BraneSpace - Architecture and Neuroscience

BrainSpace Firas Safieddine

2

It is about presence that architecture exists.

BrainSpace

4

A Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Masters on Advanced Architecture 002 at The Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia by Firas Safieddine

Advisor Luis Fraguada

Barcelona September 29th, 2017

6

Peter Eisenman, Diagrams of transformation - 1971

Thomas Willis, Anatomy of the brain, 1664

8

Aknowledgements

Contextualizing this project, I believe it has been one more experiment done at IaaC. As this institute is a place to discuss, a place to experiment and a place to do, this project was more of a thinking-by-doing process. Eventually, I would like to express gratitude to my first year at the place which was eye opening, and has played a pivotal role in choosing the topic. I feel thankful to alot of individuals and moments, but I’ll have to squeeze it in a page. I would take it to thank; Jordi Vivaldi Piera with whom I first discussed my topics with [ I had two main intentions for this thesis project ] and helped in terms of choice of topic as well as being there to discuss progress, ideas and references.

Luis Fraguada who has been a great thesis advisor, a supportive optimistic person who has been supportive all throughout the project. It was a very interesting knowledge sharing experience, from session to session, he was always there to listen, note, and ask questions, I feel a sense of duty here to acknowledge his interesting way of discussing the project’s progress, sessions were more of discussions were Luis points out, “You are the expert on this”. This I believe was an incredible driving force as I felt the urge to always push and learn more.

Angel Munoz for his efforts and amazing technocal support to achieve the project. It was alot of great, yet tough moments trying to make

10

things work, of which I’ve learned alot.

On the other hand, I am much appreciative to Gonzalo Delacamara’s interest and guidance during the discussion sessions. It has been very valuable to have someone like Gonzalo, who is someone from the IaaC space, but yet someone who can critique and ask questions as of an external view on the project.

Maria Kuptsova for being enthusiastically interested in the project, fully supportive and for having the apparatus on several times.

Martin Seymour for his fabrication tips and advice, that has been important in the last phase of this project.

This been said, I would like to thank all my colleagues who showed engagement and support.

As a group of six- Suresh, Mohamad, Jonathan, Lalin, Karthik and I- we have shared and learned a lot, not only in this smaller circle, but with other colleagues from various interests.

Last but not least, I would like to thank everyone who participated in the experiments and Stefan Fotev for being the video model.

In such an environment, with all the discussions be it around the vending machine, the IaaC “backyard” or over the project, it has been a great opportunity to learn from each and every person around.

What is the next revolution for ?

12

Prologue Prologue, from Old French, via Latin from Greek “prologos” from pro- ‘before’ + logos ‘saying’.

14

Before imposing an introduction, I would like to start this booklet from where this project started. The following is a set, more of a record, of how this project was thought of. These draft works I share in this part be the best way to start, even before the introduction. In here I literally put forward my thoughts I written back then, so every person can construct his/ her own understanding of this project and form a background in order to go through the work with more concrete ground.

Significantly, the way the these drafts changed, the ideas put forward and the methodology of research and development, shaped how I started developing a final draft, which was ground zero for this experiment.

First and foremost, I would like to start of from the very beginning of this project, the first schematic brainstorming for what a year worth of work was to become. This came as a denouement of a long stream of thoughts, questions and interests I have in architecture.

The following is the very first words on this thesis project, which I see as very clumsy, but points clearly towards a cloud of ideas revolving around similar topics.

16

Umwelt [the biological foundations that lie at the very epicenter of the study of both communication and signification in the human [and non-human] animal] and thus is what we think the objective reality is [the surrounding].

As architecture deals with the environment in which we exist, and maybe the tool* to exist in that manner, I think it is important to understand the happening of architecture, be it by the design process, or by the human subject experience.

Throughout this research and through space syntax understanding firstly, I would like to have a deeper and rather more explanatory image on the duality of space and brain. And then, using scientific methods such as neuro-cognition –rather than more metaphorical or phenomenological- such as brain maps, experiments, etc. I would work on finding answers to questions listed later in the paper. This should funnel up to a deep understanding of the human mind, through the brain as related to architectural space, in terms of genesis or perception.

Keywords Space The happening of Architecture The space of becoming Neuroscience Cognition Unconscious Part to whole Structure Dreams Memory Perception Brain To start off, in reference to Airbib M. the three brains [ artificial or natural ] involved in the whole process are: 1 The Architect’s Brain [the neuroscience of the design process] 2 The Building’s Brain [the neuromorphic structures [Architecture] 3 The Brain of the subject [the neuroscience of the experience of Architecture [building ~ Space]

18

The first step, I think is to rearrange the history of Architecture rather in a nonlinear manner on a Brain-based scale. Perhaps in tackling special elements, this cataloguing in a way, would allow a clear vision on the evolution of this process; and hence an understanding of both, the architects’ minds on one hand, and the space syntax on the other, which would be a ground for moving on to the human subject - as for perception.

The Architect’s brain [mind], as rearranged might go as follows: This list is a mess, according to criteria of assessment, in terms of cultural or biological, but just as a demonstration.

1 The 2 The 3 The 4 The etc.

Humanist Brain Gestalt brain Neurological brain Phenomenal brain

As stated, brain here refers to the cultural discourse not to the actual human brain.

On the buildings’ brain part, I would like to question harmonizing or regulating systems/ structures of space as an intended brain for the building, and how that has evolved to actually designing a machinical building that has certain intelligence I don’t know how far that would stretch, but I’m not planning to go too far with that for now; I am currently more interested in the other two.

Finally, on the brain of the subject, I would like to examine the following: [the relation between the architect’s state and the subject’s state] [the unconscious record of the subject’s brain, as exposed to an architectural space ] [ our ability to interpret traces of the design process ] [ the visual structures and the spontaneous grouping of sensational elements ] [ the geometrical isomorphism between conscious experience and nervous processes ] [ the role of unconsciousness in “conscious” perceptions [ and our presence in space ]

20

Final Phase I think it would be clearer after the above would be established as a ground.

The deduction of the whole space out of a part, and the importance of the unconsciousness in the perception, creation and memory of the space.

Probable project ideas 1 The possibility of a [ psychedelic architecture ] The possibility for an architecture that has the potential to cause mind alteration. Architecture as space intuiting and as a perceptual medium greatly influences the subject; taking the human brain as the core element, I would like to go on for producing- if possible - an architecture that triggers the mind in that sense.

2 Architecture of [ illusionary form ]; a one step forward leap on the genealogy of architectural form, to a new nature of architectural forms. From the rearrangement of the architectural timeline [ from styles-based to Brain-based ]; a continuation of the formal archive to more advanced illusionary forms.

3 An [ apparatus ] for mapping the subject/object relational margin. A device that can map the mental processes/ or translate that into Architectural understanding of sensorial bank.

5 [ Immortal Brains ]; as architects are becoming more and more expected [ having a trademark design/design process ] the ability to code the mental process would result in a culture of immortal architectural minds.

22

6 Postcards; I think postcards are a good example of how one would like to portray a building or a cityscape. I would like to make a reading of some historical events, designs and buildings through the superficial display of a postcard [ from the reality of the design process, to the experience of the subject - of the real building and of the photo - the postcard being a new media force to experience architecture.

7 Can we use the brain activity’s real-time data for space generation? Talking about the brain in that sense [Artificial intelligence] this research would stretch towards thinking of an artificial imagination as an evolution.

September 10th, 2016

After rethinking the old thought scribble, I came to a clear proposal that was pretty much straight forward. This is an experiment, more precisely a greater interest to play with new tools trying to find answers to unexpected questions that where popping throughout.

* EEG - Electroencephalography EMG - Electromyography

24

Architecture with the Brain in Mind The focus will be on using technology to collect and interpret physiological/psychical data which would be a foundation [as input] to produce an architecture in permanent mutation - triggered by the human unconscious. This is to be done by mapping some elements of the human, be it brain waves, chemical - Dopamine, adrenaline, etc. or electrical impulses (muscle contraction and relaxation).

Data collection methods nowadays are so complex, I will be using more simple technologies, such as ECG, EMG, etc. and try to decode the output and translate it to architecture.

How: - Using technologies of information collection - Visualization of the data collected - Setting a system to translate this data into an architectural outcome * I will be using Arduino [or similar] and processing [or similar] Structure: The research will be mainly on a solid theoretical grounding for the idea, the development of brain-machine interfaces through history, and the relation of the brain to architecture.

The following step would be to master the technology and try to produce something

September 27th, 2016

Towards an architectural space in permanent mutation based on the unconscious dialogue between space and user.

Spatial responsive behaviours triggered by the unconscious.

The user and the space switch sides, the space becomes the “conscious” agent.

Hypothesis Towards figuring out a new relation between the architectural space and the users’ unconscious, through research, investigations and experiments in cognitive neuroscience, including the three main ingredients: >Space configuration >Brain data >External data, i.e. context Targeting the unconscious dialogue between space and the user’s being, closing the circle so the space is going back to change the emotion, after the emotion changes the space.[ with the infinite elements of a space ] Solutions/establish variables Diving deep into the infinite parameters of the user and the space, variables were limited to form a 32-data dimensions set, studied us-

26

ing a canonical correlation analysis method to find the relation between elements of space and the subject. Parameters were finally limited to [color and sound] versus [brain waves and galvanic skin response] Opportunities This kind of interface/dialogue/structure has the potential to radically change >how we design >the materiality >how users perceive space Applications of these research tools/results stand out in future responsive spaces, mentally critical spaces [clinics/children] and space perception research.

Conclusion Understanding the physio-neural correlation between space and the users’ being is the future of how spaces will respond, as per research, quantity becomes quality [in terms of datasets] which will after be ground for a semantic search to feed responsive structures. On the side of architecture, findings are to change the rigid predominant thoughts regarding >the author >design process >materiality >building intelligence

Index

1.

Aknowledgments.............................09 Prologue...................................14 Primary layers.............................16 2.

Reference field.............................30 3.

Introduction...............................34 -subjectivity of perception -experiments [ MACBA && DissenyHub ].......38 4.

In theory -Aesthetica................................44 -what is a concept.........................46 -Neuroplasticity and brain wiring..........48 -Emergence of Neuroscience.................62 -Related Works.............................70 -AntiThesis................................82 5.

Motivations................................84 -Responsive Architecture -Limits of participatory deisgn -Future of authorship in architecture -Learning Machines -Conscious Spaces -Timefield of researched projects..........124

28

6.

- Notes......................................126 - Development...............................128 - Correlation diagram [ brain procesesX spatial parameters - Deformed Brains...........................130 - Sensation versus Perception...............132 - Brain wave frequencies....................134 - Research Findings.........................136 7.

Apparatuses.................................142 - 0........................................144 - 1........................................146 - 2........................................152 Experiments.................................162 - 1........................................164 - 2........................................168 - 3........................................182 BraneSpace...................................186 8.

Final Thoughts -Control...................................188 -Transarchitectur..........................190 -Authorship................................192 9.

Graphics -The Try before you buy Architecture.......198 -�But who are you?�, buildings ask.........200 10.

Bibliography................................202 Project Graphic.............................206

Reference list

30

This is a reference field.

This is what I see as the locus of this project, projects, people, events and breakthroughs are classified and related to create a supporting ground for what BraneSpace is conceptually and technically.

BraneSpace is an experimental project, based on several architectural and technological motivations, especially in terms of interactive [ responsive/adaptive ] design, open design processes, operational design, participatory design, etc. connections in the diagram show relations between its elements; the thicker the line, the stronger and more relevant this relation is to the project, the cloud joining various names/ projects is the main theatrical framework behind this project.

I put this here because I realized that it really came before the project. It turned out in the end that the motivations became the references, in other terms, influenced by these projects, books, philosophers, designers, architects, machines‌I started thinking about questions, which made the idea of this project. But then, as going through the project, I discovered these projects again, and understood them differently.

Again, it’s a loop, references influence my thinking, I thinking and that influences how I read the references and so on.

This is the idea of the project, put into architecture.

