Category Archives: musings

08.02.06

Where I work the office space is a bland space. There are nice elements – the large windows, ample daylight, play of light on the western envelope column casings in the late afternoon when the western, sun streaking through the endless bays with their venetian blinds, creates striping on the column casings. But overall the office is plain. Muted tones, cool colors on the walls and ceilings, moderately warmer colors for the carpet and the cubicle partitions. There is nothing distinct or exciting about the environment. Yet it is interesting in this regard – as representative of a quality common to many contemporary commercial interiors – it is literally – conceptual – it is provisional space – just enough to afford work and carry an impression of cleanliness and professionalism, but no more. It is not simple (i.e. expertly edited to the essentials). It is not simple (i.e. Minimalist) in order to achieve a certain aesthetic. It is simple, in that it is the least design and construction effort and material investment that can be conceived of at the time and within budget for moderately priced industrial-scale commercial office space that maintains a certain impression of professionalism and quality. Functionally, it is the minimum thought needed to achieve basic worker productivity and to suggest to clients that this is a frugal professional outfit but one which has certain standards.

 How does one imbue a space with character and meaning? Having character and meaning are relational qualities. The strength and depth of character and meaning is dependent upon the extent to which value and protocol can be established within the vestiges of the environment and the anticipated behaviors within it. What if that environment and those anticipated behaviors are changing rapidly? What if they change so rapidly that strong patterns – attractor basins of meaning and action, to use dynamic systems jargon – do not have a chance to establish themselves? In this instance, the value of any given environment or action is decreased because the duration of its relevance temporally is greatly diminished. As a result, investment in environment and protocol has less upside, making it a lower priority for businesses/individuals/organizations. This is our situation. The interior quality of my workplace, and most places, is literally that of a sketch…it is provisional and without refinement…..though unfortunately often lacking at least the suggestive, perhaps quixotic energy of a sketch. Nonetheless, such spaces are valuable nonetheless because they allow individuals to be productive despite widely varying means, conditions and expectations.

The challenge in this is maintaining that flexibility in order to deal with the exigencies of the present while making sure to create an environment that nurture’s that which is unique in humans – our humanity. Overall, we have to do a much better job. Muted, pale, timid sketches are missed opportunities…..so, too, are the conceptual spaces within which we pass our lives.

04.03.22 / 05.10.19

Television, movies, computers, and video games – interestingly they deny the reality of the environment in which they are placed. There is no attempt to ingratiate their forms into any cultural context…except perhaps by gamers. They do not affirm the environment in which they exist by making their forms integral to experiencing it. Rather, they ignore the environmental context. In fact, they actually challenge the reality and value of the environmental context in which they exist because they do not integrate into it and they offer an alternative within the screen. This is a functional strategy that de-legitimizes the physical environment. In doing so the ephemeral environment within the PC or TV or other media device feels more legitimately real. Through this process the virtual seems to feel as real as the devalued physical environment. This is troubling because the virtual is not as real as the physical and because the sensory stimulation afforded by the virtual is impoverished when compared to that of the real and it does a disservice to people to deaden their senses in order to make the virtual seem more real.

03.02.16 / 08.02.28

As I was just now reading Hegel on the Spirit of Christianity…and as he kept mentioning the first Eucharist at the Last Supper…and as he was consistently throughout the discourse abstracting Jesus’ parables as well as his actions to offer illustrations cogent to his own discourse…I, too, saw something in the Eucharist ceremony which could be abstracted to contribute to my own interests.  I am interested in the bread and wine Jesus offers to his disciples as his body and blood, as a bond with an everlasting God.  The specific choice of food stuffs which symbolize God as a part of all of our being are interesting choices as symbols for God.

In addition to the very specific quality of bread and wine I wish to highlight, I’ll first offer some general characteristics of these food stuffs that intrigue me.  First of all is the fact that food, both solid food and drink, are necessities for our survival and suggestive of God being something we need.  Second of all, it is interesting that in this ritual, to honor God we do not give gifts so much as we codify God in objects which are necessary to our existence and then proceed to ingest God to reinforce the notion that God is a part of us.  Third, the fact that God is represented by such common and basic food stuffs reinforces an idea of God which is egalitarian.  But these characteristics could be derived from many common food stuffs.

