Deleuze also talks about two key structures, namely “strata” and “self-consistent aggregates” (or “trees” and “rhizomes”, respectively). A good example involves sedimentary rock, which is composed of highly ordered and homogeneous layers of pebbles, but the sorting mechanism that created this architectonic structure – flowing water and gravity – operated quite simply according to basic physical principles. Similarly, the formation of such strata can also be observed within the biological and social realms. To generalize, heterogeneous elements, when affected by a series of operators, or “intercallary elements”, organize accordingly and interlock locally, resulting in organized systems with decreased entropy.

For me, all of this translates simply to the idea that ecosystems (whether physical, chemical, or biological) always strive towards a low-entropy state – the path of least resistance, so to speak. In nature, material is expensive, but shape is cheap, and so forms will naturally evolve according to the most efficient process possible and ultimately arrive at the most efficient configuration possible. I have always been fascinated by how form is dictated by mathematics. In my mind, the human approach to design is often arbitrary, and based on aesthetics and stylistic considerations. When one looks at the amazing creations of nature, one realizes that evolution operates not according to a bigger picture, but based on low entropy mathematics which will always yield the most efficient (and often effective) result. For example, if one examines the ROLEX Learning Centre, designed by SANAA, one will realize that a lot of the design decisions are perhaps arbitrary. Why create a rectangular building with a 9 m x 9 m grid and then cut spheroidal openings into it? Why fourteen openings and not twelve or fifteen? Why this landscape pattern and not another version? However, many aspects have no doubt been carefully considered and efficiently calculated – for example, the curvature of the shells; the divisive effect of the contours, both physically and psychologically; the acoustics throughout the building; the penetration of light; the proportion of all the elements and furniture in the building; and so on. Of course, architects design buildings for people, and since people are capable of complex thought, bodily perception, and emotional experience, not to mention that our buildings must satisfy a wide array of programmes and functions, architectures for people must take these elements into account. Perhaps the mathematics of design for humans is not as simple or as objective as the mathematics of cellular morphogenesis.

Ultimately, I remain curious about developing both architectures and building processes that mimic morphogenetic qualities and remain as efficient and effective as possible throughout all phases of a building’s existence. This reminds me of Sean Lally’s “The Shape of Energy”, where architecture composed of “material energies” can change and adapt, appear and disappear instantaneously, based on climatic conditions and human needs. There is no waste and senselessness – only logic and responsiveness exist in such architectures. How can we accomplish this in the physical realm, with concrete materials? Can we transgress conventional design and instead act as guides for “self-consistent architecture”?

http://homebuilding.thefuntimesguide.com/2008/02/pooktre_tree_shapers.php

Photo: HygroSkin-Meteorosensitive Pavilion, by Achim Menges (2012)

http://www10.aeccafe.com/blogs/arch-showcase/2013/09/17/hygroskin-meteorosensitive-pavilion-in-orleans-france-by-achim-menges-architect/

Manuel DeLanda discuss the bases of Gilles Deleuze thinking of morphogenesis theory and some contributions of Spinoza and Guatarri to this theme.

DeLanda starts explaining the way of thinking of the western philosophers that matter is only defined by external agents and that matter is just a infertile element, a receptacle in which outside forces will construct it shape. According to DeLanda this way of thinking can be seen since the creationism thinking, in which God, an outside person, thinks a specific and final form in which later some matter will be applied. Classical philosophers and classical physics continued this way of thinking, although the last ones began a small but important break on this way of thinking, and endow matter with some spontaneous behavior, like Inertia for instance, but they still reduce the variability and richness of material expression to the concept of mass and studied simple material systems where spontaneous self-generation of form does not occur, and so, the self-generation of form continued to have a lower importance.

But not every western philosopher were not concerned with the transcendental agency that interfere on the morphogenism, and according to DeLanda, Deleuze was one of them. He starts giving some examples of self-generating forms that show that materials have a great importance on the final form that they will have, and that the stable state of matter is the simplest type of immanent action of morphogenesis, because material is organizing itself to become stable using last energy from the enviroment. The two examples are the bubble of soup which appears naturally when the molecules of soup find it minimal surface, or sharp edges polygons, which appear when molecules of salt find its minimal surface shape in an especific circustance. Deleuze uses the therm “Divergent Actualization” of the english philosopher Henri Bergson to explain this. Henri didn’t agree with the current philosophers that had this idea of time as a linear thing, and so the future would be determined by the past. Henri thought that the future is open ended. Deleuze aplied this on his theory saying that external agents continue to interfere in the final shape of matter (the size of the bubble or the dimensions of the rock), but matter itself has this form-finding tendency.

Deleuze applied his morphogenism and form-finding theory to other realms of knowledge. In the empryology he explain that the division of the egg occur because of the the augmentation of free surfaces, with stretching of cellullar layers and invagination by folding. These Thermo dynamics way of thinking could explain that the DNA actually does not act on a inertial matter, but tease the form from an active matter. In geology, mountais made of sedimentary rocks are formed by actualization of layers of small pebbles, in which they form homogeneous layers (sorting – the begining) and then by water activity became the rock (consolidation – the end). Granite is formed by cooling magma which organizes itself based on time of cooling and became strong. Species could be explained by the slow accumulation of genetic materials and Social classes could be explained by the self organization of different roles on the society.

