Today we clarified some of the issues around the difference between extensive and intensive properties. Extensive and intensive are different ways of conceiving of property. Fro Delanda it is differences in intesive properites that drive change and therefore organization and therefor form. In Wolfram change is manifest in . . . ?Here it is not so clear that we can say something remotely similar. And yet the type of change, that is, symmetry breaking, is just as phenomenal. The difference between the two authors just I'd this: Delanda is referring to thermodynamic process and in biology toplogical and chemical properties but in Wolfram change is an expression of the iteration of the rules. That seems confounding.
For next week we are going to act out the differences between the two systems; this time in terms of emergence and complexity as well as symmetry-breaking. I'l put on the server Philip Ball for those working on the side of physics and dynamical systems. For those working on the computational side use Casti.
Please send me a paragraph of what interests you in terms of the course, one of the readings, or a contemporary problem, and I'll reply with a topic and brief strategy for your final paper that will be based on a question.
Design Office for Research and Architecture
68 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
USA
646-575-2287
petermacapia@labdora.com
http://labdora.com/
http://atlas.labdora.com/
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
COMPLEXITY
Greg Lynn states, “The difference between the reductive tendencies of Cartesianism and the unfolding logic of Leibniz is that reductivism is expedient and crude compared with the creative, vital elegance of combinatorial multiplicity.” I love it.
Anyway, DeLanda, Casti, Wolfram and Lynn explore the issue of complexity. These authors seem to be on the same boat but on different sides of it. While it seems to me that there are similarities in the ways that they perceive and strive for complexity, there are also differences. It seems that emergence is of priority for each. One underlying difference though is in the way that emergence….emerges. LOL.
For DL it seems to always be about generational reproduction with the author creating complex and clever inputs and sorting and eliminating outputs, a glorified breeder. It seems that for Wolfram and Casti, the complexity achieved by CA and other such phenomena relies only on simple rules and simple outputs. The complexity and reproduction of the system relies on internal logic not external forces. None of the above mentioned authors seem to be as form hungry as Lynn. He discusses a model of complexity that relates directly to Leibniz. Complexity seems to be achieved through interaction and interconnectedness, “combinatorial multiplicities” and the intensities of “singularities”.
Anyway, DeLanda, Casti, Wolfram and Lynn explore the issue of complexity. These authors seem to be on the same boat but on different sides of it. While it seems to me that there are similarities in the ways that they perceive and strive for complexity, there are also differences. It seems that emergence is of priority for each. One underlying difference though is in the way that emergence….emerges. LOL.
For DL it seems to always be about generational reproduction with the author creating complex and clever inputs and sorting and eliminating outputs, a glorified breeder. It seems that for Wolfram and Casti, the complexity achieved by CA and other such phenomena relies only on simple rules and simple outputs. The complexity and reproduction of the system relies on internal logic not external forces. None of the above mentioned authors seem to be as form hungry as Lynn. He discusses a model of complexity that relates directly to Leibniz. Complexity seems to be achieved through interaction and interconnectedness, “combinatorial multiplicities” and the intensities of “singularities”.
INTENSITY
It seems that the whole name the game here, is Intensive properties. Extensive properties are basically that which are rationally divisible. Length, width, mass, these are divisible properties and are extensive. Temperature is not divisible and is not extensive. Neither is pressure, speed, or force. These properties are only modified by actions not by Boolean operations. This seems to go back to metric and non-metric properties.
Anyway. Intensive properties are what we seem to be after here the mapping and relating to critically understood phenomena or event. Matter then, is in a constant state of becoming and the “building” or “blob” or physical manifestation of a manifold diagram, becomes a result of its own multidimensional topological diagram. So then Intensities, of phenomena, of patterning, of matter are what drives forms. Intensive pressures seem to form matter and extensive properties are then used to measure and quantify this matter.
Anyway. Intensive properties are what we seem to be after here the mapping and relating to critically understood phenomena or event. Matter then, is in a constant state of becoming and the “building” or “blob” or physical manifestation of a manifold diagram, becomes a result of its own multidimensional topological diagram. So then Intensities, of phenomena, of patterning, of matter are what drives forms. Intensive pressures seem to form matter and extensive properties are then used to measure and quantify this matter.
Delanda's Intensity
When I heard Delanda speaking about intensity he also mentioned critical mass. When the temperature of water reaches a certain point it changes state. There is something more critical occurring at 32 than at 42 deg F. If extensive relationships are measurable, quantifiable, then there can be moments in that quantification where the quality is measurable, thus the moment of intensity. Is that a legitimate reading? Intensities occur through extensive relationships at key moments? Intensity is then the dependent variable while extensities are independent?
Delanda v. Wolfram
Delanda and Wolfram are almost temporally opposed when it comes to the notion of intensity. Delanda cites the medieval philosophical concept of intensive vs. extensive thinking to explain the difference between that which can be subdivided and that which cannot (intensive being the latter). He further points out that since differences in intensity can have the ability of canceling each other out, they can drive change in a system and ultimately become a productive force.
Wolfram never really uses the word intensity (or intense, or intensive), but the notion underlies his description of his cellular automata. His tipping point is sneakier to find, but there is a moment when particular rules create something completely unexpected and unpredictable. It could be said that the point at which the rule becomes unquantifiable is a moment of intensity.