What I find particularly interesting is the fact that Jesus did not offer grapes, oats, barley, water, fruits, honey, or vegetables.  He offered bread and wine as symbols of God, two food stuffs which only exist by application of human processing to that which is available naturally all around us.  This I think gets to the heart of the matter — that what is really valuable and of issue within the interactions of humanity, that what is really essential to our human-ness, is how we process the world in order to investigate it and ourselves and to use it – that the God embodied within us is the very act of processing our reality.  It reifies an idea that not merely existing is sacred but in fact our investigation of existence and manipulation of our own reality is God-like and sacred.  It is this act of processing which we offer as our gift to God.  As noted by Hegel, Jesus, in the first Eucharist, reaffirmed the God in the natural, in our necessity for this world.  But what I find really interesting in the choice of bread and wine is that God is to be found in the abstraction of our world and the processing of it.  It may be said then, that the God we serve and the God in all of us is the order we apply to the world.

Referring back to a musing from late Dec., I contemplated the notion that conceptualizing “God,” and then naming “God” (naming is itself an act of processing existence) is in essence, the first – the most fundamental — process carried out by humanity.  Just as we process grapes to make wine or grain to make bread, our entire interaction with the world is built upon processing it, defining it, attempting to explain it, and what process predates that of recognizing and naming the possibility that there is an underlying order and energy…perhaps an underlying spirit…greater than ourselves, on which we are dependent?  God is always and forever the starting point for all processing because by recognizing and naming God, there is an associated implication that there is a useful order to our reality for us to decipher — which justifies our processing of all things and ideas within our world.  For some reason, for us, humans, the very first processing must come from somewhere outside of humanity.  How else can we explain the world we find?  And if not from the God we name, where would we derive our right to process the world in which we find ourselves?  On what basis would we process?  We ascribe to God the first processing so that we may proceed with our own.  And from this perspective, bread and wine are in fact perfect symbols for the God within us.

05.02.27

Humans face a choice in how they govern their societies.  Is development opportunistic and at the greatest possible rate in all circumstances?  Can development occur at too great a rate?  Has our capacity to innovate outpaced our ability to assimilate?  What effect does this have on the content of societies?  Yes, we innovate more quickly than we assimilate.  The result is less coherence, less cultural depth, more fracture.  What are the core issues of such a dynamic?  One is how we view ourselves as individuals and as a society.  Humans are seemingly the only species in the unique position to deliberately and proactively interact with their environment (or abstain from interaction) even when its not in their short-term interests, as opposed to being wired to only react to the exigencies of the moment in an instinctual and robot-like manner.  Humans are in a position to decide to act or not act, based on principle, no matter what the pressures of the moment.  Along with this gift comes a choice.  How do we view and treat ourselves and what do we value about ourselves and our society?  Are we within our societies as cells are within our bodies?  That is, when considered in comparison to societies, are we insignificant expendable units, like so many drill tips in the jackhammer of civilization?  What is the value of a human life and of human work?  What is the value of our gift of choice?  On the other hand, are we within our societies as a deities (spiritual beings)?  Do we act based on principle, come what may?  Do we hold the value of a human life above all?  Do we value as sacred a person’s thoughts, convictions, sacrifices?

I have always had a strong inclination toward the second view of humanity.  As such, unchecked, unmeasured innovation which does not afford adequate assimilation and which fractures culture – which values societal development over individual develop – is a problem.  It leads to the devaluation of human life, making all expendable commodity.

Initially I explored these ideas by reaching out to writings in philosophy and critical theory.  Because architecture, broadly speaking, is unique among the arts in that it offers experience-able space as its medium, I consider it to be one of the most powerful of human artifacts.  This complication made me unsatisfied with basing a response to these questions solely on speculative theory.  Just as the art of architecture must find some functional and enduring physical embodiment and relies on engineering to ground and secure it’s corporeality, so too must the responses I generate to these theoretical and ethical questions have some grounding in empiricism.  An obligation to this principle led me to writings and studies within the field of cognitive science.  It seems to offer a balance of speculative theory and empirical verification and to get to the core of designing the environment to cultivate the best in individuals.

As long as I’ve had these questions I’ve also had the feeling that the momentum of our societies is most definitely moving in the direction which I do not favor – placing the needs of the civilization above those of the individual….prioritizing cultivation of the civilization over cultivation of the individual.  Also, I always assume that whatever I’m pondering, many other people have thought of it before and are farther along in resolving the questions and choosing courses of action.  As a result of this default notion, I asked myself, what am I missing that makes me see as wrong the path we are taking?  Why can i not see it as good?  I do believe in the fundamental goodness of the vast majority of people and I trust that more often than not, people do act with others’ best interests in mind, at least to some extent.  So why aren’t the governmental and economic powers-that-be applying the breaks?

Much to my chagrin, I think that within cognitive science I am finding an answer.  Researchers have found, as pointed out by Kevin Kelly, Marvin Minsky, Andy Clark, etc. that a centralized, thoroughly programmed system is not the most efficient or the most successful way to construct an artificial intelligence which successfully adapts to and acts upon its environment.  The exact opposite is true.  Decentralized agents, each with a simple and repetitive task to perform, forced to act in conjunction and competition with other agents at the same level within a hierarchy, is a much more efficient system.  Agents above don’t necessarily have to understand what agents below are doing, and likewise for agents below.  Agents don’t have to see the big picture.  They don’t have to know of or understand what the agents below, above, and adjacent to them are doing.  They only have to know their task and how to interact with those agents who are in immediate contact with them.  Sadly (from my perspective), after over two thousand years of celebrating the escape from the cave as described by Plato, it seems that we are deciding the cave is where we actually belong.

Obviously, the philosophical implications of this functional truth are immense, and all counter to celebrating the value of the individual.  If people don’t have to understand their surroundings, the varied aspects of existence, if they just need to know how to do a piece of something and do it well, if they are expendable, if their value (and fulfillment) is in how they contribute to the system, if they only need to know how to react, what will become of their humanity?  Is it okay if intelligence, advancement, and refinement is prioritized for the system as a whole and is not prioritized at the level of individual agents?  Or if, in a Huxley-ian sense, is it okay if people are medicated to feel euphoria while they are in fact enslaved?

Why choose to privilege society over the individual?  Even if this way works for society in practice, it devalues the individual.  So why choose it?  How is it humane?  Why not privilege humanity?  The answer I speculate, has to do with overpopulation.  There are too many of us to approach our organization and survival prioritizing cultivation of the individual.  There is not enough space, for 8-15 billion people to focus on cultivating their humanity.  Also, civilization on this scale cannot be comprehended, let alone governed by people without developing our technologies as fast as possible.   Agents at any level can never gain a thorough and true understanding of the complexities of a system on this scale.  There is no other choice.

The idyllic path is now very complicated.  Indulging the high-minded concept, because of its impracticality, can be just as unethical as accepting the functional concept.  In fact, for a number of reasons, the functional concept may be the more ethical concept.  It does not privilege humanity, assuming worth greater than that of any other population or entity, thus it is humble.  Also, it productively and flexibly addresses issues facing humanity and ensures our continued survival, thus it is resilient and useful.

Still, I have to wonder if my preferred system can productively and humbly address these issues.  Or is it really an unproductive way to view the situation?

And then there is the avenue of compromise.  What would be the middle road between these two conceptions?  One possible avenue,  could be developed from David Chalmers’ writing in, THE CONSCIOUS MIND.  I’ve only just started the book.  But at the beginning, he draws a distinction between the phenomenal state of mind and the psychological state of mind.  The critical point he makes which I think may provide a clue to the syncretization of my two opposing options for societal development is that in understanding the mind, one cannot say that it is a question of determining which view of mind, phenomenal or psychological, is the correct view, but rather of understanding that a healthy mind embodies both characteristics simultaneously, and has to in order to survive.  I have to see how he develops his argument.  Perhaps there is room for the generation of a conception of a symbiosis of individuals in service to society as well as a society in service to individuals.  Still the question would remain, how do the scale and complexity of society alter the interrelationship?  Also, what are the limits, uses, and dangers?

05.06.18

This thought occurred while watching a movie in a movie theater.  There are two scenes in the film, BATMAN BEGINS, where a grown Bruce Wayne finds his deceased father’s stethoscope.  Each time, it prompts him to a flashback from his childhood.  These scenes are great examples of the power of a material object in the physical world to act as a priming agent for cognition.

Conceptually stepping back one level from the story on the screen, I refocused on the movie screen and the act of watching the movie.  Take this movie viewing as a symbol for all of our various animated, audio-enhanced, interactive multimedia interactions.  Consider how much more powerful these technologies are as priming agents than that stethoscope is for Bruce Wayne.  What is the potential of this digital media with respect to priming cognition?

