Studio Reflection

“Urban Theory and Architectural Theory of any kind operates at the level of opinion. It is successful not as a predictive device but as a prescriptive one. Its success is measured to the extent it persuades the undertaking of real action” William Ellis, Opposition Reader, Princeton Architectural Press, 1998,250.

This studio’s research has yielded, more than anything, an understanding that groupings or taxonomies can be generated for many things in many different ways. What is vitally important to note however is that any taxonometric classification is generated within a subjective context. Equally important to note is that this context must be relevant to the subject and that this contextual viewpoint is adhered to in a “strictest letter of the law” manner when making further decisions through the taxonometric process. A shift in contextual outlook results in the marked difference in the way a family tree or genealogy of a type is constructed. This is demonstrated in the case of the muteum (below) where the evolution of the museum is compared to the car and to time.

The first diagram (Fig01) shows no evolution or taxonometric classification.

However when the diagram is revisited (Fig02) and grouped according to circulation style, comparisons can be made within the classification grouping more clearly. This process has also been clearly demonstrated through Ben Grollo’s work in classifying buildings through movie genres and his taxonometric device; Google (below).

In this way the choice of context is vitally important, particularly in relation to our built environment where we must first discover the ideological or practical grounding for this context. From this grounding, be it scientific, philosophic or artistic one can begin to tease out the very essence of the context in which to begin a classification of a built environment type and how one may begin to manipulate the deep structure or fundamental make-up of that type.

Demonstrated in previous research has been the simple notion of subject - cause - effect as a tool for teasing out this contextual relationship which I believe has been extremely helpful to this end (below).

The matrix; subject - cause - effect helps to reveal the deep structure of a typological thinking through the articulation of the context by which a classification process can begin. This classification is further developed through critical reasoning placing a categorisation on each subject - cause -effect as either being a scientific, an artistic or a philosophic endeavour or even a hybridisation of each or all of these. The development of diagrams representing this process have been invaluable as the visualisation of this process reveals patterns engaging visual stimulus for categorisation (below).

In revealing this deep structure, as shown through the genetic research of Li Dong Wu (below) and through our own colour theory research, the presence of this deep structure becomes prevalent throughout a species or family of type. Here, X, Y and Z become embedded as shared characteristics for the resultant children. Ones control over the parent gives the designer greater control over the potential to explore iterative mutations and the new combinations of type whilst remaining confident that the essence/context of the original problem is present and accounted for.

Through revealing the deep structural context of the type the hybridisation or mutation catalyst can now be selected. However the selection of this catalyst must also reference the context in which the classification began for it to have meaning or relevance. As shown in Darwin’s work, “The Evolution of the Species” mutations or hybridisations resulting in a new typology or species must be mutually beneficial for the new organism to survive. In a “survival of the fittest world” an equally stringent process of evaluation of the deep structure must occur across all types for a successful merger and growth.