Dwelling in the Realm of ‘Paradox’ - Towards an Architectural Paradigm

DWELLING IN THE REALM OF ‘PARADOX’

1

Dwelling in the Realm of ‘Paradox’ Towards an Architectural Paradigm ADITYA VIPPARTI Architect – Urban Designer, Hyderabad, India Abstract If we are to recognize that life and architecture are part of a larger phenomenon of nature and the cosmos, we would realize that they are part of a never-ending process of creation or the process of becoming. This process is continuously fed by various inherent contradictions. The constant struggle to deal with these dual tendencies is essential to „existence‟ in the larger sense. Hence, the notion of „long lasting architecture‟ in the context of the perennial „process of becoming‟, itself has an inherent paradox.

Today, we are part of a network culture driven by digital network technology. Over the last 20 years or so, it has shaped the dynamics of contemporary society creating a whole new set of relationships which now drive the world. We live in a state of paradox in trying to deal with the unprecedented contradictions posed by this shift. Our frame of mind is desperately struggling and swaying between simultaneous conflicting tendencies.

With this picture in mind, the paper ponders whether architecture is a solution, a remedy or a mere reflection of these transformations.

The fundamental premise is that the paradox cannot and should not be resolved or camouflaged. It should be expressed and made integral to the architectural process. With this intent, the paper hopes to project an agenda to help dwell in the realm of „paradox‟.

Keywords: paradox, physical – virtual, long-lasting, network society, deconstruction INTRODUCTION Creation is necessarily paradoxical and problematic, as put forward by the philosopher Gilles Deleuze. It may never be fully understood, but the effort to lend coherence to

the paradox of life, is what drives the myriad cycles shaping the built environment.

This phenomenon is an omnipresent reality that the built environment has to deal with.

However, in spite of this subconscious awareness that flux is the only real constant, the human psyche looks for ways and means to reassure itself with a (mis)conception of stability. Architecture, of course is a prime mode to lend an apparent coherence to the forces of change at play.

With this background, the paper hopes to contribute to the conference‟s discussion on the issue of „Long lasting architecture in dynamic societies‟.

To begin with, it should be realized that permanence (long lasting/durability) and transience (dynamic/fleetingness) are opposites. There is an inherent paradox while talking of long lasting architecture in a dynamic society.

Firmitas along with utilitas and venustas were the three virtues of architecture suggested by Vitruvius in his „De Architectura‟. Firmitas refers to an architecture designed to survive the course of time. The paper attempts to revisit this notion in the context of present day societal dynamics.

Research Methodogy As stated at the outset, the paper uses the concept of „paradox‟ as a strong vehicle to develop an architectural praxis in contemporary society. It begins by explaining how our world is getting enmeshed in a „network‟-based society, and goes on to unearth the uncomfortable realm of paradox that it has given rise to. With this in mind, it reflects on an appropriate attitude to long lasting architecture, valid today and looking forward to the future. The paper then claims „paradox assumé‟ (working with the paradox)

2

as the way ahead, and builds on it to suggest a possible architectural paradigm.

The intention in this paper is not to come up with particular means whereby a design solution can be generated. Rather, the research operates at the level of suggesting a paradigm – a conclusion that could feed further discussion and design explorations.

A ‘SOCIETY’ SHAPED BY THE ‘NETWORK’ & A ‘NETWORK’ SHAPED BY THE ‘SOCIETY’ If we think about our lives, barely into the second decade of the 21st century, we can see any number of ways in which we are part of an ever-growing „networked‟ social order.

If we turn back to the last great cultural and socioeconomic upheaval (1960s -1980s)– we observe how, facing the rising complexity and costs of a globalizing world, with our faith in technology and even progress exhausted, we left the modern era behind for a new condition that we would eventually call post-modernity.

Over the course of the last two decades, but most especially during the decade from 2000 to 2010, we left post-modernity behind as well, hurtling instead into network society.

Technology returned to our lives in force, while social, economic and cultural changes transformed the world we live in. Few things have exerted as massive an impact on culture globally as the network – the result of spectacular parallel developments in personal computing and electronic communications. [1] Network itself serves as the best metaphor one can think of for where we are now and where we could be headed. In some cases, our migration into the network has been conscious and explicit. This includes our choice of email as a mode of communication and our increasing reliance on the network for information, news and exchange of ideas. In other cases, our colonization by the network has been hidden from our view. It might seem inconspicuous, but simple things like having an ATM card, debit card, discount card or even a citizen ID card means that you are in the network [2].

The network in it‟s explicit as well as latent forms has colonized the dynamics of our society and will continue to do so: Social More than ever we see relationships and human interactions co exist in the physical and virtual worlds. Social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Orkut have become a part of our everyday lives. They augment the physical experiences of our social life and sometimes substitute for our physical absence at gatherings and meetings.

Political Traditionally, there has been a disjunction between „big‟ politics and „grassroots‟ activity – big was national/international, and grassroots was local. However, we are increasingly seeing bottom-up political activity gain in strength aided by the network. An example of this is the success of the Arab Spring revolutions (revolutions in several Arab countries like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria etc since late 2010) which have effectively used social media to communicate and organize people driven movements.

Economic In network culture, information is the key currency. By removing the physical aspect of commodities from their representations, digitization enables capital to circulate much more freely and rapidly. This digitization further empowered by networked connections means that information is less the product of discrete processing units than the outcome of the networked relations between them, links between people, between machines, and between machines and people [3].

Increasingly, the immaterial production of information and its distribution through the network dominate the global economy.

Entertainment The network is also our go-to for recreation and entertainment. There is a seemingly unlimited availability of music, movies, games and books to be downloaded online.

DWELLING IN THE REALM OF ‘PARADOX’

3

Figure 1: A „network‟ based social order

Services We increasingly use the network to avail essential services such as health care, fire fighting, housekeeping, shopping, maintenance and civic services. The network is our window to our day-to-day necessities in going about our lives.

For better or for worse, we have embraced the network to drive our society today and to lead us into the future. There is no escaping the fact that we have well and truly become part of the world wide web of the network. To think of it, the network is not some unworldly alien insert enforced upon us. It is a man made construct which has developed and grown in it‟s complexity and engulfed everything (including us) in it‟s reach.

So, the network was a technological advancement achieved by man. The network in turn has re-crafted our society. Further, it is the workings of the society which again mould the network and fuel it‟s complexity. It is a fascinating vicious circle where „society‟ and „network‟ reflect each other.

THE REALM OF PARADOX Paradox is at the very heart of the nature of the network. It has inherent contradictions.

Network culture is predicated on connection.

The network is an infinite, amorphous entity meant to accommodate dematerialized transactions or flows of information and data

(textual, numerical, audio-visual). And it is fairly successful in it‟s capacity to „connect‟ across distances and time zones by means of these information flows.

However, it‟s dematerialized amorphous nature leaves a huge void with regard to fundamental human needs – the need to touch & feel, the need to taste, the need to smell, the need for emotional expression, the need for materiality, the need to sense scale, the need to quantify/measure.

This is the crux of the paradox posed by the network. It is all pervasive and ubiquitous in the virtual information world. Yet it is utterly incapable to connect to fundamental human physical needs.

Symptoms of Paradox Virtual world hyper-connectivity vs physical world disconnect The network imposed web of connections seems to be overtaking individuality. Alienation may be disappearing but so is solitude.

Constant connection can lead to overload – particularly with regard to the increasing permeation of non-work life by the office‟s electronic tether. But it seems we have collectively decided that it is better to be connected than being alone. Today we are less centred individuals, more assemblages produced out of network flows [3]. We are hyper-connected in the virtual world, and yet crave for interaction with the physical world.

4

Figure 2: the „network‟ induced „paradox‟

Chronic rate of change In our lives today, we face a flood of information on a day-to-day basis via all kinds of media- internet, news channels, magazines, social networking sites, television, movies, advertisements etc. The desire to catch up with all that is on offer means that our attention span is getting shorter. Trends and technology thus try to advance at a chronic pace to be able to offer „novelty‟ that can grab the short attention span. This chain reaction feeds our lust for novelty and our mania to keep up with change.

Identity crisis & disorientation The network with it‟s worldwide reach has created previously unthinkable connections across political boundaries, languages and traditions. While this has improved our awareness, the exposure to the cross cultural deluge of diversity has shaken the foundations of our respective value systems. We are confused and torn between our desire to project a global image and our loyalty to cultural identity & traditions.

