Anwar / Cache / Cassell Inflection 01 : Inflection

Journal of the Melbourne School of Design
1. Auflage 2014
ISBN: 978-3-88778-900-8
Verlag: AADR – Art Architecture Design Research
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, Band 01, 144 Seiten

Reihe: Inflection

What is Inflection? On a prosaic level, Inflection is the new student-run journal of architecture and the built environment from the Melbourne School of Design and published by AADR – Art Architecture Design Research.

Inflection is a themed journal, to be published annually and features work from students, academics and practitioners. Crucially, Inflection is also a physical object – an artefact to be touched, handled and read in depth. At a time when our engagement with architectural ideas is increasingly digital and transient, Inflection offers a different, slower form of discourse and in doing so, hopes to facilitate and engage in conversations about the built environment both locally and internationally.

In this issue, the word ’inflection‘ serves as our point of departure. The authors featured here enter into conversations on edge conditions, ambiguous boundaries and the role and nature of transitions.

Individually, the pieces collected here stand as insightful variations on a theme. Taken together, they form something much richer: a constellation of ideas to be parsed, discussed, compared and expanded upon.

INFLECTION is a space to gather and share ideas.
INFLECTION is a home for provocative thought.
INFLECTION asserts the value of the printed word.
INFLECTION values the discursive voice of students, academics and professionals.

Like all journals, all change starts somewhere.

INFLECTION starts here: we leave the change to you.

Features:

Bernard Cache
John Wardle Architects + NADAAA
Peter Malatt of 6° Architects
Alex Selenitsch
RCR Architects

Zielgruppe

Architekten, Designer, Innenarchitekten, Hochschullehrer, Studenten, Doktoranden

Autoren/Hrsg.

