“Branching Morphogenesis” is at Ars Electronica, a museum of digital and media arts, in Linz, Austria

‘… the form of an object is a ‘diagram of forces’… D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson

Thompson described growth and form in relation to the study of organisms. He emphasized the evolution as the fundamental determinant of the form and structure of living organisms. He asserts structuralism as an alternative to survival of the fittest in governing the form of species.

According to him Darwinism is not adequate explanation for the origin of new species. He regarded natural selection as a secondary to the origin of biological form.

The text is basically lays on the associated repercussions of environmental pressures and geometrical formations. He established mathematics and physics to map these repercussions. It is described as a means for deciphering an individual course of development or growth. The interpolation between multiple morphometric mappings was outlaid as a means to project potentials in form. This sets two fundamental branches of a conceptual framework for computational geometry. These are parametrics and homologies. A parametric equation is defined as a constant equation in which relational parameters vary. It results in producing families of products where each instance will always carry a particular commonness with others. Thompson defines these embedded relationships as homologies . The framework that emerges encapsulates, within formal rules for geometric organisation, the capacities of form, in physical stature and robustness, and their transformation through external influences.

Similarly, computer-aided design is capturing the geometric relationships that form the foundation of architecture, building upon now-established practices of form-finding and finite element analysis (which breaks down a continuous structure into many simple, linked elements in order to find optimal thicknesses and arrangements of supporting elements). New developments in parametric modeling permit control of design through models that can coordinate and update themselves. These systems can automatically update the entire model or drawing set based on changes as small as a joint or as large as the entire floor plan, offering flexible design of deeply nested relationships. In much the same way that mutations in nature generate biodiversity, individual variation in architectural components can be achieved economically. Parametric design practice employs ‘dependency’ networks similar to the complex process diagrams used to express relationships in natural systems, offering increasingly fine-tuned approaches to building component design. Using these tools, architectural disciplines are poised to work with increasing effectiveness in responsive, interactive systems.

I find this possibility really interesting. In particular I have always been interested in evolution, and the history of the Earth millions of years ago. Perhaps mathematical form is an element of the missing map, or perhaps this idea could be applied to filling in some of the gaps. It has exponential possibilities in the world of parametric design, and the possibility of the built form. We are increasingly interested in achieving organic form, and perhaps this better understanding of nature and mathematics will help us.

My possible personal research topic: How does the architectural discourse engage in a recovery of ecology in its original framing in the context of morphology? The Morphological Context of Environmental Architecture

 

             

 ”Is North-America inhabitable?” Rudofsky believed that the contemporary American house and lifestyle is wrong and suggested that comfort and human satisfaction had been sacrificed for the sake of modernism’s aesthetic and ideological aims. According to Rudofsky, the amenities of modern life have fostered the belief that we have conquered the inconveniences of our climate.

He was concerned with the adoption of an architectural model founded on the principle of indoor-outdoor living, which he suggested was an oxymoronic expression of cultural self-deception. It is emphasized with the example of Plymouth Plantation as a penal colony. “The hostile environment and climate did not encourage an intimate relationship between man and nature; the soil did not hold a mystical attraction to the settler.” He stated that white man failed to produce anything revolutionary or particularly ingenious in America. Additionally, their efforts were more toward maintaining a tolerable indoor temperature instead of habitable outdoor environments. In this point, he makes us think about the limits of climate control.

“Does climate control really end at the door step?”

He described the exposed living room of the modern American house as “the meanest sort of auditorium, unfit for conviviality.” Rudofsky criticized the contemporary garden as well, asserting that “no other civilization has produced gardens as melancholy as ours; aesthetics apart, our suburban front lawns and backyards are a gigantic waste of potential outdoor living space”.

Rudofsky argued, “like the parlor of our grandmothers, the garden is an object of excessive care. Like the parlor, it is not meant to be lived in.” Calling attention to the greater loss incurred with the commodification of the view, he proposed: “In an age that puts a premium on usefulness, this is most irregular. The ‘picture window,’ as the domestic version of the show window is called, has contributed to the estrangement between indoors and outdoors; the garden has become a spectator garden.”

Rudofsky states the differences of historical and modern gardens. Accordig to the text, domestic gardens in the past has the value of habitableness and privacy which are absent in contemporary gardens. He describes them as “rooms without ceilings” and “outdoor living rooms”. Another quality of historical gardens found in common: order, like absence of disorder. He argued “Vegetatiton alone,  it seems, connot supply the commodiousness which makes a garden livable. It depends upon the presence of some inanimate elements: a gate, a bench, a few posts, which constitute, so to say, centers of gravity in an agitated sphere of forms and colors, sounds and smells.” Additionally, remains are another feature of historical gardens communicating a unique sense of comfort.

It is argued that fragmentary states of outdoor rooms is a permanent fixture of domestic architecture. As given the example of Pompeii, labyrinthine configuration of space in Pompeii is given as an example of positional relations: “indoors that reverted to outdoors; gardens of a poetic sort; opening and closing on ever new vistas.” These fragmentations are defined as room-like atmosphere. Their charm lies more in the robust interplay of wall surfaces, sunlight and vegetation. Walls have no any specific function. It is a piece of sculpture among trees and shrubs, not only contrast with nature but also changing spectacle of shadow and reflection. In addition to that wall is introduced as sense of order which makes the garden habitable. The wall in habitable gardens provides shade, braves the wind, cushions noise, defies the beast and becomes art in garden. Enclosing walls in garden creates expansion rather than shrinkage. And every subdivision in gardens increases its surface.

As a conclusion, an outdoor space becomes a special outdoor room when it is well enclosed with walls of the building, walls of foliage, columns, trellis, and sky; and when the outdoor room, together with an indoor space, forms a virtually continuous living area.