32

Notes

Vitruvius Book one The architect, and in addition to having knowledge in drawing, philosophy and history, should be well versed in geometry, optics, arithmetic, acoustics, musical harmony, medicine, law and astronomyin addition to having experience in mechanics and hydraulics, and building catapults and seige machines Alberti Renaissance “a man can do all things if he will.” an architect was no less than “uomo universale” The ideal embodied the basic tenets of Renaissance Humanism, which considered man the centre of the universe, limitless in his capacities for development, and led to the notion that men should try to embrace all knowledge and develop their own capacities as fully as possible.

Thus the gifted men of the Renaissance sought to develop skills in all areas of knowledge, in physical development, in social accomplishments, and in the arts. The ideal was most brilliantly exemplified in Alberti—who was an accomplished architect, painter, classicist, poet, scientist,

34

and mathematician and who also boasted of his skill as a horseman and in physical feats—and in Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), whose gifts were manifest in the fields of art, science, music, invention, and writing

Francis bacon start of seventeenth century He put architecture alongside perspective, music, astronomy, cosmography and engineering as one of the “mixed sciences”

Edmund burke 1757 a new course for aesthetic theory Contending that the emotions aroused by beauty and sublimity had nothing to do with numerical proportions or harmonic ratios, but rather with the relaxation and tensioning of the optic nerve >> picturesque [ Uvedale price construct an entire theory of the picturesque] arthur schopenhauer [kant] argued that perception is no passive process, but one in which the brain actively constructs its world through a complex series of neurological operations

Robert Vischer 1873 Coined the term : Einfuhlung ein : into fuhlung : feeling german for “empathy” connotation: the active process by which we literally “feel” ourselves into or neurologically simulate objects of artistic contemplation. when we experience a great work of art, we have a strengthening of our sensation, and an “intensification of sensuousness” Heinrich Wolfflin dissertation 1886 opens the question: How is it possible that architecture forms are able to invoke an emotion or a mood??

36

Regardless of how “humanist”, theoretical, off-topic that, might seem for now, it is very crucial in that project to look at what the architect was envisioned as. As needed to cover knowledge in various disciplines and fields, architects has been known as the guys who know a bit about a lot of things, and a lot of other definitions.

But if we look closely to that, it really explains well the idea of space as a complete experiential whole. A experience of an architectural space involves sound, light, color, temperature, volume, shape, size, etc. a lot of parameters that architects used to design, or just leave out; as of today’s tools, it is more feasible to talk about a whole.

In BraneSpace, spatial elements are key, the relation between parts to wholes, and vice versa, the influence of elements on the perception of other elements, the possibility of concluding a whole out elements, and so on. Hence the very brief prompt, is a glimpse of what the ideas in this project can stem back to, in terms of spatial elements, neuroscience and experience.

Subjectivity of Perception

38

These very first two experiments were more of a proof of concept. Different subjects were asked to go into macba, and DissenyHub as they would normally go [ experiments were held on normal exhibition days ] accompanied with a go pro.

Immediately after leaving the space [ macba ], each person was set to describe their experience ( in terms of chronology, shape of objects, colors, sizes, specific moments; to be as descriptive as possible) using any possible medium.

On the other hand, after leaving the DissenyHub building, each person was asked to illustrate there experience in a slightly different way, asked to draw the route they took, and imagine how the plan of the place looks like.

After that, drawings, audio clips (narration of the experience) and texts were collected and compared with the video. Shockingly, none of the descriptions matched the video, the subjects description came distorted in the following areas Objects smaller or larger than what the video shows Disturbed chronological order Imagined size of experienced space Ceiling height Density of people around Background noise Shadows Floor inclination degree Etc. These two experiments, performed on 3 subjects, prove a point which grounds this project; the subjectivity of perception.

40

42

The word aesthetic is derived from the Greek αἰσθητικός (aisthetikos, meaning “esthetic, sensitive, sentient, pertaining to sense perception”), which in turn was derived from αἰσθάνομαι (aisthanomai, meaning “I perceive, feel, sense”).

The term “aesthetics” was appropriated and coined with new meaning by the German philosopher Alexander Baumgarten in his dissertation Meditationes philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus(“Philosophical considerations of some matters pertaining the poem”) in 1735, even though his later definition in the fragment Aesthetica (1750) is more often referred to as the first definition of modern aesthetics.

Its not at the core of this project to discuss the etymology of the word Aeshetica, but its rather an interesting finding that I came to during my readings for the project. As this defined to be “sense”, “perceive” or “feel” it has a great significance to how wee see things, throughout my research, it turns out to be pretty much true that what we consider beautiful or not is directly connected to how we percieve this thing.

Nothing is ugly, cute, or aggressive, its just how we see these things, and how we project what we sense on our self.

In other chapters, the ideas of relation between perception and previous experiences, memories and background are discussed, see subjectivity of perception.

44

What is a concept

46

Here goes the idea of a common ground we share, a biological common. Throughout evolving, humans have adapted to sleep at night and be up during the day, thus sleep when its dark and get up when the sun is there. This is due to a chemical; Melatonin, which is a natural hormone made by your body’s pineal (pih-knee-uhl) gland. This is a pea-sized gland located just above the middle of the brain. During the day the pineal is inactive. When the sun goes down and darkness occurs, the pineal is “turned on” by the SCN and begins to actively produce melatonin, which is released into the blood.

Usually, this occurs around 9 pm. As a result, melatonin levels in the blood rise sharply and you begin to feel less alert. Sleep becomes more inviting. Melatonin levels in the blood stay elevated for about 12 hours - all through the night - before the light of a new day when they fall back to low daytime levels by about 9 am. Daytime levels of melatonin are barely detectable.

This is an example of how “natural brain wiring” happens, so our brains have been adapting to do that, and hence, this is a cross cultural “norm” that is biologically dominant in our species. It is importance to pick out these norms, as to support conclusions but not to forget, that in addition to this natural wiring, there are a lot of other areas, in which human brains are differently wired due to cultural background.

48

THIS IS BAD

50

And this is the architectural equivalent, white steamed rice is good, but who wants to have that 3 times a day, for a lifetime? Nobody, but why don’t we think about those white boxes we are building? These boxes are architectural equivalent of that in the sense of absence of stimuli.

In the following pages, I will explain the biological concept, put in brief as if you don’t use it, you lose it through two concrete examples, but this is what happens with our brains inside empty white boxes. Our brains start to feel weird first, and then after a relative amount of time, start to undergo an autostimulation process; this is what most people call hallucination. I am not arguing that this is not the desired outcome, but it certainly is not the goal of white box designers, neither the desire of people working in such spaces.

Moreover, as this triggers an autostimulation process, it signifies to a capacity of the brain to create an object of experience, and to experience it at the same time which enhances idea that our brains construct experiences.

52

IF YOU DONT USE IT;

If you don’t use it, you lose it.

This is the main idea of this part, in a very concrete example; imagine a broker arm, in a cast for a month. After the cast a taken off, the arm muscles are weaker, due to lack of use for one month. Our brains work as such, if we don’t stimulate our brains enough, they start dying.

54

YOU LOSE IT

The photo on top shows a submarine crew, for 6 months living in a space full of lights, buttons, switches, screens‌tons of stimuli which may cause a certain tension, but what is more important is that as they accomplished the mission, these guys lost there long sight, which means that a lack of one type of stimuli can affect regionally rather than totally. Which applies to brains as well.

Neuroplasticity Neuroplasticity is the change in neural pathways and synapses that occurs due to certain factors, like behavior, environment, or neural processes. During such changes, the brain engages in synaptic pruning, deleting the neural connections that are no longer necessary or useful, and strengthening the necessary ones.

This Darwinian process that happens in the brain, allows the brain to grow, physically, as of increase of stimuli. So the amount of connections in the brain correspond to how important external stimuli are, how connected are these stimuli and if paying attention to a type of stimuli reduces the connections made by a previous set of external triggers.

BraneSpace considers this ability of our brains to change the most fundamental of all, we can by that change the brain structure and by that change how we see things. Perceptual sets, which are the sets of recorded experience history saved, allow us to experience new stuff accordingly.

To put it in simpler terms, it’s like seeing an object, standing on a pile of paper. Every time one perceives and experience, puts on more paper and looks again. Slightly and very slowly, following that, the perception is changes due to the presence of a distorting factor. Similarly in perception, whenever we see something, we have a memory of it which will affect how we see the same thing another time, and the show goes on.

56

Internal

external stimuli

Internal

external stimuli

Internal

external stimuli

Phenomenology, physiognomy & stuff

58

“poetic” “metaphorical” “intentionally* speculative”

BLABLA

>>scientific >>systematic >>learning >>mutating

X

0_1

The problematic of these kinds of approaches lies in the idea of any scientific evidence. Phenomenologists – architects – produce works of architecture in which they tend to claim that people in this space will feel in a specific way. Regardless of the historic evidence, and common sense, these ideas are totally romantic and metaphoric.

Seen as a preliminary phase of analyzing form and perception of different types, shapes, elements and spaces, what requires moving forward and advancing in a scientific approach which allows measuring, visualizing and concluding from scientific experiments. This is what will be put forward in BraneSpace. The project aims at quantifying experience, not as a whole for the moment, but rather tries to find relations between elements of space and variations in mental and physical status as an attempt to draw any possible relations between the two.

Thus a more advanced way of looking at things is through scientific approach, and in this project, the way to look at architectural space and subject experience and perception is neuroscience.

Various other biological data was used, such as body temperature, heart rate and skin conductance, to achieve a more precise result, but all under the aim to quantify whatever could be quantified of experience.

To hit it clear, here goes a brief insight into each one of the major areas that are sometimes confucsed,. Acknowledging the very strong bond and interdependency among all these disciplines, a distinction is important to go forward with more specific research.

In this project – parallel with having brief view amongst the three- neuroscience is the major area in study, but rather the main research tool.

BrainSpace looks at architectural space and perception through a Neuroscience lens.

It may be put in brief that neuroscience is neurology taken outside the clinic; it may appear to be not as professional, whereas what is meant is really using the knowledge and conclusions made in neurology, to understand functions, behaviors and experiment with a transdisciplinary agenda to get to answers/results, with a main study object, the human subject.

Neurology is a branch of medicine focused on the clinical aspects of the brain and nervous system.

The central question is figuring out what is going wrong and what to do about it. Neurology involves a medical eye on nervous systems, from in all sorts of beings.

Neurobiology is a branch of biology focused on the anatomy and physiology of the brain and nervous system, often across animal species. The central question is what is there and what its properties are. This might include classifying cell types, tracing pathways, understanding structural differences, brain development patterns, and the mechanisms of neurotransmitters. To a neurobiol-

60

ogist, the brain is first and foremost an anatomical organ composed of living cells.

Neuroscience is also a branch of biology, but the focus is much more on mechanism and understanding how the human brain works. The central question is how the brain produces observed behavior. Neuroscience includes neurobiology and extends it to theoretical models, neural coding, mapping of cognitive science and psychology onto brain activity (fMRI), neural dynamics (e.g. oscillations), and models of learning, perception, and behavior. When animals are studied in neuroscience, it is as a proxy for understanding humans.

Neurology is the oldest field. Neurobiology came later. And neuroscience is the newest framing now that it is becoming possible to observe what is going on in the brain and begin to explain how it is working. “Neurobiology” and “neuroscience” can almost be used interchangeably.

The Emergence of neuroscience

62

Current Status Inspired by a lot of other disciplines, and with the current technology, neuroscience means, such as brain activity reading or even locating brain activity on a brain map, with a lot of other approaches, as neuroscience does not imply brain, but rather the whole electrical flow in our bodies, great projects have been made using skin conductance, or other surface electrodes that can read muscle charges, etc.

What is significant here, is the use of neuroscience in a lot of different areas, such as gaming, sleep disorder treatment, muscle failure, etc. but significantly not in design, art or architecture.

All these startups and small groups have achieved to introduce a new paradigm, taking a very expensive discipline, which is neuroscience, and developing an alternative, for fewer projects that require less precision or less vision in terms of what to develop.

