IC.3 Advanced Architecture Concepts » Ekaterina Levkina

Relational Logics in the Shape of Energy

Taiesha Edwards — Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:46:55 +0000

Our presentation explores the Metaphorical and Atmospherical Relational Logics through an interactive and metaphorical skit.

California Academy of Science, Renzo Piano

Using an abstract form-able material, we will describe material energies and their potential to take shape according to the climatic forces. We intend to toss this “material energy” into the hands of audience members who then act as the changing environments that transform the material energy.

In the background, a visual will solidify the metaphor of how material energies can inform architecture rather than just exist within it. [Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-BxCtVeQxQ]

As described by Sean Lally’s text, The Shape of Energy, material energies are electromagnetics, thermodynamics, acoustic waves, and chemical interactions. These become building materials that begin to inform the shapes that architecture can take, similar to the way solid-state building materials, like walls, define spatial organizations. In order for architecture to be able/willing to use the physical properties of these energies, it’s geographic edge conditions or shape and value must be recognized, once technological devices harness and release it.

The external variables of these energies become the subject: Variations in climatic context represented by each of you interacts with the material energies, and gives it transformative shape that can adapt at any particular moment. Architecture then is in dialogue with its surrounding environment because it consists of the same material properties, reduced or amplified to fit the needs of spatial organization.

There’s something interesting to be noted in the possibility of material energies creating new spatial typologies that could influence social experiences. So we will then move address an architectural case study that applies similar logics.

Renzo Piano’s California Academy of Science can be analyzed in context with these relational logics. The living roof has skylights that automatically open and close to balance heat ventilation between interior and exterior. Its undulating domes are shaped to draw in cool air and house plant life. The interior rainforest metaphorically, atmospherically, and even through disturbed logic, relates to the 1.7 million native plants that blanket the roof and compose a habitat for a variety of wildlife.

IC3. T5

Ekaterina Levkina — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:12:20 +0000

1969. It was a time when a period of Henry Ford is behind, Post-Fordism was almost passed and 3rd Industrial Revolution was ahead. The powers-that-be was trying to find a new way of developing technologies.
Nicholas Negroponte put forward an idea about machines, which can do not only hard, repetitive work (like machines of 2nd Industrial Revolution) and learn about architecture, but also learn about learning about architecture, developing themselves and be able to forget (!) the information. In 1969 Negroponte didn’t compare the architectural machines and the man. He built a partnership between them as a 2 intelligent systems, which are capable of producing an evolutionary system.
Out of this theory machines were just formidable «clerks», which can do only dull repetitions design task. But his architectural robots, which are consisted from 5 components (a heuristic mechanism, a rote apparatus, a conditioning device, a reward selector and forgetting convenience) and required only 3 properties (event, manifestation and representation), can solve any problem by processing examples: «Currently, a great deal of concern and research effort is placed on the machine-generation of form from a given statement of criteria. For the eyes of an architecture machine, the problem is the opposite; given a form, generate the criteria… learn from the criteria and someday generate new forms.»
As it used to happen in history with philosophical theory, the thing is not in physical creation of the machine, but in a way finding for further developing. The question is not only about architecture, robotics or human psychology. The answer is somewhere in the middle of all of it. Today people are trying to create technological materials and smart structures mimicking nature, so why we can’t create «something» mimicking us?
As for my topic of research, I want to look through attempts of people to mimic themselves. As we all know, every masterpiece has a print of his creator. For inventing an artificial intelligence people need to understand themselves, their sense, their place in this world and breathe life into their creation. Of course, this question has lots of intersections not only with science but with religion also. How far we can go with researching ourselves? And how it will influence on architecture?

Human. Nature. Architecture.

Ekaterina Levkina — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:21:35 +0000

Speaking about 6 relational logics it is important to understand all the components from which these logics consist of. There are only 3 components: human being, environment and architecture, as a catalyst between them. All the 6 logics are made by the combinations and interrelations of these components. The most important thing here is understand which logics do we have in certain project and how they can develop with the time, as it usually happens with every relation. Architecture adapts and changes according to environment. Nature was before us will be after us. Human being is temporary. So all what we need to understand is how to better interact with it.
Philippe Rahm has touched a theme of changing the form and the sense of architecture with the developing technologies and opportunities of modern people. All discussions about importance of form, function or climate are attempts to develop and adapt the architecture according the modern time. The question “who forms whom” human being architecture or architecture human being as a question about the chicken and the egg. Every text, which was mentioned, is a reference to the topic about this relationship between human being and the environment or architecture. Every project is a point of view of certain architect to some questions which were asked to him or herself. For instance, Philippe Rahm thinks that deep understanding of the connection between form, function and climate is the full answer to all the people’s needs. And I agree with him partly because I think that the more correlations we can find between the building and the environment, the more modern, advanced and sustainable architecture we will have. The project «Never, never land» is a result of searching Andres Jaque of a role of architecture in linking the intimate sphere with the sphere of collective. Also it was a searching of «extreme happiness». This fact I’ve found more interesting, than the figure of square meters of the building. Because the question about the people’s happiness has been discussed for a long time and lots of people have trying to answer on it. From the point of view of Andres Jaque’s architects happiness is the Life and all the expressions of it. Including electronic music, synthetic drugs and nudism. Life in the harmony with yourself and the environment. We can see it in forms of this building, in constructions and materials which were chosen. How good this answer is everyone needs to decide to him or herself. From my point of view, I don’t think that this project is a good example of sustainable or advanced architecture. As Philippe Rahm said «sustainable development may be less «visible» than the arrival of reinforced concrete… mainly because it affects not the physical structure or appearance of the building, but rather what we don’t see, what is typically designed «space and energy management». And if we take the «Never, never land» project as a result, we can see that there is no deep searchings and analyze of logics which we’re talking about.
Also I find Rahm’s thoughts about old-fashioned monofunctional approach in architecture noticeable. I absolutely agree that plenty of modern projects are examples of total misunderstanding of the sense of modern architecture. And I can conclude that the projects which most of people can’t understand and feel are a part of advanced architecture. Because exactly they are attempts of developing and searching the role of human being and architecture in the environment and vice versa.
I suppose that the question of these logic relations is endless and all the schemes or categories are tries to systematize the nature. What we can do as an architects? Just try to find our own system which we will think is the best one. I think that analysis of different systems of division on groups according the time is an interesting theme for my own researching.