί που θέλουν να κάνω αυτό που κάνω.

Δ.Γ.: Στα κείμενά σου αναφέρεσαι πολύ συχνά σε φιλοσόφους: για παράδειγμα στον Heidegger στον Nietzsche, στον Deleuze. Πιστεύεις ότι αυτή η σχέση φιλοσοφίας και αρχιτεκτονικής είναι απαραίτητη για να συνεχίσει και να εξελιχτεί η αρχιτεκτονική;

M.N.: Εξαρτάται με ποια έννοια της αρχιτεκτονικής λειτουργούμε. Υπάρχουν πολλές έννοιες. Οι περισσότερες έννοιες της αρχιτεκτονικής έχουν να κάνουν με το πώς να κτίζει κανείς υλικά κτίρια τα οποία τελικά για μένα δεν είναι αρχιτεκτονική. Αν όμως σκεφτούμε την αρχιτεκτονική σαν τέχνη, ή τελικά σαν φιλοσοφία, δηλαδή σαν μία έκφραση της φιλοσοφίας μίας κοινωνίας στον χώρο τον οποίο ζούμε, τότε ναι, πράγματι. Γιατί μπορεί κανείς να φιλοσοφήσει με ένα βιβλίο ή με ένα έργο τέχνης ή με ένα κτίριο, ή με ένα κτίσμα που παύει πια να είναι κτίριο και είναι άλλο-βιολογικό, εικονικό, αόρατο και όλα αυτά τα πράγματα. Μου φαίνεται ότι είναι πολύ βασική αυτή η ερώτηση γιατί εξαρχής, και επιμένω, τα πράγματα που κάνω, όσο παράξενα και να φαίνονται, στην καρδιά τους, στο κέντρο τους είναι καθαρή αρχιτεκτονική σκέψη. Δηλαδή μου φαίνεται, μπορεί βέβαια να έχω χάσει το νου μου και να μην ξέρω τι λέω, αλλά μου φαίνεται ότι εξερευνώ το τι θα πει αρχιτεκτονική στην εποχή μου. Και απλώς επειδή ακολουθώ τις ερωτήσεις εκεί που πάνε, και πηγαίνουν σε παράξενα μέρη, οι πιο συμβατικοί αρχιτέκτονες δεν αναγνωρίζουν αυτό που τελικά θα αναγνωριστεί: ότι αυτά είναι τα ερωτηματικά της αρχιτεκτονικής τώρα. Της αρχιτεκτονικής της ίδιας, αλλά σε αυτό το επίπεδο που η αρχιτεκτονική είναι φιλοσοφία. Τα καλύτερα κτίρια του κόσμου, για παράδειγμα ένας γοτθικός ναός, δεν είναι κτίριο αυτό, είναι η ενσωμάτωση μίας φιλοσοφίας. Κάθε κτίριο ιστορικό είναι η ενσωμάτωση μίας φιλοσοφίας και εμείς πρέπει να βρούμε την ενσωμάτωση της δικής μας εποχής.

Δ.Γ.: Θα μείνουμε για λίγο στη φιλοσοφία. Σε μία πρόταση στο Logic of Sense ο Deleuze γράφει «Το Άλλο, ως δομή, είναι η έκφραση ενός πιθανού κόσμου· … Το να γεμίζεις τον κόσμο με πιθανότητες, υπόβαθρα, πλαίσια, και μεταβάσεις, το να κατασκευάζεις μέσα στον κόσμο τόσο πολλές φυσαλίδες που περιέχουν τόσο πολλούς πιθανούς κόσμους – αυτό είναι το Άλλο.»[3] Νομίζω ότι αυτή η πρόταση βρίσκεται στον πυρήνα της σκέψης σου.

M.N.: Ναι. Όταν ακούω τέτοιες σκέψης χαμογελάω γιατί ταιριάζει τόσο ωραία.

Δ.Γ.: Ουσιαστικά δηλαδή αυτό που ψάχνεις είναι να βρείτε μέσα από τη δουλειά σου είναι κατά μια έννοια το ‘Άλλο’ στις πιθανές του εκφράσεις.

