“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

 

On this essay Manuel DeLanda is trying to investigate and interpret the work of Gilles Deleuze on the genesis of form. In general the essay is about the generation of form. in particular, Deleuze differentiates form into two categories. the first is the “strata” and the “self-consistent aggregates”. Strata is the concept of the tree. Trees are synthesis of homogeneous elements and provide a form that is predictable and can be explained through mathematics. The self-consistent aggregates are heterogeneous and dynamic mechanisms based on the rhizomes that provide a form which is not predictable in anyway and form dynamic connections to become a collection of mechanisms.

Deleuze’s philosophical thinking is greatly based on mathematics and on physics to understand and to decompose the virtual form as well as a tool to help to the actualisation of the virtual. In this text, DeLanda is also writing about how form emerges from organisational structures of biological, molecular as well as socioeconomic environments. these organisations can provide a form wich can be described in diagrams.

To conclude, I think that Deleuze’s tools (mathematics and physics) are in a way the tools to disassembly what happens in nature, but the concept based on the rhizome and the emergence of form and organisational structures are far more interesting to investigate.

Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari describe the space as a diversity of lines, which each get their identity from the environment. They describe the complete set of connections of particles as the Rhizome.

The rhizome is like a structure of roots, though it is different from the roots of a tree, because it is asymmetric and decentralized. It can be In that way the rhizome can be combined and connected in infinite. In a rhizome any given point can be connected to another (principle of rhizome 1+2; connections and Heterogenety). The rhizome has many entryways. Rhizome is based on multiplicities. The multiplicity should be treated as a substantive (principle of rhizome 3; Multiplicities).

The rhizome might be better understood if you compare it to the root structure of the grass or a potato – an unbounded structure which connects different units together and it grows in between and has no units, only dimensions. All points are always joined in a movement from one identity to another.

The rhizome is not tracing, but it is mapping. “The orchid does not reproduce the tracing of the wasp; it forms a map with the wasp, in a rhizome.”¹ (principle of rhizome 5+6; Decalcomania and Cartography) When you try to replicate the rhizome, it will only from new ramifications and relations (principle of rhizome 4; Asignifyring rupture). This means that nothing is rooted and no truth is given.

Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari questions the western worlds rational and logical approach to knowledge and make patterns/tracings of the mind (fx Sigmund Freud´s Psychoanalyze) and for example the planned cities. Is the most of the eastern world based on  rhizomes?

Concerning architecture the rhizome has many aspects. One is the multiplicity of interactions which might be made possible through architecture. Using the thoughts of rhizome can help  to erase borders and hierarchy in the structures of masterplans or building design. Architecture without starting and ending – the architecture of gradients (read Sui Fujimoto).  The reference to rhizome could be the internet (decentralized and infinite entryways etc.) and shanty towns or refugee camps (growing, decaying and spreading by the not planned events of necessities). But how can we “control” the rhizome? And where does this put the architect? It is more less the same paradox, that there were with the atmospherically machinery at “new babylon” (Constant Niewenhuys).

The hard task is to design a space that takes into account that all the elements of the spaces is combined and are defining the identity by the rhizome. The rhizome is like the “short term memory” and we plan our cities and understand them by our “long term memory”. It is easy to relate to the known realities in a city, but never the unknown factors of the city.

We should as architects try to understand the “strata” (homogenisis) as the inner process of the rhizome (like Manuel DeLanda). In that way we give our design the best condition to perform best, when learn about the virtual potentiality. But we should be aware of the rhizome, which I do not think we can control. The rhizome is the uncontrolled environment (selfconsistent aggregat), which direct the design in different directions. D´arcy Wentworth Thomsen was also aware that it not was only the evolution (Darwin) that were driving the evolution of the species. The environment (homology) and the rhizome had a deep impact of the growth and forms of for example branches and human faces.

A possible topic for my personal research could be to investegate, how architects over time have been using the digital logics to explore the rhizome in architecture. Like the “Blur” (by Diller Sciofidio Renfro) tries to deal with the rhizome, in a more or less controlled way. 

The next topic could be how we can learn our digital tools to use the “short term” memory and create more “real” rhizomes? But I think we should rise a very crucial question; are we destroying the rhizome by trying to understand it and program it? Maybe the rhizome is best without the definition.

¹ Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari  A Thousand Plateaus, – page 12

Picture: http://emptyencore.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/1219079139.jpg

Different atmospheres can be perceived in one same space. http://www.bloodandchampagne.com/2012/11/19/112/

Atmosphere is the space in which we inhabit. It is summarized to the intangible effects we perceive in a place. There is no architecture without an atmosphere. It goes beyond the constructed space. Atmosphere surrounds the space between the building and its surroundings.

There are architects that can disregard atmosphere and there are others that base their designs around the concept of atmosphere. Frank Lloyd Wright is the perfect example for an architect of atmosphere. He states that people are rooted to atmosphere whether they want to or not. For him atmosphere is created when every particle of the design focuses on one same idea. In his drawings the atmosphere can be clearly perceived as a set of effects, always producing an ideal atmosphere. Sometimes, the atmosphere and the building itself merge one into the other.

Architecture is compared to décor because it is the decorated structure in which atmosphere can happen.  Atmosphere does not need a building, but it is the building that gives it a location. Architecture is a mix of atmospheres. One passes from one atmosphere to the other.

Guy Debord, a situationist architect, believes architecture is pure atmosphere and we could change the way we do architecture by using the “radical potential of atmosphere”. By this, the building and the architect come out of the picture. He states that “the city is made up of an endless mix of atmospheres” and that these atmospheres should be clearly defined one from the other. By these means analyze each one and reconstruct the city and the society. He then figured out that society molds its own atmosphere and the architect’s role vanishes.

But architects will always try to take control of the atmosphere surrounding their projects even though they want to embrace it or not because it is the nature of an architect.

Stating Le Corbusier: “The daily life of an architect can create an atmosphere in which it can grow.” For him, atmosphere cannot be taught. One learns to design atmosphere from the experienced effects of a particular atmosphere.

Every project has its own atmosphere, which cannot be rejected. It is intangible and indefinable. It is the essential part of architecture. The architect’s role is to create the relationship between the building and its atmosphere and not embrace only one of the two.

An interesting research theme would be “the Situationist’s attempt to redefine architecture as pure atmospheric”; based on Guy Debord’s ‘Introduction to a Critique of Urban Geography’ (1955). How are the different atmospheres in a society? What is the relationship between the people, the building and the atmosphere? At the end, figure out how significant is the role of the architect in the design of atmosphere and what control does he have over it.

In Philippe Rahm’s thinking the architecture is therefore mold according to the climate conditions: heat, humidity, air flows shape the space and allow the functions and its users’ behaviours to find a place in it, while the simulation of the radiation, convection, conduction, evaporation and pressure aims to reproduce a natural environment into the architecture. Effectively, the climate assume the role of Architecture, while the Architecture, in its forms and functions, becomes the vehicle to create a climate environment. Eventually, his architectural approach doesn’t want to establish an open dialog with the Nature, investigating the blurry and unclear space between the black and the white as in Fushimoto’s research. He is not even creating a physical contoured space as for the Alison Smithson’s grotto, but rather an atmosphere of trascendence, a series of sensations, feelings and mapped motions borrowed from the Nature and enclosed in a timeless space.

Dealing only with the air and through the integration of invisible limits, Rham’s effort is an envelope of atmospheres, an invisible architecture of flows modeling the livable space. His sense of Architecture is a poetic and technological approach to the creation of  a comfortable space, made by undefined colors and different air densities.

Nevertheless, the Architecture is reduced to a filter- if not a wall- between man and Nature. It’s not the external climate that shape the Architecture in its forms and programmes, but it is rather a hi-tech and controlled reproduction of it. The need to control the climate derives from a modern society which is not anymore able to deal within an ‘unfriendly’ environment. The technology helps the human being to reach a better comfort level, but at the same time permits the growth of new and more sophisticated needs. Since the artificial environment is affecting the natural sphere, this relation is going to be an endless escape from a reunion with Nature. Perhaps, an advanced architecture should be even that one that forces the human being to have a natural- more than artificial- relationship of acceptance with the climate and its ‘caprices’.

Where does the environment fit in our contemporary lives? 

