Response to Liveness
Whenever Janus, the Roman God of doorways” is shown in relation to Time, it is important to remember that between the Past (which is no longer) and the Future (which is yet to come) is Janus’s third face - the one which looks perpetually at the Present and which is neither of those which we can actually see. “This third ‘face’ is, in fact, invisible because the Present is an ungraspable instant. This explains, for example, why certain Semitic languages, such as Hebrew and Arabic, do not have a verbal form that corresponds to our present tenses. Nevertheless, when one manages to rise above the restrictions of this transitory and contingent manifestation, the Present actually contains all of reality. And this ‘third’ face of Janus, in the Hindu tradition, is the frontal eye of Shiva, ‘Master of Trikala - the Triple Time’. Shiva’s third eye is also invisible (i.e., it cannot be represented by any corporeal organ) and represents the ‘sense of eternity’. A mere glance from it reduces everything to ashes. In other words, it destroys all manifestation” (Stewart 1999 p1). However, when Succession is metamorphosed into Simultaneity, all things remain eternally present. In other words, the apparent Destruction is really Emergence.
Initially ‘The Liveness Manifold’ seemed another abstract or reduced futuristic condition that served a purpose as justification for digital representation and a ‘Spatial Information Architecture Laboratory’. It is easy to call ‘shenanigans’ when you are out of your depth.
But the series of ‘Vital Signs’ readings allowed me to gradually understand that liveness is not abstract but absolute, and not a Dantesque futuristic prediction but a contemporary one that has already validated previous pessimistic predictions of Authors like George Orwell, Aldous Huxley. Yet it also has introduced exciting new outcomes such as the potentialism of “emergence”, and the required departure from the comfort (or discomfort) of the parallel postulate.
Liveness, like Janus’s third head, is the eternal now. Pia Ednie-Brown writes “Liveness is a name for a vivacity that flickers forward in the rearrangements of the Now. It is not quite or not just related to organic aliveness, not quite and not just related to technologically produced immediacy. Liveness invokes and involves vitality and relationality, live broadcast and streaming, aesthetics and the animate, protean identities, biotechnology, biopower, emergent behaviour, artificial intelligence, animation … all things participating in and signing an intimate intertwinement of the organic and the technological, of matter and the machine.” (Ednie-Brown 2002 p1)
The manifold is the folding of space and time. The perfect visual of this idea is perhaps the Lorentzian wormhole. Reduced to its most basic elements, a Lorentzian wormhole is a short-cut through space and time. “The concept of a Lorentzian wormhole is essentially synonymous with that of a spacewarp---a warping, or folding of space and possibly time. It is commonly believed that such objects might be formed in regions of intense gravitational fields, where the highly curved nature of the space-time manifold allows for the existence of nontrivial topology or parabolic space” (Uchii 2003 p2).
Due to the nature of this fold, movement becomes cyclic rather than linear.
Emergence and strange loops
Emergence and Liveness are similar triangles. And like Janus’s third head, they can’t be seen. Each element in an environment has a history and a potential - and both are encapsulated in the manifold. The greater the potential or future dimensions, the greater the free will. The beauty of emergence is that the finished product is unknown; in this way bottom-up systems are constructive. “The movement from low-level rules to higher-level sophistication is what we call emergence” (Johnson, 2001, p18).
I am interested in how emergence could benefit Urban Planning. Although it would require a certain departure from precedent, in the sense that planning and emergence are almost antonyms, Johnson describes emergence in the context of already developed environments. Its usefulness, however, is only evident from retrospective analysis, not the original civic plan.
Of the way in which industrial neighborhoods form along class lines, Johnston states that the system features problem solving abilities by drawing on “masses of relatively stupid elements,
rather than a single intelligent “executive” branch…..They (this and other self-organising systems) get their smarts from below. In a more technical language, they are complex adaptive systems that display emergent behaviour. In these systems agents residing on one scale start producing behaviour that lies on one scale above them: ants create colonies; urbanites create neighborhoods; simple pattern-recognition software learns how to recommend new books (Johnson, 2001, p18). Urbanites create neighborhoods and consequently character. But the character emerges more from the local interaction rather than state level legislation. Johnson writes “Again we are back to the world of the ants: random local interactions leading to global order; specialized components creating an unspecialized intelligence; neighborhoods of individuals solving problems without any of those individuals realizing it…..The key here is that side walks are important not because they provide an environmentally sound alternative to freeways (though that is also the case)…..what matters is that they are the primary conduit for the flow of information between city residents”(Johnson, 2001,p94). Character in Melbourne suburbs, like sidewalks are regulated by council. But in the same way also, its contribution stems from its emergent qualities.