M.N.: Η διαφορά είναι ότι δεν είναι τόσο να βρω το Άλλο, το Άλλο υπήρχε πάντα και μπορούσαμε να το βρούμε. Έχουμε φτάσει στο σημείο που δημιουργούμε το Άλλο. Γι’ αυτό λέω άλλο-γένεση, γι’ αυτό η παρατήρηση στη διάλεξη ήταν άλλο-ποίηση ή ειδο-ποίηση (specification)[4], ποίηση νέων ειδών. Ιστορικά η εξέλιξη δημιουργούσε είδη, και εμείς παρατηρούσαμε και τα χρησιμοποιούσαμε, αλλά τώρα έχουμε καταλάβει τους μηχανισμούς της εξέλιξης της ίδιας και της φύσης αρκετά βαθιά, ώστε να μπορούμε πλέον να χρησιμοποιήσουμε τις γνώσεις της φύσης και τους μηχανισμούς της εξέλιξης για να δημιουργήσουμε το άλλο εξ αρχής. Εκεί βρίσκομαι. Αυτός είναι ο μεγάλος διαχωρισμός. Γιατί πάντα είχαμε τεχνολογία. Και η γεωργία τεχνολογία είναι αλλά κάτι διαφέρει τώρα. Είναι ένας φίλος μου που λέγεται Eduardo Kac[5] και κάνει αυτό που ονομάζει transgenic art και είχε κάνει έναν λαγό ο οποίος ήταν φωσφορούχος. Και τον έκανε βιολογικά, συνεργάστηκε με επιστήμονες, και πήρε γενετικές πληροφορίες από μέδουσα, τις έβαλε στο λαγό και ο λαγός φωσφορίζει. Στο παρελθόν εμείς ξέραμε ας πούμε πώς να πάρουμε τριαντάφυλλα από μία κόκκινη τριανταφυλλιά και να κάνουμε μία κίτρινη τριανταφυλλιά να βγάζει κόκκινα τριαντάφυλλα. Οι τριανταφυλλιές όμως είναι πράγματα μεταξύ τους κοντινά και ίσως να φανταστεί ότι θα μπορούσαν να συναντηθούν από μόνες τους. Αλλά η μέδουσα και ο λαγός δεν θα μπορούσαν ποτέ να συναντηθούν. Είναι πράγματα πολύ μακρινά τα οποία συνδυάζονται όχι μόνο γιατί είμαστε εμείς μέσα σε αυτό το κύκλωμα αλλά επειδή είμαστε εμείς μέσα σε αυτό το κύκλωμα και τη βιολογία τους, τους μηχανισμούς τους. Εκεί ήμαστε.

Δ.Γ.: Δεν υπάρχει περίπτωση στο μέλλον αυτό το ξένο, το alien να το συνηθίσουμε, να μετατραπεί τελικά σε κάτι οικείο;

