7/24/2019 Pask, G.- The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics (Article-1969) http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pask-g-the-architectural-relevance-of-cybernetics-article-1969 1/3 sense as parrs of larger syste ms th a t in clude human com?oocnts and the :1rchitect is pnm:iril y E ARCHITECTURAL concerned with these larger systems; t h> (not just the bricks and mo rtar pare) a rc what architects design. f shall dub this nori on architectural 'mutualism' meaning mu tu:tlism OF ordon ask is easy to argue char cybernetics is relevant co same way that it relevant a host of ocher professions; medicine, or law. PERT programming, for , is unequivocally a 'cybernetic' and it is commonly employed in nstructio n scheduling. Computer assisted is a 'cybernetic' method and there are eral instances of ics application to architcctute, example, the \Xi' SCC's planning scheme in the designer uses a graphic display to of scrucrural modules a grid and in wh i ch the computer s um m arizes cost eff o rc consequences of a proposed ) . Of these cases the first (PERT is a valuable but quite trivial o n of cybernetics; the second is likely have a far-reaching iniluencc upon But neither of th em more than a superficial bond between and archireccurc. f we leave the then architects di\"c into a i c bag of cricks and drnw out chose seem tC be appropriate. Thac is a perfectly thing co do, of course. But cybernetics architecture rcall}' enjoy a much more relatio nship; they share a common l osophy of architecture in the sense that Beer has shown ic to be the philosophy The argument rests upon the idea that . and foremost system designers have been forced. over the last roo yl·~rs r so, c o cake an increasing interest in the syste::n of development, communication and problems were coped with as cropped up, but for some rime it has been, vidcnc that an underpinning and unifying theor}' s required. Cybernetics is a discipline which the bill insofar as the abstract concepts of (and, where appropriate, identi fied with architectural systems), co form a lhtory architectural cybernetics, che cybernetic theory architcccurc). 1 roots! or before the early 1 Soos 'pure' architecture as an abstraction from the att of Its rules were essentially condensed o f what could be observed by looking c builders working on a site, and by looking t buildings constructed during different periods nd in different places. Architects added a modicum of engineering practice and of hiscorical r aeschecic sensibility to their discipline and created new structures with stability and sf.ylt. On the whole, their structures were judged, within 'pure' archicecturc, according ro these canons. fa·cn in those days, of course, architects were asked to solve problems entail ing the regulation and accommodation of human beings; hence ro design sysrcms. But, in a sense, their brief was quite narrow. The problems could all l C soh·ed by the judicious applicarion of pure ~rc u r a l rules. The form of the artefact ( house college or theatre) was largely determined by the quite rigid codes of architecture ( dictating, for example, ics acceptable whole part relationships) and by the conventions of society or the individual practitioner. Speaking 1cchoically there were well accepted communica tion media for conveying instructions, direccives : d ideas (style manuals and so on). Further, there was a / Jt/ala11g11agt for talking about these instructions, directives and ideas, for comparing chem, criticizing chem and e\·aluating them (as in statements of stability or style). Indeed, when interpreted, the body of metalinguistic statements formed the theory of pure architecture. Consequently, architects did not need co sec themse lves as systems designers, even though they designed systems, and the evidence suggests that they did not do so. 3 Instead the professional image was chat of a sophisticated house, college or theatre builder. In the course of the Victorian era new techniques were developed too rapidly to be assimilated inco pure architecture and new problems were posed and could no longer be sol ved by applying the rules of pure architecture, for example, make a 'railway sration' or make a 'great exhibition'. The sol uti on to such (in those days) ou tlandish problems clearly depends upon seeing rhe required building as a pare of the ecosystem of a human society. Of co u rse the problems were solved and the novel t e c h n i q u e ~ were mustered for this purpose (Temple Meads, the Tropical House at Kew, the Crystal Palace). To my own casce the solutions are exceptionally beautiful. 1 Nevertheless, they arc individual and idiosyncratic solutions because, in the nc\\ ' context, there was no way of carrying on a general and critical discussion. Let us be clear about this point. There obviously 11•a1 a great deal of discussion over I. K. Brunel, D. Burton and J. Paxton's use of glass and ironwork; technical discussion and aesthetic discussion. But nobody seems to have; appreciated the full significance of their scructures in the context of rhe arch i tec tural potentialities of the age, i.e. as examples of .J'Slt111 design. The reason is fairly obvious. \ Xfhercas the pure architecture of the ea r l y 1800s had a metalanguage, albeit a restrictive one which discouraged innovation, the new (augmented) architecLUre had nor yet developed on e . Another way of putting it is to say there was no theory of the new architecture.