Cache, Bernard

Wardle, John

Nadaaa

Malatt, Peter

Anwar, Ariani

Cassell, William

Russell, Jonathan

Weitere Mitwirkende

Cache, Bernard

Malatt, Peter

Leseproben

PROVOCATION!
In discussing his proposal for a new hotel to complement the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA), Australian millionaire gambler and art enthusiast David Walsh asserted that, for him, the difference between art and architecture results from the fact that art responds to self-imposed constraints while architecture responds to constrains imposed by ‘outside’ sources. In fact architecture is, and has always been, more than capable of imposing constraints upon itself; nevertheless, functional, economic, geographic, and social considerations continue to define the field of architecture. At the same time, the artistic merit of architecture contributes to a type of suspended state in which a precise definition continues, and will continue, to elude redaction. I recall Mr Walsh’s conversation, which occurred as part of an MSD studio, not because I share his opinion but because the studio project unexpectedly became an experiment which has come to inform this text. The project itself was motivated in part by questions that arose in response to Mr Walsh’s statement: What happens to an architecture that refuses to address those ‘outside’ constraints, at least in the expected manner? Does it cease to be architecture, or is it simply an architecture that has been perverted? Is this perversion a manner for the building to gain a degree of autonomy and push back? AUTONOMY!
Autonomy in architecture is often framed around architecture’s ability to generate, develop, and discuss itself without subordinating to non-architectural disciplines.1 In other words, autonomy in architecture is discussed in terms of architecture’s ability for self-determination. Nevertheless, architecture, as part of our artificial human ecosystem, remains linked to other disciplines and aspects outside of itself. As a result, architecture can be interpreted as a utilitarian object, a work of art, or a cultural product. This multi-faceted interpretation of architecture, and the subsequent discourse around it, is part of what defines the discipline. To discard or ignore certain aspects of architecture is futile at best, and reductive at worst. At the same time, attempting to address every facet that might influence or be influenced by architecture is impossible. This situation thus presents itself as a dilemma – the options being to control one or few aspects while disregarding all others (therefore losing control over them), or to control everything (which is merely an illusion). However, there remains a third possibility: to relinquish control. The conventional framing of autonomy in architecture does not address architecture’s own autonomy from the architect. In fact, as it would seemingly follow that without the architect, architecture could not be conceived, autonomy for architecture can be extended to autonomy for the architect, and the self-determination of architecture would represent a field of operation for the architect and the student of architecture. But architecture can exist without the architect. If every architect in the world were to disappear, architecture would remain, and continue to be created. The architect is thus seen as one reproductive organ for architecture. Indeed, when a building is realised, it can take on a life of its own, independent of the architect’s intentions, and the more control an architect attempts to exert, the more this potential is limited. The architect must therefore accept his or her lack of control, and allow the architecture, through an explorative design process, to guide its own development. Architecture is therefore seen here as an entity, alien to the architect, which demands a higher level of autonomy from him or her to maximise its potential. In turn, the architect needs to realise that the Socratic Paradox applies even to him or her: The one thing the architect should know is that he or she doesn’t know what architecture is. Or isn’t. ARCHITECTURE IS AN ALIEN ENTITY!
The separation of architecture from the architect and the body, and its conception as its own entity, follows from the summarising points below: The evolution of humanity has taken it on a path separate from natural ecology. Architecture has contributed to the construction of a new unnatural ecosystem for humanity. The evolution of this artificial ecosystem is built upon a deviating human physical evolution and correspondingly artificial social constructs, without any natural order or overarching organisation – the development of society has advanced short-sightedly and rudderless. Architecture is therefore alien to the natural part of humans. Architecture is influenced by developing technologies and societal systems, yet architecture itself, once built as a static and finished object, has negligible influence over social constructs, behaviour, and programme. Architecture has risen out of the evolution of human society which itself has occurred in a haphazard manner. As a result, architecture is often programmed to serve and adapt to social constructs which are more tenuous and unstable than perceived. Meanings and cultural interpretations can be unanticipated and potentially erased – for example, by a cataclysmic event; however, if said event spared the built environment, its spaces and forms would remain along with their inherent potential, awaiting exploitation by a new body. PERFORM!
New advents in digital design and fabrication technologies are seen by many as having great potential to alter the role of architectural practice. In fact, to some, the change is imminent and those that refuse to adapt will be left behind.2 Some see the potential in the possibility to design and construct previously impossible forms. Others see such an endeavour as superficial and wasteful of the possibilities offered by the new technologies, promoting instead complex modelling to maximise performance outcomes. Still, a performance-based approach can be wasteful of the possibilities offered by architecture itself. A performance-based approach that focuses on only one or few aspects is reductive, while an approach that attempts to achieve seamless performance is subjugating, but architecture, rising unnaturally from the ground, is not naturally submissive, and allowing it to rebel might reveal our condition rather than represent our idealised projections. Within the issue of performance three significant aspects relate to the issue of autonomy and insurgence: programme, the environment, and the body. Programme here is concerned with any function assigned to architecture, including the representation of ideas through form and tectonics. The environment and the body are two inevitable aspects that all built architecture must contend with, including these as part of programme. REPROGRAM!
On the surface, programme might suggest a certainty that would prevent architecture from being afflicted by an existential crisis; after all, architecture is built to fulfil a purpose. In fact, a building is built to fulfil a purpose, and questions about the role of architecture, as opposed to building design, engender an existential uncertainty which often finds illusions of control as raisons d’ etre.3 In fact, questions about the ability of architecture to determine and affect programme have been posed previously alongside propositions of flexibility, adaptability, and reusability. At its core, programme begins with the adaptation of architecture to the human body, and consequently its social constructs. For some, like Bernard Tschumi and Rem Koolhaas, this implies a dishonest manipulation of architecture to project a desired, but in-fact-lacking, stability. In Koolhaas’ case, this dishonesty is unmasked through an apparent break with the human scale by way of bigness.4 However, this bigness effectively operates through disproportion – it remains perceptually linked to the scale of the body. What Koolhaas’ bigness promotes is a loss of control by the architect through an unmanageable increase in scale and complexity, but not necessarily a direct affront against the body’s proportion. That big architecture is liberated from being controlled by a single or combined architectural gesture is derived from its still inescapable link to the human scale, and not from a ‘bigness’ relative to architecture itself.5 Greg Lynn asserts that it is the body as the source of geometric proportion which fixes architecture more so than any other external, and programmatic, considerations, also suggesting disproportion as a means to release architecture.6 If in fact there is an inherent potential for architecture to take on a life of its own, the requirements of imposing programmes can potentially be overbearing and limiting. If at its core the purpose of architecture is invariably tied to the body, then: Architecture may need to resort to self-mutilation and self-degradation in order to rebel against the body. VIOLATE THE ENVIRONMENT – DON’T PRETEND!
Sustainability and environmental performance are two of the more relevant issues concerning contemporary architecture, whether as a focus of design, or a marketing tool. Inherently, the natural environment represents an element without which architecture cannot exist; therefore it is in the best interest of architecture itself to conserve it. Accordingly, sustainability is ‘a given’ and should enjoy no...