Socratis Yiannoudes Department of Architecture Technical University of Crete Greece
From Μachines to Μachinic Αssemblages: a Conceptual Distinction between two kinds of Adaptive Computationally-driven Architecture
Since the 1990s, research groups, courses and workshops in schools of architecture have been working on the design and potential implementation of adaptive computationally-driven architecture. This kind of architecture involves physical structures able, in theory, to adapt to constantly changing needs and environmental conditions, through the use of kinetic mechanisms and embedded computation (wireless networks, micro-processors and sensor-actuator effectors) (Fox, n.d.; Fox and Yeh, n.d.; Fox, 2010). The term “adaptive computationally-driven architecture”, however, would also refer to the so-called Intelligent Environments, the applications of the field of Ambient Intelligence (AmI), which has also been a developing research project since the 1990s, albeit outside the architecture discipline. Intelligent environments are spaces able to adapt autonomously and proactively to personalized needs, as well as changes of the habits of their occupants through the use of ubiquitous computing, i.e. environmental information feedback, activity recognition / detection and learning, memory and proactive anticipation mechanisms (Monekosso, Paolo and Yoshinori, 2008). The ideas behind the above developments and practices are not new, since they can be traced back to the visionary projects of the ‘50s and ‘60s architectural avantgarde; projects such as Cedric Price’s Fun Palace, Archigram’s Living 1990 [fig.1] and Control and Choice Dwelling as well as Constant’s New Babylon, characterized by an obsession with technology, systems, interfaces, responsiveness and indeterminacy, were imagined as paradigms of a flexible, transformable, self-regulating and adaptive architecture. These projects were inspired by the emerging new science of cybernetics, the founder of which, Norbert Wiener, in his book The Human Use of Human Beings (1947), described how information feedback was central for the creation of environmentally responsive machines (Hughes, 2000, p. 98). Architecture as a cybernetic system could thus be theoretically changed at will by their inhabitants, in order to «adapt to the changing desires of the human communities that inhabit it» (Colquhoun, 2002, pp. 225-226). Yet, although the vision was for a really responsive and adaptive architecture, a close examination of current practices of adaptive architecture will inevitably lead to a confusion as to the degree of adaptation they are capable of. Looking at those kinetic
Fig. 1 150
ENHSA - EAAE no 55 Rethinking the Human in Technology Driven Architecture
structures discussed in William Zuk and Roger Clark’s book Kinetic Architecture (1970)1, as well as at recent computationally-driven structures, such as those constructed by the Hyperbody Research Group at TUDelft led by Kas Oosterhuis [fig.2], we sense that their adaptability is limited by the range of the transformational constraints of their structure and components. Furthermore, most applications of intelligent environments seem to be able to adapt to a prescribed range of human activities and needs. Bearing this problematic in mind, in this paper we would like to propose a conceptual distinction between two kinds of adaptive architecture. The first can be conceptualized in terms of a “machine”, characterized by deterministic function and preprogrammed behavior. The second can be conceptualized in terms of a “machinic assemblage”, a concept coming from Deleuzean philosophy to describe a specific functional arrangement of heterogeneous flows and interactions between technical and social entities, with indeterminate capacities. We have to bear in mind that the machine, as a technological artifact, has been an object of continuous philosophical debate historically and a model to explain and conceptualize cultural and physical phenomena.2 For instance, cybernetics and the adaptive, homeostatic and “conversational” machines that were produced during its early period by scientists such as William Walter Gray, Ross Ashby and Gordon Pask, challenged age old Cartesian epistemology and ontological boundaries in culture that had prevailed in philosophical thinking throughout modernity (Pickering, 2010). Therefore the subsequent architectural projects and practices which were inspired by cybernetics and cybernetic machines, such as Archigram’s and Price’s, as well as the more recent intelligent environments and interactive architecture applications, should be re-examined and discussed in the context of cybernetic machine models and other philosophical concepts (such as the assemblage) which take issue with the cybernetics agenda.