We are invariably in transit and trying to keep up with time zones half way across the world.

We are constantly trying to find our way in the all pervasive web of networks and thus, thoroughly disoriented.

Architectural transformations The above discussion gives us a picture of the condition of conflict that characterizes our states of mind. It would now be useful to understand what it implies for architecture.

After all, architecture is shaped by and reflects broader social and cultural currents.

Collapse of inter relations of time-space-formfunction The global scale virtual information realm has made possible our transactions, interactions and activities across time zones and spatial uses. Thus, the resultant collapse of space – time limits.

Our fundamental space types – home, workplace, shop, institution, amenity; are getting hybridized with any of the other types.

This is because our activities are increasingly shifting to the virtual information world. Due to the location free and atemporality of these activities, the fundamental relationship between form/space and function/use is collapsing; thus leading to the creation of the „anti-type‟ (that category of spatial-systems that do not fall under any typology)[4].

In such a scenario it becomes impossible to have rational time-space-form-function inter relations.

DWELLING IN THE REALM OF ‘PARADOX’

Blurring of notions of order, hierarchy, centre, boundary The architectural rationale of our preceding era (20th century) was based on the logic of the „grid‟. The grid embodies a set of rational, finite, cause & effect relationships of timespace-form-function; thus creating a semblance of order amidst chaos. However, as has been discussed, the network culture with it‟s complexity has dismantled any such rational relationships. Thus the blurring of notions of order & hierarchy. The metaphor of grid is completely deficient in grasping this complex reality. A more appropriate metaphor would be a network of relationships. A network redistributes hierarchy and encapsulates the formless amorphous nature of information flows that now determine spatial relationships.

The network has no centre and no finite boundaries. It only has nodes or points of control and connections between nodes. Within the logic of the network, order and hierarchy gradually dissolve into juxtaposition of contradictory tendencies.

The paper will now go back to the issue of long-lasting architecture to suggest a valid approach in light of the network culture induced architectural transformations that have been brought to fore.

AN APPROPRIATE ATTITUDE TO LONG LASTING ARCHITECTURE Let‟s look back at history. The origins of architecture were not so much in the architecture of permanence as they were in an architecture of a temporary nature. Yet it has not received the type of attention or interest given to architecture of greater permanence.

Much of this relates to the dawn of human civilization in an agrarian system that depended on continuity, stability and permanence. Before agriculture, humans lived as hunters and gatherers. They followed the wild herds and good weather.

Their architecture provided a modicum of comfort while allowing maximum mobility, freedom and flexibility. These simple structures were temporary and portable. The advent of settlement as a way of life brought a new set of architectural circumstances. Buildings could

5

remain rooted to a site. Since then, permanence or long lasting quality has remained fundamental to the way most of us understand architecture. [5] Architecture for network nomads Having looked back at our nomad roots, we will realize that with the advent of network culture; we are, in a strange way going back to a nomadic way of life. Only this time, we wander around in the network, sometimes in the physical world and sometimes in the virtual world. The fact that we are headed towards this nomadic state is demonstrated by numbers which show that; even in the era of terrorism alerts, international air travel continues to grow worldwide. Numbers from 2002 show a 2% increase from the previous year to 1.6 billion passengers worldwide. By 2004, the overall passenger traffic was 8.4% greater than 2000. In 2005 the growth was 8.8% over 2004 [5].

However this condition of a „network nomad‟ is not a pleasant one. It is an existential state torn between the tendency to stay rooted to a physical construct and a conflicting tendency to be location-free & mobile. So, a relevant architectural approach today needs to encapsulate this conflict and also the contemporary paradoxical state of mind discussed in detail earlier.

Architecture‟s unprecedented paradox and confrontations of time-space-form-function along with the inevitable associated tension means that architecture today is constantly unstable. So in this context, does seeking long lasting architecture mean that the paradox should be resolved?

Beyond problem solving The notion that problem solving (in this case, paradoxes of network culture) is the purpose of design leads to perceive design process as a system. This implies a systematization of tasks: first requirement of a system is a boundary, so that setting the boundaries of the design system at the point where outside issues come to bear on the design task is to

6

ensure that the designer has a well defined and resolvable field of operation[6].

