Deleuze, Rene Thom, Leibniz
Problems of models of meaning
Conflicts between models of meaning.
We covered a lot today, bu we'll continue tor return many times to these examples of conflicts. Remember that architecture never ceases to make ambitious claims about its use of mathematics and geometry. And out first example points to a conflict between ideality and instrumentality in Vitruvius.
Its what I would call an internal conflict since the presumed idealization of mathematical and geometrical concepts is followed at the end of the chapter with a declaration of a reparative instrumental geometry. Symmetry is of course one of the priciples.
It is also a principle in Boullee and Durand. Their drawings point to rather different and I would say conflictual notions of architecture's use of geometry. For Boullee geometry and the example of the sphere embody Nature and Man's principles in perfect harmony. Geometry is both thing and symbol. In Durand, it is quite instrumental and if there is anything significant about symmetry it is because its an economic principle. In Durand's case furthermore we have a "method" that for the first time is analytical, probing, and generative.
First there is a grammatical spreadsheet of possibilities of primitive combinations. In subsequent illustrations of the Precis these develop into various syntactical formations. They become propositions about buildings.
I would say already JNL Durand is protocomputational.
We also looked at mathematical systems and certain differences, such as those betweem geometry and topology. And between those and the Cartesian coordinate system and Calculus and Catastrophe theory.
We looked at Eisenman's conflict with Euclidean Geometry and Cartesian space and his introduction of the Fold, Leibniz, Catastrophe theory and R thom, via Deleuze and Greg Lynn. Here one of the things at stake is the introduction of the ontology of events rather than the ontology of discrete forms.
Catastrophe theory combines calculus and the continuous variation/rates of change with topology. Its interest is to quantify qualitative states of change which calculus can't do on its own.
Ok, so this now becomes a new model but does so by showing the insufficiency of previous (Modernist) models. It is a kind of fifactic conflict. For the next blog please just read the two essays by Deleuze and identify how he uses models of meaning.
I want us to thoroughly distinguish between uses of computation for design and computation as a generative system.
In every case we see historically we have various modifications in geometry being applied to geometry and the transformation of design. With the algorithm and computation proper we've hit a limit since we are now no longer dealing with geometry and in fact I woud say possibly not even mathematics.
One last conflict. Eisenman like many others during the 90s takes the figure of the catastrophe fold and literraly transposes to the cartesian grid. Well, what's wrong with that? A lot. But for one, and promarily, the image of the catastrophe fold is a diagram - its not a thing. Esienman makes it a thing. A thingy! Punk.
Ok, hope this helps.
Peace out
P
Design Office for Research and Architecture
68 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
USA
646-575-2287
petermacapia@labdora.com
http://labdora.com/
http://atlas.labdora.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment