Design realization report
In the open Johan Ahl Eliasson Studio Constructing an Archive Aarhus School of Architecture June 1st 2015 Design realization mentor: Søren Kristensen Engineering tutor: Jens Martin Nielsen Studio teachers: Claudia Carbone, Izabela Wieczorek
Contents Title page
1
Contents
3
Academic context and physical surroundings
4-5
Aims
6
Diaries
7
Device program
8
Realizing the device
8 - 11
Site
12 - 19
Registration of a fictional world
13 - 17
Plan
18
Sections
19
Landscaping
20 - 21
Program
22
Intervention
23 (foldout)
Ascension
24 - 25
Design dialogue
26 - 31
Infinite staircase realization
32 - 35
References and inspiration
36-37
Literature
38
Links
39
Page 3
Academic context and physical surroundings As a student of architecture at Studio Constructing an Archive I have along with my fellow students been asked to engage in an individual academic architectural project. An area on the island of Laesoe has been designated as the site. We have not received a given program, instead we are expected to produce one individually.
“We have not received a given program”
The site investigation ATLAS 1 show the island to be in flux on several tangents. During the two millennia since the island appeared as a sandbank its landscape has morphed through deforestation, salt mining, erosion, sanddrift etc. Hornfiskrøn and it´s surrounding tidal flats constitute the most extreme part of Laesø in this respect. The landscape is extremely flat with very few features. There is only one building, a communal hunter´s cabin. No one lives on Hornfiskrøn. Few have a reason to go there, let alone the stamina. Getting there by foot is a struggle and there are no roads. The assignment and subsequent tutoring have progressed in keeping with the properties of the island. It´s ephemeral qualities have been emphasized as well as process, experimentation and narrative 2. Additionally, the creation of a device has been a cornerstone of the studio creative process. The course Design realization has been incorporated in the project and led to tutoring sessions with a design realization mentor (architect Søren Kristensen) and an engineering tutor (engineer Jens Martin Nielsen) and finally to this report and a subsequent project presentation.
1 For complete digital version of ATLAS see Links 2 The assignment briefs can be found on the studio webpage, see Links
Page 4
“It´s ephemeral qualities have been emphasized as well as process, experimentation and narrative”
Excerpt from site investigation ATLAS
Page 5
Aims I have during the past years been kean on formulating boundaries for what architecture is: It is bound to a specific place; it is built to last; it is made by humankind. It is also a response to a need, however vague. I have also been of the opinion that every point in space and time offers an ideal architectural operation. Given total information every problem (in it´s widest sense) has an ideal solution and only one. The role of the architect is to discover that solution, like the sculptor chipping away the stone and discovering the artwork inside. Momentarily disregarding whether or not these statements are true, they are not as powerful propellants as I´d like them to be. Within this project I instead try to challenge my preconceptions and “seek danger” 1. The site seems to go along with this idea. Instead of providing a solid physical and permanent site embedded in the idea of organic architecture, it provides in a way a non-site. It´s featurelessness and impermanence together with the absence of a program or apparent need evoke the image of a blank canvas. I am forced not only to come up with an answer but also with a question.
“ Momentarily disregarding whether or not these statements are true, they are not as powerful propellants as I´d like them to be. Within this project I instead try to challenge my preconceptions ”
The situation described is an extreme version of a phenomenon I call the creative feedback loop, an effect of the properties of the academic architectural project. Unknowingly or not, every project produced without the intention of building involves the creation of a fictional world wherein the architectural operation is acted out. This world is often connected to the real world by an existing site and sometimes also an existing need, but a mirror image fiction is inevitable. As is the creation of a fictional agent, an alter ego Architect. This fiction is not a perfect reflection. Because of incomplete or contradictory information as well as the possibility of withholding information, the creator or Author of the project has the ability to make changes to the fiction in order to accomodate the project. The question accomodates the answer, creating a distortion of the fictional world. This initiates a feedback loop, similar to it´s audial namesake in that it spirals out of control. The question is changed to accomodate the answer, the answer is changed to accomodate the question. Instead of fighting the loop, I embrace it in order to reach it´s critical point. The project develops into an investigation of the relationship between the real and unreal, the physical and fictional, the space and the paper.