Delanda sees intensity as a defined property. Wolfram sees it as a happy accident.
Wolfram never really uses the word intensity (or intense, or intensive), but the notion underlies his description of his cellular automata. His tipping point is sneakier to find, but there is a moment when particular rules create something completely unexpected and unpredictable. It could be said that the point at which the rule becomes unquantifiable is a moment of intensity.
Delanda sees intensity as a defined property. Wolfram sees it as a happy accident.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Differentiation
In reading the DeLanda essays on Deleuze, both the case for modeling software and the essay for Deleuze and genetic algorithm, DeLanda seems to reintroduce the idea of a dynamical system consistent with basic notions of thermodynamics, mathematical physics, change, etc. But when he gets to the very idea of genetic algorithm what does he actually say about algorithm? What for him is aglorithmic and where is it operative in his discussion? Now, compare this, also with Wolfram's essay in which he discusses complexity in terms of algorithm or primitive computational rules.
Here's a question i'd like you to answer by Tuesday: both authors discuss complexity and transformation and change -- in a sense, they both point to the notion of intensity as a point in which one system flips over into a different organization -- but what is the difference between the way in which they present this?
Think of how this relates to the quesiton of the dsicrete and the continuous.
Here's a question i'd like you to answer by Tuesday: both authors discuss complexity and transformation and change -- in a sense, they both point to the notion of intensity as a point in which one system flips over into a different organization -- but what is the difference between the way in which they present this?
Think of how this relates to the quesiton of the dsicrete and the continuous.
Discrete and Continuous
Discrete is a form of mathematics and a ring setting on my phone. Synonyms that come to mind: subtle, passive, separated, finite, limited.
Continuous can be seen as the opposite. Synonyms include topology, morphing, articulated, connected. It seems that "continuous" is not as mathematical as discrete and in our topology/euclidean geometry binary, it doesn't quite work out as a ying and a yang. Discrete and continuous sound more like a ying and a yong, if that means anything.
Somehow, discrete seems more accurate in our dialogue while continuous being too general.
I am looking into the words perhaps a little too much, but looking nonetheless..
Continuous can be seen as the opposite. Synonyms include topology, morphing, articulated, connected. It seems that "continuous" is not as mathematical as discrete and in our topology/euclidean geometry binary, it doesn't quite work out as a ying and a yang. Discrete and continuous sound more like a ying and a yong, if that means anything.
Somehow, discrete seems more accurate in our dialogue while continuous being too general.
I am looking into the words perhaps a little too much, but looking nonetheless..
Saturday, November 22, 2008
/ / / (discrete) & ----- (continuous)
Wikipedia, mathematically speaking, has some things to say:
/ / /
Discrete mathematics, also called finite mathematics, is the study of mathematical structures that are fundamentally discrete, in the sense of not supporting or requiring the notion of continuity. Most, if not all, of the objects studied in finite mathematics are countable sets, such as integers, finite graphs, and formal languages. Discrete mathematics has become popular in recent decades because of its applications to computer science. Concepts and notations from discrete mathematics are useful to study or describe objects or problems in computer algorithms and programming languages.
-----
In mathematics, a continuous function is a function for which, intuitively, small changes in the input result in small changes in the output. Otherwise, a function is said to be discontinuous. A continuous function with a continuous inverse function is called bicontinuous. An intuitive though imprecise (and inexact) idea of continuity is given by the common statement that a continuous function is a function whose graph can be drawn without lifting the chalk from the blackboard.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Thom
NotesReneThom
Some main points about Thom
First, keep in mind that it is a theory of models – and this is always an interesting problem, which is how it takes up a model of meaning.
The general background to this is really biology: “a system of forms in evolution constitutes a formalizable process if . . . “
At the same time, we are talking about the sciences in general, hence the quote of D’ARchy Thompson. But note how that quote institutes one of the main problems of mathematics in the modern era, which is the study of patterns, as opposed to what we previously considered mathematical, that is the treatment of numbers.
Thompson makes this distinction between form and pattern explicity.
Then, note the title of the subchapters: Succession of form; Science, and the indeterminism of pheonena, Qualitative or quantitative, etc.
In otherwords Thom is pointing to a main problem which in a sense constitutes all scientific inquiry – foresee the change of form and “if possible,” explain it.
Its important to see how Thom introduces the notion of a model to formalize the space of change. And it is also important to understand that the model has two elements: topology and calculus. It is interesting in this to see him refer to Descartes and Newton in this context, specifically since it introduces the problem of the quantitative (Descartes and Newton) but in different ways. “Descartes, with his vortices, hi hooked atoms and the like explained everything and calculated nothing; Newton, wit hthe inverse square law of gravitation, acluated eeryting and explained nothing.”
The point his is really about how to quantify quality, how do you explain transformations in quality. “With the exception of the grandiose, profound, but rather vague ideas of Anaximander and Heraclitus, the fir pre-Coscrativ philosophers, all these thoereis rely on the experience of solid bodies in three-dimensional Euclidean space.” And, according to Thom, this is insufficient to explain the intensity of phenomena.
