EXPERIENCING THE ITERATIVE

The iterative methodology is based on a process of incremental transformation, and unlike design that deals with a single overwhelming idea that manifests itself through hurried selffulfillment, the design process begins with a “characteristic” or set of rules that the designer cannot predict. The design, by virtue of itself—its materiality, its legibility and its syntax as an object (or collection of objects)—serves as the driver of the scheme.

Each step forward is enabled by the reading of the physical (objective) manifestation of the previous step.As opposed to an idea, the whole scheme’s direction is controlled by an oeuvre that emerges along with the clarity of the decision-making process. The primary method of critique and development is rationalization in the form of morphological discovery—discovery more than innovation, by virtue of the reading of the generated form taking precedence over the assumed intent.The keynote of this methodology is syntactical development as opposed to synthetic architecture (post-modern imagery recreation).1

Take the case of arguably the most notable of iterative purists—Peter Eisenman. For Eisenman, a self-generative architecture, or architecture that is independent of an author or architect, was a great impetus in his work. His agenda was always to construct a contextual disconnect within the architecture.

Context is not ignored; rather, it allows the morphology to be independent of the architectural “trend” of its time, thereby allowing for critical dialogue to be free of the same. His writings on architectural anteriority and interiority elucidate his stance on context and historical drivers in his work.2 Eisenman looked to collapse all dialogue regarding his work into itself and its context, as opposed to postmodernist dialogue involving references to elements from other syntaxes and contexts.

The two projects dealt differently with transformations imposed on one object (single) and transformations enabled by the combination of several single units (multiple). Both worked under a strict morphological discipline but the operations involved varied greatly.

In a more generic way, these projects have taken on Eisenman’s oeuvre in wanting to attain a critical autonomy or displacement from historical anteriority.3 Through the privilege of restriction enforced by singular material use and black and white panels devoid of text, communication of ideas is allowed solely using the tools of the discipline (orthographic drawing) and representative models, weeding out deception and allowing for legibility of intent.

These ideas of interiority and anteriority relate to Eisenman’s views but express themselves through the two projects in particular ways. Focusing initially on the single or the manipulation of one object through certain operations, its interiority is far more acutely dealt with in terms of its space, form and internal dialogue. With the multiple, the object is not as diligently sculpted as the logic behind the accumulation or aggregate that is created using the simpler units.The aggregate or grouping is based on external stimuli with relevance to its enveloping context or site.

Morphologically, the two projects start without pretext, contextual reference or case study. The site itself plays a role only after a large part of the morphology is completed, by which stage the architectonic ideas need to be reduced into actual inhabitable architecture. This stage is representative of the reduction of the purely ideational to a level of compatibility with the normative.

The iterative as a methodology provides an escape from non-linear/indecisive development and, once adopted and experienced for the duration of a scheme, enables the growth of the designer’s individual approach to the discipline of architecture by virtue of the purity of its critical discourse. In enabling the creation of an apparatus and the functioning within its restrictions, critical subjectivity is almost removed from the dialogue.

In actual discipline, the purity of the methodology is arguably less valued by architects than the form or ideas it helps generate. The human element in architecture is what eventually engages the user and enables/disrupts the functioning of said user. As an educative tool, however, the iterative process is a potent methodology.

“A building is a building. It cannot be read like a book; it doesn’t have any credits, subtitles or labels like pictures in a gallery.” – Jacques Herzog

1. Gandelsonas ,M. (1972, March). On Reading Architecture. Progressive Architecture, 53, 66-88.

2. Eisenman, P. (1999). Diagram Diaries. New York, NY: Universe Pub.

3. Eisenman, P. (2004). Eisenman Inside Out: Selected Writings, 1963–1988. New Haven:Yale University Press.

Anirudh Chandar

Level 4

Department of Architecture

School of Design and Environment, NUS

Design is a thoroughly confusing thing. It involves many aspects thrown together, but not necessarily in a comprehensible order.The designs illustrated in this book follow a skeletal process.

First, we start out with a vector.The designer develops his concept systematically and analytically, putting aside the multitude of considerations that would plague the architect in a real context. It is “ceteris paribus”, the term favored by economists to describe a predication with all other things being held constant. In the Single, it is a discourse on how structure guides the principles of design.We approach a design brief with a singular purpose, allowing us to concentrate on the different forms and concepts of structure.This is explored through the creation of a variation on a grid of columns, arranged in the manner providing the most compressive strength.

Then the design starts to take on many possibilities, and this is where control and rationalization come in. Structure is now seen in relation to spatial considerations. The focus is on creating a spatial field in terms of how space and structure interact.While structure is seen as the physical load-bearing system and space is seen as ascribing to programmatic needs, the process of design witnesses an exchange of compromise between the two and a convergence of their aims. Through resolving structural weaknesses and redundancies, certain structural forms give way to spatial considerations.There is a transformation of the scheme to the requirements of enclosure and program. In designing for a fishing platform set out in the sea, the grid of columns becomes the piles that form the structural core of the platform.

This introduces the limitation of the length of the piles and the need to keep the platform substantially above water. Structural joints now need to be considered in the design process. The question then becomes the extent to which programmatic considerations interfere with initial structural considerations, and which one takes priority in the design.

Similarly in the Multiple, the starting point is the most important part of the design methodology. At the beginning, we are not distracted by a multitude of considerations involving light, program and material, but thinking in abstraction; where the abstract first form of a module seeks to unearth the fundamental driving force that would see the scheme through to the final critique. Again, we are required to rationalize and control through a set of additions and subtractions to the modular form; however, instead of looking at structure, we deal with the repetition of a singular form and the design considerations it poses.

Design is a process of taking formative ideas and transforming them into architectural form, but the process itself is not that simply said. It is a dialectic between a person’s ‘soul’ and their intellectual rationalization, where many considerations compete for the architect’s attention. However, in the education of an architect, we are able to have an in-depth study and discourse on the intellectual rationalization of formal design that would not be possible in a real context, and this book displays the fruits of this investigation.

Sherylin Lim Level 4 Department of Architecture

School of Design and Environment, NUS