Potential in the Unfamiliar the virtual in architecture

In this day and age, we live in a reality interjected with a new kind of reality, that being a virtually-induced reality. Virtual extensions of familiar activities and simulated environments are top on the agenda for this century. How do we, as people, begin to respond and try to understand this shift? Consequently, how does architecture, which functions primarily for the people, in turn, accommodate this change seeing that ever since the beginning of time, architecture’s ‘claim to fame’ has always been in the material and the physical?

We have begun to test the potential of our senses and in turn the potential of the world we are living in. As Massumi writes in Brightness Confound (pp164, 2002) “there is a gap between what he has seen and his seeing”. With notions of virtuality being the order of the day, the problem of integrating such concepts into a successful physically built outcome arises time and again within the field of architecture.

The dilemma may simply lie in the fact that in some cases, these ephemeral i.e. ‘virtual’ affects are trying to, or there is an expectation that they do, find their way into the built physicality of architecture and somehow reveal themselves in the final form.

Is this necessarily true? This essay wishes to pose the argument that while they should be integrated and taken into consideration within the confines of design, concepts such as these need not manifest themselves through the built architectural form, literally and physically but rather through other methodologies. Perhaps the time has come to stop being too close minded in thinking about everything within and only within their exclusive context and understanding them as being independent of each other. Rather than categorizing them in their respective absolutes, a more inclusive form of understanding should prevail. To put it plainly, the point put forward is that architecture need not see the diagram or reality need not see the virtual as being a non- of themselves. Essentially, the first step is to view all relationships as being closely intertwined, tightly meshed somehow with no finite distinction between them. Secondly, it also intends to discuss the relevance of ‘potentiality’ over ‘actuality’, the ‘virtual’ over the ‘real’ and the ‘diagram’ over the ‘architecture’ and the legitimacy in both.

This brings me to a quote by Aristotle (pp356, 1995) in the hopes of extricating the notion of virtuality from its polar opposite of reality as we are accustomed to.

"nothing can happen if it doesn't have the potential to happen in the first place"

This is the concept of potentiality, “dunamis” and actuality, “energia” according to Aristotle. He discerns 3 stages within this framework, firstly, a “virtuality with the potential to become reality” (actuality), secondly, an “existent reality in which exists virtuality as yet uncovered” (in a state of emergence), lastly, a “state of reality where all virtuality has become real”, put simply, all potentiality has been transformed to a state of actuality and merged with the state of actuality which was present prior to the transformation.

“Virtuality and actuality are merely two different ways of being.” (Massumi, 2002)

Therefore the new or what was previously non-existent, is not something from the future, rather the ‘new’ is a past potentiality. It is also clear that both potentiality and actuality are not independent of each other but site themselves within an infused relationship. The virtual, then, is argued to be in the realm of the about-to-occur, a potentiality which can be equated to a state of emergence.

“the virtual is that which has potential rather than actual existence”. (Massumi, 2002)

This throws a new light in thinking about virtuality, that despite being a recent and current operation, it is a reflection of the ‘real past’. The important thing would then be not the actual outcome which is virtual but the ever present potential for it to occur in the first place. Our reality as we understand it to be physical, concrete, and corporeal has always been a burgeoning realm filled with potential for new events. The virtual is argued to have been a ‘past potentiality’ made real. Consequently, there is no distinction between the virtual and the real; both are reliant on each other.

“The virtual possesses complete reality, in its virtuality” (Gilles Deleuze, 1994)

Massumi makes reference to the failure of the grid which is understood indubitably for its points in space. An alternative would be a topological surface. Topology is the study of the characteristics of mathematical surfaces, such as their number of sides, edges or holes. Deforming a surface changes its shape, but not its characteristics; an edge remains an edge, and a hole remains a hole, no matter how distorted the edge or hole appears. The claim of topologists that a donut (torus) and a coffee cup are topologically equivalent

Virtuality is suggested in the folds of an image, any given still taken from a topological process is architecturally viable to be constructed, as such, a virtuality is expressed in the real. This then further strengthens the polar comparison of relationships. In topological processes, at every moment, there exists potential, potential is present throughout the whole process. The virtual then occurs at the very instant when there is a change from one form to the next.

