The Diagram a Tool for Learning

The Diagram A Tool for learning

Sean Buttigieg

What has overtaken architecture today, though by no means destroyed it, is the mindless “hunting for form” that characterises “playboy architecture”.

(Sanford Kwinter, 2008, p.27)

ABSTRACT Form-­‐driven architectural design processes have been haunting the profession of architecture since its early existence, culminating most notably in the 1920s and 30s when Modernism became prevalent. Driven by formal and functional concerns, which give more importance to the photogenicicity of a building rather than its performance, Modernism was unable to produce a ‘plausible and legible urban architecture’ (Leatherbarrow,2005) and this ‘form-­‐hunting’ mentality, as referred to by Sanford Kwinter (2008), that has architects believing that form is the only rightful end of an architectural propositions, is inevitably still predominant today. That said, the past couple of decades has seen the rise of a significantly opposing paradigm, one whose roots are nowhere else but in the elaborate systems of the infrastructure of the world we live in – The paper describes the emergence of the Diagrammatic Procedure.

Propelled by its intrinsic mechanism capable of illustrating information that would be otherwise visually unfeasible to convey in text form, together with its ability to suspend and organise a variety of non-­‐formal entities and their relationships in space, the diagram provides its users the possibility to examine conceptual compositions thus procrastinating the act of ‘form-­‐finding’ till a later stage leaving room for the architecture and its innate characteristics to be interrogated and thus manifested accordingly. This methodology differs significantly to the biases of traditional modes of representation that have architects superficially sculpting formalisms arbitrarily.

This paper seeks to expose the theoretical foundations of the diagrammatic practice and reveal the reasons behind its ‘sudden’ emergence. The aim is to shed light on the importance, potential and effectiveness of dealing with architectural solutions by means of the diagrammatic procedure. Similar to the Socratic method of dialogue (one that prolongs the achievement of a conclusion but focuses on the nature of the process), a diagrammatic practice is one that constantly reveals and introduces new parameters into the equation however, rarely ever deals with the resultant forms. In general one can almost perpetually keep discovering latent correlations about a system, leaving it up to the protagonist to dictate when to freeze the diagram into one of the many possibilities and guide the product into manifestation.

In general the fundamental technique and procedure of architectural knowledge has seemingly shifted over the second half of the twentieth century, from the drawing to the diagram.

(Somol, 2007, page 168)

WHY? The architectural avant-­‐garde of the 1950s and 60s varied significantly to that of the earlier 1920s and 30s; during which architects tried very hard to adhere to a functional and formal-­‐oriented design approach. Led by Le Corbusier and Mies Van Der Rohe, the author believes that the Modernists’ primary concern was to produce photogenic architecture that could easily be easy rallied through the media as products for the masses (Kuma,2008). Efforts to detach architecture from its surroundings and the devotion towards pure geometrical, white forms untainted by shadows are both crucial in understanding that the intentions of the Modernists were neither anthropological nor social in concern.

Towards the mid 1950s, as a result of such presumptuous attitudes an unprecedented leap in the advancement of Architectural design took place (Somol, 2007). Based on profound cognitive reasoning and solid logic-­‐based rationality, the architecture of the second half of the 20th Century reveals the emergence of concept-­‐driven designs that contrasted significantly with those adopted prior by the International Style (Kuma, 2008). More architects of the time were beginning to comprehend architecture, as it were, as a complicated system of permutations and combinations of a vast number of variables (Lobsinger, 2000) rather than the logic dictated by the Modernists; that of a fixed set of formal objectives and functions guiding the design process (Le Corbusier’s ‘Five Points’). The latter guide-­‐book approach to consequently, been proven to be unsuccessful on two accounts. Firstly due to the number of modernist interventions that

suffered obsolescence due to changes in their use. Uses, as Aldo Rossi points out change continuously through out the life of a building – houses become clinics, apartment blocks offices, and so on, thereby making it hard for a characteristic as inconsistent as function to be the sole generator of design (1982). The other reason is due to the way that Modernism has failed to create a ‘plausible and legible urban architecture’ (Leatherbarrow, 2005, p. 9). Buildings with ambiguous boundaries that were embedded in their immediate environment, that is; backcloth buildings or topographical structures (both backcloth and topographical typologies relate to structures that do not stand out, but rather blend in to their immediate environment) were not suitable for representation in the media because of their ambiguous boundaries (Kuma, 2008).

In retrospect, after taking the above deficiencies into consideration, the decline of Modernism comes as no surprise especially after considering that the two spectres that have haunted Modernism since its early days were both form-­‐bound; the struggle to achieve functionally determined formalism and, conceptually determined formalism. As a solution to this ‘tired architectural dilemma’ (Lobsinger, 2000) the profession sought new solutions from outside the confinement’s of its discipline to control such inherent deficiencies. This is where analytical methods and ideas borrowed from general systems theory were adopted as a means for both rationalising and making more inclusive the process of architectural problem solving (Vidler, 1999). It is here that we start to observe the earliest traces of the use of the diagram being used as a design tool in a similar fashion to that used today.

