1

Moneo understands typology as dynamic and subject to change. If type is by nature a frame within which change occurs, in what ways does that happen? He argues that differentiation in secondary aspects is a change agent. In this scenario, change is a slow gradual process that unfolds over time and is informed by the inherent variety of the type. However, he soon presents a different evolutionary scenario – one where the moment of change is a radical event, brought about by a single genius architect. Notably, technological and social shifts are only prompting the architect to take the step – on his own. The question here is whether typological change occurs in a top-down or bottom-up manner: Is transformation coming from within type itself, or is it imposed singlehandedly by inspired individuals?

2
Kwinter analyses the work of Boccioni as a prime example of emergence of a new mode. The series Stati d’animo demonstrates the very event of change. Kwinter argues that between the first painting and the other two a catastrophe took place (pp.53). Later on, he defines catastrophe as an evolutionary process where a system jumps to a different type of organization – provided that there is a general distribution of differences within that system (pp58). Does this suggest that the system is self-organizing, or does change need an external agent – like the artist- to take place?