[Um excerto da dissertação de mestrado]

A equalização sensorial da arquitectura é a força impulsionadora da arquitectura hiper-sensorial. Uma arquitectura que conserva a importância da imagem e estimula a força dos outros sentidos.

A nível biológico, os cinco sentidos encontram-se, directamente, relacionados com o cérebro mais, precisamente, com a secção responsável pela memória. “A antiga palavra grega aesthesis refere-se a percepções sensoriais, e não a teorias de beleza abstractas. Implica uma elevação dos sentimentos e emoções e um despertar dos sentidos, precisamente o oposto de «anestética». O que interessa aqui é o significado original. O processo de estetização eleva a consciência por meio da estimulação sensorial, o que desencadeia uma anestesia compensatória como protecção para o excesso de estímulos. A anestesia age assim paralelamente à estética; uma alimenta-se da outra. […] Mas esta inundação dos sentidos num determinado âmbito oculta a recepção dos impulsos noutro. À consciência que ganhamos em termos sensoriais – odor, gosto, tacto, ouvido e visão –, corresponde um plano de indiferença que cobre tudo o resto. Este processo cria o seu indivíduo, uma espécie de membrana semipermeável que assegura um estado de constante satisfação filtrando tudo o que é indesejável.”1.

1 – LEACH, Neil – A Anestética da Arquitectura. 1ª ed. Lisboa: Edições Antígona, 2005.  pp. 81, 82

Conference Review

Conference: “Design as Research Lab – 10 Years Architecture Education”, DIA, Dessau

With the completion of a first cycle of ten years, the graduate architecture program of Dessau Institute of Architecture Graduate School (DIA) hosted an international colloquium on the potential and implications of graduate architectural education viewed as a laboratory for design research. The international conference ‘Design Education as Research Lab’ at DIA beginning of July was located in the marvelous building of the Staatliche Bauhaus in Dessau, designed by Walter Gropius. The conference was opened by Philipp Oswalt, Director of the Bauhaus Foundation since March 2009. Inspired by the 90^th birthday of the Bauhaus, participants were highly engaged and enthusiastic about the subject and saw it as an analogy to the Bauhaus School.

As an architect and architectural teacher, now at the DIA, the conference-title “Design Education as Research Laboratory” promised a lot of intriguing news and discussions to look forward to.

The colloquium acted as a medium for reviewing a decade of DIA’s own achievements as well as a critical vehicle for an exchange of perspectives on advanced architectural and design education in general and upon graduate design education in particular. During two intense days I witnessed critical presentations of pedagogical models as an alternative to the traditional design studio which emphasized experimental design and approaches to research-oriented activity as new foundations for architectural education.

Day one presented case studies of International schools noted for their pedagogical experimentation within advanced degree programs, and their on-going contributions  to  the  discourse  of  the  relationship  between  critical  education  and critical practice. Day two was devoted to the components of contemporary approaches to education. Despite an officially clear differentiation in subjects, most talks merged one with another.

Throughout the conference, three main issues manifested themselves, firstly design intelligence vs. intelligent design, secondly the question of reconfiguring the identity of architects and contemporary/future architecture in the ‘real world’ and thirdly the handling with architecture being in a melting pot with biology and physics. What was meant by “Design Education as Research Lab”.  And are we, the architects, now merging disciplines ranging from fine arts via art or product design to architecture? Or do we claim to be the only design discipline?

Before showing how those questions were discussed, I would like to engage with a juxtaposition of the traditional design studio vs. contemporary teaching in some of the best architecture schools worldwide. I guess firstly, I need to say, that invited speakers came from the AA, The Bartlett, Berlage, Havard, DSD, SciArc on so forth.  This is certainly an exclusive selection, and I guess, that this exclusiveness kind of diluted the subject, whereas traditional schools engaging with built work, such as Nottingham University or TU Berlin, where a traditional studio culture is offered, were not presented. It was good to see that despite the exclusiveness speakers not just presented their schools as singularities but discussed the subject globally as a unit in a highly critical and serious way.

Following the introductory question: “Are we educating global architecture or global architects?, Prof. Alfred Jacoby, director of DIA, who initialized the colloquium together with Prof. Johannes Kister and Robert Oxman, highlighted significant points relating to architectural education. He stated that we are here to construct realities and described visible trends and global phenomena within architectural education and practice towards the importance of morphogenesis, algorithmic and parametrically defined architecture using new tools and strategies provided by digital means. While enjoying a position on the cutting edge of architectural education in the beginning of the 21^st century, a manifold of architecture schools are in the need to reconfigure their identities within the melting pot of research labs, professional practice, global thinking and acting. We ought to “investigate the digital network in order to get back on our feet and a solid clear course towards the future”. I certainly agreed with his observations, but at the same time asked myself about the importance of space-making, atmosphere and the art of drawing, which has always been the poetry of architecture.