BraneSpace is certainly, one project that is inspired by all these, and many other groups of enthusiasts who are trying to make neuroscience feasible for the creative community.

64

Genome vs Connectome A genome is an organism’s complete set of genetic instructions. Each genome contains all of the information needed to build that organism and allow it to grow and develop.

Our bodies are made up of millions of cells (100,000,000,000,000), each with their own complete set of instructions for making us, like a recipe book for the body. This set of instructions is known as our genome and is made up of DNA. Similarly enough, a connectome is a project in process to finding a full comprehensive map of our brain. To draw and classify, all the connections, that by the way, keep on changing, due to concepts discussed previously, our brains are in continous evolution and change in connections.

The Human Connectome Project is giving neuroscientists a new perspective on the connections in the brain, to the right.

66

this is a representation of a human genome 68

Related Works

This part will not discuss every project, but rather display an overview and point out certain interventions, most of which do not really work but has been clinical in developing my project.

This line of creating responsive, adaptable, personal bubbles, and enhencing senses, etc. Has been happening in creative environments as an attempt to reinterprit architecture, exist differ-

70

ently in society and try to manipulate reality.

I would start by the first idea, reinterpiring architecture.

As commonly known as doing buildings, architects and artists as such thought about architectural space differently, they thought of architecture as a space, as an experience rather than matter.

A mental space I would stay rather than a physical one – although one might argue that mental and physical space are fundamentaly the same space. An example would be the mind expander, which is a project directed towards expanding the minds capacity to percieve an environment, to expand users’ mental capacity.

On the other hand, these projects were thought of to manipulate reality, the 3 head apparatuses shown are designed to function as follow, as the city has became intensly bourgious, this apparatus was designed to stretch, invert and manipulate the image we see – the optical reality.

Street might look wider, taller, inverted. That is to find a place in the city for these artists to live in, it is a rather clear example of a mental space.

Similarly, BraneSpace is based on subjectivity of perception, one which claims that we all percieve space differently, and rather than creating an intermediate “lens” to change reality, space would be changing according to users, the users brain is what matters here. This reinterpretation of the subject object problematic has arrived in this project to the conclusion that space is mental and thus changes infinately, and hence changes.

Mind Expander - Haus Ruckker, 1967

72

Oasis - Haus Rucker

Portable Livingroom and Sound Locator - Walter Pichler

74

Generator

Urban5

76

une architectu

ure des humeurs

>>data aquisition

>>computational logic

>> >>3d-printing

Data Collection Methods

78

Bioluminescence imaging dermatoscopy Diffuse optical tomography Gamma camera tomography Gene expression imaging Infrared imaging of the body Magnetic resonance elstopgraphy Magnetic resonance imaging Magnetic resonance spectroscopy Optical coherence tomography posturography Radiography, fluoroscopy, computed tomography, using x-rays Ultrasonography & echocadiology using ultrasound waves Electrocardiography (EKG) Electroencephalography (EEG) Electromyography (EMG) Photo plethysmograph (PPG) Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) Electroneuronography (ENoG) Electroretinography (ERG) Electronystagmography (ENG) Magnetoencephalography (MEG) Visual evoked potentials (VEP) Brain evoked response audiometry (BERA) tests; Body impedanciometry Impedance phlebography actigraphy Breath tests [urea breath test] Intelligent biomedicalclothing Biomedical sensors endoluminal capsule monitoring

80

Antithesis Mental Fabrication

Ion Popian, an artist, sculptor and photographer has came up with a project that as stated by him, “uses technology to visualize and stranslate our subconscous into 3d objects, sculptures and architecture�. Those designs are to create more harmonius spaces

82

This is precisely what I would make sure not to fall into. In this project, electric brain activity is measured using an EEG headset, and then visualized without any further interpretation. Thus the “landscapes� take the form of the wave itself, literary – in an absolute range of intensity.

- BrainSpace aims at finding relations between brain activity and space by analyzing and learning from compiled data to find patterns that allow a relational understanding of elements and brain as well as elements/parts to the space as whole - Brain activity is looked at not in terms of intensity but rather using canonical correlation analysis to visualize relationships and patters.

- Brain activity is measured, visualized and overlapped simultaneously with data from the environment and additional data from the user to achieve a more precise [ at least conceptually ] conclusion Further points are to be explained later, but I just wanted to clarify the points above

84

The Problematic of Responsiveness:

Advanced architecture through a looping spatial structure

“...As a crude example of human-machine cohabitation, The Turk can also be viewed as a system of first-order Cybernetics. As described by twentieth-century scientist Norbert Wiener (1946), Cybernetics is the study of complex systems consisting of actors of diverse nature and origins, primarily of machines and organisms.

The study of such biomechanical ecologies as complete systems affected the organization of industrial manufacturing environments that require human-machine collaboration and led to the birth of Artificial Intelligence as a field of study. Further categorizations of Cybernetics lead to the definition of a “first order” described as observed systems, and a “second order” where the observer as well is a part of the system under observation (von Foerster 1981).”

86

“This synchronization or singularity between space and subject as a unified system that constantly informs each other in a continuous feedback loop creates a morphological relatedness in infinitesimal yet foreseeable transformation.

Therefore, if architectural form storing encoded information of motion is a “first order,” then an architecture in formal transformation can be summarized as a more elusive design intent in the “second order.””

The current trend of “intelligent/responsive structures” actualized by the interplay of sensors, computers and programs that produce predefined effects, triggered by a user or dweller and potentially impacting their actions is irrelevant to the project of an advanced architecture.

Against this problematic in some cybernetic devices - the static and predetermined input and output criteria - I argue for environments rather than devices, which monitor and grasp the behaviors and interests in order to generate spatial configurations and activity programs for them. Moreover to develop such systems to an extent the human being becomes an agent rather than an actuator; hence unconsciously manipulating the spatial structure just by the fact of being present, or absent.

The idea of architecture being responsive stems from an idea that proposes the impossibility of prediction of future conditions, and thus the very start was steps towards a flexible volumetric scheme- be it capsules, chambers, structural elements etc. - that was capable of being manipulated according to change in the program. Moving forward, with the aid of advanced technologies architects could simulate environments, and try to replicate some; such as SEEK, on the other hand a different kind of model was on the table, URBAN5, which had what could be “the societal responsibility” of architecture, in which users would be told the influence of their choice prior the final decision, but this project is a great example of a disconnection in the internal structure

88

since neither the choices of the inhabitants nor what happens consequently is monitored, stored or made benefit of. [A precondition for these abilities is that the building starts to “know� the inhabitant and is able to respond to contextual variations]. To build on this, an advanced version of such a project would learn from the decisions of the user, monitor everyday data, and implement it in a learning set for a more optimum performance. This way of thinking requires a constant [progressive] and context related response.

Note: One of the interesting misconceptions is the confusion of “actuator” with “executor”.

In responsive systems, an actuator is one step prior to the actuator. As the actuator becomes more discrete, systems appear to be more autonomous.

The idea that architecture is made to accommodate is anti-architecture I believe; and if anything has been pulling back is the desire for more cute/cool/comfortable/ efficient/resilient buildings-whatever all these terms may mean-in that sense buildings become of no content, they become an unnoticeable negative to a positive social consumption. On the contrary buildings should not be backgrounds but front-pieces; they should not accommodate* but be pieces of their own. Only then, buildings can function, stand up, and mean differently, it is a different connotation of these terms when spaces that do not look like they function become catalysts/ experiments for a new programme generation/ experience.

There has been a thrive in the last decades to achieve a new kind of spaces of the twenty first century which is more dynamic, not only as having kinetic gadgets but rather having a more dynamic spatial structure. Since the second world war, all throughout the realization of the first computer, neural networks, the 60’s thrive for the machine, the Architecture Machine group at the MIT, numerous exhibitions, interface achievements - television, house-hold, art, etc.and the ease of access to such technologies, architecture have had some moments of an encompassment; not many though. How relevant is that to evolve to an advanced architecture? And

090

what would really be a challenge for the current status quo of architecture, to push the boundary and advance?

Has all that been actualized, an advanced architectural space must have a looping spatial structure.

Personalized Definitions Autocatalysis When in a reaction, one of the reaction products is also a reactant and therefore a catalyst in the same or a coupled reaction Looping architecture Endless. Architecture that acts according to data sets, generated as an interpretation of the spatial/users’ condition. In such case, a looping system would be an indeterministic, personalized and dynamic way with an end goal of manipulating the users’ experience through spatial control.

Hence the building/system/space would be able to progressively generate a new set of rules to act upon. i Perceptual loop The permanent varying perceptual experience – a zeroth perception imprinted in memory builds up the perceptual sets, which influences the next time a subject experiences an environment.

Design method Is the systemic procedures that structure out how a project is being realized.

The Looping in the design method Is designing the preliminary system that makes up the process which will generate a space based on evaluations, simulations and learning. Starting from a ground [decision] an unexpected.

Causal Loop Diagram A diagram visualizing how different variables in a system are interrelated. .Positive causal link implies that the two nodes change in the same direction. .Negative causal link implies that the two

092

nodes change in opposite directions A causal model An abstract model that describes the causal mechanisms of a system. The model must express more than correlation because correlation does not imply causation.

Judea Pearl defines a causal model as an ordered triple {U, V, E}, where; .U is a set of exogenous variables whose values are determined by factors outside the model; .V is a set of endogenous variables whose values are determined by factors within the model; .E is a set of structural equations that express the value of each endogenous variable as a function of the values of the other variables in U and V. Alleleomimes A range of activities in which the performance of a behavior increases the probability of that behavior being performed by other nearby animals.

Allelomimetic behavior is sometimes called contagious behavior and has strong components of social facilitation, imitation, and group coordination. It is usually considered to occur between members of the same species

Responsive Architecture >>> Adaptive Learning Environments

094

“Let us build machines that can learn, can grope and can fumble, machines that will be architectural partners, machines that can learn about architecture and perhaps even learn about learning about architecture.

Architecture Machines.�

N.Negroponte 1970.

The BoLaGram BOdy.LAnguage.DiaGRAM a diagram-aide for parsing the complex, Mobius strip-like relationships that characterize spatial, psychological, architectural, cultural, narrative, and artistic relationships

096

A: Source of authenticity or Authority C: Participating Subject C’: Fictim B: Anamorphic view structure

Moments of responsiveness across Time Robots in Art Timeline 1920 – Capt A.J. Roberts 1956 – CYSP-1 Nicolas Schöffer 1963 – Electric Actors – Bruce Lacey 1964 – John Fare the Performance Artist using Robotic Props 1964 – K456 – Nam Jun Paik & Shuya Abe 1964-5 – Robot Art – Enrique Castro-Cid 1965 – R.O.S.A.B.O.S.O.M. – Bruce Lacey 1965 – Edward Kienholz “The Friendly Grey Computer” 1965-70 – Robert Breer 1966 – James Seawright 1966 – R/C Tortoise – Lalanne 1967 – Mate – Bruce Lacey 1967 – R/C “Arthur” – Jacques Monestier 1967 – “Kaliedophonic Dog”, “Rosebud Annunciator” (1969) – Stephan von Huene 1968 – Cybertheater – Lev Nusberg 1968 – Toy-Pet Plexi-Ball – Parkinson & Martin 1968-9 – “Homo Cyberneticum” (“Cybernetic Man”) series – Paul van Hoeydonck 1969 – Cybernetic Sculpture – Les Levine 1969 – Tim Hunkin “Mechanical Man” 1969-70 – SEEK Negroponte 1971 – “COSME”, Le Chevalier de L’Espace – Jeanne RenucciConvers 1973 – Japanese “Babot” – Shiro Takahashi 1975-6 – Jim Pallas “Blue Wazoo” 1976 – AARON – Harold Cohen 1976c – ON/OFF – Clayton