As Massumi (pp1, 2002) talks about the story of the arrow in “Concrete Is As Concrete Doesn’t” he offers us an analogous mode of thought. The journey of the arrow from the start, the hand, to the end, the target board is an indefinable whole entity not composed of a series of points. The emphasis is clearly in the in-between, the grey area of movement rather than the distinct points.

This is applicable in thinking about topological transformations where it is hardly definable, remaining a continuous transformation not dissimilar to the path taken by the arrow. The processes are both potential and actual throughout, except when stills, i.e. images are taken from a particular transformation, does this cease to be the case and the potential begins to break away from the actual.

I would like to extend this train of thought into thinking about architecture and its use of the diagram, in the hopes to ease for myself the dilemma as mentioned above. The diagram is employed as the middle man between the "world-as-imagined" & the "world-as-experienced” as expressed by Lars Spuybroek in Diagramming. It does not exist as a unique component rather it functions as the in-between, the bridge between the incorporeal and the corporeal.

I quote Gin & Arakawa, (2002) “The tense of architecture should be not that of "This is this" or "Here is this" but instead that of "What's going on?”

This leads to a question of what is it exactly that could lie beyond architecture’s physicality and its reign of solidity? Hitherto, it is difficult to draw away from conventional thinking, the constant envisioning of architecture to be ‘real’ and arriving at a dead end whilst trying to move on with the times. Perhaps the diagram is at its best accepted for what it can achieve, ceasing to try and be what it cannot and may never be less its essence is lost when it is physically challenged architecturally.

Architecture DOES not mimic the diagram!

First, it is important to define what a diagram means and what it is in its relevance in architecture. Rakatansky in Motivations of Animation (pp50) defines the diagram as “a graphic design that explains rather than represents a drawing”. A diagram is pictorial representation of “arrangements and relations”. Diagrams are the containment of ideas, relationships and arrangements, interactions; diagrams are potentials of all these and more. But more importantly, the diagram can be equivalent to the potential of an actuality. Every diagram is thus potentially a building; however, not every diagram is potentially architecture. This is not to say that the diagram is of little use or ‘simply not good enough’, rather architecture only surfaces as an actuality when the diagram is successfully employed and its essence remains intact during the translation process.

So if this can be accepted, let us not be disappointed with Van Berkel and let us celebrate the Moebius House!(1993-1998)

In the beginnings of the process, the diagram has the capacity to be perceived, experienced, interpreted, and translated differently, but once further along the process, the diagram seems to become stagnant, once it becomes less potential and more actual, less abstract and more evident in the built outcome. Perhaps this situation can be addressed by re-analyzing the diagram as an informant of the architecture and not its predecessor.

Gregory Bateson (http://psycho-ontology.net/unconscious) defines the context of the diagram. Essentially, the diagram has no context. The word ‘context’ comes from a Latin root meaning to weave together; to form, construct, or compose as by interweaving of parts. When an entity is deemed to have no context or is context-free, this means that it is self-contained i.e. “that there is nothing more to understanding its operation than understanding its own contents.” Hence, the diagram is a self-contained entity, which should be credited for its infinite potentials in forming or revealing relationships rather than the graphic from which architecture merely imitates.

"the essence of modern technology is by no means anything technological”

“Heidegger took a stand from within technology, his recognition that we are suspended within the languages of modern technology leads to the critical proposition that it is from there that we have to find our way" (Iain Chambers, pp 136, 2001)

Heidegger saw technology as a way of revealing rather than of production. Likewise for the diagram, apprehend it for what it can do rather than what it is therein lays its dynamism. Architectural form, rather than be directed by the diagram, should capitalize the diagram in allowing it to reveal potentials and possibilities and that in turn affect the built in some way. A diagram reveals relationships and interactions and it is this which constitutes form not dictates it.

This essay does not propose any solutions at this stage except to rethink the function of the diagram and clarify why the ‘built diagram’ is belittling the whole concept of diagram. Perhaps in reassessing diagrams, one could then reassess architecture so that the former is not merely aesthetically incorporated. In a lecture, Peter Corrigan once said that in “those days, the building always outshone the drawing and nowadays, it seems to be the reverse” The argument remains that architecture should extract the qualities of the virtual instead of try in a futile attempt to incorporate it physically.