Juxtaposing these technologies with architecture as a priming agent, my initial reaction was to think that the power of multi-media has surpassed that of architecture for the most engaging and influential media for cognitive priming.  But upon further consideration, architecture has four traits which multi-media does not have and is not yet approaching.

• Architecture is inhabitable in the physical world and bears a direct and involuntary relationship with the laws of the physical world.
• It is enduring – relative to the endurance of any form of multi-media.
• Experience of architecture is continuous and involuntary 24 hours a day, cradle to grave – we have always been completely immersed in architecture and can not alter this state.
• It engages fully all of the senses at a level of depth and complexity which multi-media has not yet begun to approach.

What is the merit of a comparative analysis of these two powerful forms of cognitive priming?  How are they interrelated?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses?  Is one more powerful overall?  How should an architect relate them?  How should an architect represent them?

An interesting caveat about the multi-media technologies is that for them to gain in influence and power they require a denial or at least a willing suspension of engagement with the physical world – e.g., sitting in a dark theater and attending only to the visual and audio display.  In this way they seem hostile to architecture, and, to an extent, something integral to humanity – to our full capacity and need to engage our visceral, corporeal reality.  Is this a legitimate and defensible point?  How can these two technologies be brought to work in harmony?  Is there a difference between social priming and cognitive priming?

111209

When we are born, we have big, round, squishy heads and bodies that lack definition. By way of analogy, one could say that we are all born out of focus.

The process of coming into focus takes many years. As we develop into young adults, our faces and physiques and personalities and mental acuity and power continue to gain definition – and for a long time change is accelerating. But then the acceleration of coming into focus begins to slow, first gradually, but then more quickly. Finally, people reach a point during early adulthood where the health and vigor of youth peaks — the inflection point — that brief span of time during which it is unclear if the ascendency has stopped, if it is continuing slowly, or if the descent has begun. For that brief window of time, each of us is smarter, healthier, sexier, more resilient, and more tireless than we have ever been been before or will ever be again. For that brief moment, as with a firework suspended there in the sky, drifting slightly, we too become aware of the cessation of acceleration. For the first time in our lives, we appreciate growth and ever-increasing vigor precisely because we become aware that these feelings have gone quiet.

Then we spend most of our lives falling out of focus. After the inflection point, during the descent, we feel ourselves getting weaker, tiring more easily, becoming absent-minded, being less capable, being less attractive. This decline, this ever-present and accelerating change along a negative trajectory is also felt. But during that brief span when things are most in focus, when our capacities peak, as we drift momentarily — at the inflection point which is in fact the most significant change in our life’s trajectory – is also when for a brief instant, because of the momentary cessation of physical and mental change, we feel the most constancy and the most settled with our capacities and our physicality. For that brief instant, we begin to fully acclimate to our bodies, our minds, and our capabilities. For that brief instant, four perception of the phenomena is as clear and constant as it will ever be. For that brief instant, we do not feel that there is more development to come or more capacity to lose.

This perspective highlights that we live in transition and transition is our constant. We spend the vast majority of our lives defined by the potential of what we are becoming or of what we might possibly could have been. For a brief span early in the journey – the inflection point – we are in focus.

10.05.03

Where this train of thought began I am not positive at this moment. I was probably thinking about my personal finances. At any rate the regular thought occurred that I am middle class, middle middle class…but not so much. I am led to believe…I am given every indication that I am truly middle class. BUT, it seems as though taking a perspective view from some distance, which may or may not be an optimal view, seems to suggest that I am barely middle class…more or less in name only and as the circumstances permit. I do have some education. I have a professional job. My tastes are such. These things bespeak middle class. But my ability to be this person hinges on a salary which is adequate to maintain my current lifestyle only because it can count on, at present, my good health and the opportunity to assume debt (by volition in order to increase my assets, as opposed to by necessity, as for example, great medical expenses). If this situation changes I will quickly find myself struggling to maintain my middle class lifestyle. For this reason, I have to consider myself, at least temporarily, actually lower middle class. That is, I can with reasonable assurance guarantee myself a lower middle class lifestyle under any reasonable circumstances. I cannot yet guarantee myself true middle middle class status. My parents are generally regarded as upper middle class. They earn a combined salary well over $100,000.00 (almost $200,000.00). They can afford to take on much more debt by volition, and good health, while a great advantage, is not a total necessity. The insurance they have is very good and their premiums and deductibles are not felt as excessively weighty when compared to their salaries. They have an option, they can live as upper middle class, but in a somewhat tenuous way, where any unforeseen misfortune could quickly put them in a situation where they could not maintain their lifestyle. Or they could live as middle middle class with quite a feeling of security. The point of all of this is, am I truly middle middle class or really just lower middle class? Are my parents truly upper middle class or really just middle middle class? I think that perhaps, when the increasing gap between the nation’s wealthiest few is considered, I have to think of myself as undeniably lower middle class and my parents as lower middle middle class. Perhaps someone who makes $250,000 to $500,000 is truly middle middle class. Someone who makes $500,000 to a few million is upper middle class, and the place of upper class is reserved for those making several million to several billion.

This is a thought that went rambling through my head recently while walking. The way this thought occurred is what is important. But it is not the point of this paper. It is the idea which was generated by the way in which the preceding narrative unfolded which is most of interest. But first, how was this narrative constructed? I saw in my mind two graphs. The graphs were each somewhat asymptotic in shape. The first was scene in close-up at the crux of the curve. I then zoomed out. As I did so, the legs of the curve extended long and almost straight, one almost parallel to the x-axis (horizontal, to the left), one almost parallel to the y-axis (vertical, upward). The long, almost horizontal leg I saw as representative of the vast multitude of U.S. citizens, impoverished to lower middle class. The area under the leg of the curve, very long and slender, representing their total wealth. This is not much wealth per capita. The almost vertical leg represented those few individuals with very great wealth. Again the area under the curve at this point represented total wealth for that segment of the population. The bend of the curve, where we began, curves steeply, and is proportionally not very large compared to the vast extents of the almost straight runs along either axis. This is that shrinking middle to upper middle class. Again, the area under the curve at this point represents the wealth of this segment of the populace. The second graph was also asymptotic. It too, represented the total populace as well as the total wealth of the populace. However, the entire curve seemed as the crux of the first curve. This is a curve of wealth distribution for U.S. citizens of one hundred and fifty years ago, maybe. It is an evenly divided distribution of wealth. The area under the curve represents the same amount of wealth as the area under the first curve just distributed differently. All of this is based on a tidbit of knowledge I acquired from some NPR program or other. Said program reported a statistic. Apparently, at the turn of the last century, the average company owner earned six times the income of that company’s average-salary employee. At present, the average CEO of a U.S. business earns several hundred times the salary of the company’s average-salary employee. The development of these illustrative graphs continued. In actuality, the processes which these graphs represent are not static. As such, I added characteristics to them to imagine them in a way which I thought illustrated how they existed in a continuum. Each graph began to vacillate as the values represented by the original graphs were understood to be merely averages for given periods of time during which there was much activity. This vacillation occurred in all three dimensions. Furthermore, the intensity and solidity of the graph varied, flickering or fading even, as the legitimacy of the construct to truly represent the phenomena increased or decreased. The entire graphs moved up or down, side to side, rotated, and flexed. After all, the phenomona are prevailed upon by situations external to their systems which are continuously forcing the very nature of the constructs to adjust. Lastly, and presuming that the graphs mentioned, even when considered as the dynamic animations just described, still never entirely depict that which they portend to represent, I imagined these graphs, actually several dynamic animations of each, overlaid on each other within their respective groups, at all of the multitude of angles, intensities, rotations, velocities, frequencies possible, and a continuum of such stretching from those representing the economic distribution of the past to that of the present. I found it all beautiful…erratic, disjunctive, horrific, sublime, stable, dynamic, etc.