Bailey 1978 – “Mechanimals” Illustrations by Murray Tinkelmann 1980 – Fuyo Robot Theater 1982 – “A2W2” the Andy Warhol Robot by Alvaro Villa 19xx – Dead Chickens 19xx – Arthur Ganson 19xx – Gilbert Peyre 19xx – Edward Ihnatowicz 19xx – Jim Whiting 19xx – Eduardo Kac 1991 – Kraftwerk’s Robots 19xx – Strandbeest – Theo Jansen 19xx – Chico MacMurtrie / Amorphous 19xx – Mark Pauline / SRL 19xx – Pask – Colloquy 19xx – Roland Emett 19xx – Tim Lewis 19xx – Kenji Yanobe 19xx – Kenneth Rinaldo 19xx – Norman White 19xx – Louis Philippe Demers and Bill Vorn 19xx – Daniel Depoutot 19xx – BBM 19xx – Paul McCarthy 19xx – Simon Penny 19xx – Alan Rath 19xx – Stelarc 2001 – Leonel Moura 2002 – Andrew Baldwin 19xx – Tim Hawkinson 19xx – Heri Dono 2003 – Christiaan Zwanikken’s Robo-Donkey 19xx – Chris Burdon Early Drawing, Writing and Painting Machines (under construction) 1770c – Jaquet-Droz Scribe 1772 Draughtsman 1760s – Friedrick von Knaus Philadelphia Doll – Maillardet

098

Bros 1820 – Prosopographus, the Automaton Artist by Charles Hervé 1877 – John Nevil Maskelyne with Zoe 1895 – Pocock’s Mechanical Artist (Toy) 18xx – Georges Mieles / Robert-Houdin – Drawing Automaton 1920 – Marcel Duchamp – Rotary Glass Plates 1928 – “Gakutensoku” by Makoto Nishimura 1929 – Lady Drawing Robot 1955 – “Mr Robotham” with Writing Hand – Peter Holland 1955-59 – Jean Tinguely – prototypes & Meta-matics 1955-59 – Raymond Auger’s Painting Machine 1957 – Akira Kanayama – Remote-control painting Machine 1960c – Bernard Smith’s Painting Machine 1964 – “Larry Flint” Painting Machines 1964 – David Medalla “Sand Machine” 1970 – David Jacobs – Pneumatic Drawing Machine 1976 – AARON – Harold Cohen 1977-8 – Anton Perich Painting Machine 1988 – Rebecca Horn Painting Machine (external link) 1982 – Arthur Ganson Writing Machine “Go Faster” 1984-6 – Theo Jansen Painting Machine 1993 – Tim Hawkinson “Signature” 1990 – Angela Bulloch Painting machine “Betaville” & “Mudslinger” 1995

1995 – Natasha Kidd Painting Machines 1996 – Mark Hoskin “Word Turn” 1998 – David Taylor – Pollockizer 1999 – Carlos Corpa Drawing Machine 2000 – Tim Lewis “Auto-Dali Prosthetic” 2001-4 – MEART – SymbioticA Rat Neuron Drawing Machine “Hex” Discworld computer output device Early Mechanical Talking Machines (under construction) 1770c- Friedrick von Knaus talking machine 1771 – Erasmus Darwin Wooden mouth 1769-91 – Baron Wolfgang von Kempelen 1778 – Abbe Mical Talking heads 1779 – Christian Kratzenstein’s resonators 1806 – Posch Speaking Machine (German) 1823 – Maelzel’s Talking dolls and The Turk 1828 – Robertson 1835 – Charles Wheatstone 1840 – Joseph Faber’s Euphonia Alexander Graham & Melville Bell 1837 – R.R. Reisz 1922 – J. Q. Stewart’s Electrical analog of the vocal organs 1939 – Homer Dudley – Voder 1950 – Dunn’s Electrical Vocal Tract 19xx – Martin Riches – MotorMouth & Talking Machine 1999?- Nicolas Anatol Baginsky – “Elizabeth Gardner”

200x – Jim Whiting ElectroMechanical voice box 2004 – Maywa Denki “Seamoons” Artificial Vocal Cords 2005c – Waseda Talking Robots – Kentaro Takada and Atsuo Takanishi 2008 – Kagawa Artificial voice Early Musical Automatons, Androids and Robots (under construction) 1810 – Kaufmann’s Trumpeter 1839 – Menzetti’s Flute player 1967 – Pneumatic Rubber Tube Sound Sculpture – David Jacobs Other Art Machines (Australian) 1968 – Ken Reinhard’s “MiniComputer” Pop Art 1972-4 – Josef Stanislaw Ostoja-Kotkowski – Kinetic and Laser art 1973 – Trefor Prest’s BioMechanical Sculptures Pseudo Automata, Fakes & Robot costumes 1770 – “The Turk” Chess Player 1875 – “Psycho” Card Playing Automaton 1877 – “Zoe” Drawing and Writing Automaton 1882 – King Fu 1903 – Motogirl 1903 – Phroso the Mechanical Doll 1904 – Enigmarelle 1904 – “Zutka, the Mysterious” 1905 – Fontinelle – Auto-Man 1906-1935 – Ray A. Willis “Mechanical Man”

1910 – Das Moto-Baby 1910 – Moto-Phoso 1910 – Tin Man 1911 – Arthur Ross – The Mechanical Man 1912 – Moto Pheno 1920 – Shrozo the Robot Girl 1922 – Madam Radora 1922 – Maurice Francill the “Radio Wizard” 1923c- Claudo the Mechanical Man 1925c – “Rose-Marie” the Robot with Will Mackford 1925c – “Rose-Mary” the Human Automaton 1925 – Radiana – Prof. J. Popjie 1931 – Jose Lisso – Tiny Dunn 19xx – Mons. de Patou the French Mechanical Mannequin 1932 – “Mr. Robot” by William Hutter 1934 – “Ross Robot Mechanical Man” – Miss Sophie Ross 1935 – Alpha the Robot 1935 – Fake French “Robot Man” 1935 – Robota 1935 – Telepathovox 1938 – Rupert 1940 – Silo, the Zenith Mechanical Man 1940 – “Roll-Oh” the Domestic Robot 1945c – “Voltaire” – William Jean Arrendorff 1952 – Mr Rivets 1953 – Robot Costume – Westinghouse 1953 – Tobor from “Captain Video” 1954 – Gyro the Robot 1956c – Oom-A-Gog Robot 1957 – RuffNik the Robot 1957 – “Mr. Fantastic” Ushering Robot 1959 – Beatnik Lipton DUHAB

(Andromeda) 1962 – Conflex 1 – Dr. Malcolm Uffelman (Scope) 196x – SOCRATES 1962 – MIND – Ford 1962-6- “STeLLA” – John Andreae & Peter L. Joyce 19xx – Electronic Frog’s Eye – RCA 1961 Cybertron – Raytheon 196x – Sceptron – Sperry 196x – Artificial Neuron – Bell Labs 1961 – Numa-Rete – Weston / Foerster 1963 – Artificial Neuron – Chubbuck / Bittner 1971 – SOPHIA Early Brain Control and Animal Control Technologies 1940 Project Pigeon – 1948 Project Orcon – B.F. Skinner 1945 – Radio Jockey by Gernsback / Leslie BF Skinner – Skinner’s Box 1956c – “Dog-Mobile” Dogcontrolled Walking Truck (Concept) – Iben Browning 1957 – Rat radio-control – Dr Gengerelli 196x – Jose Delgado 1964 – Marine Mammals and Ordnance Recovery 1980 – Steinbach Space-suited Dolphin Artificial Beings 1870 – Artificial Man by Orin Vasta 1910 – The Electric Vampire by F. H. Power 1920 – Rossum’s Universal Robots by Karel Čapek

Pre-Cybernetic Era 1911- Toy Beetle 1912- Miessner / Hammond – Electric Dog “Seleno” + Addendum 1916- Steinbrook – Wireless Dog 1920- Lux – Protozoon 1921- French Dog – Berger Toy 1923 – The Electric Dog – Hugo Gernsback 1928- Henri Piraux – “Philidog” 1934- Dussaud – Endomechanics 1939- Tolman – Sowbug Schematic Cybernetic Era 1948-49 Grey Walter – “ELMER” & “ELSIE” 1949- Wiener Wiesner Singleton – “Palomilla” Moth 1950- Grey Walter – “CORA” 1950 – Tinius the Cybernetic Turtle – Rice University 1950 “Cybercar” Toy 1951 – Edmund C. Berkeley – “Squee” 1951-2 Paul-Alain Amouriq – Cybernetique Tortue (Tortoise) 1951 – TOAD Artificial Nuron Line Follower – Householder 1952-54 Albert Ducrocq – Miso, Job, Cesare, Barbara, Renardet-al 1952?- MIT- unknown robot 1953 – Kubanoff – “Tim Turtle” 1954 – Eichler / Zemanek – Vienna Turtle 1955 – Cross – Phototropic Snail 1956 – “CYSP-1” – Nicolas Schöffer 1956 – Bert and Ivan Sutherland – “Beast”

100

1957- Ivan Sutherland – “Machina Versatilis” 1956-57- Daniel Muszka – “Szeged Katica” (Hungarian) c1950s French – Dan Dennett’s “Tati” 1957 – Vasiliev / Petrovsky (Russian) – “Beta” 1958- Angyan – “Machina Reproducatrix” 1958- A.H. Bruinsma – “Cyber the Dog” 1958- Welker – “Sparky” 1958- Uttley / Andrew Conditional Probability Computer with trolley 1958- Electrotechnical Institute in Kiev – “Tortilla” 1958-60-62 Wojciechowski – “Azor” and “Super Azor” Dog 1959 – Sverdlovsk Cybernetic Tortoise 1959 – Cybernetic Mice play Hockey 1959-60 – Andrzej Harland – Artificial Turtle “CUPEL” 1960- Kretz / Angyan / Zemanek – “Machina Combinatrix” 1960s – Russian Cybernetic Tortoise – Unknown builder 1960- Stanford Cart 1961 – APL-JHU “Ferdinand” Mod I 1962-3- APL-JHU Hopkins “Beast” Mod II pre-vision 1962-5- APL-JHU Hopkins “Beast” Mod II with extended sonar & vision 1962-6- “STeLLA” – John Andreae & Peter L. Joyce 1962?- “Tortilla-2” Ukrainian 1962- “Icarus” – Orr 1962- Otto Walter Haseloff – “Hinz & Kunz” 1963- Cautela & Mikaelian – Conditioned Cybernetic

Machine 1963c- Fred Chesson – Cybernetic Dog 1964- R. Oettel – “Omega” 1964 – Armand Delsemme – Cybernetique Tortue 1964- Hans Moravec – “ROBUG” 1964- “Fred” – John Holland 1965- Hans Bielowski / Zemanek- Schildkröte 1965 – “ADROIT” – Leonard Friedman 1965- Russian Tortoise 1965 – Russian Dog 1966 – Russian Cybernetic Explorer 1966 – kybernetische Schildkröte at Otto von Guericke University 1967- Rosen, Nilsson, Raphael – “Shakey” 1967 – Bruce Lacey – “Mate” 1968- “Toy-Pet Plexi-Ball” –

Parkinson & Martin 1968 – Russian Cybernetic Bee 1968c – Johan de Boer Cybernetic Mouse 1969- “Astor” – Aston University 1969 – Russian Dog follows cable 1969 – Russian Tortoise 1969- “Emma” – G. C. Brown 1970 – Peter Vogel – “MERV” 1970 – Russian Tortoise 1971 – “Xee” – G.C. Brown 1972 – “Cyclops” – L.C. Galitz 1972 – Free Roving Machine – M. F. Huber 1972 – Cybernetic Penguin – (Russian) 1972-5 – Amosov – “TAIR” 1975- Beetle Construction Model 1975-99 – KYTRON by Rudolf Mittelmann 1975- Moth Model

102

1976- Heiserman – “Buster” 1976 – Tod Loofbourrow “Mike” / “Microtron” 1976- Gene Oldfield – “Entropy” 1977- Ralph Hollis – “Newt” 1977- “HILARE” 1978- Mark-IV QMC 1978- Peter Folk ‘s Inexpensive Turtle 1978- “Tee Toddler” Lightseeking Robot 1979- Frank DaCosta – Robot Pet 1979-80 “Hebot I, II and III” – John FitzGerald 1979 – Heiserman – “Rodney” 1980-82- ROBART-I Bart Everett 1980- SUPERKIM Meets ET-2 1982- SRI “Flakey” 1984- Moth – Gene Oldfield 1987c- “Herbert” by Brooks,

Note The following is intended as a constructive criticism of the status quo of advanced architecture. The main focus will be on idea of “responsive architecture” and more deeply into a particular form of responsiveness; I argue is key to achieving an advanced architecture.

