Situating the thesis

I have spent the last week trying to refine and further develop my thesis proposal. I have been struggling with what my focus or goal actually is. Until I fully define this, I have been unable to progress further with my design investigations. My design investigations have not been derived from my thesis ideas, mostly because I have been unsure of what exactly that is. There seems to be two ideas: duality and both~and condition. I thought these were one in the same but through my research and process I have discovered that they actually can be separate entities. I have gone back and reviewed the development work I did over the past two months and I am now working on synthesizing this information to find where I stand within this discourse on architecture.

My original interest came from the phenomenon of wave~particle duality, where an entity is essentially two things until it is observed and at that time it "collapses" into only one entity. I related the wave~particle duality to architecture by brainstorming and identifying properties or elements in architecture that are considered in opposition to each other. Those are listed in a past posting. I was curious in how opposing entities could be incorporated together forming what I have been defining as a "both~and" condition. They would create a third condition through the ambiguity. In my last review it was discussed how most dualities or oppositions in architecture are artificial as in they are created by particular movements or theories.

One of the most common "dualities" in architecture derived from the Modernist movement. The Modernist movement separated structure from enclosure, creating a duality. Modern architecture was seeking purity and reductiveness in architecture. Each element was singular in purpose to reduce it to is essence. Robert Venturi’s manifesto, "Complexity and Contradiction," is a critique of the Modern architecture movement. He believed the modernist approach was too reductive and through its reductiveness it limited the focus on what problems within architecture could be solved. Venturi saw a disconnect between what was being explored and discovered in the modern world of science and art and modern architectural theory. Art and science recognized the extreme complexity and contradictions that existed in the world of that time. Venturi discusses Mies van der Rohe's "less is more" philosophy as both his greatest strength and weakness. Mies only choses to solve certain problems and is exclusive in order to be expressive.

For Venturi, complex architecture is architecture of "both~and" and not "either~or."

"I am for richness of meaning rather than clarity of meaning; for the implicit function as well as the explicit function. I prefer "both-and" to "either-or," black and white, and sometimes gray to black or white. A valid architecture evokes many levels of meaning and combinations of focus: its space and its elements become readable and workable in several ways at once."

"More is not less"

For Venturi the both~and condition occurs through the reuniting of elements to create "double-functioning elements." Elements that are hybrid rather than "pure."

compromising versus clean

distorted versus straightforward

ambiguous versus articulated

conventional versus designed

accommodating versus excluding

redundant versus simple

perverse and impersonal

boring and interesting

vestigial and innovating

inconsistent and equivocal

"Truth must be in its totality or implications of totality."

Venturi states that the phenomenon of both~and lies in contradiction; its basis is hierarchy creating several levels of meanings among elements breeding ambiguity and tension. Venturi's manifesto is an architecture of inclusive theory. For Venturi, complexity and contradiction in architecture occurs when dualities in architecture are able to exist together within the same project. The simpleness (not simplicity as he makes a distinction between the two) renders architecture bland. The modernist movement was highlighted by separation such as structure versus enclosure. Venturi suggests a reintegration. Venturi makes a clear distinction that complexity and contradiction does not lie within the picturesque and subjective expressionism.

In summary, Venturi’s view on dualities is that those contradictions are what create an interesting architecture. He looks for the gray area within architecture rather than only presenting the dualities in “black” or “white.” Venturi believes that elements such as form and function cannot be separated because of their strong interdependence with each other. More often than not, the goal of the problem is simple, however, the means to accomplish the goal is complex.

My response:
Venturi's idea of a complex architecture derived from double-functioning elements with multiple layers of meaning is what I am seeking to achieve in my thesis. I want to integrate normally opposing elements together in order to create unique and distinct architectural conditions. Venturi was a Post-modernist architect. Personally, post modern architecture is not that interesting to me. I am looking to situate the both~and condition in contemporary architecture. My re-integration will not be looking toward the past.

Peter Eisenman discusses his strategy to breakdown certain dualities in architecture (although he doesn’t define them directly as dualities.) He states that the traditional way of design through aesthetics results in on/off procedures which require choosing between two alternatives such as solid/void and figure/ground.  This maintains the distinction between duality elements.  They remain singular oppositions. Eisenman seeks to, by eliminating the traditional process towards aesthetics, produce an architecture that lies in the interstitial, creating a "blurring."  Eisenman formulates some of his own relationships or dualities between entities in architecture such as forming versus spacing and machinic versus mechanical (which he references Deleuze and Guattari.)  Eisenman proposes the removal of the authorial intervention and expression as a way to find new ways to “blurring” the dualities in architecture. By removing the author, these entities can be blurred. His strategy is trying to prevent form from following function through the introduction of a secondary diagram to be integrated with a diagram consisting of the program organization that will drive the design. This secondary diagram must contain within it processes that will produce a blurring of the form/function and meaning/aesthetic relationships. The authorship comes from the process and formulation of process driving diagrams. The ending architecture that results from this is essentially a stepped removed from the author.

Eisenman believes that the removal of authorial design by using a machinic diagram (not necessarily architectural-based) will open and cause blurring (of dualities) through exposing possibilities that could not be reveal through the traditional design process. The traditional process is linear while Eisenman’s process is nonlinear. The traditional design process only allows the designer to look back to the past. The nonlinear approach results in this blurring that is the interstitial.

My response:

Eisenman offers a process for creating a both~and condition.  Choose two diagrams that can be integrated together to create a interstitial or blurring effect.  It is important to note that Eisenman warns against the act of visual blurring (this is what I have been doing!) because that will not produce the true complexity of the interstitial condition.  This approach is something I have been thinking about throughout this whole process.  I have yet to be able to identify or commit to a set of systems, conditions, or diagrams that I can use.