Fig. 2 Socratis Yiannoudes Greece
151
Machines In his famous lecture of 1947 entitled “Machine and Organism” (first published in 1952), the French philosopher and historian of science Georges Canguilhem attempted to explain machine constructions in different terms than just being the result and application of scientific activity and theorems. He proposed an understanding of machines by making reference to and studying the structure and functions of organisms, a research agenda put forth a year later by cybernetics. In this way, Canguilhem pointed to a reversal of the mechanistic philosophy and biology, which sought to explain organisms in terms of mechanistic principles. This reductionist model of machines comes from a traditional theory of mechanics, such as that in Franz Reuleaux’s Theoretische Kinematik: Grundzüge einer Theorie des Maschinwesen (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1875). In such theories machines are mechanical devices functioning within narrowly defined limits and their every movement holds up to certain norms, measures or estimates: A machine can be defined as a man-made, artificial construction, which essentially functions by virtue of mechanical operations. A mechanism is made of a group of mobile solid parts that work together in such a way that their movement does not threaten the integrity of the unit as a whole. A mechanism therefore consists of movable parts that work together and periodically return to a set relation with respect to each other. It consists of interlinking parts, each of which has a determinable degree of freedom of movement... The fact that these varying degrees of freedom of movement can be quantified means that they can serve as tangible guides for measuring, for setting limits on the amount of movement that can be expected between any two interacting solid objects (Canguilhem, 1992, p. 46). Thus, the machine operates uniformly and unidirectionally toward completing a particular activity presenting finality and purposiveness, an understanding of machines traced in Aristotle’s Politics (Canguilhem, 1992, p. 57). Kinetic structures fit well within this paradigm and conceptualization of technological devices. Kinetic structures are physical constructions consisting of moveable interconnected parts which can rearrange their relative positions, according to demand, either manually or through feedback systems of control. The result is a significant overall mechanical change of the physical configuration of the structures, which is determined by the set relations of their internal components and their inbuilt kinetic mechanisms. The latter may range from mechanisms of deployment, folding and extension to rolling, sliding and nesting techniques, and from scissor-type mechanisms and inflatables, to tensile and transergetic systems. Thus, the determinable degree of freedom of movement that the structure is able to produce means that the range of possible functional changes that may occur is predictable; this is because the form can only “respond to a range of functional changes possible within the initial envelop limitations” (Zuk and Clark, 1970, p. 98). Therefore, flexibility, although dependent on the multiple transformational states of the structure, is confined within a narrow range of alternatives, predefined by design. Flexibility was an emerging idea in architectural discourse during the post-war period to deal with the uncertainty and rapid development in the Western world brought forth by the constant social and economic changes. However, as Adrian Forty argues, the application of flexibility in architectural design gave architects the illusion 152
ENHSA - EAAE no 55 Rethinking the Human in Technology Driven Architecture
that they can sustain and extend their control on buildings even after the period of their real responsibility, the design stage (Forty, 2004, p. 143). Thus, flexibility in architecture is by definition limited by design, i.e. it is predetermined. If this paradigm of flexibility is a functionalist one, i.e. deterministic, avant-garde cybernetics-inspired architects and architecture groups of the same period, such as Archigram, envisaged a more radical approach to flexibility. They postulated the concepts of ‘indeterminacy’ and ‘open-endedness’ in architecture, and thought that its inhabitants would have an active and participatory role in the determination of its configuration and functions (Sadler, 2005; Hughes, 2000). As we have argued elsewhere (Yiannoudes, in press), the Archigram project, as well as Cedric Price’s Fun Palace and Constant’s New Babylon, despite their different conceptual, material and visual aspects, constituted an alternative paradigm of flexibility, one which Adrian Forty considers to be not a characteristic of buildings but of use (Forty, 2004). In such a case, flexibility is not determined by design or technical means but by the participatory and constructive engagement of those who use space, namely ‘users’.3 This discrepancy, between the functionalist paradigm of flexibility -which can be understood in terms of the machine described above- and its alternative, characterizes, as we will argue, two distinct branches of contemporary intelligent environments.