For kickoff, the most common definitions of the term “responsive architecture”. “Responsive architecture is an evolving field of architectural practice and research. Responsive architectures are those that measure actual environmental conditions (via sensors) to enable buildings to adapt their form, shape, color or character responsively (via actuators).

Responsive architectures aim to refine and extend the discipline of architecture by improving the energy performance of buildings with responsive technologies (sensors / control systems / actuators) while also producing buildings that reflect the technological and cultural conditions of our time.”

Encountering this definition, responsive architecture should involve not only a direct structure of sense x actuate but a capacity of learning throughout a feedback loop.

Responsiveness can happen in the design process -as a optimization process or an iterative generation- or in the actualized state of a project; hence an architecture in permanent

mutation. In such a way, architectural spaces would exist as autonomous agents – this converts the subject to an agent as well, rather than a direct actuator [the executor is the following step.

On the other hand, I believe that improving energy performance has an irrelevant role in neither extending nor refining the discipline of architecture. Yet another interplay with nature i.e. ecologies, tends to be include more related instances, such as ecological thinking in the sense of the term which reflects upon life processes, interactions and adaptive behavior, the successional development of ecosystems, the abundance and distribution of organisms and biodiversity in a context or environment.

Tracing back the emergence of the concepts of responsiveness, interactivity and participatory architecture, it was clearly at a moment in time where enabling technologies and grounding theory started to happen.

The Manhattan project, a 2.6 $billion -currently equivalent ~37 $billion- launched on the 13th of August, 1942 has changed physics, biology, chemistry on to ecology and physiology all the way to engineering, medicine and control system architectures. Among the breakthroughs linked to atomic research – ref. Creager,”Life Atomic” : .Treatments cobalt-60;

for

cancer,

104

especially

using

.Diagnostic tests still used widely in medicine; .An understanding of metabolic pathways, such as that for photosynthesis; .A clearer picture of how the human body absorbs and uses substances such as iron.

The modern understanding of ecosystems as environments in which matter and energy flow through living and nonliving components; Control system architectures, user interfaces and major breakthroughs in computing.Meanwhile a major paradigm was inflating; Cybernetics, which is in brief an approach for exploring regulatory systems—their structures, constraints, and possibilities. Norbert Wiener defined cybernetics in 1948 as “the scientific study of control and communication in the animal and the machine” but the term now would refer to any system control using technology.

Undermining the term, Plato using “cybernetics” in The Alcibiades was amongst the first recorded uses; it was in the context of “the study of self-governance” to signify the governance of people.

To put it in more practical terms, cybernetics -as in controlling a system by observing the difference between desired behavior and actual behavior and using

that as an input to guide the system – is one of the first major paradigms in terms of thought and technical progress that influenced control systems in general, such as in navigation, military, industries, art and certainly architecture

Note: This notion of cybernetics is a “closed loop” system as opposed to “Open loop” system which means the error is not used in the control, so essentially the system is blind. This is okay if the system is simple, accurate and robust against perturbations.

From that point on, a lot of architectural experiments and trials began to sound feasible, and a new wave of thought in architecture started to take place, from an idea of a responsive architecture, to what now has become “the possibility of an architectural singularity. In that sense, the major objective is a simultaneous associative dynamic embodied by alterations in human experience and the space. Here comes in the possibility of replication rather than simulation, one ultimate example is scientists and technologists have always tried to simulate a brain, but I suppose the major question is that would it be possible to replicate it? - To realize it? in more architectural terms. The same applies to what we experience, the reality we are in, and the possibility for these technologies to really realize a reality rather than simulate it.

106

On that note, the unconscious is what really is when we experience. Technically, all our experience is based on physical/electrical neurostuff happening in the brain brought through a filter called the unconscious. As pointed out by Lacan - who went beyond the proposition that the unconscious is what lays beneath the conscious world – Jung - to point out that the unconscious itself is structured, like a language. This intricate structure, of what the unconscious could be is what can be analogous to deal with as a complex spatial structure, or how a space is actualized.

This thinking methodology applies to the author/architect and the subject. An autonomous architecture requires autonomy in the design process stretched to the realized state, which in the sense does not exist as a state but as alternating states, ever changing.

>> “Towards an Architecture

in

Permanent Mutation”

Figure 5 - Yershรณv Diagram - 1963

Figure 6 - Reconfiguring the director-agent model to the agent-agent model of human-machine interaction.

108

“By replacing the origins, the presence and the author by arbitrariness, absence and machinic behavior, Eisenman has found the recipe for a non-conservative resistance, critical within the zeitgeist. He has become the first truly machinic architect not in the productivist sense, but in the purely ideological. Eisenman’s machine of absolute resistance is aimed at disengaging the traditional coupling between power and control to retain a critical control of the project without becoming a pure instrument of the zeitgeist.

His statement: “I have always been interested in control, not in power’ is very revealing as a way of understanding his projects.”

Alejandro Zaero Polo.

Hence, diagrams, notational systems, operational and iterative processes became the way to take hands off in the design process.

N.B. Artificial intelligence in a sense of trying to take as much steps as possible away from the final step, the more “indirectly controlled” layers a system can include, the more intelligent it appears to be. That is what was aimed at the possibility of disintegration of the author, and thus have an autonomous design process.

Stretching out to the realized/actualized phase, the user experience phase, architecture becomes the physical environment that alters our frame of reference as experience it. This physical experience, in the sense of experiencing a physical condition, influences a certain mental,

psychological, emotional state in each person.

Weather a building is at stasis, or in motion, weather if responds or not, is set to impact our physicality as well. Upon that, advanced architecture is that which has the capacity to perceive its influence upon other beings, such as us, in order to be autonomous and thus exist according to what the environment demands.

I set the main questions set to examine a advanced architecture as follows.

.Does it intake the user experience as input? .Does it project store history/ memory/experience sets? .Does it act upon a set of rules that are previously determined or generated ones? .Does the system architecture include hidden layers?

Upon these criteria, a project would have the ability of including a looping spatial structure i.e. to have a looping spatial structure does not imply a looping, previously set, action, but rather a looping way of being; in that sense, the system would each time self-produce a set of actions to execute. The executed is

110

not the only unknown, but here the set of rules to act upon is unknown too, and is different in each iteration. To be capable of being autonomous in that sense, a system must include a “memory” which is the recorded results – influence of executed actions- in order to learn – use to compare and produce an optimal mode of processing; which means that the system includes an extra ingredient which is hidden layers.

Note: As artificial inelligence is viewed as the ability of machines/agents to look intelligent, thus having the ability to perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of success at some goal, it becomes a necessity to architecture because of the most critical relational point which is “cognition”, a term that has been forever been linked to the subject in architecture and not to the building.

Last but not least, spatial experiences are technically how we respond to certain spatial parameters, or to the space as a whole, but it can be really reduced to how we respond to a wide range of spatial conditions. We perceive the space, store the memory of this experience upon a huge stack –the perceptual sets- of all the previously stored experiences and then respond differently through a continuously changing filter. This implies prioritizing the spatial/ emotional experience on a mere reduction of users to masses. Looping architecture should

have the human experience, rather than simplistic parameters such as location, presence, height, etc. as inputs.

Furthermore, thinking about architectural space in that manner, brings up the idea of space becoming more similar to our perceptive/ cognitive model, in the way of being, it’s a trinity of machines/agents humans and built environments which raise the possibility of what one can call “architectural singularity�.

112

Responsive projects [ Classification, work flow comparison, propositions and a relational timefield ]

Digital Wall Jason Bruges

A wall in a hotel designed by Jason Bruges displays the basic type of how a space can change according to user experience, input it again and act differently. This project captures the users color, form, movement in space, position and the duration they spend and stanslate it through a given set of rules to a boolean series effecting the lightbulbs intensity and color displaying a manipulated silhouette of the user, and by that altering his/her experience, which triggers their behaviour and that is collected as input and so on.

The Digital Water Pavilion

carlorattiassociati | walter nicolino & carlo ratti Team: Carlo Ratti, M. Lai, W. Nicolino Carlo Ratti’s Digital Water Pavilion includes a dual structure in terms of the interactivity being set in prior – a proximity sensor evaluates how close a user is to the structure and due to set rules would stop or flow the water out to create patters, openings, and so user can enter. Parallel to that another set of rules and sensors, are used to allow or not, the direct control of closing the pavilion or not. It is to be noted that this project worked best when it actually stopped working - according to the rules- people started enjoying unexpected interaction.

114

Architecture des Humeur R&Sei(n)

Architecture des Humeur discusses the possibility of an architecture inspired from the human state, understood through bio-chemical mapping of the human body and transferring these inputs – recorded as moods – through highly complex mathematical processes into structural formations, sent after to a mobile 3d printer that executed the chore. What is significant in this project is the mechanizing the design process and the building process totally; to set rules for transforming moods to form. The project does not include an experiential loop, but rather constitutes a spatial structure built upon the user’s “mood”, which would in return a healthier environment for users to experience the spaces.

URBAN5

Yona Friedman - Nicholas Negroponte Things start looping here, in an incomplete manner; the major breakage in this project is the missing link between the model bank & warnings and the postoccupancy data. The project had a set of models and a set of warnings previously set, tied to each model, but had a more interactive interface that allows user to pick another model after the first warning call, and will keep changing until the user is satisfied. Had there been a link between the models and rules originally set and post occupancy data that can make the warning bank more efficient as it learns from real life experiences.

The Generator

Cedric Price - Gordon Pask This collaboration between an architect and a technologist was one of the first experiments in articulating intelligence to buildings and celebrating the idea of a dynamic architectural space. In the Generator project, Cedric Price aimed at proposing a multilayered project in which he referred to “participatory” architecture.

This model of interactivity proposes a binary work flow in channeling the process but rather a more complex flow in processing, learning and actuation. The 5 stages are placed in priority, where if a step did not have the input to act upon, the following step is checked, and so on. This workflow allowed responsiveness according to different parameters, from direct user input, be it comments about their experience or direct space manipulation or even self-generated rules to act upon, nevertheless, the building generated rules and responded to not being triggered in a way to confront/trigger user input. Rules previously set was altered by the stacking of user experience and feedback which created a possible archeology in the “data back” that the project had.

116

Key Points from the Generator:

.Contains a heterogenous set of predefined rules .Stores memory of user feedback and user manipulations .Generates rules to act upon in absense of user input .Triggers user activity by acting autonomously Simple Agents Simple Agent systems, or Simple Reflex Agents, observe through sensors and act upon an environment using actuators (i.e. it is an agent) and directs its activity towards achieving goals (i.e. it is “rational”, as defined in economics). This Simple type of agents has a very limited set rules, and defined sensors. In that sense lacks any ability of generating new rules, “understanding” situations.

Proposed Agent System Intelligent agents are in the simplest form agents, but may also learn or use knowledge to achieve their goals. They may be very simple or very complex: a reflex machine such as the learning thermostat is considered an intelligent agent. The diagram below is a proposal for an interconnected set of agents, that act in a system, but instead of having four straight inputs from four sensors, by destributing a sensor per system, emplementing hidden layers, and thus having more vacant inputs that can feed from other agents’ outputs, a more intelligent and autonomous system is created.

118

Building prototype-instance adaptation/creation The following workflow diagram shows case of automation in the design process which can be held even as a space manipulation diagram. Firstly the system browses for building spaces, tests in true or false and then acts upon the rules for the next step, select space, in the case space is found, then browses requirements and description, moves on to evaluation if the output is satisfactory or not, if that is evaluated as true the system moved on to add/ approve space instances, until the designer or user is satisfied, and finalize by building instance refinment and saves it to the building instance refinement data bank.