M.N.: Θα μας γίνει οικείο. Θα μας γίνει οικείο αλλά ο λόγος που δημιούργησα τη λέξη διάκλιση, transvergeance, είναι ότι μπορεί να μας γίνει οικείο αλλά να δημιουργήσουμε μία καινούργια στάση με τη γνώση, η οποία συνέχεια θα μας παροτρύνει να βρίσκουμε το καινούργιο άλλο. Γιατί αυτό μου αρέσει από την έννοια του άλλου και από την έννοια του trans- είναι αυτή η ‘ανοιχτότητα’. Δηλαδή το να είμαστε ανοικτοί σε μία κατάσταση συνέχεια, θετικά, ασταθή. Και αυτό που έλεγα χθες είναι ότι έχει ενδιαφέρον να έχουμε αυτή τη συζήτηση εδώ πέρα, στη Θεσσαλονίκη και στο Αριστοτέλειο και την πλατεία Αριστοτέλους, όπου αρχίζει στη δύση η σκέψη της ταξινομίας, η σκέψη του να οργανωθεί η γνώση σε κάποιο δέντρο σχετικά σταθερό, που είναι φανταστική σκέψη, πανίσχυρη σκέψη ο Αριστοτέλης να τολμήσει να κάνει κάτι τέτοιο, αλλά που τώρα έχει πλέον ξεπεραστεί. Δηλαδή είναι χρήσιμη, όπως έλεγα πριν, υπάρχουν πράγματα που είναι χρήσιμα και πρέπει να τα χρησιμοποιούμε, αλλά δεν χρειάζεται να περιοριζόμαστε από αυτά. Είμαστε τώρα σε μία άλλη φάση που θέλουμε όχι να ταξινομήσουμε τη γνώση αλλά να την κάνουμε πιο πολύπλοκη. Ενώ βαθαίνει, να διακλαδώνεται το δέντρο συνέχεια και να αλλάζουν οι όροι. Οπότε όσο και να εξοικειωθούμε με το άλλο, μπορούμε να εξοικειωθούμε επίσης και με την παραγωγή του άλλου.

Δ.Γ.: Γράφεις επίσης κάπου ότι αυτή η ιδέα του alien μπορεί να μας παρέχει τις ασφαλιστικές δικλείδες ώστε να προστατευτούμε από ολοκληρωτισμούς και ‘κεντρισμούς’. Παρόλο όμως που το alien πλέον παράγεται βλέπουμε ότι ολοένα και σχηματίζονται καινούργιοι ολοκληρωτισμοί, κυρίως σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο πλέον. Πως νομίζεις ότι η παραγωγή του άλλου μπορεί να μας βοηθήσει στην αντιμετώπιση αυτών των συγκεντρωτισμών;

M.N.: Ένα μεγάλο μέρος του alien, στο οποίο αναφέρθηκα και χθες, έδειξα τους κώνους του φωτός του Minkowski, που δείχνουν την περιοχή του πιθανού γνωστού και επίσης την περιοχή του αγνώστου, που στη φυσική λέγεται ‘elsewhere’, και το ‘else’ έχει τη ρίζα του στο ‘άλλος’. Είναι δηλαδή το γνωστό και το άλλο. Υπάρχει αυτός ο διαχωρισμός του γνωστού και το άλλου. Το γνωστό είναι πεπερασμένο και το άλλο είναι σχετικά άπειρο, η τουλάχιστον πολύ μεγαλύτερο. Είναι δηλαδή η παρότρυνση να κινηθούμε σε αυτόν το μεγαλύτερο χώρο. Ήταν κάτι στην ερώτησή σου που με κέντρισε αλλά μου διέφυγε καθώς έκανα τη μετάφραση. Ξαναπές μου πως με ρώτησες;

Δ.Γ.: Πως μπορεί η ιδέα του άλλου, του alien, να μας βοηθήσει να αντιμετωπίσουμε τα ολοκληρωτικά συστήματα που σχηματίζονται στην εποχή μας.

M.N.: Α, ναι, ναι. Οι συγκεντρωτισμοί και ο τοταλισμός, όλα αυτό τα ολικά σχήματα, λανθάνουν στο ότι νομίζουν ότι η πραγματικότητα είναι πεπερασμένη, ότι οι πιθανότητες είναι γνωστές και ότι η επιλογή τους είναι η σωστή επιλογή. Κάθε σοβαρή σκέψη του απείρου συμπεραίνει ότι το άπειρο πρέπει να είναι πολύ ανεκτικό. Δηλαδή είναι τόσο μεγάλο που χωράνε όλα μέσα. Το καθένα πρέπει να βρει το χώρο του, αλλά χωράνε όλα. Και συνεπώς η έννοια του άλλου, ανέχεται, δέχεται. Στον Καβάφη είναι ένα ποίημα που λέγεται ‘il gran rifiuto’ στο οποίο, είναι πολύ απλό, δύο γραμμές μονάχα, αλλά μιλάει για αυτόν που έχει μέσα του το ναι και αυτόν που έχει μέσα του το όχι και πως ο άνθρωπος που έχει μέσα του το ναι προχωράει και βρίσκει καινούργια πράγματα, καινούργιες επιτυχίες και δόξες και ο άλλος κλείνει. Λοιπόν, η έννοια του άλλου είναι τελείως η έννοια του συνεχούς ναι, δηλαδή της γνώσης του απείρου σαν κάτι ανεκτικό και της γνώσης του ότι όσο παράξενο και να είναι κάτι κάπου χωράει και ότι πρέπει πρώτα να πούμε εμείς το ναι και αν πράγματι το όριο είναι όριο τότε θα πει το ίδιο όχι. Δεν χρειάζεται να πούμε εμείς όχι.

