Geometric transformations by Camile Güell

In the beginning of  the last century D’Arcy Thompson arose question what is quite related to nowadays. In his book “Growth of Form” he devote a huge part to method of explanation of transformations biological shapes and forms using mathematical methods and physics. In his “Theory of transformations or comparison of related forms” he gave mathematical descriptions on how physical processes affect biological growth. D’Arcy Thompson considered how mathematical functions could be applied to pictures of one living organism to transform them into others.

Thompson gave a lot of examples of forms represented nature: bones, leaves, skulls and so on,  and explanations  of changing shapes of one species according mathematical system of coordinate. Some images he used was taken from the artist and mathematician Albrecht Durer’s work on proportion: De Symetria Partium in Rectis Formis Humanorum Corporum Libri… Using a variety of linear and quadratic transformations, D’Arcy Thompson has an extensive quantity of the ideas of facial angle associated with this example. Among his most striking examples are the use of linear and non-linear functions to, for example, alter pictures of baboon skulls into skulls of other primates or humans, to transform the profiles of various fishes into one another, as well as showing how the corresponding bones (shoulder blades for example) in different species were related.

He used four basic methods of deformation learning changing of shapes:

1 – changing the dimensions of system,

2 – extensions between axes are not equal,

3 – axes inclined to one another at a determined angle,

4 – use of radial coordinates, radiating from a point.

Author considered that correlations which had seemed too complex for analysis is possible to understand with a very simple graphic expression. And using method of coordinates capable translating the form of a curve, or the position of point into numbers and words.

Now I have a question how can we use this precedents logic today?  We can find that maybe the roots of some modern digital tools goes from this work, or maybe it is just similarities? Maybe we can apply the idea of learning transformations of biological creatures to analysis of transformations to buildings, for example, to make an analysis of old reconstructed building, and we can understand what influenced on it during the times, the way of history and peoples thoughts… At least, evolution had happened not only with people and animals, but also with environment… and can we consider architecture as a part of changing environment, as something dynamic during time? How every unit of architecture behave in this dynamic process as part of something big and also as it could be bottom up. All this questions are interesting for me, every I could try to develop as a further research, if I had a chance.

Francis D’Haene

In these text Bernard Rudofsky offer us to think about connection between buildings and nature. He contemplate about garden as a living space, about relations between interior and outdoor.

In the beginning the author say how is important climate for us. Our life and activity depends on it. People always choose place for living according preferences to climate or…climate form our preferences? Maybe relations between people and nature also depends on it? The hostile environment and climate never encouraged an intimate relationship between man and nature. Mankind constantly try to control it.

Centuries ago people found the solution how to be attached to the nature if you want to be in a private space: they created garden-rooms as for the ceiling was always sky. The historical concept of the house-garden was privacy. And people created gardens with the wall to have the opportunity to feel safe being outside. In the Romans gardens in example gave us Rudofsky the materials used in interior part was the same in the garden, they created illusion of one space, also as vegetation, benches, gates and etc. created a special mood. As in Pompeii gardens order existed more as an absence of disorder.

We can exactly say that the outdoor rooms is the positional relations, relations between environment and architecture, it’s a system by illation. Author was talking about walls without specific functions. Such walls becomes a piece of art, created by nature, it can serve as a screen for shadows and reflections, and make a contrast with the trees at the same time interacted between.

Rudofsky was also talking about another sort of relationship. He considered that front lawns add nothing to the looks of the house, it belongs more to the street than to the house. As well a fence is quite pointless. So it is also confirmation that he was adherent more complex conditioned outdoor spaces. Only by wall, light, temperature and inexhaustible repertoire of architect’s tools can be achieved the perfectly conditioned outdoor garden-room.

Learning about own art way of Bernard Rudofsky it easier to understand his philosophy of room-garden. A special arrangement integrated within the landscape, front courts, forms appropriated from traditional architecture, and intimate atmosphere for the people living in the house. He felt drawn to the Mediterranean region’s sybaritic, or sensual, attitude toward life, and its houses designs with patios and protective walls blending interior and outdoor spaces.

Possible research’s theme.

I’m interested in “organic” architecture, I would like to investigate more about and think about harmony of coexistence of modern house and natural beauty, how to integrate with environment don’t disturbing it first view.