Marjan Colletti, 2013
published in Archithese 3.2013 Weak Materiality, pp. 54-7 plus cover.
I would like to think of architecture as
a coral reef: a colourful, growing colony of individuals that create a fragile
ecosystem, blossoming on strong and solid layers and strata of preceding
populations. As a whole, corals manage to stay alive by constantly sensing and
reacting to the environment; however, they are not capable of assimilating severe
and sudden changes. How about architecture? Is it strong enough to cope with
the extreme necessity to discover more intelligent design, material assembly and
novel fabrication processes; or is it as fragile as corals?
I
use the term ‘fragile’ consciously in order to avoid the expression ‘weak’, as
the latter comes with stronger negative connotations. David
Canter, for example, deemed architecture’s
imprecise organization (and consequently its failure to join the sciences) as
one of its ‘fundamental weaknesses’. He therefore argues that architecture
should associate itself with what are regarded as ‘strong’ disciplines – such as
mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, mechanical engineering, electrical
engineering, computer science, material science, environmental sciences,
agricultural sciences and earth sciences – and learn to self-organize such as
philosophy, psychology, literature and communication sciences.[1]
A weak discipline?
Indeed,
an extensive
list of skills is required to deal with the complexities of the design and
construction processes. According to Roger
K. Lewis architects need to have ‘graphic and
visual skills’, ‘technical aptitude’, ‘verbal skills’, ‘organizational skills’,
‘memory’ and ‘compositional talent’, since it is part of the ‘multi disciplinary
nature’ of architects to be ‘artists, craftspersons, draftspersons,
technologists, social scientists, managers, accountants, historians,
theoreticians, philosophers, gamblers’.[2]
Such demand to acquire some of the knowledge
of other disciplines goes further back in history. Already Vitruvius had strongly
emphasized the necessity of extra-disciplinary knowledge. In De architectura he writes that education
is necessary ‘to leave a more lasting remembrance in his treatises’; the
ability to use the pencil is indispensable to ‘readily make sketches to show
the appearance of the work which he proposes’; while geometry is vital for ‘the
use of the rule and compasses, by which especially we acquire readiness in
making plans for buildings’; history is necessary in the crafting and
explaining of ‘ornamental parts of an architect’s design for a work’;
philosophy ‘renders him courteous, just, and honest without avariciousness’;
music is important to ‘have knowledge of the canonical and mathematical theory,
and, besides, to be able to tune ballistae, catapultae, and scorpions to the
proper key’; medicine is relevant ‘on account of the questions of climates,
air, the healthiness and unhealthiness of sites, and the use of different
waters’; law ‘in the case of buildings having party walls, with regard to water
dripping from the eaves, and also the laws about drains, windows, and water
supply’; and finally, astronomy is essential ‘to have any comprehension of the
theory of sundials’.[3]
Of course catapults and sundials are of less
importance in contemporary architecture, but it seems that the Vitruvian
identikit of the architect as a child of practice and theory has retained its
value. In his Ten Books of Architecture,
practice is articulated as ‘the continuous and regular exercise of employment
where manual work is done with any necessary material according to the design
of a drawing’; theory as ‘the ability to demonstrate and explain the
productions of dexterity on the principles of proportion’.[4]
In our own terms of today we could loosely associate practice with design
techniques and the arts, and theory with research, technics and the sciences.
But there is the caveat: is not such a
capability to infiltrate and to assimilate the knowledge of other disciplines a
sign of openness, of dynamism? Or at least of ‘weakness’ with a positive bias,
in the sense intended by Mark Cousin’s encouraging description of architecture
as a ‘weak discipline’?[5] A
discipline, that with its undefined and irresolute boundaries and its interest
in relations and interactions, can proudly stand in opposition to strong
disciplines with precise and visible boundaries? Is it not in our interest to
stop working in silos? I therefore opt for the term fragile, as
opposed to weak. It is less derogatory and certainly more delicate, elegant and
subtle.
(Fr)agility: Volution
and Convolution
<gs>But
why fragile? Openness, dynamism, hybridity, all terms imply or require
fragility. Furthermore, fragile includes the term ‘agile’ – whose meaning
suggests responsiveness, alertness!
How interesting is it then, that in Latin
languages, buildings are referred to as immobile things (e.g. immobile in Italian or Immobilie in German)? However, if there
is a clear dividing line between buildings and architecture, it is openness:
from the Greek temple to the Pantheon, from the Gothic cathedral to the
Barcelona Pavilion, from Lloyds in London to the Vitra Fire Station, from the
Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao to the BMW World in Munich, from the Yokohama Port
Terminal to the Oslo Opera House etc.