Robert Oxman, Professor Emeritus at Technion (IIT), Haifa, Israel, followed this introduction and established 10 issues to be considered and fostered within architectural education and research in the digital age. Knowledge, tools, research, the problem of agenda, experimentalism and discourse are the issues we had to engage with so far, computation, global workshops or parametric scripting and processes incorporating the opportunities given in the digital age are the new tools for future architecture. Oxman referred to current projects as DRDPs (digitally research driven projects). It was wonderful to hear, that the Architecture Machine Group, 1967 in a way started those issues within the faculty of architecture.  The question of forerunners or grandfathers of digital architecture was taken on by Bart Lootsma, Chair for Architectural Theory at Leopold’s Universität in Innsbruck, Austria. Bart Lootsma bridged contemporary research to Le Corbusier and Ludwig Hilbeseimer regarding their ‘futuristic’ megacity plans and finally to Friedrich Kiesler and the Austrian theoretician Christopher Alexander showing their interest and research in algorithmic architecture, mathematics and the nature of order. His chair operates within the framework of the architectural faculty and employs a programme for advanced studies and research beyond architecture itself. I combined of the contents of the two contributions and concluded that this may be the foundation for tackling architecture in the 21^st century.

Especially Neil Leach and Vedran Mimicra focused on the subject of algorithmic architecture in the context of visions and research. Neil Leach, one of the most influential contemporary architectural theoreticians discussed the subject of breeding cities as morphogenetically derived architecture, introducing his recently published book ‘Digital Cities’. Neil’s key precedence for responsible architectural systems stemmed from natural phenomena such as swarm intelligence equivalent to urban growth and what he called termite-logic. The incorporation of biological systems corresponding current architectural research and urban planning was a refreshing and comprehensible argument regarding the latest development of scripting as a tool for establishing high performance buildings. I would like to compare to the first days of digital design, the ‘age of blobs’, where, to be honest, most architects weren’t quite sure about how to use ‘blobs’ efficiently but where overwhelmed by their ostensive uniqueness in form.  Now we need to and can be more focused in using digital tools in order to design buildings, which are actually useful and cosy in their spatial parameters and materiality in combination with a highly efficient performance.  As a visionary architect and researcher myself, I welcomed Neil’s contribution but realized, that the way towards ‘natural’ architecture is still very long.

At this stage it is debatable if our current students are still playing with shapes or actually use powerful tools available to incorporate data of natural forces, climate change, demographics and culture into their designs in order to produce highly efficient and welcoming architecture for future generations. In this context Vedran Mimica, director of Berlage Institute in Rotterdam presented the institute’s development regarding new visions to fulfill global complex needs for shaping future cities on an international level integrating subjects of migration fluxes and the Mexican bio-politics. Self explanatory student work shown by Vedran asked for the human scale of architecture, which in my opinion is extraordinary relevant to shaping our environment.

The question arising at this point relates to the employability of graduates with such skills. Whereas most of the readers are probably quite critical, it turns out that graduates with the knowledge of computational design, prototyping and scripting are in fact well equipped to conquer a part of architectural practice. Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas and a number of still unknown practices use the tools and appreciate their masters to develop their ideas in light of our current environment.

Neil Spiller, Bartlett School of Architecture, took a slightly different approach to the same subject by introducing AVATAR (Advanced Virtual and Technological Architecture Research). He positioned what he called “essentially his bit”, AVATAR and the MArch postgraduate course within the landscape of UCL’s Bartlett School of Architecture. Underlining his talk with outstanding images of students’ work Neil’s talk focused on interactive architecture derived from a process of carefully defining its pathology within the architecture itself. In his view is projects within architectural education are located on a virtual terrain, borrowing their emergence from biotechnology, nanotechnology and the influence of surrealism. Neil stated that Architecture is constantly reconfiguring itself and enjoys the status of being mnemonic. His viewpoint seemed to open the colloquium towards visionary potential and theoretical possibilities.  AVATAR’s current research of how Systems Architecture generates new design possibilities with the convergence of NBIC (nano-bio-info-cogno technologies) and Living Technology is ground-breaking and from my point of view it is important to work on those visions to become true.

I would like to transit to the distinction of architects being either ‘image-makers or shelter-makers’ defined by Arie Grafland (DSD) and, in this context, also to the contribution by Michael Speaks, Dean of Design at University of Kentucky.  His talk was dedicated to the book ‘On Bullshit’ by the philosopher Harry Frankfurter. Frankfurter distinguishes between three categories of human beings:  The Truth-Teller, The Liar and the Bullshitter, whereas Truth-Teller and Liar know the truth and are interested in using it in one way or another.  The Bullshitter on the other hand isn’t interested in either. This idea, that the architect may be comparable to the Bullshitter made me laugh and think at the same time.  It’s up to you to make up your mind. Visionary architects are certainly not part of the third category, but they are using individually chosen tools working on the fact that “architecture is not stable but an open system” (quote Arie Grafland).  Arie Grafland defined architecture-now as post-human architecture, even post-architecture-architecture and subsequently related back to the search of identity.