Let’s have a fantastic building and not just a fantastic render!

In pursuing this, perhaps one method would be to extract oneself from the conventional, the familiar. What happens if we place ourselves in a situation where we are removed from a condition of familiarity? Would we then allow ourselves to be exposed to potentials of infinite dimensions? How are we traditionally accustomed to architectural space and its ideas on solidity, materiality, and this constant engagement with architecture as complying with these notions? Can the experience of space somehow take precedence over its traditional ideals? One approach would be to remove ourselves from it, to allow for a sense of “now”, described as “moments of meeting” which “emerge through the falling apart of familiar procedures”. That is to say, we extract ourselves from what is familiar to us and this extends to include our understanding of space, its physical properties and the experience of it. "these moments are unfamiliar, unexpected in their exact form and timing, unsettling or weird” (http://www.ijpa.org)

In a very simplistic fashion, architecture has already begun straying away from the ‘familiar’ in envisioning space as not composed of flat floors, levels, and series of stacked levels. Design entries for the Eyebeam Museum & technology in New York by several architects clearly express this. MVRDV’s proposal viewed in section throws off balance the idea of inhabiting space. Levels seem to infuse into one another and then taper off vertically. This interweaving suggests different ways of thinking about space and its compositional members.


MVRDV, Eyebeam Design Entry, 2001

The entry by Asymptote also further reinforces this. From the exterior the skin is a permeable-looking entity which cases the internal level malleablities. Structural integrities are challenged, so are notions of walls, floors, ceilings and ramps.


Asymptote, Eyebeam Design Entry, 2001

The other approach is to rethink and break through the confines of the familiar may be not to remove oneself from it rather by engaging in a rigorous and thorough re-examination of what is already familiar, and by bringing that to its extremes, stretching it to its limits, boundaries may be broken. Thus, we remain in the familiar but are able to view it through new light, extracting new means of understanding it and pursue new relationships. In this way, the constant struggle of what defines a ‘real’ architecture becomes easier because it is now possible, despite stable and familiar environments which we are accustomed to, we may somehow find a way to express beyond the familiar.

I was once in a studio where we were working through diagrams, mapping and finding relationships involving flows. Needing only 10 diagrams at the most, we were instructed to locate 10 000 which, at the end of the day was a healthy exercise because it encouraged us to be removed from our own personal comfort zone and to be open to possibilities which otherwise would remain unencountered. This anecdote above just provides an example of seeking to find the unfamiliar in the familiar through a rigorous process of reexamining the familiar.

The second approach is suggestive of a hope for architecture in dealing with the virtual, and this dilemma may be lessened, by re-thinking architecture through not the physical rather through its interactions and the relations it provides. In this way, the translations are less literal and less of an exhaustive problem.

To seek the unfamiliar may be a logical and hopefully fruitful approach, as it allows architecture explorations into how it can remain in its ‘real-ness’ while challenging ideas of the familiar. At this juncture, a quote from Spuybroek (pp 243) states that "architecture can be liquid but the building is solid......the building should be static but architecture should never be at rest"

This essay explores this idea of the unfamiliar through the studio of Diller & Scofidio and Vito Acconci whose works included below seek to re-categorize relationships that are familiar and push them into the realm of the unfamiliar.

D+S approaches the age old question of what defines the ‘real’. On two extreme sides of the equation, technophiles and technophobes alike, nevertheless, have one common goal, to define the ‘authenticity of the real’, "liveness", a term that has grown to be synonymous with authenticity and a trusted reality. Their work challenges us to rethink the role we play in today’s society.

The work of D+S removes from architecture the notion that it is about shelter, comfort and functionality suggesting viewing architecture from a non-physical point of view. They provide an eloquent concept for architecture as “environments of thought”. Their conceptual projects explore the avant-garde tradition of making the familiar strange, even ominous, by creating environments in which the objects and modern comforts of our everyday world are made to reveal their contradictions, ironies, and inefficiencies. Attempts to rethink and redefine existing relationships, challenge conditions reveal the anonymous values and norms of the society rendering them visible, readable, audible and tangible.