Spatial prototype-instance adaptation/creation In this case, the system is set to prototype/adapt space according to user activity.

Similarly, the system starts by finding activities to determine which rules it uses, afterwards selects activities, but in the case of selected activities not required, the activity instance is deleted and the system goes on again to find the best solution and create the space instances or adapt the space accordingly.

This loop process can be viewed as an evolutionary search feedback loop where the process is set to rules and changes according to what it learns. The grey boxes represent memory storage and manipulation in the system.

120

Space instance refinement constraints generation phase The following diagram is a compilation of all the machinic processes, subcategorized in four main groups User Creation User Modification Activity Refinement Constraints Transferral In brief, it is the firt step towards clustering a preset system, to collaborate with other systems to refine, create and modify instances user later by the system itself. the end nodes, dettached - allocation and generation building and space instances respectively refer to the bonding end points with a different “organ� of the same body.

Timefield Refernces The timefield references in chronological order, with identifiers of the each project.

Projects in Art, Architecture, Simulations or sometimes Technology are evaluated with binary identifiers with a set of 5 questioned mentioned at the top of each column.

Categories here are defined in more precise ways stating the subcategory, the categroies in the timefield are shown without the subcategory title.

The timefield is intnded to start post Worl War II but I put more ancient references just for the fact that such trials existed even before that time.

122

ALL YOU CAN E.A.T. Experiments in art and technology

124

Notes.

Jellyfish see light Although they don’t have any perceiving brains!

As jellyfish don’t have a brain or central nervous system, they do have a very basic set of rudimentary sensory nerves at the base of their tentacles. These nerves detect touch, temperature, salinity etc.

Seeing color, begins with light, but is not the perception of light.

Going deeper into perception, a very interesting concept is the possibility of a unique perception as a result of various stimuli, it is possible to listen from the skin, see through scents, etc.

What we perceive is different of what we physically sense, the taste of sweetness is term we invented for a very complex procedure that happens in the brain whenever we intake sweet foods, but this doesn’t mean that this process is exclusive to this input, as of understanding the brain structure, it now possible to “trick” the brain and stimulate nerves in a different way to send “hacked messages” to our brain. In simple terms, this is analogous to deliver the same meaning using different word arrangements.

The next question comes around as, but then information is by itself, “meaningless”, so how does the brain make sense of ‘meaningless’ info?

Two key terms to unlock the mystery: - Relationships - Feedback

126

So what the human brain really does, is to find relationships amidst a history of stacked experiences; a dense repository of experience feedback allows humans to create an index of tying information (inputs, such as light) to experiences Meaning making then is no separable from past experiences and context - Context here is referred to whatever is neither the person experiencing nor the object being experienced. Throughout repetitive operations as such, brains start to adapt and manipulate the reactions to same stimulus; human behavior – and perception of things – changes as we experience the same object repeatedly. A strong light becomes less strong by time, in fact it doesn’t, it is the same amount of light hitting us, but what changed is the manner our brains process this information – this is called learning- thus “redefining normality”.

Humans tend to always see meaning, we think we see the colors [ light ] but I would argue that at least at a first glimpse (without taking the time to analyze the object/color thoroughly) we see meanings. Two squares of the same color put on different backgrounds, appear different – are perceived differently.

From this idea of “tricking” the brain- or to put it in other terms, our brain tricking itself- and perceiving hacked messages, a lot of questions arise, is it possible to experience two realities at the same time?

emotions, cognition in general, be it temporal, spatial etc. and social cognition in specific are reflected through different patterns of action happening in various associated parts of our brains.

128

130

132

134

Complementary findings As part of the academic research, I came across a lot of experiments and findings by researchers in various fields, from business to medicine, etc. It was stunning the impact of spatial elements on human behavior, which can vary from instantaneous mood change, honesty levels, as well as general conclusions more related to biological aspects such as that people in general prefer curves to straight edges; to put more scientific, our brain prefer this.

Relative to brain space, it not enough to conclude what people generally prefer, but dig deeper, through advanced tooling to find out why? Or how?

In fact things unfold in a very logical way, it is just because the area triggered in the brain, as we recognize straight edges, is close to the area that cautions us in the case we need to experience fear.

As simple as that. On the other hand, results by other research prove that blind people have a greater ability to work with sound, or recognize audible changes in a space, as the auditory periphery cortex is more developed.

Information as such help distinguish a lot of different aspects of general or more specific results, and from there, I go forward with some presumptions. This is just an indexed sample of interesting works I believe were important to go on with BraneSpace.

136

138

With/out Psilocybin Two graphs showing the connections in a human brain in proportion, the one on the left stands for normal state, as the graph on the right, shows the connections in a brain as a user intakes psilocybin. Interestingly enough, our brain can create, not only the connections in the sense that these connections are a construction of an experience. An experience that is self-generated and autocatalysed means that we are able to generate an object of experience, and then be the subject, so the same person, the same brain has the capacity to incorporate both tasks simultaneously.

BraneSpace assumes that perception and experience are subjective, yet, never the same even for the same person. As we experience anything, we build a filter, through which we experience and perceive anything yet to come. This filter evolves, grows and shrinks, thickens and goes back to loose information depending on what we are subjected to.

This experiment is of a conceptual importance here, rather than numeric ( exact values ) the graphs display the connections proportionally to show the great amount of connections our brain generates. These connections stand for brain activity, which is a complex dialogue between a huge amount of regions.

140

Apparatus

142

es

A bunch of wires and sensors put together; this was the first exploration of what became to be the apparatus. I had no intension to create he BraneSpace apparatus as it finished to be, but was rather playing around with different sensors, data and picking the most efficient/interesting toys to put together. As in the photo, it started with just having a gopro camera on, and then started to become more and more complex as doors opened.

After this bunch of wires, boards, batteries and sensors was put together, one would ask why is it situated on the head not anywhere else as it has no neuro sensors yet, it is basically up to several reasons, the most important was the IMU sensor, which measured the inclination of the head, the heartrate sensors, that are placed on more than one place on the head (neck) the microphone and air quality sensor, which was only relevant to be around the ears, and mouth/nose, not to forget the ultrasonic sensor that was used to measure the distance between the user and the closest solid.

This was the very start point of the BraneSpace experiment, which went from literally a proof of concept with a camera, to compare with a narration of the users post experience to a complex overlapping of 32 data dimensions including bio data.

144

Apparatus 1 In Apparatus 1, the main aim was to build a research tool, which will allow me to test my second challenge, on the possibility to make something meaningful out of all the data acquired. I will discuss afterwards the significance of the data, but before, I would mention the several data collected From the user Heart rate Body temperature Position Acceleration Head inclination From the space Temperature Color Sound Ceiling height Distance to the closest vertical surface Air quality This apparatus was functioning using 2 boards, as things started to unfold, I had to go forward and make the apparatus wirelessly sending data.

146

Maria Kuptsova

148

Apparatus 2 Here is the next step, apparatus 2.0, after several experiments and trials using apparatus 1, more bio data was to be added. The main sensors installed here are to measure skin conductance/ galvanic skin response and a 14 channel EEG device to measure brain activity. The 14 channels are distributed according to a system known as The 10–20 system or International 10–20 system is an internationally recognized method to describe and apply the location of scalp electrodes in the context of an EEG test or experiment. This method was developed to ensure standardized reproducibility so that a subject’s studies could be compared over time and subjects could be compared to each other.

This system is based on the relationship between the location of an electrode and the underlying area of cerebral cortex. The “10” and “20” refer to the fact that the actual distances between adjacent electrodes are either 10% or 20% of the total front–back or right–left distance of the skull.

Each site has a letter to identify the lobe and a number to identify the hemisphere location.

The letters F, T, C, P and O stand for frontal, temporal, central, parietal, and occipital lobes, respectively. (Note that there exists no central lobe; the “C” letter is used only for identification purposes.) Even numbers (2,4,6,8) refer to electrode positions on the right hemisphere, whereas odd numbers (1,3,5,7) refer to those on the left hemisphere. A “z” (zero) refers to an electrode placed on the midline.

150

152

154

Data [ and forms or acquisition ] Data, in 32-dimensions, was collected using various ways.EEG data, that was the most tricky amongst all as it is the most raw, which means it needs a lot processing to arrive to a comprehensive model of this data. The incoming signal is electric signal has various ways to be filtered and processed, the most basic is to use the corresponding software, which as in the facing page shows the wave signal already processed and put into “emotions� or states, such as how engaged or not stressed a person is. On the other hand, as BraneSpace seeks more backend approach, processing along with OSC as a first step to intake the values and decode them.

This way worked better for facial expressions, which can be allocated through muscle movement, so another attempt had to be made; and that was trying to completely from scratch read the incoming raw values, 128 values per second, so 128 sets of 14 values per second To overlap the data, a time stamp was introduced in order to create a coherent table of all the 32 values, as the other sensors function on top of an Arduino board ( MKR1000 ) and the EEG was acquired and stored through a raspberry pi.

This data was cleaned, and overlapped with all the other inputs to help later [ after a lot of noisy experiments ] to get to a conclusion illustrated in the circular graphs coming in the next few pages.

156

Installing Future One of the best moments of the projects, after a lot of time trying to get EEG through the pi, This is window of installing the final library before the values were incoming. A happy happening, Future is the name.

BraneSpace is what I spent a year worth of research, experimenting, trying to find answers and more informed questions regarding all my preoccupations, in architecture, technology and the future of both – I don’t know if I can say both, as boundaries has almost became invisible.

Architectural production, has been always bound to the tools used, since the invention of perspective until the latest technological breakthroughs, tools, no matter from which discipline they come from, are becoming more and more essential to produce anything, including architecture.

Virtual and augmented reality devices have already reshaped a lot of projects, ways of representations, whether in the way the space is thought, the materiality used and how users react to the space.

The same applies for advances in neuroscience, as it becomes more and more affordable to user, projects in art, architecture and design will become very much demanding this tool.

158

- Requirement already satisfied - Collecting Future - Building wheels - Succesfully built future - Succesfully installed future

160

Apparatus 2.0 Experiments

162

164

166

IaaC BrainMaps

168

Following numerous research experiments, this was an interesting experiment were the brainactivity – from 14 areas arownd the brain- is displayed on the trajectory of the user inside space. Throughout this experiment, the user puts the BraneSpace apparatus on, with a gopro camera and wanders in a space. Data is afterward collected, analyzed and correlated with the position of the user and what he was seeing. This experiment was pivotal in how the project ended up.

As spatial parameters were too many [ uncontrolled space ] it was extremely hard to work with such data.

No correlation were found, this experiment was a fruitful failure, it was to prove the impossibiloty, at that stage in the project to work with data on such a huge scale of data dimensions.

After studying the results, I decided to build up my own lab, a controlled environment that would allow the research to happen at one parameter at a time, exactly like a experiment in a biology lab, working with constants, changing one parameter at a time and drawing relations and conclusions.

170

172

174

176

2.01 Room Experiments This is room 2.01 in IaaC, this is the classroom occupied by the second year thesis student, and this is where I spent most of last year, experimenting, presenting and building my project. After the experiments at macba, sagrada familia and the pavilion by Mies, I thought of IaaC brainmaps, first in the IaaC ground floor, and next in our class room.

Similarly, the user goes through a space, and then the brain waves are visualized using different colors corresponding to each channel along his/her route.

The goal of this experiment, as general as it is, is to try to find a correlation between the change in a mental state and the change in the brain activity of the user. As the first experiment did not show any meaningful results, this experiment ended up in the same way. Since as user move, 90% of the signal collected becomes muscle movement signal rather than brain activity and thus the cleaning and correction process becomes absurdly long.

Two sets of experiments, on different on different subjects, failed to push forward to create a lab. BraneSpace lab is a controlled environment that was used to make observations and then used as a responsive environment.

178

180

BraneSpace Lab As previous experiment data was too general, I designed and built a lab, which is a cube, of 2.5 meters sides, sound proof, with an offset internal cube of 2 meters made of white fabric [ as the intention was to test with form change and then apply ] with embedded systems for light, color and sound.

