2. ARCHITECTURE THROUGH THE SPECTRUM OF COMPLEX
2.7. A “new Materiality” emerging in Computational Architecture
2.7. A “new Materiality” emerging in Computational
technological techniques that would perform such revolutionary geometries. In order to reach to a structural solution for buildings such
Figure 5: Cecil’s Balmond Sketches on Chemitz Stadium, (“Structure and The Informal”, 1997)
as Frank Gehry’s, where the curvilinear or free forms are the predominant shapes, we may speak of complex structural solutions, away from the standard load-bearing systems seen in modernist movement. However, A. Picon is expressing a disbelief on the research of creating alternative tectonics, making reference to issues of legibility that these constraints imply. Nevertheless, there are indeed theorists and practitioners, from Neil Leach to Cecil Balmond persuaded that a new tectonic guideline would eventually replace the traditional ones or even reinvent new ones.
The entire history of architecture had always been an ongoing dialectic between two disciplines, two alternatives, architectural concept and engineering*. And even though they seem to be areas quite distinct, they are also supplementing each other during the whole inspirational procedure until the stage of fabrication. Therefore, there was always a question of how to bridge this gap between them, or whether there are any alternatives or techniques that could possibly integrate those two, from the very beginning of an architect’s idea.
Additionally, we may identify opinions, such as the appearance of a new alternative or “informal” way of tectonics in computational architecture39. This “informal” way makes a very interesting point on developing a hybrid state of “non-Cartesian” perspective on the way structure acts supplementary for the realisation of the architectural form. The suggestion on different expressions than a strict, orthogonal three-dimensional grid that traps the possibilities of the form (Figure 5).
39 Balmond C., (2007), “Informal”, Prestel, (April 30, 2007)
The structural system is characterised by singularity and uniqueness of its expression, allowing for the overall form to become freer. This freeform structure is no more than an internal strategy, a sort of under- structure, with a sense of nature out of order. Indeed, the freedom of rules applied in form through the structural system, become a new revolutionary thought of generating form through the structure or vice versa. An “informal” strategy is developed in the act of overlapping, as one may see in many of his projects, such as the Serpentine Pavilion in 2002 in collaboration with Toyo Ito (Figure 6). We may display that
“(…) the informal acts as an agent of release. The topography of such buildings, is different, producing with an intuitive rational a new kind of structure (…) Why not a new Gothic, a new romantic, a new Structure (…) “ 40.
Greg Lynn makes also a very interesting point at another perspective on the way we handle digital morphogenesis in architectural design, by introducing the term “animate form”. This is not seen as a form of motion, but rather a form that is an advanced dynamical organisation placed not in a static space, but in an environment of force and motion in collaboration between an envelope and the active context in which is situated. What is remarkable is an
40 Balmond C., (1997), “New Structure and the Informal”, in Lotus International, no. 98.
Figure 6: Sketches of the “informal” structure Cecil Balmond has visioned. (Balmond, 1997)
aspect that architects have neglected is the principle of virtual force and the differential variation it implies. Particularly, he quotes:
“(…) architectural form in a conceived dimensional static space, defined by Cartesian fixed-point coordinates. An object defined as a vector, whose trajectory is relative to other objects, forces, fields and flows, defines form within an active space of forces and motion. This shift from passive space of static coordinates to an active space of interactions implies a move from autonomous purity to contextualised specificity.” (Lynn G., 1999, p.11).
Moreover, he claims that the dominant model (standard model) is displayed by a number of static snapshots. On the contrary, this new model, the “animate form”, is considering the co-presence of force and vector at the same time in the conception of form. 41 What is also indicated is that architects refuge to understand that force and gravity is a central truth and that the relationship of structure to those measures is multiple and interrelated. Thus, this observation summarises the way computational design should be re-directed, generated and re-thought, and how the environment and the characteristics it entails, such as the virtual space of vectors and forces, may have effects and affects in the design process.
Similarly, with the others above, Neil Leach also presents this new confrontation that design is taking as an alternative form path, the
41 Lynn G., (1999), Animate Form, Princeton Architectural Press; 1 edition
“structural turn”. In the book “Digital Tectonics” he presents this tendency based on several research examples in the architectural field. The term “digital tectonics” is an attempt to redefine a new paradigm of thinking in architectural culture. As an expression of a neo-Gothic interpretation of architecture in terms of materiality and structure, this turn is seen as incarnations of the works and ideas set forward by Antonio Gaudi and Frei Otto, re-established in the digital era42. Consequently, the term “tectonic design” is referring to this new paradigm of thinking, a trans-disciplinary model that corresponds to a differentiated approach to design and practice and argues on the integration of those two areas. We may now speak of a controversy over the merely representational approach that mostly architecture seems to realise and play a role, or perhaps a shift in the way that architectural ideas are generated. What is more, the term “digital” is placing this approach to the period when the introduction of computers in architectural discipline began, when they first made a significant impact on architectural design. Their appearance definitely allowed emerging a critical counterculture. This counterculture championed the tectonic and claimed those who were producing seductive computer imagery and hence failed to understand the intrinsic nature of architectural production. It was argued that architecture was born not of the algorithmic potential of computer programs, but of the tectonic capacities of actual materials. Critics of computer included figures such Kenneth Frampton, whose book, “Studies in Tectonic Culture”,
42 Leach N., (2004), pp. 4-5.
could be read as being against this fast and evolving digital culture.
With time, however, computer technologies have expanded in almost every aspect of architectural production, and now are being used to offer insights even into the realm of the tectonic. In particular, they are now allowing us to model, with increasing sophistication, the material properties of architectural components. Therefore, this paper presents a particular moment in the history of architecture, when the old opposition between the digital and the tectonic has begun to collapse, and the digital is beginning to be used increasingly in the terms of tectonic. Thus, a new tectonic design of the digital emerges, a “digital tectonic design”.
Figure 7: Study Shell Structure by Chris Williams (Leach N., 2004)