Digital Logics _ T3

Case study  Blur Building_Yveron Les Bains

Text  Rhizome_ Thousand Plateaus by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari

The Blur Building is a pavilion for Swiss EXPO 2002 at the base of Lake Neuchatel in Yverdon-les-Bains, in Switzerland. From a distance, this indistinct structure resembles a cloud of mist and pumped air, emerging dynamically over a lake. But can it be defined as an architectural result? The answer depends on the way you perceive architecture. The meaning of this atmospheric concept cannot be captured unless you consider it as a living experience in space and time. The interaction with its environment is much more intense than in a regular structure. Inside it you lose the sense of dimension and gravity. Shape is formed according to the movements of humans inside a huge cloud of fog created by molecules of water. This experimental space is adjusting to the weather conditions constantly, through a smart system that translates weather data in pumping pressure and as a result density of fog. Water is the primary element. It constitutes the constructive material of every boundary formed inside this structure. It is an attempt to redefine the boundaries between human and nature, while at the same time, realigning social relationships.

The concept is that inside this experimental amorphous space, dominated by mist, visual and acoustic ability are lost. As well as the sense of space and time. Entering from a stair that emerges through fog, humans have to concentrate and rely on their senses in order to be guided around the building. The interaction between the users is accomplished according to an intelligent system. Visitors are required to fill a questionnaire just before they enter the project. According to it, they wear coats with sensors that prove the degree of attraction and repulsion between them, by using emissions of different colors, visible through the fog.

Regarding digital logics, associativity between part to whole is evident, as through this structure you experience yourself in relation to the other visitors. You establish your presence and position through the presence of others. Transformation sequences is also observed as the amount of fog is changing constantly, adapting to both the environment and the visitors. The pressure of water in the nozzles depends on different parameters such as climate conditions and human interaction, creating in this way algorithmic relations. There is also structural correspondence to both the weather conditions and the visitors, as well as the transference of data in and out of the structure using sensors to capture climate changes and sensors for visitors’ interaction.

This deeply philosophical text, written by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, introduces rhizome, as a concept that allows studying different notions perceiving them as multiples, individual parts connected to an undifferentiated whole with no beginning nor end, editable and mutable every single moment. The whole is related to the individual parts. In case one condition changes different results are produced, creating different versions of the same whole. A rhizome reacts constantly to its environment, adjusting to it.

Five main principles emerge through this text. Multiplicity claiming that multiple should be perceived as a substantive, treated as an undifferentiated whole and not as a unity of many different particles. Points and positions are not visible in this way of analyzing a structure. Only lines are countable and attached to the sense of dimension. It refers to the flattening of all the multiplicities on a single plane, regardless of their quantities. The necessity of connection and heterogeneity of every single point to the rest of the points, is another main principle pointed out. A rhizome differs from roots simulation or a typical tree branching as it is not possible to find any kind of origins in it. It is not a closed system. It is an ever-changing unit. You can identify it and perceive its possible different versions only by observing the behavior of its different particles or through different dimensions. Another important principle indicated through this text is that of asignifying rupture. Contrary to the signifying shapes separating a structure creating in this way a definite cutting section of the whole, when a rhizome is broken it redefines its boundaries forming new rhizomes, new multiples. When a rhizome is raptured the old lines from which it is consisted of, create new ones, still connected to each other, forming new rhizomes. Thus, a rhizome cannot be destroyed. However the result of the division of the parts cannot be always defined accurately. The last principles mentioned in the text are those of cartography and decalcomania, indicating that a rhizome cannot be analyzed using axes, or an organized structure. The processes of mapping and tracing are essential in order to comprehend the notion of rhizome. What distinguishes mapping from tracing is that they do not associate in the same way with reality. A map constructs a subconscious image, open to further processing, able to receive new data and connect to different dimensions. It has multiple entries, in comparison to the procedure of tracing that focuses to a specific element, related to reality, returning always to its essential point.

Both case studies signify the importance of the role of the different particles that constitute a whole unity in its final shape or condition. Both of them also depend on multiple parameters that change constantly the shape or form of the whole. They also have the ability to receive new data and adjust to the circumstances occurring each time.

As a further research line, according to the case study and text mentioned above, I would like to explore further, how different parameters and the entering of new data taken by the environment, influence the shape and form of an interactive structure, always perceived as a concept of continuous alterations rather than a static building.

Case study: View House, by Diego Arraigada and Johnston Marklee

Text: The architecture of atmosphere, by Mark Wigley

Pictures presenting the constant interaction of nature and inhabitants in their daily activities

References: http://www.topboxdesign.com/view-house-in-rosario-argentina/view-house-interior-1/ , http://www.archimodes.com/view-house-by-johnston-marklee-diego-arraigada-arquitecto-in-rosario-argentina/view-house-interior-glass-wall/

View House, designed by Diego Arraigada and Johnston Marklee, is a two floor, curved building located in Argentina. Its design constitutes an attempt to redefine the relationship between inhabitants and the surrounding environment, by redrawing the architectural boundary between residence and nature. This building consisting of a continuous façade, rather than multiple, has a shape that eliminates the disadvantage of favorable and unfavorable views, redefining constantly the relationship between the interior and the exterior. The main purpose of the architects is to relate the inside daily activities with the outside natural environment, while at the same time maintain the required privacy of a residential space. This is obvious, considering the inclusion of the building at the corner of the plot, associated with its shape, the direction of the desired viewports and its subtracted parts. The geometric subtractions, the position of the openings as well as the interior design create the illusion of a dynamic spiral upward movement. In this building we can identify three different types of architectural relations.

First, positional relation, indicated through the orientation of the building towards the surrounding trees, and a conspicuous attempt to take distance from the neighbouring houses. In this case, the proximity of the trees and the buildings determines the relationship between the habitat and its environment. The atmospherical relation is pointed out by the main concept of the design. The architects, acting as film directors, create a plot in which every single natural area outside the house constitutes the scenery of daily activities taking place inside the house. Residents are invited to interact with nature all around the building, in every single room. Trees are used as architectural materials, defining the shape, the volume, the orientation and position in the design process. Another kind of relation observed is that of intangible relation. The leveling of the building in relation to the height of the trees, is evident through the location of the openings either on the ground or the upper floor, according to the surrounding vegetation. The element of light has been also used as an architectural tool in order to emphasize both the circumferential view and the upward spiral movement.

“The architecture of atmosphere” written by Mark Wigley, analyses the relation between the buildings and their natural or ambient environment. Atmosphere has an abstract notion. It has no definition. It depends on emotions and differential perceptions of our surroundings. Therefore, it is almost impossible for an architect to control it. Many architects have been trying continuously to impose on architectural atmosphere according to their specific vision, most times resulting in creating unpredictable or unsuccessful effects. Atmosphere cannot be defined from the architect. Different factors such as human and nature concur the designed environment, giving new meaning and uses to the constructed space. On the other hand, constructing an atmosphere when building a structure is inevitable. Even by rejecting its existence, subconsciously, you end up creating a particular atmosphere. Good atmosphere is associated with an ideal architecture, forcing architects to attach particular attention to the way they manipulate the surrounding environment.

The atmosphere is used as an architectural element, as a tool in an architect’s pallet. In reality, constructing a building results in constructing an atmosphere. It seems as the building itself constitutes a mold for the surrounding atmosphere. What it is actually experienced is the atmosphere created, not the object itself. It is the atmosphere created by architects and determined by the ambient environment that influences our daily lives. Surfaces produce atmosphere, creating different sceneries in the interior and exterior of the buildings. The architect as another film director creates a specific scenery using special effects in his drawings, pre-visualizing a specific concept for the built and unbuilt area, an illustration of the future plan for it. Architectural designs, as every representational technique, are an attempt to create simulations of the atmospheric environment that surrounds the building, an effort to define atmosphere.

What it is indicated, in both case study and text, is that no matter how much the architects try to control the different elements consisting a building, such as atmosphere and architectural sceneries, human and natural elements turn out to rewrite the plot, creating their own relationship with space, leaving architects helpless to have complete control on the design and assert through all the different factors interacting with the building through time.

Regarding a personal research topic, I would like to investigate the possible evolution of the boundaries set between the interior and the exterior of a building, depending on the environmental and social changes, as well as the technological progress. The design of buildings that deny the traditional boundaries between human and nature, using more innovative ones, offering the ability of the inhabited shell to interact with its ambient and natural environment.