1 Lecture by Jonathan Hill at Aarhus School of Architecture on March 5th 2015
Page 6
“ Instead of fighting the loop, I embrace it”
Diaries In order to put focus and pressure on the fictional and the physical described above I keep three parallell diaries during the project. The Architect is the fictional alter ego acting in the fictional world. The Author is the voice of the student producing the project. Self is my presumed authentic thoughts on the project, kept secret until now. The diaries are updated every day and uploaded on the project blog 1. Besides constantly reminding me of academic project and the roles of it´s catalyst, feeding back into the project. imagining new spaces, so can writing,
“ The Architect is the fictional alter ego acting in the fictional world”
the inevitable properties of the cast, the diaries act as a creative As drawing can be a medium for and with other possibilities.
The diaries are also critical, aiming to expose the sometimes vain and empty mechanics of the absurdity of the academic architectural project. However, this angle wanes as the project matures and gains in complexity. It is made obvious that a clear cut division into three levels is actually impossible. Especially the diary of Self is problematic. There is no such thing as an unmediated thought. A diary of a deeper self is necessary, though as soon as this Deeper self is realized, it will create a new even deeper one, not unlike an eternity mirror 2.
Architect: March 27th 2015 I stayed up all night studying the glossy photo paper pictures, arranging and rearranging them. First on my desk, then on the floor as I find watching them from above standing on a chair heightens my understanding. Sometimes the confused landscapes invoke a sharp memory from that day on site but most of the time they are just unreadable blur. Author: April 12th 2015 The relation between the existing weirdly circular hole in the ground and the fictional world created beside it is interesting. Partly on an aesthetic level. Seeing them together in a plan or axonometry, they seem to complement each other. The hole is hard, blank and unnaturally circular. It is also a void in a way. The fictional world site is a square shape but also very uneven and seemingly random in it´s expression. It also juts out of the ground plane, contrary to the hole. Self: May 13th 2015 I spent some hours today tracing the fictional site. In hindsight I used too much time rendering shadows and contours and making it look good (it is only an intermediary drawing and will not be seen in the final presentation). However, there is something to be said for gaining confidence.
1 Project blog, see Links 2 “Omgivelser” by Olafur Eliasson, shown at Aros kunstmuseum 2014-2015
Page 7
“ the absurdity of the academic architectural project”
Device program One of the accelerants of the aforementioned creative feedback loop is distorted and contradictory information. The device and it´s scheme of useage enables distortions and contradictions. Wearing the device, one´s vision is distorted and in a way randomized. Inside, the wearer has at hand tools to produce representations of visual experience as well as equipment to navigate without exterior sensory input. This creates a situation where the wearer experiences, registers and in effect produces a fictional world while simultaneously navigating both the new unreal world and the real one. Randomization is used in order to disconnect the distortion from choice. The medium of water color painting as form of registration is used to ensure the impossibility of backtracking. Short of a dissection of the user´s brain in order to find traces of synapses flaring at those specific moments in time, an excavation of the unreal world will not yield reliable information on the properties of the real world.
“ Inside, the wearer has at hand tools to produce representations of visual experience as well as equipment to navigate without exterior sensory input”
Realizing the device The frame of the device shuts down the view of the wearer by blocking the field of vision. The frame, which is disassembled into a flat package for transport, also holds the device´s constituent parts. The user wears an eye-piece mirror, customized to transport vision to the angled distortion mirror mounted in the “ceiling”. The upper half of the front piece is open to allow visual information to travel from the outside to the distortion mirror. It is essentially a periscope. The frame also holds a drawing table which in turn includes a number of tools listed in the drawing on the next page. A lighter and looser construction of plastic tubes was tested but the stableness of the frame proved essential in order to get the angles of the mirrors and the size of the opening and the blocking of the view exactly right. The distortion mirror, consisting of 644 mirrors placed at five different angles were designed using a 20-sided die rolled 644 times.
Page 8
“It is essentially a periscope”
Isometric representation of device 1:10
B
A 1.
1.
2.
3.
2.
D 1. 2.
C
1. 2.
1. 2. 3.
1.
A
6 mm laser-cut plywood frame White waxed fabric
B
Distorting mirror mounted on plywood frame White waxed fabric 5 mm laser-cut white-painted mdf frame
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
C
Water bottle Water colours Level Mixing palette Plastic underlay Compass 5 mm laser-cut white-painted mdf table
D 1. 2.