Getting to the point, the extend to which I constructed these animations within my mind is a very interesting topic. Each image, each animation was ephemeral. They might be more like a quick succession of individual still frames and short runs of conceptualized dynamicism overlaid and strung together. More than just internal stop-gap photography. Less than true visualization of an event played out over a time continuum. This description of my own visualization process reminded me of a particular group of articles I’ve recently read dealing with cognitive science and cognitive psychology. In particular, a specific article about bees and also an article about the potential of our increasingly facile and pervasive visualization devices. First, apparently bees visualize still frames occasionally, record in short term memory these still frames, and then map off of them later by comparing the data entering their eyes with this recorded image. For instance, they may locate a flower patch in a field by having created a still frame of the flower patch with some kind of visual marker, such as a tree, when they first discovered the patch. When they wish to return to that flower patch, to lead other bees to it, they relocate the patch by matching the data for distance and angle from the visual marker to that recorded on the previous visit. Thus they know that when the tree is at the same proportion and angle as in their still frame image they are near the patch again. Pardon the disjunction but I then jumped (in thought) to another article which detailed in part the history of diagramming and graphing and then briefly discussed the emerging roles of animation in facilitating cognitive activity. Interestingly, diagrams and graphs are very efficient, convenient, and productive means of encoding information and facilitating more efficient cognitive functioning for humans. But while animations and such do seem to facilitate the understanding of some concepts in general, such as flux and flow, they do not seem to aid cognition as much as diagrams and graphs. If anything they are distracting and provide overstimulation with too much irrelevant information. Now this may be merely because we have not yet learned to utilize animations in a way that facilitates our cognitive processes…or it may be that we now have to adjust our cognitive processes to utilize these new tools…actually, probably both need to be done. However at present, it seems that complex 3D animated visualizations are not the most robust facilitators for our cognitive processes.

What does this say about our cognitive processes, if anything? I’m not sure. But I did think that it will be interesting to explore the notion that perhaps our cognition maps abstract concepts in a similar manner to how bees map the location of objects relative to landmarks, and not in a similar manner to how we visually explore, record, and map in space. Perhaps our cognitive processes construct series and groupings of still frames from which to evaluate the endless incoming data. Perhaps other means of cognitive mapping and process are possible and even carried on, but not by humans, either because we are incapable, or because we have not yet adapted our processes. Perhaps this is why a graph is so helpful and an animation, other than while it is ongoing, is less so. Perhaps this is why I think that my mind’s eye may in fact see like a bee.

01.10.21

Today I went to lunch at Price’s Barbeque House. The TV was on showing the Auburn-Arkansas game. As I got my food the network moved to a commercial break. The commercial was for Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup candies. It was a special commercial made to come out around Halloween. This is at least the second season that I can remember seeing it. It is a great commercial. The screen is black. There is the announcer’s voice saying that, “There’s no wrong way to eat a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup.” A ghoulish voice says, ”I like to eat the peanut butter first.” Then a sucking sound…then the screen fades in as the sun rises and we see a peanut butter cup with two fang marks in it. We now know how Dracula takes his Reese’s.

This commercial struck me deeply at that moment. My first thought was that this is an amazingly complex signaling device. It is a device targeted at a broad audience that depends for success on a multitude of people being able to make the exact same very specific connections instantaneously. It is very concept heavy. The makers of this commercial wager that we understand the nature of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, that we understand what a vampire is, that we can associate the action of sucking the peanut butter out of a peanut butter cup with the action of sucking blood from a living creature. But what really intrigued me is that they wager that we can immediately tune in to a very specific realm of meaning. There are so many ways to take this commercial yet they confidently expect that we all will take it the right way. Think about this narrowly defined realm of interpretation in which the success of this commercial lives. If it is over-analyzed, even a little, it fails. The peanut butter as blood in a chocolate body as a simile only works if you are willing and capable of looking at it just right. If one zooms in too much, if one gets out the scalpel and really dissects, then the peanut butter occupies the role of organ, tissue, skeletal structure, and blood. So there is an articulation in what is referenced that is not dealt with in the simile. The chocolate, likewise, bears comparison to skin but does not adequately reference the rest of the body structure. On the other hand, if the connection of chocolate as body and peanut butter as blood is not made then the play on concepts also fails.

How do humans instinctually hone in on the right interpretation of any given phenomena? Something is put before us without instructions as to how to take it and yet we take it…as we are supposed to?(Conditioning)…in a way that is both most convenient and beneficial for our continued existence?(Instinctual)…? What does this suggest about our knowledge domains and our engagement with context and event? Are these patterns we jump to that which hides the most from us. If so, what is architecture’s role in this? Obviously we try to manipulate pattern to our benefit and our comfort. But what if these patterns are mean illusions to be overcome? Then how does architecture’s role change?

05.15.05

Today I visited a Target retail outlet.  While my wife shopped, I sat in the cafe and studied the structure and interior design.  Ceiling heights, finishes, lighting, spatial arrangements, transitions, vocabulary, colors.  I filtered it all and took some mental notes on big box retail design and fast food cafe design.  The activity also stimulated a musing.

