The Non-essential: How to transgress the limit of today’s Architecture

We live in the world that unwilling to wait, constantly changing from time to time. “Whats next?”, a cliche that consistently disrupt the silence, that often bring us to a deeper stage of daydreaming. Most of the time, the uncertainty feed us with elusive imagination and unforeseeable outcome. The smiling eyes roared in unison: “and, what about architecture?”

“The limits of architecture are variable: each decade has its own ideal themes, its own confused fashions” (Tschumi, 1980)

Architecture evolved from the time that we were a mere human till now, evolving out of an isolated knowledge about a dwelling space, into a knowledge that covers how to design a super-omega-level constructed building that involved computer and neuroscience (ok, its too far). The knowledge of architecture has been changing, its limit of practice has been transgressed, and the essence has been challenged from the day one. While we’re all struck by the glimpse of future that seems to be repeatedly redefined, Here comes the bonus round question: What creates it? What is new architecture, anyway? How?

To discuss such matter, we have to conceive that architecture as a disciplinary knowledge, involve two bodies: a practitioner that determined by the professional association providing oversight and its body of knowledge. The integrity of those two bodies depends on two essential lines (Hays. David L, 2013) :

1. The center, The sequential process through which core knowledge is obtained, leading to mastery
2. Front line a.k.a The outer margin, where limits are tested and new knowledge is formed

Bernard Tschumi (1980) once said, we threat architecture as a mere knowledge of form, rather than a form of knowledge. To accept that architectural knowledge is bounded and defined only by its relation to form and space, at the same time denying its endowed potential that this multidisciplinary subject could ever have.

Tschumi seems confused

To define the essence of things,we have to acknowledge its limit. When we define things, we surely know the limit of that thing. Here the concept of limit come into play. It defines the status quo and the outline that represent the subject matters, while at the same time create the strategic area where the subject operates.

“ Consider what is involved in playing a game of chess. Is playing chess on a board of sixty-four squares overly restricting or does it help narrow the possibilities of moves to a manageable range that players can understand and engage with?” (Smith, 2014)

One of the key nature of limit that enable us to discuss this matter is that limit can be transgressed. Transgression can be defined only in relation to a limit, and likewise a limit is not a limit unless it can be transgressed (Leach, Neil, 1997). The outcome from the process of transgression of limit produce what we later would call as the new architecture (or “the front line”, I have to make it sounds less awkward).

This is my interpretation of limit transgression (displacement you may say). The essential as inside bounded by the limit as a operating line.

“While the limit calls to be obeyed, it also tempts with the possibility of its violation.( Foley 2012)”

But then again, what is the use of transgression anyway? Isn’t it just enough for us to stay with the roots?

The only thing that is constant is change, as Heraclitus said. Transgression of limit almost naturally occurs, even if we didn’t asked for it. And most of the time, it happen without our notice. In that sense, its up to you . But knowing that such thing happened will bring a new perspective towards how we should conceive architecture as today’s designer that deals with today’s issues.

And Anyway how to begin a transgression for today’s architecture limit?

Here we want, to distinguish between two kind of knowledge that are specifically relevant for our discussion and stand as direct opposites:

1. Experience
2. Thought Experiment

Knowledge from experience somehow so popular in natural science, but they are problematic in social science. They seems unreliable when it comes to dealing with wicked problem. The common denominator of experiments and observation is their varying but strict reference to the present. On the other hand, thought experiments further expand the continuum of reality and imagination by creating plausible situations or developments.

“Even Karl Popper, the godfather of critical rationalism, admitted that thought experiments can act as brokers for new interpretations of the world despite the empirical insignificance” (Engel, Ludwig 2013)

Knowledge gathered by experience meant to deal with the essential and the present state of architecture. It rely much on the rationality and the familiar-fundamental elements of architecture.

But thought experiment is more into the non-essential. Non-essential, is beyond fundamental and necessary, it connotes lack of relevance; it cancel, distract, and transgress what status quo has offered.

In the past no one think that 3D has something to do with architecture.

But it does, now.

In the past, no one think that microbes can affect architecture.

But it does, now.

In the future, who knows? might be the “Peter quill dance movement” (yes that guy from guardian of the galaxy) would become the most iconic architectural design method that ever been found. Yes its too far fetched.

“Well Kanigara, could you be more specific? “ “No, I simply don’t care, I’m busy. Yada yada yada. “

Non-essential, in that sense, can turn prognoses and prediction from Vorhersage(knowing something before)into Vorausschau (thinking about possible development)(Engel, Ludwig 2013). Not to confront the front line, but to deliberately understands the condition, and hopefully help us to proceed our architectural practice in better manner. (well you can confront the front line if you want)

We are in the moment that enable us to do so, and it couldn’t get any better. To misquote the charismatic Doctor Who, “Basically, run!”

Refference:

Engel, Ludwig. “On Futurology and Architecture” From Vorhersage to Vorausshau” Princeton Architectural Press(2013)

Hays. David L. “(Non ) Essential knowledge for (new) Archiecture” (2013)

Leach, Neil. Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory. New York: Routledge (1997)

Smith, Albert C., and Kendra Schank Smith. Developing Your Design Process: Six Key Concepts for Studio. Routledge, (2014)

Tschumi, Bernard. “Architecture and limits III.” ArtForum 20.1(1981): 40.

Tschumi, Bernard. “The architectural paradox.” Architecture theory since 1968 (1975).