Intelligent environments (IEs) Ambient intelligence (AmI) is a vision of the field of computer science aiming by definition at the creation of spaces, the so-called Intelligent Environments, able to respond to the presence and activities of people in an adaptive and proactive way by supporting and enhancing their life through smart devices (Streitz, 2006). Although automatic buildings have been around since the 1950s and 1960s,4 intelligent environments are different because they have developed complex and adaptive ways to enhance domestic habitation through the use of ubiquitous computing (neural nets and fuzzy logic supported by networks of intelligent agent-based systems) and user-friendly interfaces (Ahola, 2001). Without attempting to discuss the perpetual meaning of intelligence as analyzed in the fields of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, it is sufficient to say that, in the context of AmI, it refers to autonomously functioning systems able to provide automated services, assessing situations and human needs in order to optimize control and performance in architectural space. Such systems use environmental information -acquired through activity recognition / detection- as feedback to obtain knowledge and experience, through learning, memory and proactive anticipation mechanisms, in order to adapt to personalized needs as well as changes of user habits (Cook and Das, 2007). Such environments, a.k.a. autonomous intelligent environments, would include the iDorm, an experimental student apartment developed at Essex University, the PlaceLab, developed by House_n research program at MIT, the Adaptive Home, and the MavHome. The system of an intelligent environment models the activities and behavior of users,5 in order to produce rules to determine and optimize its performance. It is thus able to adapt to new behaviors and respond accordingly. However, although intelligent environments can adapt to changes of the habits and activities of their occupants, the system’s responses, its performing functions, are predetermined by design. In effect, these functions are limited by the range of human or environmental activiSocratis Yiannoudes Greece
153
ties that the system is programmed to be able to recognize, supported by the intelligent agents’ capacities and the knowledge it obtains in time through learning. Furthermore, the high level of system autonomy in mainstream intelligent environments does not permit any modification of the system’s rules, thus restricting any appropriation of its functions, either by users or other agents. Therefore, the system’s capacity for adaptation is predetermined by design which means that it is located within a functionalist paradigm of flexibility. A different set of Ambient Intelligence applications, the so-called end-user driven intelligent environments, constitute an alternative direction to the functionalist paradigm of flexibility because their functionality is not dependent on the pre-programmed rules of the system. Such environments constitute “ecologies” of interacting technological and human entities -artifacts, human users, and software- demonstrating open, indeterminate and multiple functionalities. Therefore, as we will argue, they can be conceptualized in different terms than that of the mechanical machine. Before describing their specific characteristics, we will discuss the concept of the machinic assemblage, in order to attempt to conceptualize end-user driven IEs in this term.
Machinic Assemblages French philosopher Gilles Deleuze proposed the theory of the assemblage (agencement in French). According to Manuel DeLanda (2006, pp. 8-9) this theory is the main theoretical alternative to the age-old organismic metaphor in sociological theory which still exerts significant influence in most schools of sociology. The assemblage, in Deleuzian thinking,6 is a cybernetic conception referring to a distributed arrangement/set up of functional relations, liaisons and affiliations among and across heterogeneous concrete parts and processes. Defined only pragmatically, in terms of components and actions “it arises when converging forces enable a particular amalgalm of material and semiotic flows to self-assemble and work together” (Johnston, 2008, p. 117). The whole, in the assemblage, is characterized by relations of exteriority, implying that a component part of an assemblage may be detached from it and plugged into a different assemblage, in which its interactions are different. These relations of exteriority imply a certain autonomy for the components, which are necessarily heterogeneous, either material, cognitive, affective, or social, while relations can change without the terms changing. Thus, the relations that constitute the whole can never be explained by the properties of the component parts (DeLanda, 2006, pp. 10-11). The term ‘machinic’ in the machinic assemblage, as Felix Guattari, Deleuze’s co-writer, has explained, points to a very different conception of the machine. The machine is hereby not necessarily a mechanical device but an ensemble of heterogeneous parts and processes whose connections work together to enable flows of matter, energy and signs. Thus, the term ‘machinic’ refers to this working together of the assemblage which includes humans and technologies (Johnston, 2008, p. 112). In this conception of the machine, the machine is opened out towards its machinic environment and maintains all sorts of relationships with social constituents and individual subjectivities (Guattari, 1993). Thus the machinic assemblage contains particular technical devices inseparably embedded and operating within a continuum of related elements, networks of materials, processes, systems and infrastructure (both technical and sociopolitical) (Guattari, 1992). 154
ENHSA - EAAE no 55 Rethinking the Human in Technology Driven Architecture
Within the machinic assemblage, ontological boundaries between beings and things, humans and machines, nature and technology, are subverted. Such fundamental dualities, which have preoccupied modernity and all philosophy up until Heidegger, and which were radically and seriously challenged by the early cybernetics discourses and practices,7 are no more valid within the assemblage. Deleuze and Guattari in particular, postulate the existence of a special realm in the assemblage, which they call the machinic phylum, a term which suggests “a conjunction or interface between the organic and the nonorganic, a form of ‘life’ that combines properties of both” and which “cuts across the opposition between history and nature, the human and the non-human” (Johnston, 2008, p. 107). In Guattari’s thinking, the machinic assemblage crosses ontological boundaries acquiring consistency through non-linear and autopoietic processes which run through its heterogeneous and diverse components, either social or technical (Guattari, 1992, p. 352). End-user driven intelligent environments can be conceptualized in terms of the machinic assemblage because they are constituted and actualized by the participatory engagement and synergetic interaction of heterogeneous components - artifacts, spaces, people, objects and software.