The explanations of “emergent” behaviour in our brains – for instance, ideas, hopes, images, analogies, and finally consciousness and free-will – are based on a strange kind of loop, an interaction between levels where the top level reaches back down to the bottom level and influences it (like creating planning regulations based on the history), while at the same time being itself determined by the bottom level (immediate or ‘haptic’ qualities). In other words, a self-reinforcing “resonance” between different levels. “The self comes into being at the moment it has the power to reflect itself” (Hofstadter 1979, p708-709). This draws into mind the non-image of Janus’s third head. In the context of architecture or planning we have the higher level as the striated urban condition which requires preservation and maintenance of our heritage and then the lower, experiential level, which comprises its character. Character and Heritage self-resonate but are not to be confused.
The Character Conundrum
Character is defined as “All those qualities that make a person, group, (place) or thing what he, she or it is and different from others” (Modern Oxford1998). Heritage is “A nation’s historic buildings, monuments, countryside etc, esp. when regarded worthy of preservation”. One requires a ‘striated’ temporal condition and the other, implied by “is”, a smooth one. Above is an image of a surreal estate in Queens, New York. A former Duplex becomes a monoplex and the owner of the left side proves he can do exactly as he damn well pleases, while the owner on the right a millimeter away shows that he will not be budged. What the street lost in civility, it gained in character, and how fortunate that no bland planning regulations got in the way.
Mark Rakatansky connects the animate or liveness to character in a solid manner by drawing on the Looney Tunes characters and animation in his essays on “Motivations of Animations”. He uses Chuck Jones definition; his dictionary says “Animate: [Webster’s]? from Latin, animatus – to invoke life, to make alive, to give life to, bring to life, to stimulate to action or creative effort” (Amuck, 180)’ (Rakatansky1988, p.1). Rakatansky writes “Like Jones, I would say that the only one of these definitions relevant to architectural design is to “invoke life”, not to imitate it” (Rakatansky1988, p.1). On character he writes of Chuck Jones work “there are no characters, there is no performance, only the invocation of character, only invocation of performance” (Rakatansky1988, p.3). Similarly, character in architecture doesn’t dwell in existing buildings; it is invoked through the interaction and vitality that is the essence of a place.
Colin Rowe describes the various interpretations of the term “character” in architecture over the last three centuries, and the subsequent reactionary discourse in an essay on Character and composition in architecture. However he notes that despite the formal variations of how the term is interpreted, it’s presence in all cases was envisaged as determined by some ‘evident particularity’ (Rowe 1974 p41). Rowe draws on a definition from Encyclopedia of Cottage and Farm and Villa architecture written by Loudon: “Character in architecture, as in physiognomy, is produced by the prevalence of certain distinctive features, by which a countenance or a building is at once distinguished from others of the same kind. Hence numbers of buildings like numbers of human beings, may exist without exhibiting any marked character…..In general whatever is productive of character in a building most be conspicuous and distinctive; and it should rather consist of one than many features.“ (Rowe 1974 p43) He says of varying connotations: “the word might be used quite indifferently as referring to a class, species, or style; buildings might show “a fancied or varied character”, or might be erected in the “Gothic character”; or they might suggest a certain social expressiveness, displaying a “character becoming an English gentleman, plain and unaffected.” (Rowe 1974 p43) This seems problematic in the sense that it allows a specific style to represent character
and subsequently the insistence on re-use of that style, a similar problem facing most cities today. He describes the varying connotations as a “disruptive force” in the 19th Century. Rowe uses as examples the mid-nineteenth century discourse, mostly the Gothic Revivalists, who were revolting against the implications of the picturesque, which was wholly about emphasizing the pleasure of the eye, rather than the rational experience of the object. ‘(They) seemed to have sensed that character can hardly initiate itself, and that personality is not extraneous to a specific culture but partly its result.” They envisaged character as the consequence of specific circumstances, “as evidence of a genuine interaction between a given individual, given material conditions, and a given cultural milieu”. (Rowe 1974 p50).
Character emerges from the genuine interaction between a given individual and given material conditions. This seems to draw parallels to haptic perception (experience of an object) rather than solely visual as in the Picturesque.