However, as has been explained in the previous section, the paradoxes brought about by network culture cause a blurring of the notions of order, hierarchy, centre and boundaries. In such circumstances, a problem solving system or an attempt to resolve paradoxes would only end up camouflaging latent fundamental issues.

The only thing constant with a paradox is it‟s simultaneous duality. An appropriate approach for long lasting architecture would therefore be to accommodate for this duality. One could think of it as two broad spatial frameworks (representing the duality of paradox) operating simultaneously, in conflict and yet dependent on one another. The design approach and architectural manifestation of this would be discussed further.

In light of the argument thus far, this paper emphasizes that the way ahead in dealing with the paradoxes faced by architecture, should not be to resolve it or balance it out. It should be an approach of using the paradox as an armature to build upon.

PARADOX ASSUMÉ – THE WAY AHEAD As has emerged, our state of paradox is a reality that we have to live with. It cannot be eliminated or balanced out or resolved. The way ahead is „paradox assumé‟, to accept paradox for it‟s contradictory dualities and

Figure 3: philosophical connotations of the paradox

work with it.

Philosophical connotations The concept of paradox itself is not completely new to us. It has been an important part of our journey as a civilization towards maturing in the spiritual, existential and cultural realms of life [fig.3].

Hinduism: Shiva Nataraja Shiva is Hinduism‟s paradoxical deity. One of his most fascinating forms is „Nataraja – the cosmic dancer‟. Shiva Nataraja simultaneously represents tranquillity-inward calm absorbed in the void of the absolute, but also total activitylife‟s energy, frantic, aimless and playful. It is a universal view in which forces of nature and man‟s aspirations, limitations confront each other and are blended together. [7] Yin – Yang theory Yin-Yang theory represents Chinese civilization‟s view of simultaneous duality. Yin and Yang represent occurrences which occur in pairs and have complementary, yet opposing characteristics. Some examples include: sky and earth, day and night, water and fire, active and passive, male and female and so on. It was realized that nearly all things have yin and yang properties i.e., paradoxical duality [8].

Roman god Janus & Janusian thinking In ancient Roman religion and mythology, Janus is a two-faced god, symbolizing his dual nature. He represented the middle ground

DWELLING IN THE REALM OF ‘PARADOX’

between beginnings & endings, barbarism & civilization, rural & urban, childhood & adulthood and so on. Named after Janus, Janusian thinking (recognized in 1970s) involves formulation of paradoxical ideas and trying to work with them. [9] This analysis reiterates that humanity and thus architecture evolve and mature while dealing with paradox as shaped by change with time.

Enriching the design process In spite of it‟s ambiguous and complex nature, we intuitively appreciate the multiple levels of meaning that a paradox implies. To call a thought construction a paradox is to imply that a certain ambiguity is being conserved, that there is an advantage in not stating things as either “black or white”[6].

Paradoxes should be seen by the designer as furnishing excellent opportunities for his most creative and powerful work. They are rational constructions which utilize the potential of the irrational and indescribably complex.

Juxtaposing the two conflicting forces of a paradox gives rise to the creation of new integrated ideas. This phenomenon is to be valued for it‟s ability to introduce indeterminate thinking to the design process The rapid rate of change in our culture increasingly demands creative thinking tools to deal with conflicting tendencies in the midst of unprecedented complexity and diversity.

The paper will now synthesize the learnings thus far, to outline an architectural paradigm to help dwell in the realm of paradox.

TOWARDS PARADIGM

AN

ARCHITECTURAL

The struggle to come to grips with paradox in architecture leads us to a fundamental question – What does architecture hold on to in a scenario where traditionally held cause and effect relationships of time-space-formfunction and notions of hierarchy, order are blurred. This question disturbs the very basis of our view of the purpose of architecture. This concern finds echo in Bernard Tschumi‟s

7

‘Architecture and Disjunction’. Tschumi states “I would suggest that there has never been any reason to doubt the necessity of architecture, for the necessity of architecture is it‟s non-necessity. It is useless but radically so.” [10]. This statement is not meant to be understood as a dismissal of the role of architecture in the dynamics of a society.

