Content uploaded by Hayri Dortdivanlioglu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hayri Dortdivanlioglu on May 31, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
The Diagram in Continuum: from Inscription to Generation of Form in Architecture
Abstract and Figures
The modern concept of the diagram has evolved in various disciplines and professions in terms of both inscriptive and performative mediums since the 1950's. As a powerful abstract concept, the diagram shows dichotomous characteristics; while the inscriptive mode of the diagram is seen as representational, concrete, and reductive, the performative mode of the diagram is seen as generative, abstract, and proliferative. This paper compares the production and the role of the diagram respectively in representative and generative mediums to give an insight into how diagrams embody these dichotomous modes. To do so, first, it studies the concept of the diagram in the works of two French philosophers: Bruno Latour and Gilles Deleuze. On the one hand, for Latour, the inscriptive aspect of the diagram becomes prominent as a tool to render scientific processes or objects onto an abstract representation, which acts as a concrete, irrefutable, and referential object. On the other hand, the Deleuzian concept of the diagram is not representational or visual at all, but it is still real. According to Deleuze, diagrams are sets of relations of forces that define virtuality of assemblages as a space of possibilities. The modern concept of diagrams in the realm of architecture has evolved in between this dichotomy. After giving insights into the contrasting concepts of the diagram, this paper studies three different approaches to the diagram in architectural praxes: Analytical diagram in Sejima's works, textual diagram in Eisenman's works, and material diagram in Spuybroek's works. This paper identifies these three praxes as intermediary stages in between Latour's and Deleuze's concepts of the diagram. In conclusion, it shows the dichotomy of the diagram as a continuum in architectural praxes, characterized at one end by the inscriptive mode and at the other end by the performative mode of the diagram.
Figures - uploaded by Hayri Dortdivanlioglu
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Hayri Dortdivanlioglu
Content may be subject to copyright.
... In this philosophical realm, diagrams in architecture can contain a narrative and story: they merge quantitative and qualitative information without having to be scientifically correct and extrude a metaphor in a vertical direction (Boschung & Jachelmann, 2013). The diagram stands as a concept and 'template of possibilities' which does not necessarily anticipate the building design and offers in this state valuable perspectives on organizational structures (ibid.; Dortdivanlioglu, 2018). It is "architecture's best means to engage the complexity of the real" (Allen, 1998, p. 17). ...
Architects understand and visualize organizations and processes differently from their counterparts in management disciplines. With the increasing complexities of markets and blurring of organizational boundaries, linear models of innovation processes are unable to account for the range of possible interrelations and interdependencies. Design-led disciplines have become of interest in providing frames and 'design' structures for fostering innovation. Though it deals specifically with the conceptualization and realization of R&D and innovation centres, architecture has been largely overlooked in this regard. This paper explains how architects' approach to reframing complexities, focussing on social interactions and shaping invisible patterns prior to building design offers new perspectives for innovation research. It critically reviews the changing context of innovation and relational models in the literature, and outlines the relevance of integrating spatial proximities and time for a constructive 3-dimensional representation. Via two case studies, the basic principles for the development of an integrative approach are sketched out and suggestions made for further research. The specific skill-set and thinking of architects offers a 3 rd dimension of innovation processes.
This article presents creative methodologies for studying the emotionally charged environment of school buildings, with particular attention to situated movements and modes of engagement after the Covid pandemic. Drawing on digital-sensory methods and futuring practices, developed in collaboration with staff and students in a UK secondary school, we present a series of speculative architectural models and living maps. Our approach is informed by Bruno Latour’s concept of the Terrestrial as a metamorphic zone that includes the built environment, with connections to contemporary architecture and design practices. We use techniques in speculative cartography and cosmography, creating maps and models that show how students negotiate the affective atmosphere and social-material ecology associated with school buildings.
In the avant-garde of digital architects, Rotterdam-based Lars Spuybroek and his studio NOX are among the few who have completed built projects. Before the advent of large-scale processing power, digital modeling, and computer-aided manufacturing, NOX's structures would have been unbuildable. Today, the work is taken seriously on an international scale as the possibilities for construction and spatial innovation attain new levels of feasibility. Written and compiled largely by the architect, the book reveals the inspirations, insights, and techniques that allow him to conceive--and build such experimental work. There is a complete documentation of NOX's oeuvre, including built and unbuilt work some twenty-three projects in total; essays by leading critics Manual De Landa, Detlef Mertins, Andrew Benjamin, Brian Massumi, and Arjen Mulder; and explanatory texts by Spuybroek that link the projects together. Many of the illustrations in the book have been specially created, making accessible for the first time the complex strategies employed by Spuybroek. This in turn will make the publication an invaluable resource for both students and practicing designers.
Deleuze and Guattari discuss the rhizome as being "absolutely different from roots and radicles" 6. The rhizome is explained via principles. 1 and 2: connection and heterogeneity.: "any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be". Principle 3: "Principle of multiplicity" "There are no points or positions in a rhizome, such as those found in a structure, tree, or root. There are only lines". Principle 4: "Principle of asignifying rupture" "There is a rupture in the rhizome whenever segmentary lines explode into a line of flight, but the line of flight is part of the rhizome." Principles 5 and 6: Principle of cartography and decalcomania: Where traditional thought is 'tracing', a rhizome is a map. Tracing involves laying onto reality the pattern of structure, itself a construct. "The map does not reproduce an unconscious closed in upon itself; it constructs the unconscious". They take the term plateau from Gregory Bateson, it refers to a sustained intensity. "We call a 'plateau' any multiplicity connected to other multiplicities by superficial underground stems in such a way as to form or extend a rhizome".
"Write with slogans: Make rhizomes, not roots, never plant!"
- Stan Allen
Allen, Stan. 1998. "Diagrams Matter". Any: Diagram Work, no. 23. New York, NY: Anyone Corporation, pp.
16-19.
Deleuze, Diagrams, and the Genesis of Form
- Manuel Delanda
DeLanda, Manuel. 1998. "Deleuze, Diagrams, and the Genesis of Form". Any: Diagram Work, no. 23. New
York, NY: Anyone Corporation, pp. 30-34.
Diagram: An Original Scene of Writing". Diagram Diaries
- Peter Eisenman
Eisenman, Peter. 1999. "Diagram: An Original Scene of Writing". Diagram Diaries. New York, NY: Universe
Publishing, pp. 26-35.
The Diagram of Architecture
- Mark Garcia
Garcia, Mark. 2010, The Diagram of Architecture. Chichester: Wiley.