warning: this is the first day this month that I haven't had coffee.. :(
To some extent, Eiseman is saying that architecture can now experience that shift in The Wizard of Oz when color came into view. Actually, he means something much deeper (I hope), almost another dimension but by the last page he leaves me highly skeptical, unconvinced, and worried that he is recycling too much of his jargon.
Maybe working with ideas such as the fold will enlighten us architects. His portrayal of the Rock Show struck a key of interest and the sound bite surely hits home especially with the herd mentality to summarizing your blog posts with a single, encapsulating image. Are we architects destined to obey this fad? Must we create experiences, animations, temporal systems while neglecting the building, the bricks, the rain? I hate to think we are shackled to figure ground drawings however to say that design is a non-dialectic process seems renascent of the pessimistic post-modernists. "But as in most disciplines," he leaves us with "they are no longer thought to explain the complexity of phenomena." Thanks for getting somewhere with your article, Eiseman.
And of all cities to analyze, he picks the absolute deadville of a town in Germany, Frankfurt, where even the old folks go mad with boredom. The only successful thing that city ever did was suck up my ATM card and whimper, "Es tut mir leid.."
I can see why we are reading the piece: someone turns his back on Cartesian rationalism. However, it doesn't take a fold to re-articulate "a new relationship between vertical and horizontal or between figure and ground." The color blue could do just fine: it's not black or white, figure or ground. Or maybe even crumpling up the article, toss it in the waste basket. How's that for revealing "other conditions that may always haven been immanent or repressed in" me. Slight shift on context, but at least you get what Iam trying to say.
"The fold can then be used as both a formal device and as a way of projecting new social organizations into an existing urban environment." What does it mean to project new social organizations into existing urban environments? If it means "the library needs to go over there," so be it. If it means, "I am a wizard who can magically orchestrate social interactions despite existing conditions," then I get a little lost.
sorry if you had to read this..
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
REBSTOCK MASTERPLAN…
Reframing the idea of figure ground in order to gain a more rich sense of context. Eisenman follows Deleuzian thinking and continues with the development of the “objectile” as something not concerned with “essential form” but with an “event”. This event relates back to the “dilating” and “folding” of matter discussed in “Pleats of Matter”.
In the Rebstock Park Master plan, Eisenman borrows the concept of the fold to integrate figure and ground, subject and object, plan and section. He uses the fold and the dimensionality of the edge, or the continuity of the surface as a way to reframe relationships such as “old and new, transport and arrival, and commerce and housing”. He compares the fold to the “mat in a picture frame” underscoring its ability to connect the two worlds of the tangible and the intangible, subject and object and seen and unseen.
Eisenman also introduces the mathematics of Rene Thom and catastrophe theory. Using Thom’s seven elementary events, Eisenman discusses, what I believe is, a sort of event plane, whose virtual curvature maps events, possibilities and processes. This type of mapping would be a complex series of nonlinear relationships rather than a sort of Cartesian rational 1 to 1 mapping.
If I understand correctly, there would be folds in this surface that would connect unforeseen possibilities and events. It is within the folds that all of the possibilities of becoming are hidden, what Deleuze called the “meanders and detours”. Eisenman explains, “The fold, then, becomes the site of all the repressed immanent conditions of existing urbanism”. This sounds like Deleuze’s butterfly and caterpillar.
And again I cannot help but to think of the tools we use, Maya, Max, Animations, Etc…From fluid dynamics to particle systems and even splines, our tools embody, and are used to explore, this new sense of the “objectile” and “event”…Our pursuit of physical form dabbles in a metaphysical philosophy of being and becoming…Digging it!
I have not read Greg Lynn but maybe this is partially why the curve is “groovy”?
In the Rebstock Park Master plan, Eisenman borrows the concept of the fold to integrate figure and ground, subject and object, plan and section. He uses the fold and the dimensionality of the edge, or the continuity of the surface as a way to reframe relationships such as “old and new, transport and arrival, and commerce and housing”. He compares the fold to the “mat in a picture frame” underscoring its ability to connect the two worlds of the tangible and the intangible, subject and object and seen and unseen.
Eisenman also introduces the mathematics of Rene Thom and catastrophe theory. Using Thom’s seven elementary events, Eisenman discusses, what I believe is, a sort of event plane, whose virtual curvature maps events, possibilities and processes. This type of mapping would be a complex series of nonlinear relationships rather than a sort of Cartesian rational 1 to 1 mapping.