Mirror eyepiece mounted with cardboard frame and rubber headband Strap
Page 9
The inside of the device ready for use at site.
The device is assembled on site by pushing the frames into their slots. It is secured by wooden pins.
Page 10
The front of the device, showing the distorting mirror. The mirror is secured to the frames by four screws.
The mdf frame on the top of the device is secured using a variant method: velcro straps.
Page 11
Lower: Site chosen by randomization
Site A small group of students went by foot to Hornfiskrøn carrying more or less cumbersome devices. We started walking before dawn, partly because we wanted to get the most out of our limited time on site but mostly because of the tide being low early in the morning. I chose the specific site prior to the trip using a grid overlay on a map and a randomizing method. Most carried out their investigations in the tidal flat beach zone. I went alone a couple of hundred meters into the fields of the island. I found the specific site using GPS and assembled the device. The site had a weird atmosphere, almost mystical. In the middle of the flat field there was an almost perfectly circular pool of water 20 meters across. Although I was relatively close to the water I could not see it. It was obscured by the forest in the east but most prominently and surprisingly, by the very slight bowl shape of the field. It felt as if though the vey flatness of the island obscured water and the rest of the world, ironically imbuing the site with a sense of claustrophobia.
“ironically a sense of claustrophobia�
#18 Alternative outcome 3 Latitude: 57.213333 Longitude: 11.034115
#259 Alternative outcome 2 Latitude: 57.208058 Longitude: 11.002186
#472 Primary site outcome Latitude: 57.205048 Longitude: 11.010265
Page 12
#589 Alternative outcome 1 Latitude: 57.202793 Longitude: 11.020232
Lower: Diagram of water color registration procedure
Registration of a fictional world I navigated in a square pattern, stopping at points coinciding with eight points of the compass. Again using the compass I turned around, aiming my vision towards the site and painted the distorted image I saw with the help of a grid on the paper corresponding to the constellation of smaller mirrors on the distortion mirror. This resulted in eight water colour paintings depicting the fictional unreal landscape produced by the device.
Page 13
Upper: Water color painting North Lower: Water color painting Northeast
Page 14
Upper: Water color painting East Lower: Water color painting Southeast
Page 15
Upper: Water color painting South Lower: Water color painting Southwest
Page 16
Upper: Water color painting West Lower: Water color painting Northwest
Page 17
Lower: Plan drawing 1:100 (not to scale)
Plan I started by reversing the method of drawing perspectives from plan and section. I marked eight points of view on a large paper, placed in relation to each other according to the eight points where I had registered the fictional world. I then placed the paintings on the picture plane and drew lines from the points of view, through the picture plane marking prominent features, thereby creating fields of material on the square plan of the fictional site. Because the eight paintings contradict each other, the plan became a blur of unclear information. However, this only used x-axis information of the paintings.
Page 18
“I then placed the paintings on the picture plane�
Sections (in order North, Northeast, East, Southeast, South, Southwest, West, Northwest
Sections In order to use the y-axis information I placed 3-dimensional grids inside the paintings and traced sections.
Page 19
Lower: Site plan/isometry 1:100 (not to scale)
Landscaping Having produced a plan and eight sections I merged them all into an isometric representation and placed them on site in a drawing. A highly contradictory and ambivalent cluster of information is created, posing as a site or landscape. It is totally disconnected from the real site and world, but is at the same time transplanted into it and by me as a conduit and wearer of the device, very much in connection with it and in a way placed in it. The cluster is both very specific and extremely blurry. In it´s contradictions lie a total openness, as every fleck of information can be interpreted in any number of ways. It becomes an extreme version of the open featureless landscape of the real site. Anything is possible.