Rather it tries to provoke us to rise above our common practice of working with architecture as a static-logic based framework. We need to work with it as a set of dynamic „network‟ based relationships of time-space-formfunction.

To begin to grapple with this phenomenon, one could look at a four stage process leading towards a possible architectural paradigm.

1. Deconstruction Deconstruction is a strategy to break down norms based on a static view of architecture, in order to align it with the transformations brought about by network culture induced paradoxes. Above all, the aim is to attack cause and effect relationships of time-spaceform-function-order-hierarchy. The idea of deconstructing a given program is to show that the program could challenge the very ideology it implied, in turn reinforcing contemporary paradoxes.

The strategy of deconstruction works by a common denominator - rejection of the notion of synthesis in favour of the idea of dissociation and disjunction [10].

Let‟s look at the fundamental components that make up the built environment – home, workplace, shop, institution, amenity and open space/green space.

The strategy of deconstruction intends to tear apart traditionally held relationships between these components. In such a scenario, the components are not held together by any rational rule or principle. This is when the forces of network induced paradox take over.

The permutations and combinations that now govern the working of the built environment‟s components reflect the dynamics of the network. Thus, home could become workplace,

8

Figure 4: Juxtaposition of deconstructed fragments

amenity could become recreational, shop could become home and so on; any configuration could happen as and how demanded by the network society‟s contradictory tendencies.

2. Juxtaposition The next stage after deconstruction is to bring together the deconstructed fragments to form an ensemble. This process is based on the following principles: - Responding to conflicting forces of paradox, by superimposition or juxtaposition of contradictory tendencies. This brings about a new set of spatial relationships.

- Emphasis placed, as a method, on dissociation, superimposition, and combination, which triggers dynamic forces that expand into the whole architectural system, exploding it‟s li mits while suggesting a new definition.[10] 3. Interface After going through the processes of deconstruction and juxtaposition, an unexpected set of spatial configurations emerges.

What emerges is that the deconstruction of spatial components and their superimposed reassembling (based on the forces of paradox), smokes out the latent paradox from it‟s hiding and exposes it as naked truth.

This physical exposing of the paradox creates three basic types of interface a) Reciprocity: Sequences of spaces and their use can become totally interdependent and fully condition each other‟s existence. One then observes a strategy of reciprocity in which each sequence actually reinforces the other [10]. For example, the use of home as home. b) Indifference: Sequences of spaces and their use can be largely dependent on one another. However, in this condition one observes indifference where formal considerations do not depend on utilitarian ones [10]. For example, use home as a workplace. c) Conflict: Sequences of events and spaces occasionally clash and contradict each other. One then observes a condition of conflict in which each sequence constantly transgresses the other‟s internal logic [10].

For example, transformation of home to a casino.

According to the strict terms of logic, nothing differentiates a) from c). However, the actual difference between the normative “a)” and disjunctive “c)”, generally depends on a moral or aesthetic judgement. Hence, according to circumstances, a functional building can become conflictual or vice versa. What counts is the set of configurations as set in play by the network‟s forces of paradox.

DWELLING IN THE REALM OF ‘PARADOX’

9

Figure 5: Manifestation of the network‟s paradoxes

4. REAL-VIRTUAL NETWORK

The last stage to complete the picture is the architectural manifestation of the network. On the one hand the information flows of the network take place in the virtual world. On the other hand physical connections are created to enable interactions between the reassembled deconstructed spatial fragments.

Digital technology has now advanced to a point where it can be integrated into building technology. Using glass, light and digital media presents a rich palette of architectural possibilities. Glass with electronically charged polymers can now produce moving colour images at any size. This apart from LED technology could mean that whole building facades could become interactive surfaces. All this to suggest that the physical and virtual forms of the network could interact and reflect each other conflicting tendencies. Network and it‟s paradoxes could then well and truly become part of contemporary architectural expression.

Figure 5 suggests a probable outcome of the four stages suggested above - deconstruction, juxtaposition, interface and real-virtual network. This generic diagram could imply

many different manifestations depending on different contexts and circumstances. A reaction to this contention could be that network society can dwell in existing scenarios (for example, high activity global network nodes like New York or Tokyo) by way of adaptive reuse or other such means to mould the built environment to suit the new dynamics. But that would only mean, underplaying or concealing the forces of paradox at play. The above discussion tries to show a direction towards recognizing complexity as an essential part of our life today and to integrate it with architectural practice, as a means of coming to terms with the paradox and working with it.

CONCLUSION Before summarizing the findings in this paper, it would be worth pointing out some parallels with an architectural movement from the second half of the twentieth century, „structuralism‟. Aldo van Eyck was a leading proponent of this school of thought. He was a thinker who tried to work with the complexity of society. He believed in embracing forces of paradox in a society, or as he termed it „twin phenomena‟ (apparently opposite phenomena which depend on each other for their meaning). This complexity cannot be fathomed as a rational form. He believed that an

10

architectural approach that tried to reduce this complexity into a more manageable model did not do justice to the dynamics of society. He raised the question, “If society has no form, can architecture build the counterform?” [11] Structuralists searched for hidden systems, structures, powers or laws behind cultural or social phenomena; to drive their theories. In this case, the network and the associated paradoxes have been chosen to serve as the structure to hold together an architectural approach.

It emerges from the search in this paper that paradox can provide the impetus for a renewed view of architecture and design process. The dynamics of contemporary architecture cannot take a polarized stance of the dual tendencies of the paradox. Rather, it has to be an engagement of these opposing forces in an ever changing network of relationships.

The paradigm suggested by the paper simply implies a constant process of disjunction where time-space-form–function relationships are determined by the workings of the dynamic network, which in turn operates on the interactions of the virtual information realm and physical context. This process involves a series of transformational relationships. The analysis of our present condition as a dislocated one suggests the possibility of future regroupings, just as particles of matter in space will occasionally concentrate and form new points of intensity, so the fragments of the dislocation can be reassembled in new and unexpected relations.

It is clear that resolving the instability caused by the network culture induced paradoxes, is beyond the scope of architecture. We need to look beyond problem solving. In an era of unprecedented pace of change and technological advances, architecture has the responsibility to accommodate for these transformations and yet expose the hidden reality behind these forces.

Throughout history, the most long-lasting aspect of architecture has been it‟s success in reflecting dynamics of society and in helping it negotiate them. Today, when all rational norms are under attack by the forces of paradox, architecture needs to take the stance that the paradox is a bitter reality which cannot be escaped or concealed. It needs to exposed, expressed and accommodated for. What now

appears to be a volatile irrational condition could be better streamlined into our ways of life, only when we accept it for it‟s unpleasant reality. After all, that is how we evolve – by struggling with the paradoxes of life to emerge wiser.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Notes: 1. Varnelis, K., Culture in the Age of Networks: a Critical History, http://varnelis.net/network_culture (8 August 2010, 4pm IST) 2. Smith, S.R., Postmodernism is Dead – Now What?, http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol3_ No1_polisci_smith.html (13 August 2010, 11am IST) 3. Varnelis, K., The Rise of Network Culture, http://varnelis.net/the_rise_of_network_ culture, pp.1-5, (11 August 2010, 5:30pm IST).

4. Vipparti, A., Adapting to a Culture of ‘Transience’ – Design Methodology for the 21st Century City, Proceedings – Architecture in the Fourth Dimension Conference, Boston, 2011.

5. Chappel, B.D., Ephemeral Architecture – Towards a Definition, http://courses.arch.ntua.gr/fsr/140724/ephem eral-architecture.pdf (21 September 2012, 11am IST).

6. Becher, T.J., The Importance of Paradox to the Design Process, pp. 1-15, 203-208, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1980.

7. History of Shiva and Shiva worship, www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/deities/shiva. htm, (28 July 2012, 4pm IST).

8. Yin Yang Theory, www.shen-nong.com, (27 July 2012, 10pm IST).

9. Janus, www.wikipedia.org, (28 July 2012, 8am IST).

10. Tschumi, B., Architecture and Disjunction, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1994.

11. Smithson, A. (ed.), Team 10 Primer 19531962, Architectural Design, No. 12, pp.559600, December 1962.

Sources of illustrations: - Figures 1, 2, 4, 5: Author - Figure 3: http://images.google.com