I would like to summarize, that Arie Grafland and Neil Spiller, seemingly different, work on the same subject, dealing with cybernetics, system theory and complexity using very different tools which manifest in very different and exciting results of architecture.

Having talked a lot about visions, I would like to mention some of the precedence cases relating to the realization of advanced architecture. Hanif Kara is structural engineer and chair of CABE’s inclusion by design group. He is part of DRL at the AA in London and the Harvard Graduate School of Design and therefore tackled Design Education as Research Lab from a practicing engineer’s point of view. It was very refreshing, when Kara described the apparent shift from linear to algorithmic architecture using the analogy ‘from Opera to Jazz’.  Using several case studies such as Zaha Hadid’s Phaeno, various AA’s summer pavilions and the development of Expo 2010 pavilion designed by Heatherwick Studios he discussed the famous question of ‘who is the designer, who serves whom?’, architect or engineer.

Through the vehicle of realism, I would like to come back to the definition of the traditional studio teaching.  Throughout the conference almost none of the speakers consciously defined the traditional studio.  Being located between ‘Rapidograph and parametric modeling’ or ‘linearity and interactive complexity’ I imagined what was meant, but through talks by Lynette Widder and Odile Deqc I understood how to define the difference.  Within the light of several digital architectural tools and techniques presented, Lynette Widder referred to design techniques within her school as ‘almost luddite’, rather using hands as a tool for creating architecture than the possibilities computer-technology offers.  Lars Lerup appreciated the way RISD teaching techniques are more than appreciated, giving, that our hands are our best tool to design consciously.  I agreed. Odile took a similar approach but underlined the ‘Speciale’ within her school, in which she does not only want to change certain things, but the whole school, established 140 years ago. “The school belongs to the students” and has the freedom of great independency establishing its curriculum for education.  ESA is currently setting up a master-course in relation to urban planning and the environment to serve future tasks within the faculty worldwide. In light of the above I would like to add, that a student I reviewed in 2008 asked me if a Rapidograph was a software…

I established differences between traditional and contemporary research labs and I claim that the approaches are certainly similar, but due to different tools, possibilities within the process and subsequently outcomes differ a lot.

Last but not least I would like to mention Ed Dimmendberg’s and Brett Steele’s contributions.

Brett Steele emphasized on the work done at DIA in comparison to the work produced by the Bauhaus 90 years ago, when asking ‘Can lightning happen twice’. With a marvelous selection of images Brett compared the times of 1919, the birth-year of the Bauhaus to 2009, and ten years of DIA.  His delightful contribution added to the already impressive perception of the celebration of DIA and its studentship from around the world.  He also presented global workshops and studios developed by the AA, which questioned the vernacularism of architecture. Criticism about the cultural origin of architecture whispered through the lecture hall, and I agree that architecture is made in one place can never be the same anywhere else.

Ed is Associate Professor for Film and Media Studies, University of California at Irvine and affiliated to American Academy Berlin. He juxtaposed a movie on Villa Sovoie celebrating clarity of new architecture as a place for freedom to Koolhaas HouseLife. The house in Bordeaux designed 1998, is the location and reason for two different cultures conflicting, namely architecture and cleaning. His contribution was more than amusing with a serious back-thought. Ed addressed the subject by showing obvious and bold but perspicuous hidden layers of built architecture as design research.   And I claim, that we all know, what he wanted to communicate.

After this outstanding conference that proofed successful on all levels the DIA was left pregnant with potential for growth and development for a lucid future of architecture and Education as Research Lab. We are looking forward to a publication about the conference by Robert Oxman and Alfred Jacoby and shall be delighted at another gathering at the DIA in two years, where lightning is happening twice.  Still my main concerns remains: Are students even in postgraduate education appreciating the magic of drawing, atmosphere and hand-made design rather than simulating space, whereas it does not seem to be important in their position? And how can architects be different, if they haven’t even learned how to be similar?  I am hoping to find out the answer during teaching at DIA and the next colloquium to come.