The experiment stage went as follows, very simple experiments, users were asked to stay in status for a certain amount of time, while changing one parameter at a time, be it light, or sound. Addressable LED strips used, with different RGB values, as for sound, speakers from all around with an amplifier.

Correlation graphs of data of the experiments is displayed in the circular graphs, the first graph shows general information (parameters) whereas the second concentrates on sound.

Sound changed in terms of density, volume, and frequency, which was later used [ a workflow diagram upcoming ]

182

184

The BOX - BraneSpace Lab After using the lab, the final step was to create a responsive environment, that has user data as input, but not in terms of the usual user data, such as position, or intentional triggering, the data here was the users’ mental and physical state. Values of emotion, brain activity [ measured through EEG and GSR ] was the input.

BraneSpace focuses on this responsive space, not as a direct response mechanism, but goes further to create a brain-space dialogue, consisting of a closed looping model where space affects the brain and emotions, which in this case affects how we perceive the space and the loop goes on.

From a proof of concept with drawings and 2 gopro cameras, to failed experiments, to a more precise lab, end with a new question rather with an answer. What if we exist, with buildings in an ecosystem of brains and spaces, with the ability of spaces to perceive us as subjects.

The diagram to the right is the workflow of the space, it is the Lab, now in action, note that the only 2 changing parameters are sound and color [ with all the sub parameters that go under ]

186

Control

188

An artifitially intelligent architecture cannot be characterized by its formal imitation of natural processes and its practical response to their existence; rather, it can be defined by the complexity of its own behaviour as it autonomously navigates through a singular world of biology and data. Such architectures are concerned with their own building and unbuilding - the production, destruction, evolution, and recomposition of transient space.

As proposed in media-art theory [ ray ascott ]these formalizations are inherenly mobile, traveling between the digital and the physical worlds, defined by cumulative ecosystems of robotics, media interfaces, computational logics, and data streams. An this architectural singularity, the primary purpose for creating space is no longer to sustain the biological constitution of human bodies to prioritize a cognitive experience as a synhesis of physical and virtual spatial constructs. designed realities In a world that no longer exclusively relies on materiality to construct space, architecture must trade its fundamental mainstays such as stasis and functional determinism, for cultural survival* Architecture must give up conclusive creative agency, control, and supervision over closedloop design processes and instead embrace open technological frameworks as the dominant social platforms through which architecture can be shaped collectively by many this is the new problem of autonomy for architecture: the autonomy of the design process from the architect›s design schemes.

Transarchitecture

190

John von neumann defines the production of space as a fundamental consequence of the will to survive i.e. being.

The similarities between robotic and architectural systems perhaps originate from architecture›s role as the first machine, i.e. the first assemblage of tools for mediating material and cognitive effects.

By linking physiological processes and mechanized assemblages directly, architecture becomes a robotic system that has unique behavioural traits and is tethered to humans; here, technology, rather than the body becomes the interface that negotiates between human cognition and a synthetic formal order of space; a transarchitecture.

Architecture becomes the new body.

If transarchitecture is a spatial construct that negotiates between human cognition and the environment through technological frameworks, the postarchitecture is the absence of this negotiation. A post architecture system would no longer prioritize the human experience as its raison d›etre rather than centering its objectives around humans, it would be driven by its own autonomous subjectivity where material and virtual constructs would hold equal footing in its prolifiration, a human becomes an actor rather than the epicenter

Authorship

192

Taking off from the 1450’s, where the ideas of author and space became key to what architecture is. As Alberti watched Bruneleschi in the Duomo for 40 years, and concluded that being on site was not for him, emerged the idea of an indexical system to push the architect a step back from the physical building itself, without eliminating him/her as the author of the project not only the idea.

With the notational system available, architects had to make these notations, codes call it whatever and afterwards builder can follow the instructions and build the project. We have come to the point where builders are machines, and notational systems are digital and the architect has moved a thousand miles away from all what is not fundamental. Stretching this idea to its extreme, we can now think about systems that would make out of our thought a notational system for machines to execute using material.

On the other hand, as contradictory as it may appear, “anti-building” architects, such as Cedric price have speculatively critiqued the idea of a notation system, by what I would argue is rather passing this system to the user, and by that creating an interface rather than a “building”.

In one of the confessions made, at the Cedric Price memory bank – which was even worked as an interactive documentary, whatever that meansPrice had his usual task for architects who seek to work at his practice, the task was simple; to draw an escalator, and then he would ask if it

Who is the Author, when we can, not only read from brains, but write into them as well

194

was going up or down, and would keep on asking questions until it becomes so vital/obvious that the person drawing will have to draw people facing the bottom or the top level of the escalator.

And he would follow commenting on the importance of users in any building environment.

Taking into account this way of looking at things, a very interesting idea of celebrating an interface, which will be, with how users manipulate it, an infinite number of buildings, one at a time. But is he the author? What is the role of the architect in such a case?

I would argue that it goes precisely along the line of the same notational system invented before, architects use to make buildings, moved to design buildings‌to our time where you just have to have an idea.

BraneSpace pushed the limit further, what if it is the user who is manipulating the spatial status, but complementarily enhancing the building with an indexical system of responding? Static structures, designed by architects with the idea that users can inhibit and change the space accordingly are precisely what this project rejects. The role of the architects has shifted from designing the building to designing how the building will respond.

Accepting the ever changing nature of space, triggered by the users, I propose the idea of enabling the building with a processing unit, a brain, a set of rules, which upon the dual com-

196

munication, architect to building and user to building – and vice versa - can happen, hence the more intricate relation between architect and user through a spatial medium.

Deeper into BraneSpace, and after conducting a number of experiments, the final space was permanently changing. I do not control the space at each moment and neither the user, but what happens in fact is that the space is enabled with controllable technologies that will allow the spatial parameters chosen, such as light, sound, temperature, form, color… to change in real time.

But this is only feasible because the user on the other hand is enabled with sensors that collect data and deliver it to processing unit, which controls the spatial elements. This would not be possible without a translation/decoding of these incoming data sets. This was accurately where the “architecture” part of the project is – an upcoming diagram of the workflow of the BOX will explain this step by step.

What if we go one step further, and through machine learning, enhancing this building with learning, and acting autonomously? In other words, this is the optimum point of what I would believe this project must get to. It is exactly where we achieve a system of object and subject, both as agents rather than prioritizing one, or centralizing design around the user.

198

200

Bibliography These are not all the references, but rather the first bunch of them. References available upon request, please contact me if you have any doubt, or interested in a specific sitation.

Achten, Henri. n.d. “Closing the Loop for Interactive Architecture Internet of Things, Cloud Computing, and Wearables.” Smart and Responsive Design - Concepts 2 (eCAADe 33): 623–32.

AA School of Architecture. 2005. 4DSpace: Interactive Architecture. Published on Jun 10, 2015. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=XPTPrjHB-bU&t=5502s.

Allmendinger, Richard. 2012. “Turing Evolutionary Search For Closed-Loop Optimization.” University of Manchester. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucberal/PhDThesis. pdf.

Andrew J. Kolarik & Brian C. J. Moore & Pavel Zahorik & Silvia Cirstea &, and Shahina Pardhan. 2016. “Auditory Distance Perception in Humans: A Review of Cues, Development, Neuronal Bases, and Effects of Sensory Loss.” Atten Percept Psychophys , Springer 78: 373–395.

Ann Sussman and Justin B Hollander. 2014. Cognitive Architecture: Designing for How We Respond to the Built Environment. Edited by Routledge. Routledge.

Ashour, Yassin, and Branko Kolarevic. 2015. “HEURISTIC OPTIMIZATION IN DESIGN.” Environmental Parametrics 1 (9): 355–70.

Bazalo, Frano, and Tane J Moleta. 2015. “RESPONSIVE ALGORITHMS: An Investigation of Computational Processes in Early Stage de- Sign.” 2 Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand . http:// papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/caadria2015_237. content.pdf.

Chersi, Fabian. 2014. “The Hippocampal-Striatal Circuit for Goal-Directed and Habitual Choice.” Chersi.

Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, UCL, London, UK . https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1412/1412.2818. pdf.

Chersi, Fabian, and Neil Burgess. 2015. “The Cognitive Architecture of Spatial Navigation: Hippocampal and Striatal Contributions.” Neuron 88 (1): 64–77. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.021.

Csuri, Charles, and James Shaffer. 1968. “Art, Computers and Mathematics.” In Proceedings of the December 9-11, 1968, Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part II on - AFIPS ’68 (Fall, Part II), 1293. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1476706.1476759.

Cuffy, Brandon, Judy Fulton, and Stacy Morton. n.d. “coFLEXions: A Responsive Inflatablesucker.” http:// www.suckerpunchdaily.com/2012/08/24/coflexions-a-responsive-inflatable/.

Daas, Mahesh, and Andrew Wit. 2015. “PEDAGOGY OF ARCHITECTURAL ROBOTICS An Inconvenient Studio for Unsolicited Innovation.” Ball State University, Muncie, USA. http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/ caadria2015_030.content.pdf.

DURMISEVIC, Sanja; CIFTCIOGLU, Özer; SARIYILDIZ, Sevil. 2016. “Quantifying the Qualitative Design Aspects” 5 (3): 6. Accessed December 6. http://papers. cumincad.org/data/works/att/5c22.content.pdf.

Eduardo Reck Miranda, and Julien Castet. 2014. Guide to Brain-Computer Music Interfacing. Edited by Eduardo Reck Miranda and Julien Castet. 1sted. Springer. https://www.amazon.es/Guide-Brain-Computer-Interfacing-Eduardo-Miranda/dp/1447172108/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481130778&sr=8-1&keywords=Guide+to+Brain-Computer+Music+Interfacing.

Edward T. Hall. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Edited

by New York Random House, Inc. United States: Anchor Books. http://www.philo-online.com/TEXTES/HALL Edward Twichell - The hidden dimension.pdf.

Beilharz, Kirsty. 2016. “Architecture as the Computer Interface: 4D Gestural Interaction with Socio-Spatial Sonification.” Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney. Accessed December 6. http://papers.cumincad. org/data/works/att/2005_763.content.pdf.

Em Griffin. 2014. Proxemic Theory of Edward Hall. A First Look at Communication Theory. 9thed. Vol. 1.

alun-jones, ben. 2010. “TOWARDS A NATURAL USER INTERFACE FOR VISUALISATION,” no. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering-Imperial College London: 66.

Evans, Robin. 2000. The Projective Cast : Architecture and Its Three Geometries. MIT Press.

Buxton, William, Ron Baecker, Wesley Clark, Fontaine Richardson, Ivan Sutherland, W.R. “Bert” Sutherland, and Austin Henderson. 2005. “Interaction at Lincoln Laboratory in the 1960’s.” In CHI ’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI ’05, 1162. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1056808.1056864.

Evans, Robin. 2000. The Projective Cast : Architecture and Its Three Geometries. MIT Press.

Eve A. Edelstein, PhD. 2006. “Translating Neuroscience into Design.” San Diego Convention Center and San Diego Marriott Hotel & Marina San Diego, CA . http://eaedesign.com/InnovativeDesignScience.com/ Media_-_Publications_files/Translational Design - The Relevance of Neuroscience to Architecture.pdf.

202

Fox Bryant P Yeh, Michael A. 2016. “Responsive Kinematics -Intelligently Responsive Kinetic Design in Architecture Kinetic Design Group Kdg.mit.edu Intelligent Kinetic Systems Intelligent Kinetic Systems.”

Accessed December 9. http://kdg.mit.edu.

Fraden, Jacob. 1993. HANDBOOK OF MODERN SENSORS. 3rded. San Diego: Springer. http://www.kelm.ftn.uns. ac.rs/literatura/si/pdf/HandbookOfModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf.

Franklin, Jeff. 2012. “Exploration of Physical Computing: Digital Interfaces Using Microsoft Kinect and Peggy 2 LED Matrix.”

Gillner, Sabine, and Hanspeter A Mallot. 2016. “Navigation and Acquisition of Spatial Knowledge in a Virtual Maze.” Max-Planck-Institut für biologische Kybernetik. Accessed December 6. http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/a616.content.pdf.