• Architectural sub-theories Tn place of a general theory there were su b thcorics dealing with isolated facets of the field; for example, theories of materials, of symmetry, of human commitment and responsibility, of craftsmanship and the like. But (it is probably fair to say) these sub-t heories developed more or less independently during the late 1800s. Naturally enough, each sub-theory fostered n certain sort of building or a certain sort of socio-architectural dogma; for example, futurism. I Tow evcr, the point of immediate interest is t hat many of the sub-theories were system orientated; although they antic ipat ed the invention of the word they were, in an embryonic sense, 'cybernetic' theories and the thinking behind them made a valuable contribution to the development of cybernccics as a formal science. Archi tectural functionalism and mutualism A structure exists chieAy to perform certain functi ons, fo r example, to shelter its occupants or to provide them with services. Ac this level, a 'functional' building is co n trasted with a 'decorative' building; it is an austere structure, stripped of excrescences. But, the concept of functionalism can be usefully refined in an humanistic direction. The functions, after all, are performed or hu m an beings or human societies. It follows that a building cannot he viewed simply in isolation. It is only meaningful as a human environment. It perpetually interacts with its inhabitants, on the one hand serving chem and on the other hand controlling their behaviour. Io other words structures make between structures and men or so cieties . One consequence o f functi o nali s m a n d mutualism is a shift o f emphasis t0 wards the form (rather rhan rhc material constituti l)n) of structures; materials and metho ds c o mi; mm prominence quite late in che design process. Another consequence is chat archit c ccs arc required to design d •11an1ic rather t han l t u entities. Clearly, the human part of th e sy stem is dynamic. But it is equally true ( though less obvious) that the srrucrural parr muse bc as continuall; • regulating its human inh abitants. Architectural holism Once a rudimcntarv version of th e fun criuna mutualistic hypothesis has been accepted , rhc integrity of any single system is questiona ble ~ o s e human jsuucrural systems rely up on o the r systems to which they are coupled via th e human componenrs. By hypo the sis, rhcr c a re organizational wholes which cannot be mean ingfully dissected into pares . Holism is of several types: a A functionally interpreted building can only be usefullv considered in the co nt e xt of a cit\ (notice th~t rhe city is also functi o nally imer~ pretcd and, as a result, is a dynamic entit y). b A (functionally interpreted) s tructure , e i the r a building or an entire city, can o nly be meaningfully conceived in the co nrcxt of ics temporal extension, i.e. its growth and development. c A (functionally inrerprcccd) structure exists as part o an intention, i.e. ;IS on e pr o d uct of a plan. If (assumed dogma) man should be aware of bis natural surroundings, then buildings should be wedded to o r arise from these sn rrNtndings (\Xfright's organic Lhcsb). It is a corollary of a, b and c that the stru ct u re of a city is not just the carapace of society. On the contrary, its structure acts as a symbo lic control programme on a par \\ •ich the ritual constraints which arc known to regulat e the behaviour of various tribes and which ren d er rh ' V ery similar comments apply to engineering, since engineers, llke architects, prescribe artefacts. Surely, als some engineers make use of a cybernetic theory. But the requirement Is not so ubiquitous In engineering: nor Is the Impact of cybernetics so great because a creditable body of engineering theory, a predictive and explanatory theory existed long before the cybernetic concepts came along as daring Innovations. Moreover whilst all architects design systems that Interact closely with human beings and societies, most engineers (there are obvious exceptions) are not forced to do so . Human Interaction is a major source of difficulties which can only be overcome by cybernetic thinking. • Th e choice of a historical origin Is somewhat arbitrary and depends upon the author's emphasis. For example, Al exander, preoccupied with the logic of form, traces essentially cybernetic concepts back to Lodoll and Laugler. In the present article I am anxious to follow the pragmatic development of cybernetic Ideas and to see them emerging In the history of modern architecture. •There are two Important sorts of exception: (i) Architects of genius, with a breadth of vision that impels them to see th i ngs in a systemic and Inter- disciplinary fashion. T hey have existed over the Sir Christopher Wren and Sir John Soane, for example (ii) Men llke John Nash, whose talents l ay In conceiving an urban development as a functional and aesthetic whole. But, within the tenets of the early 1800s such men are probably 'or gani zers with a vision', rather than 'architects'. • I have chosen these examples partly because they are well known In the textbooks but mainly because I am Impressed by their systemi c qualities and the way In which they convey their designer's purpose to the occupant. Two of them still exist. I just recall the Palac Even In Its tawdry reincarnation It was a remarkable structure. Since It was one of the first Instances of a prefabricated building It also counts as a piece of syst em design at the engineering level. •Lack of an adequate metalanguage was not the only factor. As Prof. Nicolaus Pevsner points out the engine and the artists pursued divergent paths of developmen more or less in conflict with one another and this accounted for at least some of the architectural Idiosyncrasy. However, II a metalanguage h d existed, then the synthesis of the present century could have been achieved mJch earlier.
3
Embed
Pask, G.- The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics (Article-1969)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/24/2019 Pask, G.- The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics (Article-1969)