For their first project for the web, entitled Refresh (1998), Diller + Scofidio have taken office web cams as their point of departure, with the intention of examining the role of live video technologies on everyday life.


Diller+Scofidio, Refresh, 1998

These live cameras provide a way of connecting viewers via real time. For each of the dozen sites selected for this project, they have constructed fictional narratives. For every site there is a grid of twelve images, one of which is live and refreshes when clicked; the other eleven have been constructed for this project with the aid of hired actors and Photoshop. None of the people from the actual location appear in the fabricated images; however, the juxtaposition of the live and the fictional establishes a provocative correspondence. The stories, concentrate on subtle changes in behavior as a consequence of the acknowledged presence of the camera in the office. There is nothing shocking or dramatic, rather, everyday conventions are slightly modified, either to perform for or to hide from the camera. Surveillance alters the notion of the mundane activity into a somewhat performative action. The simple relationship of the viewer and the viewed is stretched so much so its impact causes a change in behavior.

How can this impact architecture, how can the familiar be stretched so that an acute awareness can be brought about? Another project Facsimile (2001), is a video monitor across the façade of the new Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco. A live video camera back-to-back with the screen is pointed into the public lobby where it broadcasts live and pre-recorded imagery to the screen. We see the concepts in Refresh, a virtual entity of the web, finding their way into architecture.



Diller+Scofidio, Facsimile, 2001, due for completion in 2003

The various projects of Vito Acconci also challenge this notion of the ‘familiar’ as well as dabble in reconfiguring the role of the user. It takes a different, rather radical approach in conceiving of the environment, providing a fresh view for the function of architecture.

In Personal Island (1992), a rowboat is sunk into the ground on land, its bow is filled with soil and grass, with a tree growing out of the bow. The oars are embedded in the ground, as if rowing on land. The user steps down into the boat, and sits inside, as if the land were water. Facing the boat, in the water, is its mirror-image: a rowboat wedged into a circular plane of grass. The rowboat combines with the grass: as in the rowboat on shore, its bow is filled with soil and grass, a tree growing out of the bow. The user then steps out onto the grass plane, and into the boat, and row: the boat takes with it the circular plane of grass which is extracted from a semi-circular cut in the shore, hence the user can row your island out to sea.


Vito Acconci, Personal Island, 1992

Just as this work attempts to redefine the notion of land and object, the following installation does the same with the idea of furniture and architecture.

Tele-furni system (1997) is hybrid not in form but in function. It places emphasis on the shift in function, rather than prioritizing the physicality of the architectural form. Comprising of a system of architecture and furniture, for viewing videotapes, that is made up of the video monitors that are being viewed, the monitors are spread through the room at different heights and in different directions. The monitors are stepped on, sat on, reclined on, in order to look at other monitors. They are employed simultaneously as architecture and furniture for viewing, which are, in turn, viewed from other monitors. The concept is to display the intricacies of the architectural-furniture-viewing relationship which exist in one singular whole so much so that it is impossible to extricate any one of these form their make-up.


Vito Acconci, Tele-furni system, 1997

The final project included here re-examines the notion of the garden where two existent gardens give birth to an urban garden between them. Garden between Gardens (1993) is a horizontal plane four feet off the ground. A system of pathways makes a maze through the plantings. As you walk into the garden, you're embedded in the garden; the garden is all around you, at chest-height. As you go inside, further and further, the garden comes in toward you, closer and closer. When you sit down, the planting is at your head, over your head, you sink down into the garden. Whereas the old garden is a garden for the eyes only, this new garden is a garden for the body.


Vito Acconci, Garden between Gardens, unbuilt, 1993

These projects alter the way we are traditionally accustomed to experiencing the world around us challenging familiar relationships of form and function. Pushing it into the realm of the unfamiliar through thorough re-examination of the familiar. If it can be said that the diagram is to architecture what the unfamiliar is to the familiar, perhaps this essay has succeeded in proposing a reasonable relationship between the two in thinking about the virtual and the real.

BiblioGraphy