It sounds ridiculous, but some months ago I dreamed of a certain revolution, not like those of the past, which where bloody revolts, but one more quiet.
Steve offers/suggests some search and research:
This past weekend I read the following text from a recent collection of essays entitled Classic Readings in Architecture.
from Geoffrey Broadbent, "Architects and their Symbols" originally in Built Environment (1980):
But often they are people who really care; they have the best of intentions, but they are far too busy, too preoccupied, too set in their ways even to want to engage in that creative dialogue which might cause all parties to change. They are each working within a "paradigm," to use that awful word which Thomas Kuhn coined in 1962 to describe the set of social pressures acting on a particular group. He was writing about scientists, but the principles apply also to architects, planners and psychologists, indeed to every kind of group, and the paradigm is that which forces them to conform to the norms of their group. If a scientist wants to gain and retain the respect of his colleagues, to get his work published in the reputable journals, to get invited to conferences and so on, he simply has to work within that general framework which everyone in his field accepts as "correct" at the time. Kuhn's point is that the "normal" practitioner always works in this way, but there are always a few brave spirits who know that the paradigm is wrong. They think about it, work at it and eventually present alternatives which, better though they may be than the going paradigm, meet, at first, with the greatest hostility, especially from those who have made their reputations within the old paradigm. The "normal" scientist knows what to do and jogs along happily doing it, but then a Newton appears on the scene to challenge the established order of things. At first the majority rejects his views but eventually the opposition dies away, and what seemed new and strange at first becomes the new paradigm. But then an Einstein comes along to show where Newton was wrong, a Heisenberg shows what was wrong with Einstein and so on. And that is how science progresses. The same thing obviously happens in other fields, such as architecture and planning, not to mention psychology, sociology and so on.
Paul Feyerabend goes into greater detail (1978) as to just why and how those who have made their reputations within a particular paradigm are so highly suspicious of those who have set themselves the task of showing its flaws and deficiencies. In his view such challenges come largely from what he calls the "philosophical component" of the field, that is, the researchers and theoreticians who, having pondered deeply on the problems which beset the going paradigm, present those ideas which challenge the status quo. Naturally, the average practitioner finds them threatening, even in the comparatively closed world of science: how much more threatened are the practitioners of architecture and planning, challenged as they are not only by "philosophical components" of their particular fields, but also by the great user-public itself, not to mention their self-appointed and highly vocal spokesmen-the critics and journalists.
The above text provides a concise outline of the cyclic order of intellectual revolution(s), and thus may be also seen as a (preparatory) guideline for future intellectual and/or architectural revolutionaries in that non-acceptance comes before acceptance. Key to the process, however, is the necessity of viable new paradigms that not only offer something new, but also invalidate the existing paradigms, i.e., create and destroy - the metabolic process.
The two books that Broadbent makes reference to are:
Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962; enlarged edition, 1970.
Feyerabend, P.K. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Life Books, 1978.
I am not yet familiar with either of these books, but I imagine they may be full of ideas that provide a better understanding of how ideas (in our day and age at least) change. Moreover, I personally am interested to see whether either author ever uses the word metabolic. I suspect they do not, however, I confidently wager that the basis of both their themes is indeed the metabolic process.
Could it the metabolic process may possibly be the next predominant paradigm for humanity?
Re: electromagnetism in the body
We all carry our cultural bias and experiences around like baggage. It's tough to put it down long enough to be truly objective about something.
Steve wrote (formerly):
Furthermore, since most of the world either lives or works in "steel cages," does that mean that the greater part of humanity is thus "adversely affected?" I feel the answer is "probably not," for the simple reason that mud huts and similar "natural" buildings practically mean a life of poverty, which in our day and age is an unreasonable trade off for "inner calm."
But Steve, your cultural baggage is well hoisted on your shoulders here! :-) You're assuming that all cultures ("most of the world") WANTS to live like we do in the industrial west! There are quite a few groupings and individuals who are quite happy and content living in mud huts in the middle of some wilderness with little or no "creature comforts." I might argue that that is evidence for certain benefits derived from living in such settings and dwellings. Maybe they feel good enough that they don't WANT anything better, even when they know it's there. I recall hearing of some tribes in Western Africa who were struggling hard to maintain their cultural identity while at the same time dealing with more westernized groups in the towns.
Like all of us, I cannot claim to be without "cultural baggage," however, in what I wrote above, I was trying to be as objective as possible. My point is based on the fact that it is unnecessary to advocate the (potential electromagnetic) benefits of mud huts and other such "natural" buildings to those people that already live in them. Rather the argument is aimed at those that work and live in the "steel cages." Therefore, I was stating as plainly as possible that most of humanity today (i.e., the majority of the world population, which by and large do not live in mud huts) would consider a move into mud huts as a definite lowering of their standard of living. If I assume anything here, it is that the "inner calm" benefits of living in mud huts are greatly outweighed by the general "poverty" that comes with the mud hut living situation. Moreover, I never said anything about "all cultures" -- when Mark says I was "assuming that all cultures WANT to live like we do in the industrial west!" he was perhaps being the more assuming with regard to what I meant.