The then goes on to justify this problem of the formal model exactly by evacuating from it the Euclidean notion of space and of objects in space (recall our initial discussions of the ontological “limits” of Euclidean geometry). Hence the introduction of another, unlimited, formalizable space, which is topological – a manifold. “We therefore endeavor to free out intuition from three-dimensional experience and to use much more general, richer, dyamical contps, which will in fact be independe of the configuration spaces.” Keep in mind how architecture problematically exploits the topological model Thom introduces by the very fact that it returns it directly to Euclidean space.
Note that the catastrophe models that he elaborates are only local models, and there is no universal model. That’s one of the important distinctions from previous models. The second is that the model accounts for change, namely catastrophic change. This is what differential analysis (calculus) could not explain. Calculus treats of dynamical systems (which are continuous) and the rate of change as long as that change is continuous. But it cannot account for a discontinuous system.
Morphogenesis just is the discontinuity of a system.
It is that which leads to change, growth, and alteration.
Note how this notion, still based in mathematical physics, though now of a qualititative rather than quantitative stance, will constrast heavily with the algorithmic notions we are about to encounter.
Some main points about Thom
First, keep in mind that it is a theory of models – and this is always an interesting problem, which is how it takes up a model of meaning.
The general background to this is really biology: “a system of forms in evolution constitutes a formalizable process if . . . “
At the same time, we are talking about the sciences in general, hence the quote of D’ARchy Thompson. But note how that quote institutes one of the main problems of mathematics in the modern era, which is the study of patterns, as opposed to what we previously considered mathematical, that is the treatment of numbers.
Thompson makes this distinction between form and pattern explicity.
Then, note the title of the subchapters: Succession of form; Science, and the indeterminism of pheonena, Qualitative or quantitative, etc.
In otherwords Thom is pointing to a main problem which in a sense constitutes all scientific inquiry – foresee the change of form and “if possible,” explain it.
Its important to see how Thom introduces the notion of a model to formalize the space of change. And it is also important to understand that the model has two elements: topology and calculus. It is interesting in this to see him refer to Descartes and Newton in this context, specifically since it introduces the problem of the quantitative (Descartes and Newton) but in different ways. “Descartes, with his vortices, hi hooked atoms and the like explained everything and calculated nothing; Newton, wit hthe inverse square law of gravitation, acluated eeryting and explained nothing.”
The point his is really about how to quantify quality, how do you explain transformations in quality. “With the exception of the grandiose, profound, but rather vague ideas of Anaximander and Heraclitus, the fir pre-Coscrativ philosophers, all these thoereis rely on the experience of solid bodies in three-dimensional Euclidean space.” And, according to Thom, this is insufficient to explain the intensity of phenomena.
The then goes on to justify this problem of the formal model exactly by evacuating from it the Euclidean notion of space and of objects in space (recall our initial discussions of the ontological “limits” of Euclidean geometry). Hence the introduction of another, unlimited, formalizable space, which is topological – a manifold. “We therefore endeavor to free out intuition from three-dimensional experience and to use much more general, richer, dyamical contps, which will in fact be independe of the configuration spaces.” Keep in mind how architecture problematically exploits the topological model Thom introduces by the very fact that it returns it directly to Euclidean space.
Note that the catastrophe models that he elaborates are only local models, and there is no universal model. That’s one of the important distinctions from previous models. The second is that the model accounts for change, namely catastrophic change. This is what differential analysis (calculus) could not explain. Calculus treats of dynamical systems (which are continuous) and the rate of change as long as that change is continuous. But it cannot account for a discontinuous system.
Morphogenesis just is the discontinuity of a system.
It is that which leads to change, growth, and alteration.
Note how this notion, still based in mathematical physics, though now of a qualititative rather than quantitative stance, will constrast heavily with the algorithmic notions we are about to encounter.
Re: Seminar
maybe we should all just meet at our birthday party saturday night. you all thought deleuze wrote like he was drinking anyway, right . . .
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Peter Macapia <peter.dora@tmo.blackberry.net> wrote:
Hi everyone, thanks for getting back to me. Renee has asked if we could meet any time after 5 on Sunday, that's fine with me, but not sure about the others, if that doesn't work, let's consider Saturday. Anyhow, yes, there is a 15 page paper due for the class. I mentioned it previously, but we've been focused primarily on the issues. The topic is architecture and toplogy. There is a lot of material to choose from. Let me know your ideas. As for the next set of readings I've adjusted them, but they are now on the server. Here's what we have for Sun (or Sat): a wrap up discussion of the digital toplogy material and intensity. I'd like you to read the Delanda essay for this Deleuze and genetic algorithm, Delanda essay for Modeling Software, and Wolfram essay how do simple programs behave. In addition I'd each of you to look up the terms "discrete" and "continuous" and write a very short blog entry on that. The readings for Tuesday are alos on the server and they are Chu and the Rocker essays.