Let me explain this by
introducing the concepts of Volution [Latin volvere,
voltus, to turn] and Convolution
[Latin convolvere, convolutum, to roll together].
In my opinion, the first term accurately describes
the attempt to transcend a fixed self-description and self-placement of the
discipline. It professes dynamism, agility and openness in terms of
philosophical bias, methodological idiosyncrasy and most of all, architectural
production. There is possibly no way to disagree with Neil Leach that ‘the way
in which we engage with architecture must therefore be seen not as a static
condition, but as a dynamic process’.[6]
The latter term, on the other hand, introduces
the concepts of synthesis and hybridity. Convolution is used in optics to
describe effects of blur appearing in cast shadows, or in out-of-focus
photographs, and in physics and linear algebra to describe a field of
superposition (that is, either a combination of linear systems, or the sum of
interferences, displacements or responses caused by two or more agents). Its
various appropriate meanings delineate the concepts of 1) blurring the
boundaries of the discipline; 2) overlapping theory and practice, design and
fabrication; 3) interference, inter- and multidisciplinarity; 4) multilinearity
of design processes: it goes without saying that design is synthetic by nature,
as it involves various scales, media, expertise fields, disciplines,
technologies, techniques, materials etc.
Neo Materialism
In
fact, I would argue that the history of architecture is also a history of
materials, material innovation, material assembly and fabrication and how they
have drastically changed the discipline. It applies to the material integration
of stone, concrete, steel, glass, digital matter and will apply to hitherto
unknown material discoveries of the future.
In a contemporary debate, materiality as a
driving force of innovation is reflected in a post-cyber, post-virtual, post-fluid
and post-digital paradigm shift towards Neo Materialism. Neo Materialism marks
the ambition to escape from the socially unsustainable, virtual and cyber
architectural visions of the early days, as well as from the standardised,
off-the-shelf and environmentally as well as financially unsustainable
architectural production methods of the past towards innovative applied
theories, techniques and technologies. On account of new demands of the
economical and ecological crisis it is understandable that architects’
subjectivity and idiosyncrasy are scrutinised. However, I will not subscribe to
a total dismissal of these values! An over-rational misguidance of the
discipline throughout these paradigm changes can bring architecture to lose its
open and dynamic nature, which sets it apart from the building industry.
The pressing questions today are
no longer concerned with providing theories of cyberspace or virtuality. After
the initial period of definition and discovery of disembodied virtual
realities, data-scapes and cyberworlds, the endeavour and challenge for this
generation of creative thinkers is to fully engage with the actuality of
digital technologies. Today we understand that social media and
telecommunication technologies do not exist in a detached, virtual and cyber
sphere. They are a fully integrated part of everyday living, they are fully
tactile: swiping on a smartphone’s screen is a physical experience.
Initially, cybernetics and
virtual reality had brought forth a belief in architecture underpinned by the
complete disembodiment of cyberspace, culminating in an almost quasi-religious
myth of total liberation from physical limitations (think of the goggles or
data gloves for example). The liberation from the body allowed artists and
architects to dream of unheard potentialities. However, early 21st
century architectural design postulates material truth and parametric certainty
as core functions of design, rather than cyberworlds. By rethinking real and
physical processes of design and fabrication, architecture itself has performed
a u-turn. In the tug of war of actual body versus virtual phantom, body wins.
Matter matters, more than ever.
Consequently, despite the
bewildering variety of the contemporary digital architectural debate, the most
pressing questions are concerned with providing a novel practice and theory of
actual applicability; of cultural production through design production as well
as machinic production.
Towards
an active Passive House: ProtoRobotic FOAMing
Because of this trajectory from
matter to substance, from virtual imagery to machinic fabrication, the term Neo
Materialism could be used to define this era of real-world physical production
and a new post-digital paradigm based on evolving processes including
file-to-factory protocols, material science and biotechnologies.
Some
of the most relevant research in contemporary architecture is targeted at the
translation of digital aesthetics – be it formal exuberance, geometric complexity
or parametric ornamentation – via post-digital ethics as the integration of a consciousness
aimed at the environment to the implementation of Neo Material design and
fabrication processes – [CNC] machines, Rapid Prototyping [RP] technologies and
industrial as well as soft robotics – in architecture.
ProtoRobotic
FOAMing is an example of Neo Materialist design-research, which
I initiated in collaboration with marcosandmarjan, the REX|LAB and the
Institute of Experimental Architecture at the University of Innsbruck Austria, Grymsdyke
Farm, and the Bartlett School of Architecture UCL London. It is a series of
design-research prototypes, all fabricated in foam by CNC machines and robots.