Relatedly, it is indeed time for all to accept the fact that it is no longer just the West that is industrial. For better or worse, industrialization is very much a global phenomenon. Of course, there are still cultural differences between East and West, etc., but industry is no longer one of them.
Have you ever visited the mounds of the Hopewell and Adena cultures?
I have never visited (nor even been aware of) the mounds of the Hopewell and Adena cultures, but I am glad to know about them now. Within the last year, I have become interested in the Native American (Lenni Lenape) "presence" in my own Philadelphia neighborhood. I live near Tacony Creek (tekene is the Lenni Lenape word for wooded place) and because of the many, many (now all tunneled) streams that fed into the creek, the local terrain is most varied. I find myself now often imagining what my present environment is like without all the buildings, and the resultant vision of multitudinous hills and valleys seems an almost magical setting. Like the "steel cages" that may be "adversely affecting" us, all the buildings (in my neighborhood at least) may be ultimately nothing more than blinders preventing sight of the more enduring "natural" reality.
Re: ir|rational architecture
...which demonstrates that the mind and its imaginations operate precisely like the physiological operations within the body's organs. In concise terms, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the workings of the mind reflect the physiological workings of body, and thus humanity merely has to literally look (in)to itself to figure out how it thinks, imagines, creates, etc. "Reason" itself is applied imagination.
As to creativity, "reason" is just another human creation, specifically, an extremely fertile (as in the physiological operation of fertility) creation. "Reason" itself is a design, as well as a design process; it is not the (central) design nor the (central) design process.
Re: reasons why not to worry
Rarely is any architect able to readily execute his or her designs and intentions immediately and/or of their own volition, and if such a favorable condition is at hand, then it is most likely because of independent wealth or being in a politically powerful position. The cyberspace of the Internet has made self-made, readily executed architecture possible. The closest comparison I can think of in our time and in the real world is Philip Johnson's estate in New Canaan, where each of the buildings there is of Johnson's own designs and for his own use, and where each building is a design experiment--essentially Johnson created an open air museum of Philip Johnson architecture, while at the same time 'practicing' and' researching' architecture.
Because of the world-wide-web, any architect can now 'virtually' do the same thing; architects anywhere can now practice and research architecture in cyberspace. Unfortunately, it seems most architects are not even aware of this potential, and really not every architect has the physical means to engage and design within cyberspace.
metabolism and revolution
Cain and Abel (like all creation myth twins) were "brothers metabolic".
The Dance of Shiva (no matter how ancient) is a reenactment of metabolism. [note: Hinduism, particularly Yoga is a reenactment of the bottom to top corporal range of the spine.]
Romulus and Remus (true brothers metabolic that they were) reenacted metabolism.
Hegel's notion of synthesis (no matter how philosophically astute) is a reenactment of metabolism.
Revolution (no matter it be French, American, Red or Velvet) is a reenactment of metabolism.
Schumpeter's notion that capitalism is "creative destruction" is capitalism as a reenactment of metabolism,
genetic engineering and human cloning may well come to represent humanity's most extreme reenactment of metabolism. The point being that whenever it comes to a creative/destructive duality, the operative/defining word is metabolism or metabolic.
The above is part of the theory of chronosomatics, also know as The Timepiece of Humanity. It is a theory I've come to use very much as a tool, and indeed a quite useful tool. Moreover, it is a theory that has an absolute principle in that the morphological and physiological design of the human body is chronosomatics' "intrinsic structure".
Considering that some architectural historians claim the "first Moderns" lived in the mid to late eighteenth century, it might be premature to place Modernism in the past tense. Then again, perhaps Modernism just isn't a useful enough term to describe what's really going on. That's why, when I look around at architecture from today and going back a few centuries, I don't so much see Modernist thinking and designing, but rather a lot of thinking and designing that is assimilating and/or metabolic.
Re: Theory dynamics; what theories?
Stephen Lauf proposed a different sort of dynamic as governing architectural theories, based on metabolism (!) I don't see how that view could be anything other than metaphorical, but it is intriguing if only because it raises one sort of alternative view (and thus introduces the notion that there could well be various competing accounts of architectural theory dynamics--hence one important task is to first grasp what those candidates are).
I am not proposing "a different sort of dynamic as governing architectural theories, based on metabolism." Rather I am working out a theory (chronosomatics) whereby human imagination reenacts corporal physiology and/or morphology. The metabolic imagination is just one of the human imaginations; the others include the extreme imagination, the fertile imagination, the pregnant imagination, the assimilating imagination, the osmotic imagination, the high-frequencies imagination. I then further theorize that these various operative modes of imagination in turn are reenacted in architecture.