Ok, thanks
P
Design Office for Research and Architecture
68 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
USA
646-575-2287
petermacapia@labdora.com
http://labdora.com/
http://atlas.labdora.com/
Seminar
Hi everyone, thanks for getting back to me. Renee has asked if we could meet any time after 5 on Sunday, that's fine with me, but not sure about the others, if that doesn't work, let's consider Saturday. Anyhow, yes, there is a 15 page paper due for the class. I mentioned it previously, but we've been focused primarily on the issues. The topic is architecture and toplogy. There is a lot of material to choose from. Let me know your ideas. As for the next set of readings I've adjusted them, but they are now on the server. Here's what we have for Sun (or Sat): a wrap up discussion of the digital toplogy material and intensity. I'd like you to read the Delanda essay for this Deleuze and genetic algorithm, Delanda essay for Modeling Software, and Wolfram essay how do simple programs behave. In addition I'd each of you to look up the terms "discrete" and "continuous" and write a very short blog entry on that. The readings for Tuesday are alos on the server and they are Chu and the Rocker essays.
Ok, thanks
P
Design Office for Research and Architecture
68 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
USA
646-575-2287
petermacapia@labdora.com
http://labdora.com/
http://atlas.labdora.com/
Ok, thanks
P
Design Office for Research and Architecture
68 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
USA
646-575-2287
petermacapia@labdora.com
http://labdora.com/
http://atlas.labdora.com/
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
'n_10_city
Ok, I'm cheating because I read Peter's round-up post of everyone else's posts. I am also cheating because last class we made a lists of words and I shall now steal some lists of words from other people in the pursuit of defining intensity.
Besides the fact that he spells realization funny, CB is specifically chronicling the Arnhem Transfer Hall which he is consulting on with BvB (which is in fact the frontispiece of the BvB article). I would peg this quote directly as a Balmond definition of intensity when he looks ahead to “New Territories”:
“When [the] connectivity is seamless... zones of confluence, aggregations, overlaps and bandwidths, become a new language for structure.”
Within the topic of “Texture, Fields, and Techniques,” BvB speaks of various infrastructures (not purely structural) by saying:
“Infrastructural layers may be classified, calculated, and tested individually, then interwoven to achieve both effective flux and effective interaction.”
The GL article “Geometry in Time” defines his attitude clearly when he discusses all that 3d modeling and animation tools bring to architecture:
“The linkages between these characteristics of time, topology, and parameters combine to establish the virtual possibilities for designing in animate rather than static space.”
We discussed PE in a lot of detail already, but for Rebstock his definition of intensity would be derived from his definition of the fold:
“By introducing the concept of the fold as a nondialectical third condition, one which is between figure and ground yet reconstitutes the nature of both, it is possible to refocus or reframe what already exists in any site.”
And finally for RT, who is simply interested in advancing a mathematical theory, implies elements of intensity by the way in which he derives the construction of his model:
“From a macroscopic examination of the morphogenesis of a process and a local and global study of its singularities, we can try to reconstruct the dynamic that generates it.”
All in all a similar theme is the need to define a new (pick one): language, interaction, possibility, concept, or dynamic. Intensity could be viewed or defined within the framework of any of the preceding terms as a result of the “new.”
Intensity
I think its interesting given Daniel's take on Balmond, that intensity would have to be legible in the form of a curve. Daniel, is that what Balmond is after? Are there words, maybe other words that point to intensity? And its interesting that intensity, as per Eric's comment, is this interstitial condition, but I'm not sure what that means. I'm not sure what meaning he us giving the word intensity. Perhaps Adam's points can calrify some issues since at least as far as I can't tell, he is deriving it from a specific essay and developing a theory of intensity according to Lynn's argument. At the very least, its clear that there is something about the intensity of architecture's existence or manifestation and Lynn sees himself an advocate of that.
That strange thing is that like in Balmond, that intensity is somehow graphically shaped, by the figure of the curve, or the geometrical pattern.
Then there are other possibilities, the tension between states of an undecideability. So its a kind of stress. Something poised between one moment and the next - which we talked about previously.
In van Berkel its a kind of generic, but at the very least involves evolution, od something constantly becoming.
Well, is there a correct way to use this term? I'm not sure. But that's not the point. One thing for sure is that each of these authors are placing on the table an agenda that takes into account various forms or kinds of intensities that can be experienced in actuality or conceptually - and that's just it, it can be experienced. Change, process, tramsformation, etc., each of these are rich in experience because they imply that something is in the process of happening.
This is not a typical notion in the history of architecture anymore than it was typical to make an ellipse and start generating dynamic movement in arcitecture in plan during the High Renaissance.
Our interest here is that each of the authors wants to claim this from an area within those things that constitute architecture's interiority. That last is Esienman's term. It has associations with Deconstruction and Derrida and refers to, among other things, a principal of its own speicif logics of organization that are constantly under erasure, being negoatiated, and seem always essential.
Anyhow, the readings are highly calculated in this way, because, as we'll see, the last set of readings point to a certain limit of the models of meaning that the authors are about to experience in the face of computation and algorithm. For, and this is the point, to argue for a dynamic model, continuous or discontinuous, is to argue essentially for an empirical model, it is to argue for mathematical phyics.
Clearly this isn't wrong.
But it is now out of date.
For years we have been entering a mew model, which is algorithmic and leads us to different possibilities. In order to understand this, clearly it is essentil to identify just what is the nature of the models of meaning in previous digital architecure.
Balmond is pointing one way out of this.