If I understand correctly, there would be folds in this surface that would connect unforeseen possibilities and events. It is within the folds that all of the possibilities of becoming are hidden, what Deleuze called the “meanders and detours”. Eisenman explains, “The fold, then, becomes the site of all the repressed immanent conditions of existing urbanism”. This sounds like Deleuze’s butterfly and caterpillar.
And again I cannot help but to think of the tools we use, Maya, Max, Animations, Etc…From fluid dynamics to particle systems and even splines, our tools embody, and are used to explore, this new sense of the “objectile” and “event”…Our pursuit of physical form dabbles in a metaphysical philosophy of being and becoming…Digging it!
I have not read Greg Lynn but maybe this is partially why the curve is “groovy”?
THE SMOOTH AND THE STRIATED…
It seems that Deleuze is establishing the Universe as a sort of continuum,
differentiated by folds and perhaps intensities and densities. He explains, “Development does not go from smaller to greater things through growth or augmentation, but from the general to the specific, through differentiations of an initially undifferentiated field either under the action of exterior surroundings or under the influence of internal forces that are directive.” One can already envision a sort of material infinity, made up of, say, fabric that infinitely pleats and folds upon itself. Zoom in and out and out and all we see is varying patterns of material made up of points, lines and folds.
Following this logic, in order to really make sense of all of this, in order to really gain insight from this vision of the universe, we would have to closely examine the finest element of the fabric and also the widest view of the material. We would want to look at the fold and the fabric composition and patterning at a variety of scales. We would want to look for consistencies and differences. Enter the smooth and the striated, a way of examining and comparing the points, splines and nurbs surfaces that make up the fabric of existence? Wow.
When we zoom in so far as to inhabit the fibers we see the material is composed in two ways, the smooth and the striated or the felt and the fabric. The spaces created by these two compositions are described as sedentary and nomadic. We also see that these two compositions are generally contiguous. They are not generally stitched together but are usually intertwined, as the fibers of one dematerialize or grow into the fibers of the other. As it turns out there are all sort of variations in this fabric from densities of weaving to intensities in the fibers in the felt and to patchwork integrations.
As we traveled through the material and through the universe, zooming in and out, we would also see that the smooth and striated fibers would take on many forms and create many types of space. They would create patterns like stone and water and folds like sound waves and wind. We could always zoom in or zoom out and see the folds and material consistency as related and describable as some combination of smooth and striated, nomadic and sedentary.
Traveling through the universe and through the material, Deleuze chooses to move through some of the more complex and illusive of spaces. It would be comparable to move through the physical space of table salt where cubic fibers aggregate to make the material or through the space of molecules where chemicals bond to create the material.
Instead, Deleuze moves to spaces that are more intangible and ambiguous, where the distinction between smooth and striated becomes blurry in notably more interesting. In order to show how all spaces can be thought of in this way, Deleuze starts with simple spaces, the space of fabric, the space of sound waves and then moves into more complex spaces, the space of water, the space of mathematics, the space of art.
The idea here seems to be to be to think about these phenomena and objects as spaces and intensities within and around the fabric and as part of this same universal continuum made distinct by their expression of differentiation in consistency and patterning.
Deleuze uses these spaces to describe the universe and in so doing, implicitly employs principles from mathematics to make differentiations in the patterning and consistency mentioned above. It only makes sense. If the universe can be expressed through the weaving of lines and the creation of complex systems of interconnected networks, mathematics seems like the most appropriate tool to explore and to begin to understand these universal patterns.
differentiated by folds and perhaps intensities and densities. He explains, “Development does not go from smaller to greater things through growth or augmentation, but from the general to the specific, through differentiations of an initially undifferentiated field either under the action of exterior surroundings or under the influence of internal forces that are directive.” One can already envision a sort of material infinity, made up of, say, fabric that infinitely pleats and folds upon itself. Zoom in and out and out and all we see is varying patterns of material made up of points, lines and folds.
Following this logic, in order to really make sense of all of this, in order to really gain insight from this vision of the universe, we would have to closely examine the finest element of the fabric and also the widest view of the material. We would want to look at the fold and the fabric composition and patterning at a variety of scales. We would want to look for consistencies and differences. Enter the smooth and the striated, a way of examining and comparing the points, splines and nurbs surfaces that make up the fabric of existence? Wow.