Δ.Γ.: Θα ήθελες να μας μιλήσεις λίγο για την έννοια της archimusic, γιατί νομίζω ότι είναι από τις πιο ενδιαφέρουσες αλλά και από τις πιο δύσκολες για να τις φανταστεί κάποιος. Πως μπορούν να συνυπάρχουν σε ένα μέσω η αρχιτεκτονική και η μουσική;

M.N.: Πως μπορεί να υπάρχει ο διαχωρισμός, εγώ ποτέ δεν το κατάλαβα. Με την αρχιμουσική προσπάθησα να εκφράσω μία μορφή που έχει να κάνει με τη φυσική και την αναγνώριση του ανθρώπου ότι ο χρόνος και ο χώρος είναι παρόμοιες διαστάσεις, από το χωροχρόνο του Einstein και μετά όπου οι ξεχωριστές κατηγορίες παύουν να υπάρχουνε και συνεπώς οι ξεχωριστές τέχνες παύουν να υπάρχουνε και τα παραδείγματα είναι άπειρα πια. Δηλαδή ο ίδιος ο κινηματογράφος δείχνει ότι άμα πάρεις εικόνες που είναι στο χώρο και τις παίξεις γρήγορα, στο χρόνο, δημιουργούν μία συνέχεια. Το ίδιο πράγμα με κάθε καταγραφή. Μόλις πάρεις το χώρο και τον συνδυάσεις με το χρόνο δημιουργούνται σχήματα τα οποία ο ανθρώπινος εγκέφαλος μπορεί να τα αναλύσει και να τα κατανοήσει. Μια άλλη σκέψη έχει να κάνει με τη διαφορά τον ποιοτήτων και των ποσοτήτων, που στα λατινικά είναι η διαφορά από τα qualia που είναι οι ποιότητες στα quanta που είναι οι ποσότητες, και το πώς κατά τη γνώμη μου και την εμπειρία μου, αλλά επίσης με τεκμήρια την ίδια την ιστορία της αρχιτεκτονικής και το τι έχει διατηρηθεί και γιατί διατηρείται, γιατί αγαπάει κανείς πράγματα που δημιουργηθήκανε σε άλλες εποχές από άλλους πολιτισμούς και άλλες λειτουργίες και ακόμη μας συγκινούν, μου φαίνεται ότι αυτό που είναι ισχυρό στην αρχιτεκτονική είναι σαν αυτό που είναι ισχυρό στη μουσική, δηλαδή όταν εγώ βρίσκομαι σε ένα χώρο αρχιτεκτονικό αυτό που με κινεί δεν είναι ότι αυτός ο χώρος ήτανε ναός γιατί δεν πιστεύω, δεν είναι γιατί αυτή είναι η λειτουργία του γιατί δεν το χρησιμοποιώ έτσι, τελικά είναι ότι αυτά τα σχήματα, αυτές οι μορφές, το φως, έχουν απάνω μου μία επιρροή που είναι σαν την επιρροή μίας συγχορδίας, δηλαδή είναι κάποιος στο κτίριο, παίζει κάποια κλειδιά στο πιάνο, και ενώ το πιάνο είναι εκεί εγώ νοιώθω ότι βρίσκομαι μέσα σε ένα χώρο, που είναι ο χώρος όχι του ήχου σαν ερέθισμα, αλλά αυτής της αρμονίας. Το νιώθω να με περιβάλει και μου αλλάζει το πώς είμαι. Αν προσθέσεις και μελωδία και κινηθεί αυτό το σχήμα αλλάζω. Το ίδιο πράγμα γίνεται και με τη μουσική. Δηλαδή αυτό το πράγμα είναι ίσως κάποια συναίσθηση, synesthesia, που παρατηρεί ότι οι διάφορες αισθήσεις δεν είναι τελικά ξεχωριστές. Συνδυάζονται. Κάπως έτσι.

