Moneo on typology. “The most intense moments in architectural development are those when a new type appears”…..”He/She gives up a known type and clearly sets out to formulate a new one”. Is typology precedential? Or does it relate to movements such as “Post-modernism” where no precedent is needed? can the abstract facilitate from one’s own understanding? if so is that what true typology is or is there more to it? Does this new typology fit all the criteria within the realm/discipline of architecture? Or does a new revolution of disciplines need to occur to birth a new typology?

Landscapes of Change. Catastrophe theory. The meaning of the catastrophe theory seems straightforward, but the example being used in the passage seems to be unclear. what would be a life-like example of an event space and control space? are these spaces their own entities but when forced together through time they work as a cohesive system which essentially makes a topological space?

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?

Landscapes of Change – Kwinter

1. “Catastrophe is interested in the effects of forces applied on a dynamical system from outside, forces that it then becomes the task of the system to neutralize, absorb or resolve. It gives rise to a whole new state or form.”(pg. 60) Are the forces applied on the system controlled forces? Is there ways to deal with undesired forces? “Forms are always new and unpredictable unfoldings shaped by their adventures in times.”(pg. 61)

On Typology – Moneo

2. “One of the frequent arguments against typology views it as a ‘frozen mechanism’ that denies change and emphasizes and almost automatic repetition. However, the very concept of type, as it has been proposed here implies the idea of change, or of transformation.”(pg.24) “Durand himself avoided the idea of type; used the word genre when he described the variety of buildings classified according to their programs.”(pg.29) Today, there are a lot of mixed-use architecture and the program can change. Rather than keep inventing new types, can a type be flexible based on their context?

Landscapes of change:

( Page 61 ) Virtual forms are real “folds” in real n-dimensional space that can give rise to indeterminate morphogenetic events in the n + 1 space.

Q) Concept of virtual form is unclear. An explanation of the above mentioned concept of virtual form will help.

J.N.L Durand 1809 :

( Page 32 ) Taken to its logic conclusion, such an attitude toward mass production was in clear contradiction to the Modern Movement’s own preoccupation with the unique spatial object. But with regard to the idea of type, both aspects of modern movement’s theory however contradictory, coincided in the rejection of type as a key to understanding the architectural object.

Q) Type as defined by the author is a concept which describes a group of object characterized by the same formal structure. As per the definition, how does the era of mass production reject the idea of type to understand the architectural object. Does mass production not support the idea of producing objects with a consistent formal structure?

Landscapes of Change: Boccioni’s “Stati d’animo” as a General Theory of Models by Sanford Kwinter

1. Sanford Kwinter says “Virtual forms are real ‘folds’ (not symbolic, not ideal) in real n-dimensional space that can give rise to indeterminate morphogenetic events in the n+1 space (the space one dimension higher up).” He later also says “Once time is introduced into this system, a form can gradually unfold on this surface as a historically specific flow of matter that actualizes (resolves, incarnates) the forces converging on the plane. These are the phenomenal forms that we conventionally associate with our lived world.” Does this mean that time is what actualizes form, and that there exists a virtual dimension of all possible forms but only what we see is what is being actualized in real space? I  can see some correlation between this theory and the idea of hyperrealism from last week’s reading Simulacra and Simulations, in the sense that hyperrealism describes something beyond reality whereas the virtual according to Kwinter also describes events beyond our perceived reality.

On Typology by Rafael Moneo

1. “The type can thus be thought of as the frame within which change operates, a necessary term to the continuing dialectic required by history.” I like the idea of a type being a “frame” around what is changing, in this case the Architecture, as time goes on. As Moneo talked about in the beginning of the passage, each architectural object can be thought of as independent, but represents an instance of change of the type or typology it belongs to, creating a more dynamic and non-linear perpetuation of the idea of typology, which is opposite to what most history teaches. Usually we think of typology as the big umbrella which encloses a set of architectural objects, but I think Moneo starts to speak of it as a more dynamic system in which the typology isn’t definitive and static but always changing according to specific instances or architectural objects that represent it.
2. Kwinter’s Catastrophe theory suggests that all forms are just materialized instances of change, while Moneo suggests that all architectural forms represent instances of change in their typologies, as “the design process is a way of bringing the elements of a typology – the idea of a formal structure – into the precise state that characterizes the single work.” Can architectural objects be thought of as actualized forms of Architectural ideas or typologies which are ever-changing and morphing through time? Does this mean that there is a virtual dimension in which all possible Architectural forms exist, and only the forms we see are produced due to specific instances of time?

1 – On Typology – On page 32-33 they talk about how the modernist movement and Le Corbusier wanted to create a mass produced architecture style. Moneo says this rejects the idea of type and its use in understanding architecture as an object. I dont fully understand why a mass produced architecture changes the definition of “type”, wouldn’t you be able to say that mass produced architecture is one type among many types for architecture? It seems to make more sense when framed that Corbusier has changed the definition of architecture or design, rather then type.