When we zoom in so far as to inhabit the fibers we see the material is composed in two ways, the smooth and the striated or the felt and the fabric. The spaces created by these two compositions are described as sedentary and nomadic. We also see that these two compositions are generally contiguous. They are not generally stitched together but are usually intertwined, as the fibers of one dematerialize or grow into the fibers of the other. As it turns out there are all sort of variations in this fabric from densities of weaving to intensities in the fibers in the felt and to patchwork integrations.
As we traveled through the material and through the universe, zooming in and out, we would also see that the smooth and striated fibers would take on many forms and create many types of space. They would create patterns like stone and water and folds like sound waves and wind. We could always zoom in or zoom out and see the folds and material consistency as related and describable as some combination of smooth and striated, nomadic and sedentary.
Traveling through the universe and through the material, Deleuze chooses to move through some of the more complex and illusive of spaces. It would be comparable to move through the physical space of table salt where cubic fibers aggregate to make the material or through the space of molecules where chemicals bond to create the material.
Instead, Deleuze moves to spaces that are more intangible and ambiguous, where the distinction between smooth and striated becomes blurry in notably more interesting. In order to show how all spaces can be thought of in this way, Deleuze starts with simple spaces, the space of fabric, the space of sound waves and then moves into more complex spaces, the space of water, the space of mathematics, the space of art.
The idea here seems to be to be to think about these phenomena and objects as spaces and intensities within and around the fabric and as part of this same universal continuum made distinct by their expression of differentiation in consistency and patterning.
Deleuze uses these spaces to describe the universe and in so doing, implicitly employs principles from mathematics to make differentiations in the patterning and consistency mentioned above. It only makes sense. If the universe can be expressed through the weaving of lines and the creation of complex systems of interconnected networks, mathematics seems like the most appropriate tool to explore and to begin to understand these universal patterns.
THE PLEATS OF MATTER…
Better late than never...I hope.
This reading seems to be describing at an interconnected universe held together by “folds”. This universe includes, I believe, includes all material and immaterial, organic and inorganic matter. It is made of Souls and Stones alike. Deleuze makes a distinction between the two “floors” of matter in the universe and uses Baroque architecture and mathematics as a way of thinking about the connectedness of these two “floors”.
I think that with Deleuze-the interconnected nature of these worlds allows us to examine physical artifacts and relate them to metaphysical concepts. The reading is not necessarily about the physicality of the fold or about Baroque architecture, but more about how these resonate with a new conception of the universe and the object/subject.Deleuze always leaves me feeling like the shaping of matter is deeply wrought with metaphysical implications.
“The world was thought to have an infinite number of floors, with a stairway
that descends and ascends…but the Baroque contribution is a world with only
two floors, separated by a fold that echoes itself, arching from the two sides
according to a different order”
that descends and ascends…but the Baroque contribution is a world with only
two floors, separated by a fold that echoes itself, arching from the two sides
according to a different order”
Deleuze discusses the concept of “viewpoint” and the transformation of the subject to the object. This is another example of the “two floors” concept. He explains how perspective was seen by some as a tool to connect these two worlds, there by embodying some sort of relativism. But in fact perspective clearly embodies a “pluralism” that disconnects the two worlds. Perspective relies on a singular “point of view” while Deleuze argues that “There are many points of view-whose distance is in each case indivisible” So there are infinite viewpoints and an infinity of connected matter to be viewed. This conception of the universe makes perspective seem like a tool incapable of expressing the complexity of connectedness of these two worlds.
The “fold” is also a way of describing the capacities and tendencies of matter. Potential for variation is folded within matter. Deleuze explains how the butterfly is not different from the caterpillar but how they are one singular creature folded together. This invokes the idea of time and evolution and questions the notion of the plutonic object, which seems to be trying to freeze this evolutionary fold into a static singularity.
In terms of math, it seems implicitly tied into all of this. If all matter, organic and inorganic, physical and metaphysical is tied together through a series of folds and differentiations it seems critical to think about curves and trajectories. It seems that curvature and continuity are taking the place of Boolean logic. “To unfold is to increase and to fold is to diminish, to reduce” this is reminiscent of fractal geometry.