As one author said, we have left the great age of mathematical physics and entered the new one of alorithm
P
Design Office for Research and Architecture
68 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
USA
646-575-2287
petermacapia@labdora.com
http://labdora.com/
http://atlas.labdora.com/
"again, with more intensity"
I took a look again at the Balmond essay (since it was the only one that really resonated at all with me) and tried to prize out his notions of intensity. Most of the essay dealt with structural concerns, especially as it related to different patterns/requirements of circulation. I can see these clashing grids as a form of intensity, something that needs to be intelligently negotiated. Balmond also seemed concerned with retaining curvature, another concept that can be linked to intensity of form (especially if you think about all the math that goes into a complex curve...woo! intense!). But mostly it comes down to pattern, and intensity of connection. His final example of the braiding and interconnectedness of 'strands' began a whole other discussion of intensity.
A short essay on intensity
Last night, Peter Eisenmann told a crowd of young aspiring architects, “If you don’t know Maya and Rhino, I won’t hire you.” It was a bold statement from an aging architect summing up his lecture on how architecture has transitioned from Corbusier to Gehry. Eisenmann only traced “Ten Canonical” buildings and yet any student (or instructor) of architecture today can’t help but feel powerless in the wake these buildings of “undecidedness” that plague the critique process, buildings that in themselves provide inadequate justification to their fruition, taxonomy, or even quality. It is here, I contest, where theory nudges the lagging momentum. Perhaps it is in texts that architects will move forward in the days ahead of economic and design uncertainty.
Why invoke the Deleuzian Fold? The blob buildings are not catching on—at least not as planned. The word blob in architecture comports an insulting flavor. Lynn foresaw this and used blob in the title thus highlighting his own weakness (McCain’s choice of young Palin, anyone?) in an attempt to sooth the blob pejorative. And yet we are still faced with the critique’s criticism: how do I qualify this design?
We are truly dealing with blobs of simulated matter that have no place in a Cartesian geometry class. No matter what architecture you experience or admire, you cannot deny that we are in a place that does not design the way our instructors were taught. We don’t listen to the same music or wear their same clothes either. In the words of Eisenmann, nobody writes music for a harpsichord anymore. To write the music that people listen to, we need to play the instruments that they are listening to.
That is why.
You can’t be a Walter Gropius for very long. It’s almost a rule that the sequel can’t be 1.5X better than any original and usually is lucky to achieve .5X. Gropius got a dozen years teaching studios until someone else came along to “bigger and better” his work. Gehry is an obvious response to many things in architecture, his feature will not last long either.
And hey, just like these authors, I managed to write without using the word intensity as well. I don’t quite see how intensity has parallels in these readings. How is intensity via layer seen in Berkel? Where does Lynn point to intensity through force? And what does passé-partout mean? Intensity is a value in need of measurement. If any system were to make room for intensity as an idea, it seems like it would sit more appropriately on the geometry side of points, numbers, and real measurements. Topology has few qualitative attributes, at least compared to Cartesian geometry. [Unless you mean intensity as a default to measurement such as, “that cocaine was intense! I don’t what happened!” where intensity sort of bypasses qualitative analysis. But I don’t think this method works.] Am I wrong?
Why invoke the Deleuzian Fold? The blob buildings are not catching on—at least not as planned. The word blob in architecture comports an insulting flavor. Lynn foresaw this and used blob in the title thus highlighting his own weakness (McCain’s choice of young Palin, anyone?) in an attempt to sooth the blob pejorative. And yet we are still faced with the critique’s criticism: how do I qualify this design?
We are truly dealing with blobs of simulated matter that have no place in a Cartesian geometry class. No matter what architecture you experience or admire, you cannot deny that we are in a place that does not design the way our instructors were taught. We don’t listen to the same music or wear their same clothes either. In the words of Eisenmann, nobody writes music for a harpsichord anymore. To write the music that people listen to, we need to play the instruments that they are listening to.
That is why.
You can’t be a Walter Gropius for very long. It’s almost a rule that the sequel can’t be 1.5X better than any original and usually is lucky to achieve .5X. Gropius got a dozen years teaching studios until someone else came along to “bigger and better” his work. Gehry is an obvious response to many things in architecture, his feature will not last long either.
And hey, just like these authors, I managed to write without using the word intensity as well. I don’t quite see how intensity has parallels in these readings. How is intensity via layer seen in Berkel? Where does Lynn point to intensity through force? And what does passé-partout mean? Intensity is a value in need of measurement. If any system were to make room for intensity as an idea, it seems like it would sit more appropriately on the geometry side of points, numbers, and real measurements. Topology has few qualitative attributes, at least compared to Cartesian geometry. [Unless you mean intensity as a default to measurement such as, “that cocaine was intense! I don’t what happened!” where intensity sort of bypasses qualitative analysis. But I don’t think this method works.] Am I wrong?
Monday, November 17, 2008
why is topology groovy...
... and tectonics square. Greg Lynn in his article on blob tectonics starts answering this question by describing what a blob is, "Or should I say blobs, of all different sizes and shapes and irreducible typological essences." Here he hints on the relation of one to many, or singularity to intensity, on which he than elaborates while defining blobs. "The term BOLOB connotes a thing which is neither singular nor multiple but an intelligence that behaves as if it were singular and networked but in its form can become virtually infinitely multiplied and distributed." He invokes the emergent organizational system that both Deluze and Steven Johnson talk about in their work, the kind of singular organism that is not composed of one node but rather it is made up of intensities of many networked nodes.
