ORGANICISM
Organicism. One of another of the "isms" quoted by Archigram radicals. What notions or images spring to mind when I think of organic?
Bio-food, cars, permaculture, shopping centres, tofu, sustainable living, built environment, recyclable materials, mines, free flowing, nuclear, unobstructed, peace, classical, governmental, natural, harmony, order, devoid, frogs, systematic, people, holistic?
noun
1.
Philosophy . the view that some systems resemble organismsin having parts that function in relation to the whole towhich they belong.
3.
a view of society as an autonomous entity analogous to andfollowing the same developmental pattern as a biologicalorganism.
source: dictionary.com
Archigram validates an organic architecture as -like any living organism- having layers connected and jointed like vertebrae, flesh, organs, skin and digestion. This concept of an inanimate built form described as something living, particularly intrigued me. To begin to understand the concept, I broke it down (very simply) into an interpretation: frame structure (vertebrae), rooms (flesh organs), skin (walls) and digestion (services - electrical, water, airconditioning). Of course, like any organism, it is impossible for each part to function independently. That is to say an organism is made of many parts to a whole.
The original Organicism tradition refers to a natural philosophy.
Strangely, Archigram adapts the 'ism' to foretell an Organicism of Architecture. Architecture which has integrated elements of societal, built, virtual environments to create its organic manifestation.
The building as a living environment prompted me to begin raising questions of how each part to the whole might interact with itself... How strong is the connection between these built/manufactured components? What will happen when these parts start to deteriorate? Will they deteriorate at the same rate if part of a whole? (Just the same way a dying body shuts down each organ at a time). If one defunct organ is 'sick' or 'broken' can we transplant a weak organ for a stronger one (just like a weak heart can be transplanted)? Will the built organism accept or reject this transplant?
Basically, can this built organism be more than just an "expanding form and design" (Mike Webb, Interdeterminist) but actually exist on a level where Architecture need not be Architecture. Architecture need not even be (Peter Cook)!
Of course, such strong existential beliefs are inwardly cataclysmic, but we can take from it the essence where Architecture fades behind as a framework to allow for the development of a greater society.
The Indeterminists predict an architecture in-change. Just like the ecology of the planet, it is a 'natural order' where organic architecture “relates parts to the whole – the nut and bolt to the structure, the neighbourhood to the city, the individual to the collective"
However, while Archigram's Organic Architecture is an excellent real catalyst to future-fit a society or purpose an Architectural design, I question, how can this framework (which is all it seems to be) ignore the very system it echoes - the natural environment!?
EMERGENT ARCHITECTURE
Archigrams' projects such as Plug-in City and Walking City are sublime facilitators of an architecture which evolves or emerges from the necessity of change. They allow for emergent situations.
A look to historical (good and bad) events reveals the truths of the evolution of the built environment: “(history) saw a great inventive leap made out of necessity for survival". Thus proving that Architecture “validated with historical lineage” can be a means for progression. For this I feel I should consider what is tried-and-proven in social contexts.
The Indeterminists' text raises an interesting suggestion:- to leave mega-structure, monumental designs to the vice of time and decay. Stop the creation of ambiguously purposed design, with nothing more to stand for than the name of an Architect or worse, developer. Instead design to give a systematic purpose, reaching a desirable social context.
Christopher Alexander, a mathematician and an architect, designed a semi-lattice framework to cater for transient functions of the city (subliminal social disposition?), where the design is reciprocal between scale of local community (suburbia) and broader urban context. Perhaps this is a good starting point...
Interestingly, the concern for human extinction which I raised in my reflection post Chapter 01_Lecture is again raised by The Indeterminists. Archigram borrows the Fullerine rhetoric of “survivalism,” to divulge their theory of humans and environment in a symbiosis of evolution and reliance.
However, while reading, I question a fundamental denial by Archigram who declares, in ignorance and divergent to Fuller's writings on survivalism, an abundance of global resources in the future.
– what will the “green survival” look like?!
THEORETICAL BASIS
The Indeterminists clearly link themselves to an idealism of mainstream modernism (in which pure form was the realisation of a social program).
The aesthetic and ethical direction of Archigram is clear through the "latent idealism residing within the very functionalism that underwrote interdeterminacy in which the architect acts as midwife , as it were, to the forces of nature and bears witness to its hidden laws.”
To summarise my understand:- The basis for the Indeterminists, I believe, IS essentially an adaptation of a number of critical, modern theological ideologists' writings (i.e. Marx). I am specifically referring to the modern canon; dynamism as key. Architecture is without doubt, as much a practice of designing built environment as it is engineering passive social context. The basis which underpins Marxist theory is transferable. E.g. Marx: Constant revolution of production, Archigram: include all parts of system as being in an evolutionary state... the ability to change is a characteristic of our time.
No comments:
Post a Comment