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/