Later in the article, the terms are paired up in similar fashion to how Ben van Berkel presents the opposition of modernist generic space vs. way cooler intensities of "spatial arrangements that follow the diving, swooping, zooming, slicing, folding motions" When Lynn brings up Liebniz's work the terms morph from wholes vs. intensities, to clear vs. vague, then into Cartesian "constitutive identity" vs. "changes in identities". Those, in turn, are quickly elaborated into "a series of continuous multiplicities and singularities" to finally become "an assemblage that behaves as singularity while remaining irreducible to any single simple organization." Lynn's describing his blobs as aggregate objects, or intensity objects that are "simultaneously singular in it's continuity and multiplicitous in its internal differentiation", so simply put groovy...
Later in the article, the terms are paired up in similar fashion to how Ben van Berkel presents the opposition of modernist generic space vs. way cooler intensities of "spatial arrangements that follow the diving, swooping, zooming, slicing, folding motions" When Lynn brings up Liebniz's work the terms morph from wholes vs. intensities, to clear vs. vague, then into Cartesian "constitutive identity" vs. "changes in identities". Those, in turn, are quickly elaborated into "a series of continuous multiplicities and singularities" to finally become "an assemblage that behaves as singularity while remaining irreducible to any single simple organization." Lynn's describing his blobs as aggregate objects, or intensity objects that are "simultaneously singular in it's continuity and multiplicitous in its internal differentiation", so simply put groovy...
Sunday, November 16, 2008
THOM :: intensity as morphogenetic states.
As topologically categorized by type of potential, as in those moments of transition between dynamic and static equilibriums, minima and maxima, continuous and discontinuous.
EISENMAN :: intensity of the passé-partout.
As the charged reframing, the in-between.
BALMOND :: intensity as organization.
Of flow. Through pattern and connectivity.
LYNN :: intensity through force.
Of movement, understood locally within contextual, global condition.
VAN BERKEL :: intensity via layering.
By mapping primary elements of construction, circulation and program.
As topologically categorized by type of potential, as in those moments of transition between dynamic and static equilibriums, minima and maxima, continuous and discontinuous.
EISENMAN :: intensity of the passé-partout.
As the charged reframing, the in-between.
BALMOND :: intensity as organization.
Of flow. Through pattern and connectivity.
LYNN :: intensity through force.
Of movement, understood locally within contextual, global condition.
VAN BERKEL :: intensity via layering.
By mapping primary elements of construction, circulation and program.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Intensity
We finished up today looking at a word that doesn't exactly have explicit existence in the texts we examined, and that was intensity.
Up until that point we were examining the work of Eisenman, van Berkel, Lynn, and Balmond and charting the consistency of terms like fluidity, movement, vector, dynamic, event, etc. All of these imply situations of change whether continuous or catastrophic.
There were some good problems; form os one of the categories of architecture's ontology, how does Lynn's essay make that specific? Event is an ethico-political and historic potentiality in Eisenman, but in what sense does the reframing of architecture lead to a critical attitude if that attitude is apropos of nothing in particular? The programmatic reconfiguration of space as always multiple in van Berkel leads to a transformation of the generic, but in what sense does that multiplicity change our understanding of the urban experience which in many ways already is multiple? Balmond for sure is maybe the most precise, situating all of this in a radical transformation of structure.
But then note how this precision also answers the problem for Lynn.
All of these essays are poised to attack Modernism and the legacy of Cartesianism and Euclidean geometry, all the while invoking the Fold from Deleuze and Catastrophe theory for Thom.
The question is why.
I'd like each of you to wanswer that by introducing a very very short essay on intensity using as precisely the words of these authors
Design Office for Research and Architecture
68 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
USA
646-575-2287
petermacapia@labdora.com
http://labdora.com/
http://atlas.labdora.com/
Up until that point we were examining the work of Eisenman, van Berkel, Lynn, and Balmond and charting the consistency of terms like fluidity, movement, vector, dynamic, event, etc. All of these imply situations of change whether continuous or catastrophic.
There were some good problems; form os one of the categories of architecture's ontology, how does Lynn's essay make that specific? Event is an ethico-political and historic potentiality in Eisenman, but in what sense does the reframing of architecture lead to a critical attitude if that attitude is apropos of nothing in particular? The programmatic reconfiguration of space as always multiple in van Berkel leads to a transformation of the generic, but in what sense does that multiplicity change our understanding of the urban experience which in many ways already is multiple? Balmond for sure is maybe the most precise, situating all of this in a radical transformation of structure.
But then note how this precision also answers the problem for Lynn.
All of these essays are poised to attack Modernism and the legacy of Cartesianism and Euclidean geometry, all the while invoking the Fold from Deleuze and Catastrophe theory for Thom.
The question is why.
I'd like each of you to wanswer that by introducing a very very short essay on intensity using as precisely the words of these authors
Design Office for Research and Architecture
68 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
USA
646-575-2287
petermacapia@labdora.com
http://labdora.com/
http://atlas.labdora.com/
Saturday, November 8, 2008
MORPHOGENESIS…
Rene Thom’s reading has become much more accessible because of the previous readings we have done. Most specifically, by deciphering Deleuze and his use of Thom’s ideas, we are able to better appreciate the subtle spatial implications of “morphogenesis”, forms of “becoming” and qualitative and quantitative properties relationship to metric and non-metric properties.
