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.