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.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
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)