An indoor environment is its own ecosystem.  There are space, light, climate and coexisting life forms.  Of course people are part of the ecosystem of the Earth…of the biosphere.  But the indoor world is partially a separate ecology from that of the biosphere.  It is a new biosphere within an existing one and it is expanding.  Imagine that the end result of our ever-expanding human-constructed biosphere is that it completely encompasses/replaces the original biosphere.  What kind of a biosphere is it?

For comparison, think of a pre-climate-controlled structure, especially an ancient structure.  It is made with materials pulled from the earth and reassembled to enclose space.  Its climate and ventilation are regulated by the larger biosphere.  All or almost all of its components are naturally occurring and required little processing to transform the raw materials into the final products.  Contrast this image with our modern buildings.  These do not rely on natural daylight and ventilation and very few of the component materials are naturally occurring.  Even those that are naturally occurring often require significant post-extraction processing.  We occupy buildings made of alloys, plastics, polymers, resins, adhesives, volatile organic compounds, and the ventilation, the conditioning of the atmosphere, the light, and the delivery and purification of water are all far removed from the functioning of the larger biosphere.  Currently, the built environment is an alien biosphere residing within the larger biosphere. 

Sustaining a separate and unique environment within an existing environment is a complex and consuming process.  The biological diversity, capacity for evolution, and resilience of the constructed environment are very poor.  The integration of the larger environment and a larger sense of community are severely deficient.  Spaces and activities are strictly compartmentalized.  This space is for commerce, this one for administration, this for domestic activity, this for celebration.  In a word, this is all inefficient and requires tremendous input of energy and resources to sustain.  Since we continue to push it as the preferred mode of living, it forces on our society and the biosphere the burden of assimilation.  Rather than building our constructed environment to collaborate with and assimilate into our natural environment, we coerce the natural to adjust to the constructed.

Though looking at the situation through this lens raises serious concerns about the paucity and inefficiency of our constructed environment, full rejection of it seems reactive and simplistic.  What is a healthy syncretization of the constructed with the existing biosphere?  Acceptance and assimilation of that which we create and of that which we are through our environment, and integrating the product of our labor with our aspirations is a complex activity that requires subtlety and sensitivity – more so than we currently exhibit.

02.06.08

Today I learned about how reinforced rubber sheet is made.  It is a beautiful, complex process that involves myriad elements, processes, heating, cooling, forming, mixing, refining, etc.  At various points during the process, there are stages that sort and store the products at various stages of development.  In doing so, a temporary backlog of product is built up at a location, guaranteeing that as the products go on to the next phase, there will be a consistent feed.  This assures continuity of process and timeliness down-the-line, even if there is a hickup or anomaly earlier in the process.

While learning about this, I thought that in effect, what these hold and sort stages do is roughly equivalent to pressurizing a system to ensure that it operates regularly in a certain way, despite environmental fluctuations.  Then I realized that our bodies do this same thing, both with regard to temperature and blood pressure; but also with regard to the continuous electrical signals traversing the brain and nervous system.

Next the thought abstracted further, folding into the assertion that humanity’s allegiance is pulled both toward serving in the maintenance and advancement of civilization, with a level of disregard for self, but also pulled toward honoring that which makes humanity in general and individuals specifically so unique and special, our ability to serve esoteric and spiritual aims at the expense of the exigencies of civilization.  If it is assumed that the human civilization, just like the species, is evolving, then perhaps “pressurizing the system” to ensure regular and continuous development across a range of changing environmental conditions is also part of the civilization’s development.  It is possible to read this into the rise of very large corporations and both the wonders and challenges they represent.  How do we sustain their benefits while making them agile and resilient enough that they can maintain the characteristics we desire without eventually being compelled to stagnate change and development in order to preserve their stability and prosperity?  It seems we are moving toward a healthy middle ground…which may be the same as pressurizing the cardiovascular system of the civilization.