End-user driven Intelligent Environments End-user driven IEs provide the tools to construct personal AmI applications in domestic environments that are adaptable to users’ indeterminate needs and changing circumstances. In particular, they can empower users to appropriate the system and its operational rules in a creative and even improvisational way through user friendly interfaces. This approach can be traced in a conceptual path alternative to traditional HCI research, within which system designers are no longer in control of interaction; instead they focus on techniques to allow user appropriation and improvisational use of the artifacts, so that they will be able to act through those artifacts, i.e. to modify and deconstruct their interface, relocating their constituting elements (Dourish, 2001). Following this path, end-user driven environments such as PiP (pervasive interactive programming) and e-Gadgets, enable users to program and appropriate their environment by “building” their own virtual appliances according to their special desires. Such approaches deconstruct the system, allowing the users to choose and combine different device functions thus forming “virtual pseudo-devices” (Meta-Appliances – Applications) (Chin, Callaghan and Clarke, 2008). In the e-Gadgets case [fig. 3], users would choose the combinations connecting plugs of smart components graphically, namely flexible blocks with no predetermined capacities and an “open” function mechanism (eGadgets), creating synapses and rules of the “if…then” type (Kameas, Mavrommati and Markopoulos, 2004; e-Gadgets, n.d.). The actions of the users in such environments are not always successful in terms of their functional outcome, because this outcome depends on the dialectical relationship, the ‘conversational’ process, between user and environment (the technological artifacts that constitute it). This conceptualization of architecture as a cooperative partner in conversation with its users, rather than as a functionalist machine/tool, was postulated by cybernetics pioneer Gordon Pask back in 1969:
Socratis Yiannoudes Greece
155
Fig. 3
The high point of functionalism is the concept of a house as a ‘machine for living in’. But the bias is towards a machine that acts as a tool serving the inhabitant. This notion will, I believe, be refined into the concept of an environment with which the inhabitant cooperates and in which he can externalize his mental processes (Pask, 1969, p. 496.). The functional capacities of an end-user driven intelligent environment derive from the interactions of heterogeneous components, things and people. The environment constitutes an ‘ecology’, where actors, either artifacts or subjects/users/designers, cooperate for the optimization of the behavior of the whole. Zaharakis and Kameas (2007) discussing the potential of end-user driven environments such as e-Gadgets have argued for a conceptualization based on biological paradigms thinking of them as symbiotic ecologies of heterogeneous actors, where intelligence is collective and an emergent outcome of their interactions.8 The subject -the user- is part of that en156
ENHSA - EAAE no 55 Rethinking the Human in Technology Driven Architecture
vironment and his/her embodied actions within it, are essential for the way he/she relates to it. The functionalities of the environment are underdetermined, its behaviors emergent and its functional potential is ‘open’. These observations lead us to the second concept that we would like to discuss and defines another dimension of the assemblage; that is the concept of the virtual and the virtual machine.