In Melbourne, ‘character’ remains a commonly used word (too commonly used perhaps) to the point that it is reduced to absurdity. Genius Loci is removed from the building and individual site and shifted to the suburb. What is next, retaining Australian Character or worse a Global Character? Recycling setbacks, fences and rooflines will undoubtedly remove any distinctive elements and therefore any marked character.
Graham Jahn, the current RAIA National President, has written recently in his essay titled ‘Architecture’s War on Words’ that “Perhaps ‘the most overdone word of the year award’, particularly in Victoria, should go to character – original character, current character, future character, …… preferred future character – ‘characterisation’ - garden suburb character, bush
suburban character, inner urban recycled industrial future character – one can’t help think of the bush tucker man, Paul Hogan and Dame Edna all being lined up as urban choices……... And in all this ‘characterisation’, there is a real danger of ‘forced character’, ‘unwelcome character’, even ‘character abuse’ in the near future, or perhaps a kind of post-modern curating, where horses pull rubber wheeled drays, and bell’s [sic]? ring as doors open. A kind of Rocks on the rocks, might emerge, which when thematically applied becomes a kind of protectionism for potentially ill-conceived if not redundant designs and lifestyles.” He goes on to say “The past is very important....in fact, all our lessons reside in the past. But, there are examples now, where this local planning is actually weakening the true value of heritage conservation. Any experienced environmentally minded architect or designer finds it challenging to say the least, where the entire suburban fabric of a locality is conservation listed, and everything must conform with the ‘future character assessment’ of the past.”(Jahn 2003 p3).
The current RESCODE definition of Neighborhood Character, “Setback from the street, fence style and height, the shape of the roof and retention of garden trees.” (Munro 2001 The Age p5) is a striated view that relies on cognitive form and history. All that will emerge will be stagnant streetscapes that asphyxiate character rather than nurture it. Melbourne 2030 seems to improve on the sterile definition. It states “With sense of place it reinforces a feeling of belonging, where heritage and neighbourhood character are clear components of a sense of place. This also arises from non physical aspects that evolve over time such as activities and the resulting cultural vitality” (Melbourne 2030, 2003 p45). I would argue that Neighborhood Character should only encapsulate these non physical aspects, let heritage do the rest.
Essentially, if a street all looks the same, under the current, local definition it will be near impossible to change it. This leads to determinism. New development and medium density
housing will supposedly be diverted to streets and neighborhoods with less uniformity. Character is something though that you can’t pick and choose. Uniformity can’t be the only characteristic supported by this clause. Character is also celebration of the defective. It comprises the blots and bouquets, beautifully coined by Robyn Boyd. It is dynamic and requires contribution as much as preservation.
The confusion stems from the coupling of Neighborhood Character with Heritage – Heritage is an incredibly important aspect of good planning strategies, but the two are unrelated. Heritage requires respectful preservation of valuable architecture, but replication of the past, in an attempt to retain character, stifles it.
Catherine Heggen, from Victoria Heritage acknowledges there’s tension between neighborhood character and heritage when the two are very different. ``You could argue of neighborhood character: it exists, therefore it has character. To be heritage, it has to be generally acknowledged at a broader level." (Johnston 2000 p3) But she goes on to say that the two things combine to cement Melbourne's reputation as a nice place, which is good for tourism, which brings in money. Certainly conservation is required, but imitating it will lead to architectural stagnation. The striated version of Neighborhood character, (under RESCODE) is a psychology linked to the suburban mania to preserve the old at the expense of the new. It's a very provincial response, in cities staunch on heritage and appearance, romance and nostalgia.
The contradictions would be less apparent if the definition of Neighborhood Character was experiential rather than the cognitive, striated version dictated by those well known fundamentalists SOS and groups such as Brighton Urban Protection.
Mrs. Stegley from Brighton Urban Protection identifies Brighton's neighborhood character as generous gardens, the street patterns and the consistent setbacks of the homes. Carlton has its two storey terraces, Camberwell its Victorian villas and Beaumaris its native trees but Brighton is a ``19th century house and garden suburb" and that's basically the way it should stay. ``It's got to do with our sense of place," she says. ``Our associations. It’s living history and you have to be respectful of that......I remember not long ago going down a street I used to go down as a girl and passing this house where I used to play and it had been bulldozed, moonscaped, and it was like ... losing photos in a fire. I felt like I had lost a part of myself." (Johnston 2000 p3)
Heritage clauses are able to protect this from happening. Neighbourhood character should encourage emergence, which involves respecting and learning from, but not imitating the past. We know that high entropy is low contrast, which results from sameness, stagnation and determinism. If not resisted in Architecture we lose innovation, transformation and free-will. Our heritage was once innovation, another strange loop.