In attempting to map the “succession of form” Rene introduces a series of models evolved from recent developments in topology and differential geometry. When discussing the models, Rene points out the shortcomings of both qualitative and quantitative results in earlier models. He explains how quantitative results cannot explain a “car trip” and how at the same time qualitative results are “insufficient” because they “rely on the experience of solid bodies in three dimensional Euclidean space”.
So…In order to explore “succession of form” and to reconcile these terms, Rene introduces dynamical models that are not based in Euclidean space and metric quantities (not modeling form) but are based on degrees of freedom, discontinuities, and relational functions (modeling relationships, events, changes and possibilities). Rene uses topology and differential analysis as the basis for multi-dimensional models that can yield rigorous while at the same time, qualitative results.
So it seems the big idea here is seems to fit right in with what we have been talking about. The idea here seems to the connection between the “form” and the “processes” that led to the form. Rene introduces models that allow us to explore this same “plane of possibility”. When we begin to see “form” as a simple “crystallization” of processes we are able to gain much insight into the genesis of past present and future matter both organic and inorganic.
It seems clear how Deleuze builds upon some of these concepts when he described the “new status of the object”. It also seems clear how that these are exactly the issues that a whole group of architects and designers seem to be addressing. From Greg Lynn to Eisenman, these designers are considering form in a manner that relates to philosophical foundations of genesis and universal understanding.
Rene Thom’s reading has become much more accessible because of the previous readings we have done. Most specifically, by deciphering Deleuze and his use of Thom’s ideas, we are able to better appreciate the subtle spatial implications of “morphogenesis”, forms of “becoming” and qualitative and quantitative properties relationship to metric and non-metric properties.
In attempting to map the “succession of form” Rene introduces a series of models evolved from recent developments in topology and differential geometry. When discussing the models, Rene points out the shortcomings of both qualitative and quantitative results in earlier models. He explains how quantitative results cannot explain a “car trip” and how at the same time qualitative results are “insufficient” because they “rely on the experience of solid bodies in three dimensional Euclidean space”.
So…In order to explore “succession of form” and to reconcile these terms, Rene introduces dynamical models that are not based in Euclidean space and metric quantities (not modeling form) but are based on degrees of freedom, discontinuities, and relational functions (modeling relationships, events, changes and possibilities). Rene uses topology and differential analysis as the basis for multi-dimensional models that can yield rigorous while at the same time, qualitative results.
So it seems the big idea here is seems to fit right in with what we have been talking about. The idea here seems to the connection between the “form” and the “processes” that led to the form. Rene introduces models that allow us to explore this same “plane of possibility”. When we begin to see “form” as a simple “crystallization” of processes we are able to gain much insight into the genesis of past present and future matter both organic and inorganic.
It seems clear how Deleuze builds upon some of these concepts when he described the “new status of the object”. It also seems clear how that these are exactly the issues that a whole group of architects and designers seem to be addressing. From Greg Lynn to Eisenman, these designers are considering form in a manner that relates to philosophical foundations of genesis and universal understanding.
the problem (again) of space
01. the quality vs quanity conversation
02. the local vs global condition
From Euclid’s problematic attempt at space, the issue here is not so much about defining that which constitutes space, but characterizing it. Thom gives us catastrophe theory. Balmond and (especially) Lynn argue again and again for a closer attention to the potential energies already available.
Balmond “To spend energy on promoting a free-shape only to forget its interior meaning and call on structure, late, to prop up the surface, seems a wasted opportunity”
Lynn “to reconcieve motion as force rather than as a sequence of frames”
It’s the Thom/Eisenman/Lynn—all of them—addressing the grain of sand that starts the landslide, the hull of the boat in the sea (we owe a lot to the nautical world, no?)
Then the local/global situation is essentially the one of emergence. Eisenman talks about it as the passé-partout, a "kind of reframing that can never be neutral". Dealing with more than the sum of the parts. Thom talks about the same local conditions birthing different outcomes based on unseen conditional factors. Lynn reference’s Yoh’s work that “complicates the distinctions between a global system and local components”.
In the end I think Lynn is right to point out that, since the “perhaps more than any other discipline, the negotiation between construction and abstract concepts has been the responsibility of the architect”, these threads remain the ones rewoven again and again.
02. the local vs global condition
From Euclid’s problematic attempt at space, the issue here is not so much about defining that which constitutes space, but characterizing it. Thom gives us catastrophe theory. Balmond and (especially) Lynn argue again and again for a closer attention to the potential energies already available.
Balmond “To spend energy on promoting a free-shape only to forget its interior meaning and call on structure, late, to prop up the surface, seems a wasted opportunity”
Lynn “to reconcieve motion as force rather than as a sequence of frames”
It’s the Thom/Eisenman/Lynn—all of them—addressing the grain of sand that starts the landslide, the hull of the boat in the sea (we owe a lot to the nautical world, no?)
Then the local/global situation is essentially the one of emergence. Eisenman talks about it as the passé-partout, a "kind of reframing that can never be neutral". Dealing with more than the sum of the parts. Thom talks about the same local conditions birthing different outcomes based on unseen conditional factors. Lynn reference’s Yoh’s work that “complicates the distinctions between a global system and local components”.