Page 20
“both very specific and extremely blurry”
Upper: Site model 1:50 Lower: Site model 1:50 close-up
Page 21
Program The first half of the project is centered around setting a stage that frees the creative process. It frees me from my preconceived notions of architectural truth and it´s preocccupation with site by replacing the site with an everchanging cluster of unreliable and morphing information. It purposely accelerates the creative feedback loop by giving the Author control of the site´s properties. It sets up a theme of vision, experience and distortion. Finally the site retains a connection to the real site through the pool of water too mystical an element to pass up and through the claustrophobic atmosphere experienced at site. What then in this openness? Stripped of the questions, what will architecture do? What will I do? - It turns out the project looks to itself, grasping anything in it´s vicinity. The project becomes a monument to it´s own discourse, explaining and retracing itself and what I as creator feed into it, culture? Faced with the task of coming up with a program I choose the typology of the tower. A tower can be described as a transporter of vision and in this way it is a clear translation of the device into an architectural operation. It is also a retort to the claustrophobic quality of the real site. By ascending in a tower, the sea and horizon can be reached. The tower also brings with it a distortion of the landscape, it drags out and morphs as vision moves vertically. The tower can also be seen as a metaphor for the rise of humankind. One important step in the human evolution was the development of a neck and spine supporting an upward body able to see far across the grassy fields of the primordial landscape. This way of seeing the world led to the possibility of planning ahead, using tools and further down the line architecture. The tower is the head of the human body reaching upwards, seeing far and wide.
“an everchanging cluster of unreliable and morphing information” “A theme of vision, experience and distortion”
“A transporter of vision” “distortion of the landscape”
The tower The tower is built by the fictional Architect on the fictional site but more importantly it exists on the physical paper of the drawing. It is a 2-dimensional image able to evoke architectural experiences within the one regarding it. The construction of this tower lies in it´s perspectival helping lines, it´s stableness depends on the shading of it´s pillars. Building this tower is dragging a pencil across a paper surface. The drawing is a sketchpad, register of failed attempts, narrative, symbol and architecture in itself. The design of the tower oscillates between the unreal world of the paper and the real world of the sketch models, the references and the machinations of the human eye and brain. The impossible Penrose stair, used by M.C. Escher in his famous illustrations 1, extending the ascension eternally, is only possible in a 2-dimensional world. Additionally there is a narrative logic to the design of the tower. It begins in distraught attempts, devoid of system, an Architect flailing in the erratic environment of the fictional site. As the tower grows and rears it´s head it becomes more and more geometrically clear, at the same time vanishing, becoming only experience, only vision, only landscape. 1 for example “Ascending and descending”, 1960
Page 22
“Building this tower is dragging a pencil across a paper surface”
Drawing of tower 1:50/1:1 (drawing approx. 150 cm tall) Currently work in progress
Page 23
Ascension The User: I go into the site, it is filled with elements, flying objects, water running upwards. Grass on the ground, small stones big stones. It is like a forest of landscape. I can see far but not far enough. The sea which I know is near enough is hidden. There might as well be a wall instead of a horizon. I feel as a bug or mouse must feel. Hunted. Trapped. Unable to encompass my surroundings. Unable to plan ahead, trapped in my own landscape. I stretch my long neck upwards but it is not enough. My vantage point is still far too low. I try jumping but only reach another 30 centimeters or so of air. I walk past a rudimentary ladder broken by over-use. Ladder upon ladder, each one taller than the last, reach for the sky, propped up on chunks of dirt levitating. Nature seems ready to pop at any moment, like a bubble. Rather it is changing at every turn. So random, so illogical, so uncontrolled and unmeasurable that it becomes nothing more than a visual obstruction and a heightening of the prison of vision. Anything set down on this grass must claim it´s primitive shape, it´s dislocated nature. Bones of constructions stand abandoned offering a stretch of up to several meters of upward movement. Ropes slung around flying boulders carry steps and stairs, ramps and leeways. I am faced with logs and sticks protruding from the earth, stuck in the dirt between the stones. Prior tests, trying to reach further. They look like bleached bones in the sand. A cluster of wood form a backbone, a ribcage of sorts. Straight after straight of wood overlaps and forms a primitive stair. The steps are horizontal poles, polished by fevered climbing. A careless step will slip your foot and whole leg into the voids. I climb the steps and they curve in a way