The rise of the diagram, a more polemic device than the drawing achieves its apotheosis with the emergence of the ‘information architects’ or architect critics after the 1960, as the dominant device within the hybrid practices of the architect-­‐ critics of the neo-­‐avantgarde.

(Somol, 2007, pg 168)

The urge to move away from egotistic Modernist ideals was not only visible in the new approaches adopted for architectural design but consequently in the resultant architectural proposals and simultaneously in frequently adopted terminology of the time. In the early 1960s terms such as flux, and flexibility (both denoting the element of time) were gaining popularity in opposition to static terms such as form and function both ubiquitous in modernism. The terms flux and flexibility address the existential und experiential elements of design as opposed to the static, mimetic and formal ones provoked by the terms form and function (Schrijver, 2011). It is due to these changes in mentality that the second half of the 20th Century gave rise to a drastic shift in prominence from the architectural drawing to the conceptual diagram (Somol, 2007).

Although diagrams are as old as architecture itself (Garcia, 2010), it is only as early as early as the 1950s that they have become ‘almost completely the matter of architecture’ and achieved the status that has since the Renaissance been reserved for the architectural drawing as the defining trait of the discipline (Somol, 2007, p. 170). The main reasons behind this shift arises from the understanding of the vast complexities undulating everyday life and that mere formal, mimetic or functional objectives were too futile to deal with forces such as advancements in technology – both mechanical and cybernetic, socio-­‐political fluctuations, changes in the market and economic infrastructure, environmental concerns, diversity in the public realm, and more. Similar to the complex structure of everyday life the diagram follows an ideology that is non-­‐ eidetic and suspended; a mechanism that organises interrelationships of non-­‐formal entities in space – Therefore varying significantly to the biases of traditional modes of representation (Belesky, 2012).

Due to limitations in size I will only analyse one architectural proposal, which although never built is considered a milestone in the history of the diagrammatic practice in Architecture.

WHO? One of the distinct members of this generation of ‘information architects’ was Cedric Price. Having such a penchant for technology Price was one of the first architects that turned to systems theory in order to cultivate an architectural paradigm that complemented as much as possible the performative potential of emerging technologies. Systems theory is an interdisciplinary and purportedly scientific method capable of dealing with multi-­‐dimensional problems and unpredictable circumstances simultaneously (Lobsinger, 2000). Price believed that visual imagery was not enough to fully embody everyday complexities and believed that the architect or planner should not merely provide ‘visually recognizable symbols of identity, place and activity’ (Lobsinger, 2000) for these characteristics were short lived. Price believed that architecture and its effects should be judged on the performativity, technological efficiency, and flexibility of a structure (Price, 1966).

Image one: Cedric Price Fun Palace Interior sectional Perspective

The most influential of Price’s diagrammatic work was the design of the Fun Palace (1961). The Fun Palace was a proposal for a temporary, 24-­‐hour, multi purpose and entertainment centre. Considered as a marriage of communications technology and standard building components the Fun Palace operated as a ‘machine capable of

adapting to the users needs and desires’ (Lobsinger, 2000). It was a time-­‐based, self-­‐ regulating structure and differed significantly to any buildings being designed at the time (Image two). The conventional idea of a unified envelope or enclosure was replaced by a system of environmental controls were the roofing system was replaced by operable sky blinds and spatial partitions were conjured by movable screens and optical barriers.

Image two: Cedric Price 'Fun Palace' diagram. "Automation is coming”.

In a conventional architectural sense, Fun Palace had no intrinsic meaning or permanent form – merely an abstract machine which when activated by the users was capable of producing and processing information. In this way it could be considered performative.

(Lobsinger, 2000, p.24)

The Fun Palace was never realised however considered a milestone in the history of the use of the diagram within an Architectural context. The Fun Palace is not an object, but a variation of configurations of that object, therefore the shape of the envelope at any given time is irrelevant because it is the way in which it anticipates change and mechanically accommodates for it that makes it unique. Price was convinced that once confronted with advancements in technology – both mechanically and cybernetically – as well as new modes of scientific analysis, conventional modes of architectural design were automatically rendered obsolete and thus new methods of representation had to

be devised. Ideally ones that too accommodated change and variation and it is for this reason that Price adopted the diagram, in order to map informational flows and elaborate social interactions which in his opinion was more important than providing a visual and physical context.