In 2006 Andres Jaque Arquitectos were commissioned to build a house in Ibiza, Spain. The Ibiza of today is a result of a new social foundation that was created there in the 1960; it was a place of experimentation and recreation. The architects approach was two dimensional. First they wanted to link architecture to the intangible spheres of modern life. Secondly, they wanted to have a direct connection with the surrounding environment. These two dimensions were to allow the owners to simultaneously experience nature and the worries and indulgements of daily life. The house promotes a deep respect for nature. The design process started off by a mapping of all trees and shrubs and a decision to elevate the house from the ground was made. The result was a very little impact of the house on the natural environment. The unconventional distribution of space in house explores the role architecture plays in combining social spheres of modern life.

Philippe Rahm argues that its exactly this unconventionality that will help us achieve the modern architecture of the 21st century. In his essay “Form and function follows climate” he discusses that the concept of sustainability has been stuck in archaic mindsets about what architecture should contain and respond to.

“ sustainability = development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”

There is a paradox in sustainable architecture. The most ecological type of buildings are completely sealed off from the natural environment. Rather than using whatever nature has to offer, we have hermetically sealed ourselves in.

Philippe Rahm states that if the process of designs starts off with an early recognition of the problems and how new technologies can provide solutions, then new and unexpected architectural forms can emerge. This type of approach can open up many more possibilities than we would have managed to achieve if we were trying to integrate new technologies into stale principles. He argues that a free interpretation of space and a deprogrammed architecture will help us adapt to the present and future faster and more efficiently; functions have become obsolete and act like a weight tied to progress. Adaptation is needed in the sense that we stop building our future on the foundations of our close past. We can simultaneously recognise what defines the present while we go back to the fundamental questions and try to rebuild our design principles.

Nature nurturing architecture and vice-versa 

In the late 19th century Louis Sullivan stated the famous, rational and functionalist “ Form follows function”. It was only later in the 1960s when Louis Kahn agued that “Function follows form” trying to free himself of the functional rigidity. I would argue that “follow” is a word that doesn’t describe the relationship I see ideal between human beings, needs, technologies, architecture and nature.  Maybe “coexist” or “symbiosis” are more appropriate words. Architecture and technology are slowly merging to their own singularity point. In this process we forget that the organic should take the first place.  In his book “Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life”, Albert Borgman states that technology creates a controlling pattern in our lives. This pattern, discernible even in such an inconspicuous action as switching on a stereo, has global effects: it sharply divides life into labor and leisure, it sustains the industrial democracies, and it fosters the view that the earth itself is a technological device. He argues that technology has served us as well in conquering hunger and disease, but that when we turn to it for richer experiences, it leads instead to a life dominated by effortless and thoughtless consumption. Borgmann does not reject technology but calls for public conversation about the nature of the good life. He counsels us to make room in a technological age for matters of ultimate concern—things and practices that engage us in their own right. Although his discourse is not directly related to architecture, his point can easily be extrapolated. Our definitions of things and concepts change because we evolve constantly. We are right now in a very important historical point. Technology has advanced more in the past hundred years then ever before, but it left behind humanity. I believe that people should change technology, not the other way around; technology should not change our identity. Evolution of architecture could probably include empathy towards nature and human beings and stop trying to build barriers between them. I would research on how technology can help us remove as many of those barriers between us and nature as it can. It is absurd to propose that we should go back to where we were 2000 years ago, when the environment chose for us. But integrating architecture and technology with more sensitivity can help us reconnect with nature. The architect is the driver of the fundamental principles; I propose designing for todays needs and taking advantage of todays possibilities to the maximum, but with nature and the concept of symbiosis in mind.

In his science fiction book “The Jesus Incident”, Frank Herbert deals with concepts such as genetic engineering, artificial intelligence and resource allocation. He described a world very advanced technologically but the built environment in the sense of dwellings and other programmes didn’t exist. The planet has a globally interconnected, sentient plant which all lifeforms on the planet are dependent upon. Just like in “Dune”, the inhabitants had to endure very harsh environments, but rather than building barriers between them and the environment, they learned to use technology to coexist and adapt very efficiently to the surroundings. These stories have more fiction than science in them, but I find the imagined utopias and distopias of science-fiction to be a good source of inspiration, because such products of imagination are completely liberated from the old principles.

To conclude, my point is that rather than using this tool, that is architecture and technology combined, to run away and seal ourselves in from our problematic environment, we could use them to face nature in all its force, beauty and inconveniences.

When we reach the ultimate singularity point, why not integrate nature into it?