which leaves my vision unhindered. I see the stretches of scape before me, the rolling field interrupted by brushes here and there. As my head and eyes move upwards I experience a distortion of the landscape. It seems to expand, drag out. My world is enlargened. It is sweeping under me and I am still only a couple of meters above the ground. I still cannot see the water. The wooden stair-object connects to something larger ahead, something looming ahead which i am currently encircling. Huge, long, stripped pine logs planted firmly in the shore of the pond support a nestlike structure, seemingly too large for it´s stilts. It is a roughly cylindrical hive of overlapping branches, planks and cloven logs. The ends of each element is connected to the next, each supporting the other in an endless stream of material, in the beginning producing a continuation of the first stair, I am sliding along on the outside of the womb, climbing higher with every step. The gaps between the branches/planks shine with the sun and the sky, rippling against my face and my left arm. My right arm is far out in the landscape, flying in the wind which tugs at my sleeve and hair. I am sometimes inside the structure, sometimes outside, always with a view of the landscape though, a continuous transformation. Inside there is a sucking hole that is the center of the tower, a clear view of the pond from above. A huge mirror in the glass, reflecting the inside of the tower, the overlapping and the ascending stairs and my eyes in the middle of it all. At the top the sparkling, fiery backdrop of the blue blue sky and clouds. As I climb the tower is evolving, finding shapes, geometry. The shapeless nest
Page 24
Below: Excerpt from tower drawing 1:50 (not to scale)
becomes a hexagon, clearer and clearer, losing unnecessary construction material, reaching towards becoming only a stair. I go round and round, endlessly ascending. Every lap the same as the next and last. In a loop. The experience of the landscape drawn out further and further, seemingly forever, is only obstructed by the stair itself and it´s albeit slim supporting structure. I am suddenly on a new path, nothing is changing yet the steps are disappearing, they are made of a new material, something reflecting, I can see myself, first as a blurry mass of moving colour, then clearer, a sharp image of a distorted human being. The pillars vanish slowly, first becoming covered with rows and rows of overlapping mirrors, all aimed at different images. The walls are nothing. The architecture is becoming transparent, made of glass. I can see through it. It is reduced to the feeling of my feet against blank surfaces, my body moved along by the fight against gravity. The everexpanding landscape are my walls and the back of my eyes. I am reduced to a body in space. I am flying. I am disappearing. I am ascending.
Page 25
Lower: Sketch of alternative lower version of tower and it´s construction
Design dialogue It was not obvious from the beginning how to use the design realization phase as my project is somewhat ephemeral and to a large part based on text and 2-dimensional drawing. There is no clear-cut design that needs to be realized. However, I have in dialogue with my design realization mentor and with my teachers found a way to incorporate a design dialogue into the project and hopefully gain from the otherwise starch contrast between the unreality of my project and the proposed reality of the design realization phase. At first I made a concession to the design realization phase by separating my project into two parts, each connected to the physical and fictional respectively. The ziggurat-like structure placed in the middle of the pond, acting as a condensation of the project in the real world was the subject of the first meeting with the engineer:
Author: May 7th 2015 I had tutoring today with an engineer. It was well needed and well timed, I have reached a point in the design of the tower where construction and material choices start to lead the way. I proposed the idea of using the traditional timber construction (”stone chest”) as a base for the tower, in the middle of the pond. I immediately got the answer to the question why this solution is more common in the north of Sweden: Minuscule saltwater-living animals burrow into the wood and eventually destroy it. The solution is usually to impregnate the wood with chemicals or use imported wood, like siberian larch or azobe. This revelation instigated a short but intense crisis: A “complicated solution such as this does not rhyme with the simplicity and DIY-aura I want to instill in the tower! The design of the tower would have to be entirely reimagined. I spent the afternoon coming up with alternative solutions, changing the topology of the bottom of the pond and retaking several important standpoints. Asking the engineer for an additional question or two, we together realized that the pond probably does not have salt water but fresh or brackish. The burrowing animals do not live in these waters. All of a sudden, the “stone chest” solution was back on the table. In fact, I know as little of the constitution of the water as I know of the bottom of the pond. In a way, it is nothing more than a flat image. Because of this, the pond becomes a malleable thing, and an archetypal pond in a general sense.