Apart from Cedric Price there were other architects in the late 20th Century that were drawn toward the diagram over written texts, bubble diagrams or drawings. Another reason for this is that the diagram appears to position itself between form and word (Somol, 2007). One of the most influential writers on the subject of diagrams is Gilles Deleuze. In his book A thousand plateaus; capitalism and schizophrenia (1987) he repetitively refers to the diagram as an ‘abstract machine’, a system that regulates and organises relationships between elements in a system superior to any singularity. The notion of opposing singularity is vital in understanding the role of the diagram as one that aims to react against the mono-­‐directional and formal approach to architectural configurations but rather provokes the freedom to explore abstract concerns (Belesky, 2010). The diagrammatic method does not operate on resemblance to existing styles but on modes of new emergence. This entails a shift away from the style, towards a new kind of knowledge centred on the generation of form (Verwijnen).

The general philosophy behind a diagrammatic procedure is simply a suggestive approach over an indicative one. It stands to promote an immersive perspective over one that entails a pastiche or superposition of pre-­‐established ideas. Acording to Stan Allen (1998) the problem with representational-­‐based architectural design is that it “cannot escape existing typologies” and the diagram, as an instrument, delays such typological fixations, which in the opinion of the author is one of the most fundamental characteristics of the success of the diagram over other design tools.

VASTNESS There are several latent characteristics in the diagrammatic procedure that are fundamental to its rise in popularity and effectiveness as a design tool. This paper has already shed some light on a couple of them and it is the objective of the following section to theoretically explore two fundamental characteristics that relate the diagrammatic practice to a system of continuous looping of information – from architect to diagram – and back. Thus proving that this almost-­‐scientific method of articulating architectural configurations lends more to the buildings own architectural history over other formal-­‐based methodologies of design.

The first characteristic is exactly that of vastness. In general, diagrams are not isomorphic, (they do not have one clear definition)(Eisenman, 1999) and therefore provoke different interpretations of its structure, which allows for a constantly varying set of interpretations allowing for the diagram to operate on a substantially broader field. Since the diagram is not composed of formally recognisable entitities ‘The abstract machine [diagram] does not represent something real but something that is yet to come’ (Deleuze, 1987, p.157). The magic that takes place in the infinitely broad network linking the human eye to the mind allows for visual exploration, understanding and enticement of a large amount of information at once, in which semiotics plays a major role. However the individuality comes not from traits found within the diagram but from the distinct viewer that is articulating her or his own interpretations based on her or his own individual perception. This characteristic is key in the role of the diagram as a tool for learning.

Comparing the sketch to the diagram, the sketch enables direct interrogation of formal concerns, and the diagram provides the possibility of interrogating conceptual concerns hence what makes it such a crucial tool in articulating and developing the design process (Belesky, 2010). Architect Ben Van Berkel stated that the diagrammatic procedure is a: ‘loophole in global information space that allows for the endlessly expansive, unpredictable and liberating pathways for Architecure.’ (Van Berkel, 1998, p.22).

The other ground-­‐breaking characteristic of the diagrammatic procedure is that on the contrary to the traditional ‘set-­‐of-­‐drawings’ related to a specific architectural project which only provide pictorial-­‐eidetic information, the diagrammatic approach provides more than the resultant form and exposing the process of its manifestation, thus lending to an architectural history of the project communicating information not only relating to ‘things made’ but to ‘things in the making’. The diagrammatic practice helps reveal latent architectural design principles that are generally hidden in the traditional set of drawings. A diagrammatic approach provides ‘an opportunity to examine the social-­‐ discursive aspect of architectural practice form within’ (Van Berkel, 1998, p.22)

Looking into diagrammatic procedures is one way to partially open that door and to dislocate the protective and constrictive barriers that architecture has raised to hide its vulnerable centre.

(Van Berkel, 1998, p.22)

In the process of making conceptual and organisational intentions explicit architects are given the possibility to interrogate their ideas the same way they would interrogate their forms – by representing them visually. Therefore the diagram not only graphically represents the intent of the architect but also becomes an active agent in developing that same intent. Such characteristics fulfil a crucial niche in today’s architectural design

process – that of avoiding eidetic imagery of the resultant form and continuously exploring the ideas’ intrinsic potential. Peter Eisenman coined a specific term for such a characteristic; the architecture’s ‘interiority’

Rarely has architecture theoretically examined its own discourse, its interiority. My work on the diagram is one such examination. It concerns the possibility that architecture can manifest itself, manifest its own interiority in a realized building.

The diagram is part of a process that intends to open architecture to its own discourse, to its own rhetoric ...

(Eisenman 1999, p.37)

Diagrammatically representing a configuration will automatically entice new solutions and manifest a system of continuous looping of information where parameters are not only inputted by the viewer but information is also extracted from the procedure. This is truly a fascinating characteristic.