Virtual Machines As John Johnston explains, Deleuze, following Bergson, developed the concept of the virtual to describe the workings of the assemblage’s most piloting function, the abstract machine, which points to the assemblage’s virtual dimension (Johnston, 2008, p. 119). The virtual, in Bergson, refers to the enabling of the creative aspect of time, involving a truly open-ended and indeterminate model of the future, and the creation of new lines of actualization contrary to linear views of causality and mechanical repetition of physical law. Unlike the possible, which defines a process in which a structure acquires reality out of a set of predefined forms, the virtual defines a process in which an open problem of creation is solved in a variety of ways, with actual unanticipated forms emerging in the process. The virtual does not represent something real but is a real that is yet to come -not effectuated-, it is ideal but not abstract in any transcendent Platonic sense. Thus, in Deleuze’s words “The virtual is not opposed to the real but to the actual”, since the virtual and the actual are two different ways of being (Lister, et al., 2003, p. 364). This virtual dimension of the assemblage is “its power to actualize a virtual process, power or force, that while not physically present or actually expressed immanently draws and steers the assemblage’s ‘cutting edges of deterritorialization’ along a vector or gradient leading to the creation of a new reality” (Johnston, 2008, pp. 119-120). In the book Time Travels, discussing the Bergsonian and Deleuzean concept of the virtual, Elizabeth Grosz concludes: Insofar as time, history, change, the future need to be reviewed in the light of this Bergsonian disordering of linear or predictable temporality, perhaps the open-endedness of the concept of the virtual may prove central in reinvigorating the concept of an open future by refusing to tie it to the realization of possibilities (the following of a plan) and linking it to the unpredictable, uncertain actualization of virtualities (Grosz, 2005, p. 110). Bringing the concept of the virtual into architecture she further asks: “What does the idea of virtuality… offer to architecture?” and she answers: “The idea of an indeterminate, unspecifiable future, open-endedness… the promise of endless openness” and “the usage of spaces outside their conventional function” (Grosz, 2001, p. 88). Indeterminacy and open-endedness; concepts that appear in Archigram’s rhetoric (Cook, 1999, p. 78) but have also been influential in the development of projects of adaptive architecture of the same period such as Cedric Price’s Fun Palace [fig.4]. As Stanley Mathews argues, the assumed indeterminacy of both program and form in the Fun Palace turn it into what Alan Turing in 1936 termed “a Universal Machine” to predate the contemporary computer, that is, a machine capable of simulating the behavior and the function of many different devices. In contemporary terms, this is a Socratis Yiannoudes Greece
157
Fig. 4
virtual machine, namely a functionally underdetermined complex machine, never actualized as the totality of the virtual functions of which it is capable (Mathews 2006; Lister, 2003, pp. 360-64). Like the virtual machine, “Virtual architecture would be similarly flexible and capable of emulating the behavior of different buildings� (Mathews, 2006, p. 42). Thus, the Fun Palace signifies a shift in the functionalist (deterministic) view of flexibility -conceptualized through the mechanical machine-, towards an alternative view of the machine and its relation to architecture. This, concept, we argue can also be applied to contemporary adaptive architecture projects such as end-user driven IEs, as discussed.
Computational Assemblages Although the terms machinic assemblage and virtual machine seem at first glance appropriate to conceptualize end-user driven intelligent environments, the assemblage being a model of the set-up whereas the virtual machine being its function, there is 158
ENHSA - EAAE no 55 Rethinking the Human in Technology Driven Architecture
a crucial point that has to be made. In Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy the assemblage works by conjoining two reciprocally interacting realms: the machinic assemblage on the one hand and a different type of assemblage on the other, the collective assemblage of enunciation. While the machinic assemblage involves bodies and physical things, the collective assemblage involves semiotic expressions, signs, gestures which hold the assemblage in a state of dynamic equilibrium. As Johnston states this is essentially a cybernetic conception and in a loose sense self-organising (though Deleuze and Guattari do not use the term). Agency is completely distributed - no centrally located seat of power control or intentionality allocates and guides functionality. Although within end-user driven IEs, the subject/user is the primary decision maker -in other words he/she takes creative, autonomous and intentional action according to his/her desires- the environment taken as a whole including human actors and technological artifacts, presents agency in a distributed manner. Both humans and artifacts can act on the environment, changing its rules and hence its overall functions and behavior according to human desires or the intelligent agents’ pre-programmed motives. This loosely self-organizing character of the assemblage leads us to question the conceptualization of adaptive architecture in terms of the machinic assemblage. We would rather use a different term proposed by John Johnston in his book The Allure of Machinic Life (2008) where he examines the role of software and computational processes in the assemblage. The computational assemblage links physical computational devices, bodies and artifacts with the coding and informational processes that they instantiate and execute. We come to think that the computational assemblage is a better term to conceptualize adaptive computational architecture and, in particular, set ups such as end-user driven intelligent environments where all the above components, either material or immaterial seem to co-exist and interact (Johnston, 2008, p. 123).