Δ.Γ.: Θα μπορούσαμε να πούμε ότι η μουσική του Ξενάκη είναι ένα πρώτο στάδιο αυτής της ένωσης;

M.N.: Θα μπορούσαμε αλλά… Ήμουνα στους Δελφούς στα εβδομηκοστά γενέθλια του Ξενάκη και μιλούσαμε, συζητούσαμε και τα λοιπά, αλλά επίσης ήταν ένα συνέδριο ηλεκτρονικής μουσικής με μουσικούς από όλων τον κόσμο, και τον Ξενάκη, και είχε διάφορες ομιλίες και παραστάσεις και μία από τις παραστάσεις ήταν κάποιο αρχαίο δράμα, δε θυμάμαι ποιο, και κάποιος έκανε την παρατήρηση ότι το multimedia και ο συνδυασμός παράστασης, της μουσικής, του χώρου, της αρχιτεκτονικής, του χορού, όλων αυτών των πραγμάτων είναι αρχαία ιδέα, δεν είναι καινούργια ιδέα, απλώς ο άνθρωπος την είχε επιδιώξει με τα μέσα που είχε τότε και τώρα την επιδιώκει με άλλα μέσα. Θα μπορούσε να πει κανείς ότι είναι καινούργια ιδέα του Ξενάκη, ή καινούργια ιδέα κάποιου, θα μπορούσαμε να βρούμε πολλούς πριν και μετά τον Ξενάκη που το έκαναν αυτό, αλλά μου φαίνεται ότι η βάση της δεν είναι ποιος το έκανε αλλά το τι είμαστε. Το πώς δεν μπορεί ο εγκέφαλος να ακούει ξεχωριστά και να βλέπει ξεχωριστά, στην πραγματικότητα όλα αυτά τα πράγματα συνδυάζονται, απαραίτητα συνδυάζονται και το ένα ενισχύει το άλλο. Εφόσον αυτή είναι η βιολογία μας κάθε φορά που τα ξεχωρίζουμε είναι κάποια ιδεολογία που μας κάνει να τα ξεχωρίζουμε και πάντα πρέπει να επιστρέφουμε στο ότι τελικά είμαστε ολικά όντα και όλα αυτά τα πράγματα συνδυάζονται.

Δ.Γ.: Το υποκείμενο τελικά όλων αυτών των πραγμάτων, της αρχιμουσικής, των ρευστών αρχιτεκτονικών, ποιο είναι, σε ποιον απευθύνονται;

M.N.: Πρέπει να καταλάβω την ερώτηση πρώτα γιατί μου φαίνεται λίγο παράξενο. Είναι σαν να έχω γράψει ένα κομμάτι μουσικής και με ρωτάς για ποιον είναι αυτή η μουσική.

Δ.Γ.: Θέλω να πω απευθύνονται σε κάποια κατηγορία ανθρώπων, απευθύνονται σε κάποιον άνθρωπο που ακόμα ‘δημιουργείται’; Θα μπορούσε δηλαδή κάποιος να πει, όπως και για τη μουσική του Ξενάκη, ότι είναι μία μορφή ελιτίστικης τέχνης, ότι δεν απευθύνεται στο σύνολο των ανθρώπων.