Page 26
“The burrowing animals do not live in these waters”
Upper left and right: Sketch model of alternative lower version of tower 1:50 Lower: Excerpt from tower drawing 1:50 (not to scale)
Upon seeing the somewhat underwhelming “tower” of the real, my tutors convinced me that the grander scheme of the fictional tower in fact was as real as the “real” one. My concession was therefore needless. The ziggurat-like structure was abandoned, although design and construction elements of it remain in the fictional tower. Discussions with my design realization mentor made the relation between the tower drawing of the fictional world and the design realization phase clearer. The oscillation between the real and the physical, the possible and impossible described under Program (page 22) stem partly from the design realization phase. Excerpts from this process follow.
Page 27
the fictional tower was in fact as real as the “real” one.
Upper: Sketch models Lower left: Sketch model, overlapping wood structure Lower right: A sketch of an inf initely overlapping structure
There is something primal in the act of overlapping sticks or planks to create a larger shape, consider bird´s nests, traditional scandinavian wooden architecture, tree houses etc. This is an instance where the physical sketch modelling led to understandings of shape and construction which could be fed into the fictional 2-dimensional and unreal world of the paper drawing.
Overlapping has the potential to initiate a system where every element simultaneously supports and is supported. Such a system would fit perfectly into the world of the tower, a system that breaks itself and breaks itself open. The facing page describes two types of overlapping, both are excerpts from the tower drawing. The higher one describes a skin structure of mirrors, the lower one a supporting system more akin to a bird´s nest or the sketch model above.
Page 28
“the physical sketch modelling led to understandings of shape and construction”
“every element simultaneously supports and is supported”
Excerpts from tower drawing 1:50 (not to scale)
Page 29
Construction sketches The over-arcing theme when it comes to the constructional logic of the tower is overlapping, in most cases wood, planks and logs and joists. The tower seems to float above the circular pond, necessitating strong yet light support. I use a structure of straight pine tree logs planted in the ground hexagonally. They meet the ground in cylindrical steel pipes ensuring stable footing in the ground most probably made of clay.
Pine tree log meeting ground
Clay soil
Steel horizontal dividing barrier
Cylindrical steel pipe punched into the ground
The log poles are tall, in some places over thirty or fourty meters, in some places infinite. The tutoring by the engineer drew my attention to the fact that pine tree logs only come in lengths of maximum 20-25 meters. Additionally, they get thinner the closer to the top you get, they decrease in diameter approximately one centimeter per meter in height. The poles are joined as shown in the sketch below.
Single pine tree log
Log notched for joint
Three hex bolts
Twin pine tree logs
Page 30
Upper left: Concept sketch from sketchbook Upper right: Model testing the structure Lower left and right: Excerpts from tower drawing 1:50 (not to scale) The loadbearing main pinelogs interact in a simple geometrical pattern, leaning/rotating in two directions, repeating the themes of overlapping and rotation. The lower drawings show me and the Architect simultaneously trying out this strategy.
Page 31
Upper: Excerpt from tower drawing (not to scale) Lower: Model of inf inite staircase 1:20
Infinite staircase realization
From a specif ic angle the two ends of the stairs seem to be on the same level, an optival illusion.
Page 32
Detail model of stair construction 1:20
Page 33
Isometric representation of stair 1:20
200 mm pine tree logs
300 mm pine tree logs
Page 34
Stair Detail Plan & Section 1:20
16 mm hex bolt
45x95 mm wooden joists cc 300 mm
Wooden planks 145x22 mm
Log notched at intervals for joist placement
12 mm hex bolt
Page 35
References and inspiration - images/projects
Tower design by Archizoom, 1970
“Monument to the Third International” by Vladimir Tatlin, 1919-1920
Plate from “Antichita Romanae” by Giovanni Battista Piranesi, 1748
“Ref lecting” by Andy Goldsworthy
Painting by Minoru Nomata
“Non-site” by Robert Smithson, 1969
“The Tower of Babel” by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563
Tower design by Archizoom
Alternative version of “Temple of Death” by Etienne Louis Boulée, 1795
Page 36
Image from “Continuous Monument Series” by Superstudio, 1969
“Nimis” by Lars Vilks, 1980-2015 (ongoing)
Drawing by Peter Salter, 1993
Lysekil watchtower, 1890
Drawing of tower by Lebbeus Woods, 1980s
“Relativity” by M.C. Escher, 1953
Angkor Wat main tempel, 12th century
Impossible Triangle sculpture by Brian Mckay and Ahmad Abas
Illustration by Jean Giraud (Moebius)
Page 37
References and inspiration - literature
•
Carpo, Mario and Lemerle, Frédérique (ed.). 2008. Perspective, projections and design. New York: Routledge.