Conclusion and Discussion In this paper we attempted to explore the potential to conceptualize adaptive architecture in terms of the concepts of the machine and the machinic assemblage –in other words to propose a system of thought within which to discuss this kind of architecture. We also attempted to contextualize this exploration within avant-garde practices and cybernetics discourse to show that the debate and vision has a historical reference. We have to admit though that our attempt to conceptualize adaptive computational architecture in terms of machinic and computational assemblages or virtual machines was rather sketchy despite the fact that we described these terms as accurately as possible. Therefore the reliability of our argument can be easily criticized. However, since, as discussed in this paper, adaptive computationally driven architecture is not a tool, a modernist functionalist machine, but a functionally open-ended, indeterminate and “virtual” system, an active agent in cooperative interaction with its occupants, then novel concepts, systems of thought and even theories are urgently needed. Our hope, then, is that this paper will raise a fruitful debate around these theoretical issues which may lead to the exploration of specific architectural configurations, spatial systems and devices.
Socratis Yiannoudes Greece
159
Notes 1 Although kinetic architectural elements and structures have existed since antiquity and in different cultures they were more widely recognized and developed throughout the second half of the 20th century due to the rapid changes in the western way of life. In particular, from the Second World War till recently, kinetic structures such as those transformable lightweight and deployable or portable environments, built by architects and firms such as Buckminster Fuller, Hoberman associates and FTL Happold, to name a few, have sought to resolve economical, practical or ecological problems of the construction industry, and respond to issues of survival and nomadic dwelling. For discussion, categories and overview see Kronenburg (1996); Oungrinis (2009); Robbin (1996). 2 For instance see Georges Canguilhem’s Machine and Organism. 3 The term “user” in this context would not only mean the person that has the potential to use space but also to appropriate it, inhabit it, determine its manner of use at will, creatively reinterpret it or even abuse it (Forty, 2004, σσ.312-315). 4 For instance the All Electric House built by General Electric Company in Kansas in 1953 involved remote controlled assistive services such as setting on/off the lights, watering the garden or coffee making. 5 Of course there are drawbacks to this capacity including difficulties in recognizing simultaneous activities or activities performed by more than one user. 6 DeLanda explains that in Deleuze and Guattari’s work, the pages dedicated to assemblage theory are relatively few and the definitions of the related concepts are dispersed throughout their different texts and hardly interpreted in a straightforward manner. Therefore, DeLanda’s books A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity and Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy attempted to reconstruct Deleuzian ontology and the theory of assemblages. 7 On how cybernetic practices in the 1940s and ‘50s proposed and staged a novel non-modern ontology challenging traditional human boundaries see Pickering (2010). 8 This discussion can be informed by post-cognitivist theories and the social studies of technology, such as Actor Network Theory, distributed cognition theory, activity theory and embodied cognition/interaction theories, which, despite their differences, seem to conceive the word as a hybrid techno-social environment consisting of heterogeneous associations, liaisons and synergies between humans and non-humans (tools/machines/artifacts/technologies). For a thorough attempt to contextualize intelligent environments and adaptive architecture within these theories see Yiannoudes (in press).
Bibliography and references Ahola, J., 2001. Ambient Intelligence. [online] ERCIM News. Available at: <http://www.ercim.org/ publication/Ercim_News/enw47/intro.html> [Accessed 17 July 2007]. Canguilhem, G., 1952. Machine and organism. In: J. Cray and S. Kwinter, eds. 1992. Incorporations. New York: Zone Books, pp. 45-69. Chin, J., Callaghan, V. and Clarke, G., 2008. A Programming-by-Example Apprach to Customising Digital Homes. The Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Environments. [CD] Seattle, USA, 21-22 July 2008. Instn Engg & Tech. Colquhoun, A., 2002. Modern Architecture. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Cook, P. ed., 1999. Archigram. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. 160
ENHSA - EAAE no 55 Rethinking the Human in Technology Driven Architecture