DeLanda has a critic view od Deleuze also, and reminds that there are philosophers who thought a world that exist by itself and without humans, but our world is defined by language. According to him, deleuze is a realist who believes on actual and virtual forms. Also reminds that Deleuze didn’t have all the advances in thermodynamics at the 19th century to provide a reasonable foundation he needed for his philosophy of matter.

The Rolex Learning Center en Lausanne, builded in 2010 with architecture project of SAANA and the structural engineer project of Bollinger + Grohmann, Walther Mory Maier, and BG Ingenieurs Conseils.

The building consists of two shelfs connectec by steel collumns with spaces for libraries, work and cultural activities places. The difference of this project is that the architects designed those shelfs with curvatures sufficient big for a person to pass by and achieve patios where the user could access the new building, creating an architectural landscape with hills and valleys instead of using walls and floors slabs. The surface of those shelfs are the connection with Deleuze, since it was projected by the engineer using form fiding thecnics, optimising the curvature to become a minimal surface with the constraints given by the architect with the inside patios shapes. Although a minimal surface was achieved, the architects haven’t projected a smart building, being the ones that Deleuze would criticize, as they first thought of a final form and a material and later the engineers had to optimize the initial form that they designed to be less wastefull in therms of material and less weak in structural terms. The material is a minimal surface, but with all the constraints that the architects had designed.

In conclusion, as architects, we have to play a more intelligent and honest role in the design field. Maybe not be so drastic as Deleuze, that argued that: “The resources involved in the genesis of form are not transcendental but immanent to matter itself”, since we had to give an answer to different agents during a design process, but also, material matters, especially in a current world with scarce resources.

As an field of research, those swarm behaviours of single elements, the materiality of things, form-fiding process to achieve an already thought shape, or for achieving an form that takes the material to it’s limits are both a very interesting fields. One good example is the HygroSkin-Meteorosensitive Pavilion projected by Achim Menges, Oliver David Krieg, and Steffen Reichert, which consist of a wooden digital fabricated pavilion, which open some small wood windows with the variation of humidity of the environment due to the dilatation of the wood, cut in an specific direction of the fibers.

In his article “The Shape of Energy”, Sean Lally advocates for a new architecture that is based on “material energies”. We are constantly surrounded by different energies – thermodynamic, electromagnetic, acoustic, chemicals – and we take them for granted, but in reality the role which they play in our lives and in influencing our behaviours are just as, if not more important, than our concrete environment. Material energies create boundaries that are fluid and responsive, resulting in a vernacular that is intimately connected to both regional and climatic conditions.

So how would one apply these intangible energies? Unfortunately, while he brings up some very interesting points, Sean Lally has failed to address the practical application of his ideations. One cannot just take energy and build with it. Humans exist in the physical domain, and we do not have a physical grasp on energy. In order to use something as a building block, one must first gain an intimate understanding of the material at hand, and while we may have an intuitive sense of different energies since we are surrounded by and interact with them on a daily basis, we are a far cry from being able to control them, not to mention manipulate them for careful study and experimentation, and eventually incorporate them into our architectural realm.

What I find fascinating is the physical manifestation of energy. Every energy somehow influences the physical environment. Tree wells form because heat generated by trees melts the surrounding snow, and compass needles point north because of the Earth’s magnetic field. Paying attention to changes in the physical environment provides information about surrounding energies as well as changes in energy conditions. A person putting on a sweater might signify a drop in temperature, while the same person, now reading a book, moving from one room to another might suggest an increase in noise or a decrease in light in the former space. By observing such changes in our environment, one can gain much insight into the invisible forces that surround us.

Another compelling thought is that architecture based on material energies would be able to adapt almost instantaneously to changes in the environment or in social programming. Through a feedback relationship between material energies and existing climatic context, an active dialogue would emerge between a building’s environment and its building blocks, with architecture that can either “dissipate on command” or respond accordingly in its shape and configuration. Of course, such a fluid reality is still far away.

It is interesting to view Sou Fujimoto’s House N in light of material energies. The house itself is purist and minimalistic, and in the physical domain it might seem like a purely spatial exercise – that is, three shells nested one inside the other. However, it is not just the walls that create an increased sense of privacy and separation as one moves deeper into the house; the change in light, sound, view planes, temperature, bodily sense of enclosure, etc. all contribute to the gradient that exists through the spaces.

I am of the strong opinion that so long as we do not transgress the physical nature of our corporeal existence, neither will our architecture. However, this does not mean that we cannot study and become more in tune with the forces that we cannot readily control, because we can certainly shape existing energies with solid-state building materials. An example that comes to mind is Philippe Rahm’s Convective Apartments, in which the architecture is designed according to the principle of convection. In this case, it is the existing thermal landscape that has shaped the resulting configuration of the building’s solid elements. Even though the architecture remains static and potentially iconic in its form, this is the first step towards an architecture informed by energy. I would be interested in examining such basic physical and climatic principles in order to generate systematic, vernacular designs that directly reflect their environmental conditions.

http://cloudatlas.wikia.com/wiki/Neo_Seoul