Liss C. Werner

[Um excerto da dissertação de mestrado]

Diversas alterações são identificadas ao longo do processo criativo. O modo de exteriorização do conceito e o diálogo formal deixaram de se processar através do tacto e passaram a ser, predominantemente, visuais e virtuais. O acto de esquissar estimulava o arquitecto a manifestar-se pelos vários sentidos, tais como, o tacto (da folha, da caneta, do grafite, da maqueta e do protótipo) e a visão (que pretende equalizar a imaginação e o real através de qualquer manifestação artística preliminar). Neil Leach afirma:

“Convencionou-se que os arquitectos devem ver o mundo em termos de representação visual – planos, secções, alçados, perspectivas, e por aí fora. O mundo do arquitecto é o mundo da imagem.

As consequências disto são profundas. O facto de se privilegiar a imagem levou a uma compreensão empobrecida do espaço construído, transformando o espaço social numa abstracção fetichizada. A vivência directa foi reduzida a um sistema de significação codificado, e com a crescente valorização da percepção visual, reduziu-se proporcionalmente outras formas de percepção sensorial. [...]

Quanto ao olho do arquitecto, é tão inocente como o lote que lhe é dado para construir ou o papel branco em que desenha o primeiro esboço. O espaço ‘subjectivo’ de que dispõe carrega significados demasiado objectivos. Trata-se de um espaço visual, um espaço reduzido a cópias, a meras imagens – àquele ‘mundo da imagem’ que é o inimigo da imaginação.

Deste modo, e como consequência das técnicas e práticas dentro do atelier, os arquitectos vão-se distanciando cada vez mais do mundo da experiência real.”1.

A quarta dimensão é, por excelência, a dimensão da arquitectura. Contudo, o resultado deste novo modo de concepção arquitectónica, ironicamente, pressupõe que a arquitectura seja vista de um ponto de vista estático. A variável «tempo» é determinante para a percepção de espaços arquitectónicos e os estímulos sensoriais são captados ao longo da narrativa espaço-temporal. A qualidade e intensidade identificadas na percepção espacial dependem de diversos factores, nos quais se destacam dois de suma importância: o segmento sócio-cultural do homem e a sensorialidade do espaço.

1 – LEACH, Neil – A Anestética da Arquitectura. 1ª ed. Lisboa: Edições Antígona, 2005. pp. 25, 27

[Um excerto da dissertação de mestrado]

Nos actuais concursos de arquitectura, a importância da imagem revela-se nas propostas apresentadas e representadas em painéis com imagens de tal forma espectaculares, que, em diversas situações, permitem a organização de exposições. Durante o processo de concepção, o arquitecto tende a sobrevalorizar a imagem, pois entende que esta é o único veículo de comunicação entre o concorrente e o júri do concurso. Neil Leach expressa esta mesma visão: “O mundo ameaça assim ser cada vez mais compreendido em termos de imagens estéticas vazias de conteúdo.”1.

Identifica-se uma obsessão pela imagem. O arquitecto contemporâneo utiliza ferramentas de simulação tridimensional, mas expõe o projecto, somente, através de composições estáticas e a duas dimensões. Quando os pressupostos de sobrevalorização da imagem se transpõem para a obra em si, destaca-se um problema (ou uma dicotomia): «o homem estático vê a arquitectura» ou «o homem em movimento sente a arquitectura»? Sabendo que a maioria dos prazeres são vividos com os olhos fechados, como se sente uma arquitectura que foi concebida só para ser vista?

Peter Zumthor muda o sujeito da questão anterior e afirma: “Uma boa arquitectura deve hospedar o homem, deixá-lo presenciar e habitar, e não tentar persuadir.”2.

No entanto, Juhani Pallasmaa demonstra alguns dos efeitos colaterais da sobrevalorização da imagem: “Creo que muchos aspectos de la patología de la arquitectura corriente actual pueden entenderse mediante un análisis de la epistemología de los sentidos y una crítica a la tendencia ocularcentrista de nuestra sociedad en general, y de la arquitectura en particular. La inhumanidad de la arquitectura y la ciudad contemporáneas puede entenderse como consecuencia de una negligencia del cuerpo y de la mente, así como un desequilibrio de nuestro sistema sensorial. Por ejemplo, las crecientes experiencias de alienación, distanciamento y soledad en el mundo tecnológico actual pueden estar relacionadas con cierta patología de los sentidos. […] El dominio del ojo y la eliminación del resto de sentidos tiende a empujarnos hacia el distanciamiento, el aislamiento y la exterioridad. Sin duda, el arte del ojo ha producido edificios imponentes y dignos de reflexión, pero no ha facilitado el arraigo humano en el mundo.”3

1 – LEACH, Neil – A Anestética da Arquitectura. 1ª ed. Lisboa: Edições Antígona, 2005. p. 22

2 – ZUMTHOR, Peter – Pensar a arquitectura. 1ª ed. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili, 2005. p. 28

3 – PALLASMAA, Juhani – Los ojos de la piel. 1ª ed. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili, 2006. pp. 18, 19