•
Menswoort, Koert van. 2006. Real Nature Is Not Green. Vermeulen.
•
Evans, Robert. 1997. Translations From Drawing to Building. London: Janet Evans and Architectural Association Publications.
•
Hill, Jonathan. 2006. Immaterial Architecture. Routledge.
•
Macaes Costa, Barbara and Gugger, Harry. 2014. Urban-Nature: The Ecology of the Planetary Artifice. Published in San Rocco, vol. Ecology, Issue 10.
•
Avissar, Ido. 2014. Tranquility in Disorder: Notes on Ecology, Planning and Laissez-faire. Published in San Rocco, vol. Ecology, Issue 10.
•
Escrig, F. 1998. Towers and Domes. Southampton: Computational Mechanics Publications.
•
Hirschfeld, C.C.L. (Parshall, Linda B. (ed.). 2001. Theory of Garden Art. United States of America: University of Pennsylvania Press.
•
Crary, Jonathan. 1988. Techniques of the Observer. The MIT Press.
Links •
Studio home page: http://rum1.aarch.dk/index.php?id=147102
•
Project blog: www.constructinganarchive-johan.tumblr.com
•
ATLAS issuu: http://issuu.com/johanahleliasson/docs/atlas_issuu/1
Images •
Tower design by Archizoom, 1970: http://www.rndrd.com/i/228 (May 26th 2015)
•
“Non-site” by Robert Smithson, 1969: http://www.robertsmithson.com/sculpture/12.htm (May 27th 2015)
•
Image from “Continuous Monument Series” by Superstudio, 1969: http://www. moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=934 (May 26th 2015)
•
Drawing by Peter Salter, 1993: http://www.rndrd.com/i/829 (May 30th 2015)
•
Lysekil watchtower, 1890: http://www.lysekilsvanner.se/about/about.html (May
Page 38
•
30th 2015) Relativity by M.C. Escher, 1953: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._C._Escher (May 30th 2015)
•
Angkor Wat main tempel, 12th century: http://tripangkor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Angkor-Wat-Tempel-Kambodscha.jpg (May 30th 2015)
•
Illustration by Jean Giraud: http://getwallpapers.net/cityscapes-futuristic-science-fiction-artwork-moebius-wallpaper-67581/ (May 27th 2015)
•
Impossible Triangle sculpture by Brian Mckay and Ahmad Abas: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Reutersv%C3%A4rd#/media/File:ImpossibleTriangleEastPerth_gobeirne.jpg (May 13th 2015)
•
“Monument to the Third International” by Vladimir Tatlin, 1919-1920: http:// thecharnelhouse.org/2011/04/16/the-stalinization-of-post-revolutionary-soviet-art-and-architecture/06-tatlin-tower/ (May 26th 2015)
•
Plate from “Antichita Romanae” by Giovanni Battista Piranesi, 1748: http://gravures. ru/photo/dzhovanni_piranezi/drevnij_rim/49 (May 13th 2015)
•
“Ref lecting” by Andy Goldsworthy: https://defluence.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/ early-morning-calm-derwent-water-cumbria/ (May 27th 2015)
•
Painting by Minoru Noumata: http://skysnail.livejournal.com/579738.html (May 27th 2015)
•
“The Tower of Babel” by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_The_Tower_of_Babel_(Rotterdam)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (May 30th 2015)
•
Tower design by Archizoom: https://www.pinterest.com/source/mondo-blogo. blogspot.com/ (May 27th 2015)
•
Alternative version of “Temple of Death” by Etienne Louis Boulée, 1795: http:// thecharnelhouse.org/2011/06/25/revolutionary-precursors-radical-bourgeois-architects-in-the-age-of-reason-and-revolution/ (May 27th 2015)
•
“Nimis” by Lars Vilks, 1980-2015 (ongoing): http://www.vilks.net/ (April 21st 2015)
•
Drawing of tower by Lebbeus Woods, 1980s: http://www.archdaily.com/215471/ lebbeus-woods-early-drawings-on-exhibit-in-nyc/ (May 30th 2015)
Page 39