2 – Landscapes of Change – On page 60 Kwinter explains Catastrophe Theory, where many forces are linked and effect each other, some times even having an original force linked around to effecting itself. “Catastrophe theory is one method for describing the evolution
of forms in nature. It is essentially a topological theory that describes the behavior of forces in space over time, but its techniques have been extended to many real world phenomena” This theory has many similarities to the Butterfly effect, and another theory which says seemingly random events are not actually random because they can be predicted through statistics. An example being a dog biting a person happens 2000 times a year in X country with a deviation of 100 times a year, so this random event is “random” on a singular level, but overall it fits into a predictable trend. It seems like the Catastrophe theory could also explain in part how brain/memory work, with random forces adding up and effecting each other, like a sound suddenly reminding you of something from years ago.

“On Typology”,
“Once time is introduced into this system, a form can gradually unfold on this surface as a historically specific flow of matter that actualizeds the forces converging on the plane. These are the phenomenal forms that we conventionally associate with our lived world.”(P.63)

1.This remind me think about the project called Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain. The main point is how these geometry become a virtual form in our real lives?

Catastrophe theory is a fundamentally Heraclitean “science” in that it recognizeds that all form is the result of strife and conflict. It shows that the combination of any two or more conflicting forces may result in entirely irregular and discontinuous behavior if allowed to interact dynamically.”(P.60)

2.When author mentions that conflict forces may result irregular behavior, it is on purpose or it is natural happened.

Landscapes of Change: Boccioni’s Stati d’animo as a General Theory of Models”
“In Le Corbusier’s theory, the building industry should be analogous to the auto industry; like primitive architecture, but now through the industrial process, the new architecture should return to its former status as a typal instrument.”

3. In the Ville Radieuse, Le Corbusier is insightful in modern city scale, I’m confuse about “return to its former status as a typal instrument”, is any example?

1. Moneo lays out a proposal for a system to organize a collection of distinct objects, positioning it as a design problem. This enables us to consider what the needs for a particular type are and how we can adapt it for that purpose. It is open to change, and acknowledges that types differ in “substantial” ways. However, it’s unclear to me what substantial would mean in this context. He writes about time and cross-cultural differences, and extends this to say these are “not as autonomous objects but as ele­ments given life by the process of history itself.” These discrete objects flow up to types that are the history of the world. How can we find this history without identifying the discrete differences between types?
2. Can Moneo’s thesis be thought of in the same way as object oriented-programming, in which there’s a base object that is never directly expressed, but its data and functionality are manifest in unique instances?
3. Kwinter’s Landscapes of Change deals with flow and catastrophe. It’s almost an extension of the cybernetics and systems readings, but with a notable difference. When ‘catastrophe’ occurs, the system undergoes a dynamic shift, and must find a new state of equilibrium. However, Kwitner makes a point that catastrophe changes a system so thoroughly that it is not the same as it was before. As information flows in and out from a form, is it possible to imagine this as a regulatory feedback system, constantly shifting from one singularity to the next, with the catastrophe being the event that drives equilibrium, but conversely forcing a change in the state?

As an aside, I’ve always wanted to fabricate an installation similar to an epigenetic landscape with a series of linear actuators that responded to the accumulated movement of people through a space over a long period of time.

Landscapes of Change 

The Catastrophe theory presupposes that all objects are in a complex dynamic system, and all have some potential for a form shift through a “catastrophe” when a threshold is met. Yet all objects are being constantly subjected to a flow of information from exterior sources and from its own interior outward to other systems. How do we chart these flows and envision them if they are to dynamic to chart in 2-dimensional space? How does this relate to the visualization of the paintings being referenced, from the futurist movement?

On Typology

Moneo describes many different ways that typology has been viewed through history, from several different movements in the discourse of architecture. He also says that “the most intense moments in architectural development are those when a new type appears” and that this occurs when there is a large shift in society. Does Moneo see shifts in architectural typology as a reaction to different shifts in society? And can you study the shifts of society through the shifts in architectural typology?

REQUIRED

Rafael Moneo, “On Typology”, Oppositions 14, MIT press, 1978, 22-45.

Sanford Kwinter, “Landscapes of Change: Boccioni’s Stati d’animo as a General Theory of Models”, Assemblage, v.19, MIT Press, 1992

RECOMMENDED

Stan Allen, “From Object to Field”, Architectural Design: After Geometry, Academy Group, 1997.

Greg Lynn, “Body Matters”, Journal of Philosophy and Visual Arts, 1993.

D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, On Growth and Form, Cambridge, 1917