Pardon my Rambling

Commented on briefly in an earlier post, Nikos Salingaros's eight-part essay on Bernard Tschumi wrapped up a couple days ago at 2Blowhards. The author concludes by asserting that architectural theory is necessary, but not the kind practiced by Tschumi or his contemporaries. Instead Salingaros contends that architectural theory should follow the model of other disciplines where, "recent knowledge about a topic builds upon existing knowledge, older knowledge is replaced only by a better explanation of the same phenomenon, never because a fashion has changed, [and] a theory in one discipline must transition sensibly to other disciplines." This literal definition applies to science, engineering and other "objective" disciplines, but ignores many aspects of architecture that make it open to theory as practiced by Tschumi and others.

Theory and Program

In part two, Salingaros focuses on Tschumi's early work, particularly The Manhattan Transcripts, an influential book originally published in 1981 and reprinted in 1994. Using his definition of theory, Salingaros cannot find anything in the text and images to support it as such. I would agree that the Transcripts doesn't do this, because it's questioning the knowledge that preceded it and, like architecture, embodies some elements of art that confuse matters while also providing for individual interpretation.

The Transcripts is a product of its time, when the Modern Movement was long considered dead, replaced by a pastiche of historical references in the form of Post-Modernism. Architecture was seen as merely surface treatment. Architects realized that architecture could not make things better in and of itself, so architects adopted a method that focuses on the intelligibility of architecture through the use of classical motifs like columns and capitals, friezes, pediments, etc. Not content with the diminished state this puts architecture in, Tschumi instead focuses on the area of architectures power: program.

Loosely defined as the uses and relationships of uses, Tschumi contends that architecture cannot allow for all the possible uses of a building, and that uses also change over time, further negating architecture's reliance upon program as a form-giver. In the Transcripts, he pushes the limits, proclaiming, "To really appreciate architecture, you may even need to commit a murder." Salingaros interprets this statement and others as a communication of violence and a presence of a psychological imbalance in the architect. I think Salingaros misses the point. Tschumi is merely using violence as an example of a disjunction between use and program. Murder is the most extreme example, but also the most illustrative: the act of murder as shown uses the architecture as a weapon, eliciting the greatest understanding of a place, albeit for macabre ends.



Now, I never focused on the images and references to violence in my reading of the Transcripts, instead looking beyond to the questioning of a long-held belief in architecture, that program drives architecture and its subsequent form. This definitely reverses Salingaros's definition of theory, while indicating a genuine concern at the time towards the state of architecture (Tschumi definitely was not alone either, as the Deconstructivist show at MOMA in the early 80s illustrates, but more on that later).

The Parc de la Villette embodies Tschumi's thinking at the time to full effect, his red follies without function dotting the park. Here form follows form. Through his winning competition entry, Tschumi created the ultimate case study for his ideas. Without any prescribed use for the follies, he deconstructed a cube and reassembled it in various ways, some eventually usable as gift shops, day care, and the like, others merely just there, to be seen or sometimes climbed upon. Parc de la Villette is an anomaly, a huge (the largest park in Paris) testing ground for ideas without precedent on such a scale, its existence perhaps due to the French intellect or Miterrand's overwhelming appreciation of contemporary architecture. Its current state of underuse surely does not help matters, though.

Theory and Technique

Salingaros's definition of theory quoted earlier is more attuned to engineering and other technical aspects of architecture than what we are usually referring to when we say architecture, mainly its aesthetics and spaces. Knowledge of structures and mechanics (flow of energy, air, water, waste, etc) has definitely grown over time, building upon previous experience, replacing older means and methods, and transferable to other disciplines through a grounding in physics and mathematics. There's not much to argue about here, though it sets up a discussion on the relationship between structure, mechanics and architecture.

Structure in architecture changed dramatically last century, moving away from heavy, load-bearing exteriors with punched openings to frame structures with hung exterior walls. This changed the relationship of the exterior wall to the structure, exploited by many architects of the Modern era like Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius. Further developments from the likes of Buckminster Fuller extended the possibilities of lightness in structure and the ability to span larger spaces. This minimizing of the structure helped to push an architecture of transparency, as larger areas of glass could enclose a building than ever before. But along with this alleged transparency came mechanical issues of heat gain, transference, etc. It's not until recently in many European buildings that architects are treating the exterior wall as a system that works with the mechanical systems of a building to achieve optimal performance and reduced energy consumption.

My point is that as structures and mechanics evolve, their gained knowledge affects architecture, the field that combines both with space and appearance to create the places where we work, live, play, etc. Architecture cannot be separated from these more scientific fields, and it shouldn't. But Salingaros goes one step further by implying that architecture should be considered theoretically the same as structures and mechanics. But architecture, at least in Tschumi's terms, is too subjective to be at the mercy of an all-encompassing theory, or even a common interest in its direction like engineering. Not to say that engineers don't disagree or have their own theories; they just have a more objective knowledge base from which to make decisions.

Theory and Deconstructivism

One aspect of Salingaros's essay that I don't quite understand is his reiteration of Deconstructivism as a practiced theory or method for architects today. He refers to the use of computers, particularly in academia, and the subsequent "alien forms", though I don't equate the trend in computer-aided "blobitecture" as Deconstructivism.

On a slight tangent, here's one way to approach some of these -isms, movements or styles, that I learned a professor in college: each movement in architecture reacts to the one that preceded it. Therefore the Modern Movement reacted against the Neoclassical and other Neo-styles. It looked forward instead of looking back, while Post-Modernism reacted to the Modern Movement, looking back instead of looking forward. So we have a teeter-totter effect of looking to the past and then looking to the future and then looking to the past...

Deconstructivism looked forward, breaking up forms in a way that was radically different from Post-Modernism's assemblage of Classical elements. Its practitioners (Tschumi, Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid, Coop Himmelblau) tried to shake things up by simultaneously looking back at Russian Constructivist art from the early 20th century. Not much was built initially so as a movement it was more paper architecture than actual, though still exerting an influence on students and practicing architects. While these practitioners are now building actual structures, what they are doing now is removed from Deconstructivism, mainly due to the use of computer technology. What we have instead is something new entirely, less predicated on the philosophy of Jacques Derrida and others, rooted in the methods of design via computers.

As Salingaros points out, a lot of "blob" designs tend to look the same, many of them also seemingly inhospitable if translated into buildings. I attribute this to a "learning phase", with students and architects finding out what software can do and how far they can push the software. And with construction catching up to the imagination of architects, the curved and blobby shapes of these designs are becoming more and more realistic every day. But the relationship between "blobs" and function seems to be about as disjointed as it is in Tschumi's architecture.

Apart from a total abandonment of "blobitecture" (for lack of a better term - I'd love to hear suggestions) or a regression to neo-traditional design, architecture should be constantly reinventing itself, never pinned down by the type of theory that Salingaros promotes. The theory that Tschumi and his peers promote examines architecture and its effect upon people's lives, and vice-versa, to create awareness and possibly affect architectural design.

Merely "mixing novel forms with typologies that have undergone a competitive selection during historical time", as Salingaros recommends, does not solve anything. It's just another stylistic maneuver, slapping a contemporary facade on a traditional backbone. The architecture that Salingaros is rallying against is few and far between, at the moment too expensive for most clients, but it's definitely making for lively discussion, getting the general public excited about what's being built around us.