The title summarizes the twofold objectives of this design-research:
ProtoRobotic:
The project looks at the potential of earliest forms (Greek prōtos) of robotic fabrication in
architecture in the attempt to start bridging the gaps in scale, price and expertise
between relatively simply achievable RP models and 1:1 architectural production
by CNC equipment (i.e. milling machines, multi-material 3D printing machines)
as well as multi-axial MultiMove robotic systems, such as REX|LAB at the
University of Innsbruck, Austria.
FOAMing
suggests that an architecturally more challenging and original alternative may
be found to the Passive House guidelines, which recommend thick layers of insulation to be either sandwiched between
cavity walls or between wall and outer surface-material such as render. The
research investigates the possibilities of design freedom and morphological
manipulation that result from freeing and extroverting an insulation material
such as blown foam boards from these cavity walls. This research proposes how we could take advantage of the enormous
geometric potential given by digital design tools and CNC technologies to apply
ornamentation, geometry and texture onto these large surfaces, which could
partly be indoors, as well as outdoors. This would open up new possibilities to
architects and designers to design facades in more 3D terms, as the thickness
of the foam allows for more complex shapes and textures. Furthermore, this
approach makes the retro-fitting of badly performing buildings more
design-attentive and precise: with the implementation of thermo imaging and 3D
scanning, precise bespoke facades can be designed to accurately fit existing
conditions.
At the
same time the research investigates foam as agile malleable and soft material
(as found in regular tubes), too. Mixed with additives, such unstructured mass
can be stretched into stiff yet light, filamentous and porous and fragile structures.
The combination of the openness of fully controlled robotic movements,
semi-controlled material mixtures and unpredictable morphogenetic behaviour is
challenging. However, clear pattern of biomimetic formations emerge, with
stunning similarities to natural biological systems. Simply put: FOAMing
manages to simulate in analogue complex accelerated biological growth
algorithms such as bone structures, plants, tissue, sponges and corals.
Without
doubt, foam, despite its rising share in used building materials is considered
a weak material in architecture: it has no historic value and has been used to
fake real materials or – think of fun parks and many replica grottos
around the world – to fake whole environments. But I hope that ProtoRobotic FOAMing may demonstrate
that foam has ‘strong’ potentialities, with all its (fr)agility.
So, is architecture as fragile as a coral reef, then? Can
it react to the dramatic environmental changes that the planet faces? Partly.
Partly, because architecture is not
capable of assimilating extreme sudden changes. Despite all progress in
technology architecture remains a rather slow profession. Perhaps Vitruvius had
already understood this. Both, in terms of practice – the procurement and
delivery processes of buildings are very complex and intricate – and in terms
of theory – its historic duty, especially in mainland Europe, was to categorise
and provide order. Architecture as a discipline is fragile, but it becomes weak
(yes, in the bad sense) if it does not adjust to open systems, constant change
and blurry boundaries. Weak at understanding and producing culture. The
discipline needs to overcome stasis and establish a theoretical context for
change that integrates cultural and social changes (which are stronger than
order), too. Considering how much digitality had been theorised before the
profession was ready to fully engage with digital fabrication processes, this
project needs to be started. Partly, because architecture can be agile enough
to respond to the global call for higher design intelligence, material
efficiency, and energy consumption. But it needs support – it cannot evolve
without the aid of the other disciplines.
So in this sense, architecture remains
fragile. To keep it intact and beautiful as both practice and theory it must be
granted flexible boundaries and openness. As Ovid, a near contemporary of
Vitruvius, stated: ‘Beauty is a fragile gift’. And (fr)agility, a beautiful
gift.
Author:
Univ.-Prof. Marjan
Colletti, PhD (*1972, Bozen) is an architect, teacher, researcher and theorist.
He is full University Professor at Innsbruck University, where he is Head of
the Institute of Experimental Architecture (Hochbau and studio3) and of
REX|LAB; and tenured Associate Professor at the Bartlett, where he is currently
acting MArch Architecture programme director, MArch Unit 20 master, MArch GAD
research cluster 2 leader, and PhD supervisor. He has taught in several schools
in Europe (Innsbruck, Oslo, Copenhagen, Paris, Vienna), the UK (Bartlett,
University of Westminster, Royal College of Art, KIAD), and Asia (Feng Chia
University, Tunghai
University Taiwan). He is author of the forthcoming design-research theory book
Digital Poetics, and was editor of
the 80th anniversary issue of Architectural Design entitled Exuberance. He is co-founder of the
architectural studio marcosandmarjan
in London.