In the end I think Lynn is right to point out that, since the “perhaps more than any other discipline, the negotiation between construction and abstract concepts has been the responsibility of the architect”, these threads remain the ones rewoven again and again.
the simplest elementary catastrope
The idea of various surfaces representing catastrophe behaviors is quite compelling. It's nice that they gave them names, such as the butterfly catastrophe. Though the most basic catastrophe is called the fold, surly Eisenman is not saying he literally based his Rebstock Masterplan on such a specific type of mathematical representation. Just as when Deleuze speaks of the fold, he's using it as a metaphor or framework to talk about (basically) everything else. Temporal modulation of space, continual variation of matter, singularities and repressed immanent conditions of existing urbanism = the fold = a way of projecting new social organizations into an existing urban environment. I follow. But, sadly, I don't know enough about his actual Rebstock proposal to know if he pulled it off.
I found some images of the project, but from a site in Spanish. As Eisenman himself said, he likes to enter competitions, but would rather not win because then he has to build something. Was the formulation of his Rebstock masterplan conceived as a way to advance his theories/agenda? Does it matter if that was the case? Where does this proposal fall within the realm of other fold (or topological?) projects, historically speaking?
Friday, November 7, 2008
Thom/Eisenman
The issue of qualitative vs quantitative is to me one of most interesting aspects of Thom's catastrophe theory. It might be because his explanation of that aspect seemed very clear next to the deeply elaborated mathematically talk on the structural stability of form. Interestingly, while describing qualitative aspects Thom resorts to psychology, and intuition as arguments to use it in his mathematical model. In his example where a theoretical process is graphed along with two graphs of the recreated mathematical formulas, the one quantitatively closer is clearly a worse representation of the original proses - to a intuitively thinking person. "A natural tendency of mind" to put qualitative result over quantitative
As to the catastrophe theory itself, it was hidden deep under the math formulas of Thom's text. As far as I could gather from outside sources, it has more to do with mathematical description and analysis of events and dynamical systems than with geometry, although Thom elaborates on it in form and structural stability. It is more intuitive for me to think of it in terms of processes or systems that are affected by their evolution and their influencing parameters to produce a "disastrous effect" of "dicontinuity", or jumping the fold.
the catastrophe theory is suggested by Peter Eisenman as one of solutions to dealing with architecture in the age of mediation. He argues that the condition of the world today calls for departing from architecture based on Cartesian rationalism to one based on fold. Since Thom's theory combines fold and event it is best suited for such move. The fold is not simply reinterpretation of plan or section but a condition that exists in between others, for Eisenman - a new direction.
As to the catastrophe theory itself, it was hidden deep under the math formulas of Thom's text. As far as I could gather from outside sources, it has more to do with mathematical description and analysis of events and dynamical systems than with geometry, although Thom elaborates on it in form and structural stability. It is more intuitive for me to think of it in terms of processes or systems that are affected by their evolution and their influencing parameters to produce a "disastrous effect" of "dicontinuity", or jumping the fold.
the catastrophe theory is suggested by Peter Eisenman as one of solutions to dealing with architecture in the age of mediation. He argues that the condition of the world today calls for departing from architecture based on Cartesian rationalism to one based on fold. Since Thom's theory combines fold and event it is best suited for such move. The fold is not simply reinterpretation of plan or section but a condition that exists in between others, for Eisenman - a new direction.
catastrophe
My reaction to Rene Thom's article can be summed up with an equation. If you take the degree of complexity of his argument, d, and multiply it by the combination of my understanding of the principles, U, and the new model of meaning he is establishing (M), you can find the state of my brain after reading the article, or b. Thus, when completed, i felt d(U+M)=b.
Ok, I got that out of the way. In all seriousness, Thom had devised a new way of talking about continuity and space in a qualitative, rather than quantitative sense, something quite foreign to mathematics. It was difficult to really decipher what it is he was saying between all of the equations, but the other writing (The Elementary Catastrophes, author unknown?) cleared a few things up, defining catastrophe theory in terms of physics, or at least setting up a physical analog (the metal clicker) to better explain the principles. However, the graphing of the more complicated behaviors started to melt my brain a bit.
Eisenman sees the potential in this catastrophe viewpoint as a way to redifine the purpose of architecture, a response to media saturation and the shortening of our collective attention spans, arguing that architecture is less about space now and more about event. I'm not sure I wholly agree with him on this, but I can see how he might get excited about the potential within the theory.
Ok, I got that out of the way. In all seriousness, Thom had devised a new way of talking about continuity and space in a qualitative, rather than quantitative sense, something quite foreign to mathematics. It was difficult to really decipher what it is he was saying between all of the equations, but the other writing (The Elementary Catastrophes, author unknown?) cleared a few things up, defining catastrophe theory in terms of physics, or at least setting up a physical analog (the metal clicker) to better explain the principles. However, the graphing of the more complicated behaviors started to melt my brain a bit.
Eisenman sees the potential in this catastrophe viewpoint as a way to redifine the purpose of architecture, a response to media saturation and the shortening of our collective attention spans, arguing that architecture is less about space now and more about event. I'm not sure I wholly agree with him on this, but I can see how he might get excited about the potential within the theory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)