M.N.: Δεν θα το έβαζα έτσι. Θα το έθετα ότι ενδεχομένως απευθύνεται σε όλους τους ανθρώπους αλλά κατανοεί ότι ανά πάσα στιγμή μπορεί να μην ενδιαφέρονται όλοι οι άνθρωποι, ή να μην έχουν την προετοιμασία που χρειάζεται όλοι οι άνθρωποι. Το Pessac στη Γαλλία είναι διάφορα κτίρια που έκανε ο Le Corbusier, public housing για εργάτες, τα οποία ήταν μοντέρνα και σύγχρονα, αλλά μετά από ένα διάστημα, οι άνθρωποι που τα δεχτήκανε και έμειναν εκεί άρχισαν να τα αλλάζουνε, να βάζουνε πατζούρια, να βάζουνε γλάστρες, διακοσμητικά στοιχεία, και γράφτηκαν ορισμένα βιβλία που περιέγραφαν πως αυτά τα κτίρια ήταν αποτυχίες. Άμα πάει κανείς τώρα στο Pessac βλέπει ότι τα ίδια κτίρια τα έχει πάρει μία άλλη γενιά ανθρώπων και τα επαναφέρουν πολύ προσεκτικά στις αρχικές καταστάσεις που είχε δημιουργήσει ο Le Corbusier και τα αγαπάνε τώρα όπως τα ήθελε. Δηλαδή υπήρχε μία μεταβατική φάση όπου οι άνθρωποι που τα δέχτηκαν δεν ήταν έτοιμοι να ζήσουν έτσι και ήθελαν να τα αλλάξουνε, αλλά οι επόμενοι άνθρωποι είχαν αλλάξει οι ίδιοι και τα θέλανε όπως είχαν σχεδιαστεί. Και μου φαίνεται ότι έτσι είναι και με αυτά τα πράγματα. Τα δημιουργώ γιατί μου φαίνεται ότι πρέπει να δημιουργηθούν έτσι, βέβαια με τα όρια τα δικά μου, με τους περιορισμούς, τις περιστάσεις, όσο μπορώ, γιατί έτσι πρέπει να γίνουνε. Και έχω την υπομονή να πω ότι θα τα βρει κάποιος κάποτε. Στη Φλωρεντία, στην cappella sistina που έκανε ο Michelangelo είναι η περίφημη σκηνή όπου ο θεός ακουμπάει τον Αδάμ. Πίσω από το θεό είναι οι άγγελοι και πίσω από τους αγγέλους ένα νέφος. Αυτό το νέφος έχει παρατηρηθεί επιστημονικά, από γιατρούς και νευροφυσιολόγους, γιατί είναι πολύ ιδιαίτερο. Και μοιάζει κυριολεκτικά με τομή του εγκεφάλου. Εμείς που ξέρουμε πως είναι ο εγκέφαλος το βλέπουμε και καταλαβαίνουμε ότι είναι τομή εγκεφάλου. Και μάλιστα τα προφίλ των αγγέλων δημιουργούν τις διάφορες διακλαδώσεις που βλέπει κανείς στον εγκέφαλο αν τον κόψει. Ο Μιχαήλ Άγγελος ήξερε τον Λεονάρντο, ήξερε τις ανατομικές σπουδές που έκανε. Βλέποντας αυτό μπορούμε να πούμε ότι ο Λεονάρντο και ο Μιχαήλ Άγγελος κατανοούσανε ότι οι έννοιες του θεού που υπήρχαν γύρω τους ήταν περιορισμένες και ότι η έννοια του θεού υπάρχει στον εγκέφαλο, στον νου του ανθρώπου. Αυτό ήταν κάτι που δεν μπορούσαν να το πούνε στην εποχή τους, οπότε το παίρνει αυτό ο Μιχαήλ Άγγελος, το βάζει μέσα στην εκκλησία όπου το βλέπει όλος ο κόσμος αλλά η εποχή δεν μπορεί να το αναγνωρίσει. Εμείς μετά από αιώνες έχουμε τα μέσα να δούμε αυτή την τομή, να καταλάβουμε και να δούμε αυτό το σήμα, αυτή την επικοινωνία από το παρελθόν την οποία εκείνη η εποχή δεν μπορούσε να την κατανοήσει. Κάπως έτσι. Δηλαδή κάνω ορισμένα πράγματα, ξέρω ότι η εποχή μου μπορεί να μην τα καταλάβει αλλά κάποια εποχή θα τα καταλάβει.