Experiencing Character through the Gaussian Lens
"In hyperbolic space, the Euclidian form is approachable but not attainable, like the speed of light, or your ideal weight. Though but a minor change in a simple axiom, the alteration of the parallel postulate produced a wave that propagated through the body of Euclidian theorems, changing each and every one that pertained to the shape of space. It was as if Gauss had removed the glass from Euclid's Window and replaced it with a distorting lens." (Mlodinow 2001 p121).
Perfect geometry is without character and ultimately non-existent. Striated space and Euclidian space are also congruent concepts for this reason. Striation disallows vitality and liveness in similar way to Euclidian geometry. It is real, live space that is defected. The distorted lens is really not distorted but the real and clear picture; it is only described as distorted as it has
caused a re-evaluation of what “pertained to the shape of space”. It is the relevant form for this reason. But the distortion and subsequent re-evaluation enforces a haptic experience.
Neighborhood character can only be viewed through some sort of filter. Anything cognitive must be blurred out of recognition before the real and defective character can be seen. It exists in the haptic, the smooth, the infinitesimal and subsequently it loops again and the striated and absolute emerge.
In the Smooth and the Striated, Deleuze and Guattari define the smooth as “both the object of a close vision par excellence and the element of haptic space (which may be as much visual or auditory as tactile). The striated, on the contrary, relates more to a distant vision, and a more optical space –“ (Deleuze and Guattari 1987) Although only oppositional really for the purposes of the essay, I found the definition useful in this discussion. He describes (tentatively) the way that the ‘Law of the Painting’ is that it be done close up or in haptic space, and that it is a ‘bad painter’ that backs away from the painting. He says that “Cezanne (and I’m sure other impressionists) spoke of the need to no longer see the wheat field” (Deleuze and Guattari 1987). When applying a similar concept to the Architect it could be argued that character should be derived from ‘haptic space’ where “orientations, landmarks, and linkages are in continuous variation” When trying to understand it one should “lose oneself without landmarks in smooth space. Afterward striation can emerge”. (Deleuze and Guattari 1987).
The proximity of the painter to his canvas or the Architect to his building simply serves as a filter that obscures the view of the potential outcome. It prevents reference to formal elements of an
environment when trying to describe it’s character or “distinctive features”. Moreover it requires innovation rather than replication, while heritage legislation enforces conservation.
The history of a suburb is a 1:5000 concept, both temporally and spatially. This is not a human scale by any means. Trying to assimilate all of this information into a definitive characteristic seems an impossible task. If you succeeded and used the information to contribute to the character the elements would participate in high entropy (low-contrast), a gradual spread of sameness that will result in a character-deficiency according to Loudon’s definition.
This quote from www.nomadology.com shows the way in which character will self perpetuate or emerge from a live or experiential understanding of an environment. “Nomads adapt their strategies to the immediate situation. Nomads evolve in an ever changing environment. They don't try to control their environment; they don't attempt to domestify what is new, foreign or different.” The character of their environment is not something to be retained, it exists within its own dynamism.
Melbourne, particularly the leafy eastern suburbs, has certainly tried to domestify what is foreign and then brand it as character. This creates a Reducto ad Absurdum of the Genius Loci.
Ad venatum vadamas!
Johnson’s Ant analogy is particularly useful to conclude. Humans and Ants, as Johnson points out, have congruent qualities. They, like us, are social and collaborative organisms that
spontaneously create. They do this in accordance with the Genius Loci or ‘Spirit of Place’. However, a spirit or essence is not a tangible concrete thing and subsequently cannot be codified by planning regulations. This is why Patron Saints encapsulate places so successfully. As they are spirits or non-visual there relevance and meaning is dynamic and evolves and emerges with the place. Everyone’s visual of the saint is unique.
RESCODE attempts to codify or prescribe character; therefore it defeats the Genius Loci. An apt visual is perhaps an alive Ant and an Ant trapped in amber millions of years ago. Both are equally beautiful, but in attempting to bound its vitality the ant in amber is rendered picturesque and powerless. The live ant is greater than the sum of its parts. So too is a suburb.