Jorge Silvetti outlines a compellingly inside-looking-out point of view about the current state of architectural design in The Muses Are Not Amused... The four thinking types, Programism, Thematization, Blobs, and Literalism are succinctly effective at describing the range of options in value judgements that architects wade through when determining a proposal's proper approach. Yet somehow each outlook has a shortcoming. Programism's fall to the restrictions of media production methods, Thematization's overdependence on pre-existing styles, the much too complexly-transformed data of Blobs, and the nigh-neurological lingual restraints of freedom to Literalism's referents implies that every attempt at compressing the essence of a space into functional, material form may end in an ontological failure of some kind. Merely identifying the very specific lofty ideals undertaken by a program is unclear when contradictory positions or situations co-exist in the same space. It is the selection of pertinent terms to be enacted upon in the ensuing process that charges an idea's potency. The intentions to achieve efficiency, optimization, consolidation as well as cross-pollination, invention, compromise and controversy, are the various intermediary steps in defining a personal touch in the profession and determining an alignment with a particular theory or strategy.
The discussion about Blobs hit upon an inspiring discovery, that the latest gifts of technology are unique in their generative powers when we consider their role in history. The achievement of total freedom of form has arrested the architect of his office to affect the world, as it is in the definition of form that we mark our specialization in society, turning us now into programmers who can't code. The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture contains Greg Lynn's definition of "blobs", part of which I shall transcribe here:
"Recently, a class of topological geometric types for modeling complex aggregates that exhibit the qualities of multiplicity and singularity has been developed. The most interesing example is the development of 'isomorphic polysurfaces' or what in the special effects and animation industry is referred to as 'meta-clay', 'meta-ball' or 'blob' models. The explanation of the organisation of these topological geometries actually outlines a working schema for a new typology for complexity. [...] In this schema, there is no essential difference between a more or less spherical formation and a blob. The sphere and its provisional symmetries are merely the index of a rather low level of interactions where the blob is an index of a high degree of information in the form of differentiation between components in time. In this regard, even what seems to be a sphere is actually a blob without influence; an anexact form that merely masquerades as an exact form because it is isolated from adjacent forces."
The ability to amass data in a manner informed by a filter or generator made to produce a form leads to self-defining, autonomous systems, a sustainable path. Keying in additional layers of information - contextual, social, environmental - benefits and justifies complexity but in mapping this data to what remains a singular object, the classical model of architecture isn't so fundamentally altered. The growth of technology even in historical contexts such as the Baroque still demanded a human sensibility to the establishment of what is always a new or contemporary aesthetic. The value of the blob is in its loosening of our visual dependencies, decoupling so many aspects of what orders are present in a form. Yet while these procedures are so promising, Silvetti's argument seems to be that they haven't proven themselves as sires of architecture. While the calculating power may be there, the impetus towards intuition is not. I'll be thinking much more about the theoretical limitations and consequences of process in drafting my thesis, and what is really an ideal situation in such an imaginary world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good analysis and self-inquiry, in my reading of Sylvetti I came to the same conclusion as you, "The intentions to achieve efficiency, optimization, consolidation as well as cross-pollination, invention, compromise and controversy, are the various intermediary steps in defining a personal touch in the profession and determining an alignment with a particular theory or strategy." It is far better to draw upon different sources than be categorized as Sylvetti would like. What I think draws Sylvetti away from a blob like form-making is the structural and material implications that never show up in the process or iterations, or what he calls the referents. You must prove that an architecture derived through influential forces is just as valid as the traditional/historic process he canons.
ReplyDelete