In Greek mythology the Chimera was a monstrous fire-breathing creature; the offspring of the most deadly Typhon (an enormous winged, feather-covered beast with snake coils as legs and a hundred dragons’ heads springing from his shoulders) and Echidna (a half woman, half snake creature). She had the body of a lioness, a tail ending in a snake’s head, and a goat’s head arising on her back at the centre of her spine. There are of course many other examples in different cultures. In Chinese art, winged quadrupeds such as the Bixie, Tianlu and Qilin could also be referred to as Chimeras. In genetics, biology and botany a Chimera represents an animal or plant with genetically distinct cells from two different zygotes (and it therefore is not a hybrid) or genetically different types of tissue; the resulting organism is a mixture of tissues, and of different sets of chromosomes. In paleontology, it is a fossil reconstructed with parts from different animals.
aRC(2)himera is an architectural chimera. From its distinct sets of digital chromosomes and analogue chromosomes evolves a monstrous mix-up of various approaches that go from developing skin morphologies, structure anatomies, ornamental textures, responsive environments, biological growth, robotic behaviour, miniature devices, machinic fabrication, interactive media design, tactile/ haptic/sensorial feedback etc. To some this may look and sound outrageous and horrific—as it is neither elegant nor pure, nor truthful or correct (process-wise).
Why this Frankensteinian, Modern Promethean approach? The grotesqueness of aRC(2)himera is only relative. aRC(2)himera must be seen in a postvirtual and postdigital context of New Materialism, which marks the ambition to escape from the old unsustainable (socially and environmentally) virtual and cyber architectural visions, and from the old off-the-shelf and unsustainable (environmentally and financially) architectural production methods towards innovative applicable theories, techniques and technologies.
Why being obsessed with digital and nature-mimicry processes if what is really necessary is breeding a chimerical environment that is partly biological, partly technological, partly romantic, partly scary? The ambition of aRC(2)himera is to mark an era of synthesis, hybridity and new potentialities. Today’s postvirtual era is less interested in the almost quasi-religious cyber myth of total liberation from physical limitations (think of the famous goggles or data gloves for example). Digitality is not the alien, the other. Plus, in a postdigital point of view, digitality is fully intertwined with analogue, mixed and biological technologies. Pure mathematical functions just will not suffice. Thus, aRC(2)himera should facilitate the overdue (and for some, accomplished) task of overcoming feelings of alienation and estrangement towards digital technologies, to re-addresses human cognition, augment realities, and develop nature 2.0.
aRC(2)himeras are constitutive occupier of such a conceptual, and material, landscape. Whether they project fear, or power, they can help in humanising the unknown. The ethymological root of monster, ‘monstrum’ means that which teaches, which is again linked to ‘monstrare’, to show; and both deriving from the same base ‘monere’, to warn. So… be warned! Architecture must inevitably respond to the current acute, actually monstrous, political, economic and ecological problems.
aRC(2)himera, developed by the MArch GAD RC2 at the Bartlett School of Architecture UCL London, is part of the year-long brief entitled Form Follows Fetish. Louis Sullivan’s dictum Form follows Function is certainly one of the most known and also misunderstood statements in architectural history. Falsely propagated as a dictate against ornamentation and in favour of functionalism, yet seemingly still in vogue.
First of all it must be said that most often form outlives function. How many buildings perform other, different functions than originally planned for because it has become obsolete? Or because the program has evolved so much that it had to move out (because of size, politics, finances or performance)? The body of architecture is a given (and often underestimated) fact, and so its presence and experience. Is it fair to say then, that it is form that should ideally be more controlled/planned by the architect then function (as a description of required performance) to have more chances to survive societal change? Is form here to stay because it is the primary, and also ultimate, asset of architecture?
Secondly, the proliferation of digital techniques has brought a close to the seemingly enduring separation of function and ornamentation in architecture. Whether sculpted or scripted—this is of no importance here—small variations in software protocols and fabrication mechanics can result in the more or less exuberant articulation of ornate surfaces and volumes. Thus could one state that function has long lost its primacy as design purpose, scope and object(ivity) over, for example, complex, texturized geometric formations?
In fact, we are in a new era of fetishisation within (digital) architecture. Aesthetically, we will explore London and Los Angeles rich underground culture. Fetish(isation) in architecture is an extremely precise articulation of aspired perfection (albeit usually exaggerated, even dysmorphic) and/or gratification (albeit often obsessive and compulsive). Fetish(isation) is truly contemporary partly due to the revived architectural discourse on nature 2.0 and beauty++, but also due to novel design and fabrication aestheticisation processes, protocols and rituals. Furthermore, the concept of fetish also raises questions on ethnicity, religion, sexuality, underground culture, and provides thus an alternative argument on architectural design that is not bound within stylistic globalisation, or default design methodologies. RC2 formulates powerful individual sets of values, defined by strong aesthetic (objects, materials) and intrinsic psychological (behaviours, fixations) factors. This is discussed in terms of 1:1 human interaction and also within a larger, urban public context…
RC2 is taught by:
Univ.-Prof. (IBK) Marjan Colletti PhD, Guan Lee, Tea Lim.
Consultants: Pavlos Fereos, Nahed Jawad, Niccolo Casas, Richard Beckett.
No comments:
Post a Comment