In fact through out the article Deleuze is referring to Leibniz, Descartes and other thinkers such as Heinrich Wolfflin, all of which have had immense impact on the field of mathematics and design. It is a widely held belief that mathematics tends to explain much of the physical world around us and that there is some universal truth found in mathematics that goes beyond our physical world. If we think that 2+2 always equals 4 whether we believe it or not, (which soap bubbles, gravity, and nautilus shells among other things, seem to indicate) then we agree that mathematics is a sort of existential truth. There is physical world and a …dare I say it… metaphysical world. Hence, the two floors, linked by a fold, a curve-a mathematical phenomena. All of this does make me think of Maya, splines, fractals, particles, networks, and their metaphysical implications. Hmm…
Also, of course in the article there is a lot of formal language that seems of particular interest to the architect and designer. There is all of this formal description of Baroque architecture - separation of facade, spongy, flattening of pediment, etc…There is discussion of how matter finds form through elastic and plastic forces and a description of the fold as the smallest element of matter and the point as a simple “extremity of the line”. Deleuze introduces Leibnez’s concepts of families of curves. Three types of points are distinguished, the point of inflection, the point of position, and the point of inclusion. Their counterparts, “explication, complication and implication” form the “triad of the fold”.
I could never summarize what I believe to be the subtleties and rich tangential nature of this reading but most obviously stated and most obviously relevant to our field is the changing status of the object. Deleuze makes (sort of) clear for all of us…
“The new status of the object, the objectile, is inseparable from the different layers that are dilating, like so many occasions for meanders and detours. In relation to the many folds that it is capable of becoming, matter becomes a matter of expression.”
...
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Models
It seems maybe not so fortuitous that in the Smooth and the Striated we come up against - once again - this question of space. Indeed it begins with an oposition (but should we really call it that) between a kind of Cartesianism and something else, something less predictable. An polarization announced already at the beginning of the fold. Here at least wind the question of model explict. And of course multiple. There is not one. And yet a mathematics (trajectory, continuous varation, etc) runs through the text as a kind of spine, from one model to the next. Is this then a master model? Is it a conceptual scaffolding? What is compared to what? Stasis and mobility. For a start.
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/
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/
Friday, October 17, 2008
Everywher
I like the kind of swift grab-all style of your comments Eric. And you'er right D covers much ground. But you also put your finger on something kind of important: is this mere metaphor? Pick out a passage for us to review on Tues.
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/
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/
Thursday, October 16, 2008
I read "nomad" and got excited. Then I came to "religion," "war machine," and was on the edge of my seat. When I read Mongol, I jumped for joy like no Deluezing reader ever has. All these issues are right up my alley and not so common in architecture. By the end of the article, however, I was at the back of my chair trying as hard as I could to figure out how he was using mathematics.
Deleuze jumps around a lot in this text. I give him immediate credit for inserting social issues but they are so watered down in all the analogies they become distracting. He compares the striation to geology, organisms, fabrics, human anatomy, composers and more all while insisting on Greek language lessons. He seems to be munching through ideas like breakfast cereal.
He is either covering way too much ground or he just can't nail down what he is trying to say. (I will recant this statement after a few more readings.)
Deleuze had some very interesting tangents. For instance, "composers do not hear; they have close-range hearing, whereas listeners hear from a distance. Even writers write with short-term memory, whereas readers are assumed to be endowed with long-term memory." Woa. He gets into some great ideas pertaining to scale, point of view, orientation. His notion of the sea also paints an eloquent picture of complexity in common notions of striation. He really has me when he talks about bearings and fabric and yet I get confused again when he brings up the Mongols and nomads. I think a discussion of this reading would do me a lot of good.
I'll read through it a few more times and get back..
Deleuze jumps around a lot in this text. I give him immediate credit for inserting social issues but they are so watered down in all the analogies they become distracting. He compares the striation to geology, organisms, fabrics, human anatomy, composers and more all while insisting on Greek language lessons. He seems to be munching through ideas like breakfast cereal.
He is either covering way too much ground or he just can't nail down what he is trying to say. (I will recant this statement after a few more readings.)
Deleuze had some very interesting tangents. For instance, "composers do not hear; they have close-range hearing, whereas listeners hear from a distance. Even writers write with short-term memory, whereas readers are assumed to be endowed with long-term memory." Woa. He gets into some great ideas pertaining to scale, point of view, orientation. His notion of the sea also paints an eloquent picture of complexity in common notions of striation. He really has me when he talks about bearings and fabric and yet I get confused again when he brings up the Mongols and nomads. I think a discussion of this reading would do me a lot of good.
I'll read through it a few more times and get back..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)