Design II studio's cultural context builds up on
the problem that many contemporary canons, in
reaction to the architecture of the previous
decades, have abandoned the engagement of
spatial structures. Within this process, the
recognition of referential structures in spaces
of representation have been progressively
replaced by the apparently un-problematic
striation of computer algorithms. In this
scenario, architecture has been informed merely
by technology through computation, which has
been providing material for its disciplinary
expansion. But this expansion has also been
deeply structured by other questions, such as
the post-structuralist reaction to universal
space informed by the logic of the place which
derived in the integration of the architecture
object with the landscape. Such direction
provided a new tectonic in regards to landscape
continuity, spatial continuity and ultimately
the autonomy of the surface. But current post-structuralist
theories, as a reactionary force against
structuralist ones, broke away from the
philosophical conceptual premise of
deconstruction: to develop a full decomposition
of any assumed disciplinary fundamentals. The
aim of the studio was to work with the
redefinition of the disciplinary limits after
this expansion.
Through the reconsideration of structure, the
studio investigated strategies to redefine post-structuralist
theories as a continuity of previous
structuralist theories. The reconsideration of
stable structural organization and relative
displacement to activate organizational
typologies, is based on the revision of latent
ideas in the common nine square diagram
delineated in Wittkower’s analysis of Palladio’s
villas, the common nine square diagram that Rowe
traces between Palladio’s Villa Malcontenta and
Le Corbusier’s Villa Stein, Terragni’s
underlying spatial organization based on
Palladian strategies, as well as Hejduk’s and
Eisenman’s Houses series. These constitute a
structuralist axis of reference based on the
presence of types and the continuous state of
revolution of the discipline through the
establishment of canons that displace previous
sedimented structures.
Post-structuralist canons, on the other hand,
relate to a reactionary criticism of the
modernist paradigm of universality, which
demanded the reconsideration of universal order
and the generic container space in regards to
the role of the place and the territory. The
displacement of the art-object from the gallery
to site-specific interventions unmotivated the
autonomy of art-object relative to the
specificity of the place and the measurement of
the territory. Informed by such movement,
architecture incorporated a new philosophy
displacing its canonical relationship between
contained space and ground. By assimilating the
logic of space with that of the place and the
territory, architecture resolved in the
canonical thickening of the ground as
an inhabitable surface (K. Forster), its new
tectonic. After a few decades of experimenting
with landscape-buildings, also informed by the
ability to control differential geometry with
computation, this process culminated with the
autonomy of the vectorial surface. This
disciplinary expansion based on the aesthetic of
continuity of the surface, derived more recently
into the emergence of spatial warping (A.
Vidler) which provided a new conditions for
topology.
Part of this scenario left only two opposite
alternatives: the reconfiguration of
neomodernist boxes ignoring the
displacement of the discipline by post-structuralist
theories and postructuralist blobs ignoring
the presence of types and stable
structures.
Multiple
predetermined modern spatial typologies
are questioned through relative
topological displacements.
What this studio proposed, was to
transcend this pendulum opposition between the
establishment of a renaissance and its baroque
displacement (H. Wölfflin).
Students studied the constitution of form
through the development of source codes and
systems that striate them. Considering
representation as a critical creative moment
where questions become problems to work with,
visual logic was understood in function to the
recognition of the emergence of formal systems.
Critiquing oppositions between structure,
embodiment and perception, students were asked
to investigate implicit conflicts between
referential structures and the intrinsic quality
of representation through perception, materials
and the presence of the body which both infer
and displace metaphysical notions of structure.
Structures and typologies were activated and
deconstructed both from top-down and bottom up
through multiple definitions of topological
displacements: topology as a way of resisting
predetermination; topology as relative forces,
or as degree deformations displacing absolute
categories; topology as the topo-logos
or the logic of the place; and ultimately
non-Euclidean geometric topology of
bi-continuous surface deformation that forces
spatial continuum and activates spatial warping; topologies
as immersive
experiential space that will question the
stability of referential order through the
recognition of the movement of the subject
through space, embodiment and the activation of
affect in spatial organization.
The enfolding of contemporary canons to revisit
architecture limits, proposes the institution of
a state of suspension that demands the
recognition of a hybrid transitory space.
Therefore a space historically suspended between
a potential topological surface-space and
its absolute stable referential Cartesian
coordinate system. This space is defined as Cartopological.
Design II studio developed an
un-house
for two individuals.
2012 The
Cooper Union. End of the Year Show Opening: Monday
May 21st of 2012 at 6pm, The Cooper Union, 7 East
7th Street, New York, NY, Foundation Building, 7th
floor lobby. Design II Cartopological
©
Space by Pablo
Lorenzo-Eiroa (Coordinator), James Lowder (assistant
professor) and Katerina Kourkuola (instructor)
studio is being featured in Cooper Union's web site.
http://cooper.edu/events-and-exhibitions/exhibitions/cooper-union-end-year-show