Δ.Γ.: Μία τελευταία ερώτηση. Όταν μιλάς γιε την αρχιτεκτονική έχω την αίσθηση ότι μιλάς για τη ζωή γενικότερα.

M.N.: Έτσι είναι. Και βέβαια. Αλλά και για τη μουσική να μίλαγα πάλι για τη ζωή θα μίλαγα, για τι άλλο θα μίλαγα.

Δ.Γ.: Οπότε ουσιαστικά και αυτοί οι διαχωρισμοί που κάνουμε, αρχιτεκτονική, μουσική, ζωή, είναι τελικά αυθαίρετοι και δε βοηθάνε πολύ…

M.N.: Ναι, ναι, ‘διάγω τον βίο’. Δηλαδή ο προβληματισμός του καθενός φαντάζομαι ότι είναι ο ίδιος. Έχουμε μία μικρή διάρκεια, ένα μικρό διάνυσμα, για να ζήσουμε και πρέπει να κάνουμε ό,τι μπορούμε σε αυτή τη διάρκεια. Και ό,τι και να κάνουμε είναι μία απάντηση στο ‘τι να κάνουμε’, δηλαδή όταν επιλέγουμε να κάνουμε αρχιτεκτονική είναι μία απάντηση στο τι να κάνουμε με τη ζωή μας, επιλέγουμε να κάνουμε μουσική ή βιολογία ή ό,τι άλλο, είναι μία απάντηση στο τι να κάνουμε. Αυτή πρέπει να είναι η ειλικρίνεια στο τι κάνουμε. Μπορεί να μη το παραδεχόμαστε, μπορεί να μη το συνειδητοποιούμε. Αλλά τελικά κάτι τέτοιο κάνουμε.

Δ.Γ.: Ευχαριστώ πολύ.

[1] non-standard architectures ήταν ο τίτλος της έκθεσης (10 Δεκεμβρίου 2003 – 1 Μαρτίου 2004), που έγινε στο κέντρο Pompidou στο Παρίσι με θέμα τις σύγχρονες αρχιτεκτονικές αναζητήσεις που βασίζονται κατά κύριο λόγο στις ψηφιακές τεχνολογίες.

[2] Η 9^η Biennale Αρχιτεκτονικής στη Βενετία.

[3] Deleuze, Gilles The Logic of Sense New York: Columbia University Press, 1990, σελ. 366.

[4] Αναφέρεται στη διάλεξη της προηγούμενης ημέρας όπου ρώτησε για το ελληνικό αντίστοιχο της λέξης ‘specification’.

[5] Όσοι ενδιαφέρονται μπορούν να βρουν αρκετά στοιχεία στο http://www.ekac.org/

the t-machine

2008-04-25T14:35:00.000-07:00

“The following moment always contains, over and above the preceding one, the memory the latter has left it”

Henri Bergson

The T-machine is an architectural web-log as much as it is an architectural archive. It is a log, because it follows a chronological order; or more precisely a subjective time-line, an assemblage of (more or less) random points from different time zones. It is an archive, because it tries to question that nature of a common log: Each new entry is not taking the place of the previous one but is rather taking a place next to the previous one. It is a succession of entries but only one where the previous is as important as the next.

This process of entering in it is in fact the motor of The T-machine. Every new participation includes the traces of the previous ones, as stimuli for thinking and draws the limits of the next ones, giving food to their dynamism.

The T-machine wants to engage itself with architecture; therefore wants to engage itself with any other discipline that can affect or inform architecture. It has no ideology whatsoever, but is made out of separate people that want to express their ideas and opinions.

The T-machine wants to add more random points and time zones to its timeline, therefore is open to contributions, comments and discussions.