For example, I see the Pantheon and Kahn's Kimball Art Museum as both prime example of an architecture that reenacts the osmotic imagination, which is an imagination that reenacts the physiological process of osmosis, which is the equalizing diffusion of concentrations either side of a semipermeable membrane. Both the Pantheon and Kimball are semipermeable (each in its own way) and both buildings work towards 'equalizing' the outside and the inside (again each in its own way). Furthermore, osmotic architecture seems to often capture a 'sacred' quality.
Re: Paper architecture...origin and uses of the term
Peter Eisenman wrote two articles entitled "Cardboard Architecture: House I" and "Cardboard Architecture: House II". Here's what prefaces these articles in the 1975 book Five Architects:
"These two articles by Peter Eisenman "House I" and "House II" were first drafted in November of 1969 and April 1970, respectively. In both cases they were redrafted and necessarily condensed for publication in the first edition of this book."
This does not answer when and by whom the term "paper architecture" originated, but it does provide further historical context.
I can remember the term "cardboard architecture" being used as a derogatory critical term during my years in architecture school (1975-81). I was taught by many former students of Louis Kahn, and my recollection is that it is a term that Kahn frequently used in his design studio at the University of Pennsylvania during the 1960s, referring to student designs that could only be built out of chipboard, the material used to make architecture models. Actually, the vernacular I recall was "chipboard architecture".
Boullée, Hejduk and Rossi make a very interesting combination. I never seriously thought of them in tandem before, but just now when I looked up at my bookshelf, the Boullée book is right next to the seven Hejduk books, which are right next to the eight Rossi books--who knew? I've seen two Rossi projects and one Hejduk project, all in Berlin. All three architects are now dead.
death of Rossi
death of Hejduk
Boullée was born 12 February 1728 and died 6 February 1799. Boullee never married.
Piranesi had some influence on Boullée, and Boullée had some influence on Gilly and subsequently Schinkel. Of the architects mentioned so far, all were prolific designers, but only Rossi and Schinkel were prolific in the built sense.
Hejduk's Bye House, now built in Holland at 1.2 the scale of the original design, has long been one of my favorite designs--I constructed a computer model of the project 1990 or 1991. I hadn't heard that it turned out to be 'uninhabitable'.
only perfect hand free drafters can become architects
So if you don't have (use of) your hands you can't be an architect?
So that means a designer with one hand missing or with artificial hands using CAD just can't be an architect?
Perhaps there will need to be a law to stop this discrimination (thinking), like when CAD is voice activated.
Iconography, or the problem of representation
Look, it's another virtual museum of architecture!
Iconography, or the problem of representation
Intentions are for the most part virtual, and subsequent reality for the most part manifests its own, separate history.
division isolation separation boundaries oh my!!
I'm gradually getting into an architecture that crosses boundaries.
12021601 Pruitt-Igoe Housing, site plan started
Patrik Schmacher: The term 'Parametricism' implies that all elements of architecture are becoming parametrically malleable and thus adaptive to each other and to the context.
Luhmann refers to architecture within his The Art of Society where he theorizes art as a self-referential social system. He subsumes architecture within the art system. This treatment of architecture has to be rejected today. It reflects the traditional classification of architecture among the arts. It is one of the central, historical theses of the theory of architectural autopoiesis that this treatment of architecture under the umbrella concept of 'the arts' is long since an anachronism--at least since the refoundation of the discipline of Modern architecture during the 1920s.
Patrik Schumacher, The Autopoiesis of Architecture, p. 146.
Modernism: Modernist architecture was faced with a veritable explosion of the problem domain as full blown industrialization was followed by social revolution which--for the first time--introduced the masses as new clients for architecture. This explosive expansion of design tasks was paralled by new solution spaces: the ready availability of new construction methods (steel and reinforced concrete), as well as the emergence of the new design resources that were delivered by abstract art opening up a hitherto unimagined realm of creative formal invention.
Patrik Schumacher, The Autopoiesis of Architecture, pp. 291-2.
I can't tell yet if The Autopoiesis of Architecture is written parametrically, but it is certainly worthwhile when read parametrically.
15021601 Bldg 9594j @ GAUA 1100x550
15021602 Bldg 9594k @ GAUA 1100x550
15021603 Bldg 9594l @ GAUA 1100x550
15021604 Bldg 9594m @ GAUA 1100x550
15021605 Bldg 9594n @ GAUA 1100x550
15021606 Bldg 9594o @ GAUA 1100x550
15021607 NE Philadelphia plan with mesh surfaces
15021608 mesh surfaces (000917e) 25'x25'