SO WHAT? In todays world, with such complexities intertwining our every day life resulting in constantly fluctuating environments, the idea of merely sculpting forms whilst omitting profound cognitive elaboration of architectural ideas seems presumptious. The ‘hunters for form’ as Sanford Kwinter refers to them, will always be present throughout the architectural realm (2008). On that note, this paper will hopefully reach those that have not yet had the opportunity to explore the vast potentials latent in the diagrammatic practice and by doing so eventually adopting such a methodology.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

§

Allen, Stan. (1998) “Diagrams Matter.” ANY MAGAZINE 23 (1998): 16-­‐19.

§

Belesky, Philip. (2012) “Morphogenesis and the Diagram“ (Internet) Available from: http://archinect.com/blog/article/43906569/morphogenesis-­‐and-­‐the-­‐diagram.

§

Cook, Peter (ed) (1999) “Archigram Diagrams”. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

§

De Carlo, Giancarlo Ole. Bouman. Van Toorn, Roemer. (2005) “Architecture is too important to leave to the architects: a conversation with Giancarlo De Carlo”, Volume. pp.21-­‐26.

DeLanda, Manuel. ( 1998)”Delanda – Deleuze, Diagrams and the Genesis of Form,” ANY: Architecture New York 23: Diagram Work: Data Mechanics for a Topological Age : 30-­‐34. § Deleuze, Gilles. Guattari, Felix. (1987) “,A Thoasand Plateaux. Capitalism and Schizophrenia”, Minneapolis, pp88-­‐92, pp. 140-­‐144. § Eisenman, Peter (1999a) “Diagram: An Original Scene of Writing”. In: “Diagram §

Diaries” edited by Peter Eisenman. London: Thames and Hudson. §

Eisenman, Peter (1999b) “Diagrams of Anteriority”. In: “Diagram Diaries” edited by Peter Eisenman. London: Thames and Hudson.

§

Eisenman, Peter. (2010) “Between Method and Madness”. Tu/e: Eindhoven.

§

Flavin, Dan. (1975) “Drawings, Diagrams and Prints”.Texas: Fort Worth Museum.

§

Jance, Glasgow. Hari, Narayanan. B, Chandraksekaran, (eds)( 1995) “Diagramming Reasoning Cognitive and Computational Perspectives” (Menlo Park), California: AAAI Press.

§

Hitchcock, Henry-­‐Russell and Philip Johnson (1966 [1932]). “ The International Style: Architecture Since 1922”. New York: W.W. Norton.

§

Kwinter, Sanford (ed) (1996) “Rem Koolhaas: conversations with students”. New York: Preinceton Architectural Press.

§

Kwinter, Sanford. Davidson, Cynthia(ed) (2008) “Playboys of the Western World” in “Far From Equilibrium: Essays on Technology and Design Culture”. Barcelona/New York: Actar.

§

Leach, Neil. (2009) “Digital Morphogenesis.” Architectural Design 79.1: 32-­‐37.

§

Letherbarrow, David. (2005) “Architecture Unscripted Performance” in “Performance architecture beyond Instrumentality” . New York: Spoon Press.

§

Lobsinger, M ary L ou. (2000).“ C edric P rice. A n A rchitecture o f P erformance” (internet).Available from: h ttp://utoronto.academia.edu.

§

Pallasmaa, Julani (2001) “The Poetics of Image” in “The Architecture of Image; Existential space in Cinema”. Helsinki: building Information Limited. Pp.65-­‐72.

§

Price, Cedric. (1966) "Life Conditioning: inArchitectural Design” p.483.

§

Rossi, Aldo . (1982) “The Architeture of the City” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

§

Schrijver, Lara (2011) “Revisiting yesterday’s future: the 1960’s and the Internet of things”. The Volume magazine #28, p.54.

§

Somol, Robert E. (1999) “Dummy Text, or The Diagrammatic Basis of Contemporary Architecture”. In: “Diagram Diaries”, Peter Eisenman (ed) . London: Thames & Hudson.

§

Tzonis, Alexander (et al)( 1986) “Classical Architecture: The Poetics of Order”.

Massachusettes, The Massachusettes Institute of Technology, p14

§

Van den Heuvel, Dirk (2000) “ The Diagrams of Team 10”. In: Daidalos Issue 74 (October 2000): 40-­‐51.

§

Verwijnen, Jan. (unknown) “Process versus Product: What about an Architectural History of ‘Things in the Making’?” Available from: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CLZxEbiS5YoJ:www.alvaraalto.fi/conferences/universal/.

§

Vidler, Anthony. Wigley, Mark. De Zegher, Catherine (eds) ( 1999) “Diagrams of Utopia in The Activist Drawing”. Cambridge: MIT Press.