Cook, D. and Das, S., 2007. How Smart are our Environments? An updated look at the state of the art. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 3(3), pp. 53-73. DeLanda, M., 2006. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. New York: Continuum. Dourish, P., 2001. Where the Action is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. London/Cambridge MA: MIT Press. e-Gadgets, n.d. e-Gadgets. [online] Available at: <http://www.extrovert-gadgets.net/intro> [Accessed 13 February 2009]. Forty, A., 2004. Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson. Fox, M., n.d. Beyond Kinetic. [online] Kinetic Design Group. Available at: <http://kdg.mit.edu/Pdf/ Beyond.pdf> [Accessed 30 January 2006]. Fox, M. and Yeh, B., n.d. Intelligent Kinetic Systems. [online] Kinetic Design Group. Available at: <http://kdg.mit.edu/Projects/pap01.html> [Accessed 30 January 2006]. Fox, M., 2010. Catching up with the Past: A Small Contribution to a Long History of Interactive Environments. Footprint: Delft School of Design Journal, Spring Issue: Digitally Driven Architecture, 6, pp. 5-18. Grosz, E., 2001. Architecture from the Outside: Essays on Virtual and Real Space. Cambridge MA/ London: The MIT Press. Grosz, E., 2005. Time Travels: Feminism, Nature, Power. Australia: Allen & Unwin Guattari, F., 1993. On Machines. In: A.E. Benjamin, ed. 1995. Complexity. Architecture, Art, Philosophy. JPVA No 6, pp. 8-12. Guattari, F., 1992. Machinic Heterogenesis. In: W.W. Braham and J.A. Hale, eds. 2007. Rethinking Technology: A Reader in Architectural Theory. Oxon/New York: Routledge, pp. 342-355. Hughes, J., 2000. The Indeterminate Building. In: J. Hughes and S. Sadler, eds. 2000. Non-Plan: Essays on Freedom Participation and Change in Modern Architecture and Urbanism. Oxford: Architectural Press, pp. 90-103. Hyperbody Research Group, n.d. TUDelft. [online] Available at: <http://www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina. jsp?id=2e0eef38-3970-4fc0-8e0b-1ce04928c500&lang=nl> [Accessed 17 March 2005] ISTAG, n.d. Ambient Intelligence: from Vision to Reality. [online] European Commision CORDIS. Available at: <ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/ist/docs/istag-ist2003_consolidated_report.pdf> [Accessed 8 March 2005]. Johnston, J., 2008. The Allure of Machinic Life: Cybernetics, Artifical Life, and the New AI. Cambridge MA/London: MIT Press. Kameas, A., Mavrommati, I. and Markopoulos, P., 2004. Computing in Tangible: Using Artifacts as Components of Ambient Intelligence Environments. In: G. Riva, F. Vatalaro, F. Davide and M. Alcaniz, eds. 2004. Ambient Intelligence: The evolution of Technology, Communication and Cognition. Amsterdam/Oxford/Fairfax: IOS Press, pp. 121-142. Kronenburg, R., 1996. Portable Architecture. Oxford: The Architectural Press. Lister, M. et al., 2003. New Media: A Critical Introduction. London/New York: Routledge. Mathews, S., 2006. The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy. Journal of Architectural Education, 59(3), pp. 39-48. Monekosso, D., Paolo, R. and Yoshinori, K. eds., 2008. Intelligent Environments: Methods, Algorithms and Applications. London: Springer. Oungrinis, K., 2009. Structural Morphology and Kinetic Structures in Tranformable Spaces (in greek). Ph.D. Aristotelian University of Thessaliniki. Pask, G., 1969. The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics. Architectural Design, 9, pp. 494-496.
Socratis Yiannoudes Greece
161
Pickering, Α., 2010.The Cybernetic Brain: Sketches of Another Future. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Sadler, S., 2005. Archigram: Architecture without Architecture. Cambridge MA/London: MIT Press. Saggio, A., 2002. How. In: F. De Luca and M. Nardini, eds. 2002. Behind the Scenes: Avant-Garde Techniques in Contemporary Design. Basel: Birkhauser, pp. 5-7. Streitz, N., 2006. Designing Interaction for Smart Environments: Ambient Intelligence and the Disappearing Computer. In: The Second International Conference on Intelligent Environments. 1, Athens, Greece, 5-6 July 2006. Athens: On Demand. Yiannoudes, S., (in press) Adaptive Architecture: capacities and design factors of tranformable and “intelligent” spaces (in greek). Athens: ION Press. Yiannoudes, S., 2011. The Archigram vision in the context of Intelligent Environments and its current potential. In: The Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Environments. Nottingham, United Kingdom, 25-28 July 2011. IOS Press. Zaharakis, I. and Kameas, A., 2007. Social Intelligence as the Means for achieving Emergent Interactive Behaviour in Ubiquitous Environments. In: J. Jacko, ed. Human- Computer Interaction, Part II. 4551, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1018-1029. Zuk, W. and Clark, R.H., 1970. Kinetic Architecture. New York: Nostrand Reinhold.
162
ENHSA - EAAE no 55 Rethinking the Human in Technology Driven Architecture