04.23.05

Something I’ve noticed in my experience with architectural finish work is its character.  Specifically, work constructed during my generation.  It is suggestive.  The color, the implied richness of a material, the form are all suggestive in a general sense of whatever atmosphere is being created…is it nostalgia for wholesome, down-home, American-crafted woodwork and country-town inspired finishes?  Is it dark woods, hues of green, brown, and yellow – indicative of stately and reserved decadence and status?  Is it rough-hewn wood and earthy tones – for the frontiers’ person?  Or perhaps steel and glass and concrete Modernistic?  Or perhaps a mixture of them all?  Is it a Cracker Barrel, a Friendly’s, a Barnes and Noble, an Applebee’s, a Champ’s Sports, a trendy furniture boutique, a tapas bar, a Hilton or Holiday Inn lobby / room / ______, an anchor store, a boutique, a doctor’s office, any office?  Is the plywood with a hardwood veneer stained dark and used to create the impression of richly finished wainscot, rails, columns?  But isn’t the joinery peculiar?  It looks rough.  It is very noticeable.  No all of the finish nail heads have been filled with wood putty.  Sometimes where the wood has been filled, the spots are conspicuous.  The miter joints have the precision of a radial arm saw and a light finish sanding.  The workmanship is poor but passes because it is kept clean and consistent and it is new.

The quality of finish work of this sort, the way it makes sense to read it, is as a sketch.  There is a program of spaces for a given occupant.  But also, there is a program agenda for the atmosphere.  Should the building project luxury, economy, decadence, reserve, country-atmosphere, state of the art materials?  What is the image that the building is selling?  This atmosphere is not created really.  It is created as a sketch…just enough to carry the illusion.  It is fashion.  Will that Barnes and Noble be a Barnes and Noble in fifteen years?  Or will its steel roof deck and masonry walled shell be gutted and converted into a Bed Bath and Beyond?  Or perhaps its lot in life is to become a Big Lots?  The architecture serves nothing more than a marketing strategy.

Defer a value judgment for a moment.  Do not yet consider whether there is anything inherently good or bad to this state of affairs.  Is there a way that this strategy makes good sense?  To the extent that the forces which drive the markets and that the state of our technologies change very rapidly, and to the extent that these changes spur a torrid pace of cultural change, and to the extent that developing a market strategy is dependent upon engaging the culture of the society, it does make sense that the worth of a marketing strategy is very limited because even if well done, it has a very limited period of relevance.

Obviously this reading has a targeted scope.  It addresses an aspect of middle-class, middle-American, suburban culture.  It does not address the conditions of architectural finishing at either of the extreme ends of the spectrum of wealth.  It does not address those few institutions of such importance and intended for such permanence that exceptional finish work is justifiable.  It does not address finishing in the industrial sector where high quality finishing is a necessity to ensure proper functioning of equipment, production, and storage of material and product.

These admissions withstanding, the significance of the provisional character of architectural finishings of the institutions of middle-class America cannot be underestimated.  The provisional-ness acknowledges and legitimizes provisional-ness as an aspect of life, not in general, but for the individual within the group.  It is not meant as a philosophical statement.  It does not say, “LIFE is provisional.” It is rather an admission there to be read between the lines of activity yielding unanticipated consequences, and offering a perspective driven by short-term economic and political exigencies.  It is insidious and devalues humaneness because it says to its occupants, “Your life is provisional!”

While this is a negative interpretation, I’m not really sure it’s where I want to head with this topic. The point is that this type of architectural finishing is provisional and that there are implications to that.  It is possible to see this as an honest and conscientious strategy to the extent that it addresses the realities of the role, value, and life-expectancy of most architectural finishing, as well as most users of constructed space.  It also presents interesting imagery.  So many of the finishing materials can be – and increasingly are – recycled, so that it is possible to see people pouring these materials into the form of the moment, using them in that form for the short duration that they are marketable, and then deconstructing them, returning them to a base state, and reshaping them in a new form.  These are provisional, liquid, plastic finishes that describe our environments.  And while the previous paragraph was perhaps polemical and mistrustful of the phenomenon’s value, there is a point to be appreciated at some point short of that extreme argument.  There is a traditional view of what architecture is and does and part of this view entails the idea of timeless aesthetics and quality of craftsmanship targeted on endurance and artisanship.  This view is strongly challenged by the provisional architecture paradigm.  And so provisional architecture asks that the paradigm be redefined.  What are appropriate ground-rules, benchmarks, and a frame of reference from which to value this form of architecture?

Lastly, there is a more fundamental question.  Does such a paradigm shift serve humanity?  Clearly, it functionally serves the current state of Western civilization in the throws of a warped, despotic form of capitalism.  But what is the goal of humanity?  Do we strive to be great cogs in the service of whatever sort of organism human civilization as a whole may be characterized as?  Alternatively, do we strive to identify and embody the highest ideals and principles of which we can conceive as a way to honor and celebrate our limited time on Earth?  In this case, perhaps it is more important to build every building as a shrine and celebration of our humanity.