Gordon Pask. 1969. “The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics.” Architectural Design. http://workgroups.clemson.edu/AAH0503_ANIMATED_ARCH/879Readings/ GordonPask_Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics. pdf.

Gordon Pask. 1962. From Chemical Computers to Adaptive Architecture.

Greg Lynn. 1999. Animate Form. Princeton Architectural Press. https://www.papress.com/html/book.details. page.tpl?isbn=9781568980836.

Guallart Architects. 2000. “MEDIA HOUSE.” http://www. guallart.com/projects/media-house.

Interactive Architecture Lab. n.d. “The Generator Project | Interactive Architecture Lab.” http://www. interactivearchitecture.org/the-generator-project. html.

Jack Burnham. 1968. “Systems Esthetics.” http://www. arts.ucsb.edu/faculty/jevbratt/classes_previous/ fall_03/arts_22/Burnham_Systems_Esthetics.html.

Joan Meyers-Levy and Rui (juliet) zhu. 2007. “Ceiling Height Can Affect How A Person Thinks, Feels And Acts.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070424155539.htm.

John, E.R., L.S. Prichep, W. Kox, P. Valdés-Sosa, J. Bosch-Bayard, E. Aubert, M. Tom, F. diMichele, L.D. Gugino, and F diMichele. 2001. “Invariant Reversible QEEG Effects of Anesthetics.” Consciousness and Cognition 10 (2): 165–83. doi:10.1006/ccog.2001.0507.

Juhani Pallasmaa. 2015. “Body, Mind and Architecture – the Mental Essence of Architecture.” In SISU 2015.

Tallinn: Eesti Sisearhitektide Liit. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=ZPzhJOPS2Xg. Juhani Pallasmaa. 2011. “How Do We Grasp Space and Place?” In How Do We Grasp Space and Place, edited

by Mark Wigley and Columbia GSAPP. New York: GSAPP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFwrmIljdqo&t=3360s.

Kolarik, Andrew J, Brian C J Moore, Pavel Zahorik, Silvia Cirstea, and Shahina Pardhan. 2016. “Auditory Distance Perception in Humans: A Review of Cues, Development, Neuronal Bases, and Effects of Sensory Loss.” Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 78 (2).

Springer: 373–95. doi:10.3758/s13414-015-1015-1.

Li-Ju, Beth, and Chen Beckman. 2007. “Neuronal Network of C. Elegans: From Anatomy to Behavior.”

Lindquist, Marissa, and Anthony Williams. 2015. “Affective Sensing + Wearable Imaging: Vision Impairment and Implications for Spatial Enquiry. In Popovic Affective Sensing + Wearable Imaging: Vision Impairment and Implications for Spatial Enquiry,” 12. http:// eprints.qut.edu.au/91089/.

Llach, Daniel Cardoso. 2016. “Inertia of an Automated Utopia.” The MIT, 6. Accessed December 6. http:// web.mit.edu/ebj/Desktop/ebj/MacData/afs.cron/group/ thresholds/www/issue/39/Cardoso_Thresholds_FINAL.pdf.

Lotte, Fabien. 2014. “A Tutorial on EEG Signal Processing Techniques for Mental State Recognition in Brain-Computer Interfaces.” Eduardo Reck Miranda Julien Castet. Guide to Brain-Computer Music Interfacing, no. hal-01055103. Springer: 32. https://hal. inria.fr/hal-01055103. madlab.cc. 2013. “AFTER 50 YEARS OF COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN.” Madlab.cc. http://www.madlab.cc/after-50years-of-computer-aided-design/.

Maguire, E. A., D. G. Gadian, I. S. Johnsrude, C. D. Good, J. Ashburner, R. S. J. Frackowiak, and C. D. Frith. 2000. “Navigation-Related Structural Change in the Hippocampi of Taxi Drivers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97 (8): 4398–4403. doi:10.1073/pnas.070039597.

Malafouris, Lambros. 2013. How Things Shape the Mind : A Theory of Material Engagement. Edited by Colin Renfrew. The MIT Press. https://www.amazon.co.uk/ How-Things-Shape-Mind-Engagement/dp/0262019191/ ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480320734&sr=1-1&keywords=how+things+shape+the+mind.

Marcus T. Pearce, Dahlia W. Zaidel, Oshin Vartanian, and Martin Skov, Helmut Leder, Anjan Chatterjee, and Marcos Nada. 2016. “Neuroaesthetics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Aesthetic Experience.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 11 (2): 265–79. doi:10.1177/1745691615621274.

MArvin L. Minsky. 1967. Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines. 1sted. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. http://www.cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/Minsky. pdf.

Maxwell, Rebecca. 2013. “Spatial Orientation and the Brain: The Effects of Map Reading and Navigation.”

GIS Learning, no. 8(April). https://www.gislounge. com/spatial-orientation-and-the-brain-the-effects-of-

map-reading-and-navigation/.

Medeiros Alves, Gilfranco, and Cynthia Nojimoto.

2011. “Strings Pavilion: Design Process.” Nomads.usp, no. ISSN 2175-974X: 16. http://www.nomads.usp.br/ virus/virus06/?sec=6&item=2&lang=en.

Michael Arbib. 2014. “The Challenge of Adapting Neuroscience to the Needs of Architecture.” In . Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6P8uoHOuJ4.

Mitchell, Tom M, Svetlana V Shinkareva, Andrew Carlson, Kai-Min Chang, Vicente L Malave, Robert A Mason, and Marcel Adam Just. 2008. “Meanings of Nouns Predicting Human Brain Activity Associated with the Predicting Human Brain Activity Associated with the Meanings of Nouns” 320 (print ISSN 0036-8075): 6. doi:10.1126/science.1152876.

Mozer, Michael C. n.d. “2 Lessons from an Adaptive Home.”

Mozer, Michael C. n.d. “The Neural Network House: An Environment That Adapts to Its Inhabitants.”

Negroponte, Nicholas. n.d. “From " Soft Architecture Machines"” The New Media Reader.

Nicholas Negroponte. n.d. “1969-70 - SEEK.” SEEK , no. cyberneticzoo. http://cyberneticzoo.com/robots-in-art/1969-70-seek-nicholas-negroponte-american/.

Nishimura, Shoji, Anne Nevgi, and Seppo Tella. 2016.

“Communication Style and Cultural Features in High/ Low Context Communication Cultures: A Case Study of Finland, Japan and India.” Waseda University, Japan Department of Education, University of Helsinki Department of Applied Sciences of Education, University of Helsinki. Accessed December 6. http://www.helsinki.fi/~tella/nishimuranevgitella299.pdf.

Philip Beesley. 2012. “Regenerative and Responsive Architecture [II]. HYLOZOIC SERIES: MOBILE FOREST. | METALOCUS.” Taipei’s Digital Arts Centre. http://www. metalocus.es/en/news/regenerative-and-responsive-architecture-ii-hylozoic-series-mobile-forest.

Presses Universitaires de France. 2012. PSD - Publier S’Exposer Diffuser. June 2012.

R&Sie(n) architects. 2010. “Une Architecture Des Humeurs.” http://lelaboratoire.org/images/archives/ archives-9/UneArchitecturedeshumeursDossierdepresseLeLaboratoire.pdf.

Ross, Barbara, John C Buknham, Bernard Cohen, Mary Henle, Dellh HYfcOS, CfauiottMTlUD VinlaU, Henrika KUKUCK SadofogyofScMan Univenilr, et al. 1993. “History of the Behavioral Sciences.” The Jurnal History of the Behavioral Sciences 24 (1): 9.

Sarah Robinson and Juhani Pallasmaa. 2015. Mind in Architecture: Neuroscience, Embodiment, and the Future of Design. Edited by Contributors and Sarah Robinson Thomas D. Albright, Michael Arbib, John Paul Eberhard, Melissa Farling, Vittorio Gallese, Alessandro Gattara, Mark L. Johnson, Harry Francis Mallgrave, Iain McGilchrist, Juhani Pallasmaa, Alberto Pérez-Gómez. https://www.amazon.es/Mind-Architecture-Neuroscience-Embodiment-Future/dp/0262028875.

Schroeder, M R. 1979. Music Perception in Concert Halls. 26thed. Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Music. https://www.speech.kth.se/music/publications/ kma/papers/kma26-ocr.pdf.

Shemesh, Avishag, Moshe Bar, Yasha Jacob Gro-bman, Y Ikeda, C M Herr, D Holzer, S Kaijima, et al. 2015.

“SPACE AND HUMAN PERCEPTION – Exploring Our Reaction to Different Geometries of Spaces,” 0–0. http:// papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/caadria2015_081. content.pdf.

O.Minu Agnus. 2012. “Proxemics: The Study of Space.”

Vels University. http://worldlitonline.net/proxemics-the-o.pdf.

Speigle, Jon M, and Jack M Loomis. 1993. “Auditory Distance Perception by Translating Observers.” University of California. Doi:0-8186-4910-01.

OMA. 2014. The Hermitage : Masterplan 2014.

Subklew, F. 2016. “Architecture and Perceived Control The Role of Architectural Elements in Consumers Perception of Retail Environments.” (s0095133) MSc. University of Twente. Accessed December 5. http://essay. utwente.nl/59446/2/scriptie_F_Subklew.pdf.

Otto Ng. 2012. “Otto Ng’s Robotic Wallbot Walls Automatically Move to Adapt to Your Lifestyle.” Inhabitat. http://inhabitat.com/otto-ng’s-robotic-wallbotwalls-automatically-move-to-adapt-to-your-lifestyle/.

Pallasmaa, Juhani, Harry Francis Mallgrave, and Michael Arbib. 2013. Architecture and Neuroscience a Tapio Wirkkala -Rut Bryk Design Reader with Essays by. Edited by Philip Tidwell. Tapio Wirkkala-Rut Bryk Foundation. http://www.anfarch.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/01/Helsinki-2013-Architecture-Neuroscience.pdf.

Perry, Chris. 2010. “Anticipatory Architecture | Extrapolative Design.” Pratt Institute School of Architecture, Yale School of Architecture, 305–12.

Sutherland, Ivan E. 1963. “Sketchpad.” In Proceedings of the May 21-23, 1963, Spring Joint Computer Conference on - AFIPS ’63 (Spring), 329. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1461551.1461591.

Szeliski, Richard. 2011. Computer Vision : Algorithms and Applications. Springer.

Thomas H. Budzynski, PhD, RN Helen Kogan Budzynski, PhD, PhD James R. Evans, and MD Andrew Abarbanel. 2009. Introduction to Quantitative EEG and Neurofeedback. 2nded. Academic Press/ Elsevi-

204

er. http://www.brainm.com/software/pubs/bud.pdf.

Tobias Meilinger. 2008. Strategies of Orientation in Environmental Spaces. 1sted. Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin . http://www.kyb.tue.mpg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/files/publications/attachments/strategies_of_orientation_in_environmental_spaces_4962%5B0%5D.pdf.

Tristan D’Estrée Sterk. 2003. “Building Upon Negroponte: A Hybridized Model Of Control Suitable For Responsive Architecture.” Automation in Construction 14 (2): 225–32. http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/ att/ecaade03_407_19_sterk.content.pdf.

Ullsperger, Markus, Claudia Danielmeier, and Gerhard Jocham. 2014. “Neurophysiology of Performance Monitoring and Adaptive Behavior.” Physiological Reviews 94 (1).

UNStudio. 1996. “The Dutch Pavilion for the Milano Triennale.” http://www.unstudio.com/projects/trinnale-di-milano.

Vardouli, Theodora. n.d. “‘Architecture-by-Yourself’: Early Studies in Computer-Aided Participatory Design,” no. SMArchS Design and Computation, MIT. Yershóv, A. P. 1965. “One View of Man-Machine Interaction.” Journal of the ACM 12 (3): 315–25. doi:10.1145/321281.321283.

Yuri Pattison. n.d. “Cybernetic Serendipity.” http:// cyberneticserendipity.net/.

“The Architectural Relevance of Gordon Pask.” n.d.

“Out There: Architecture Beyond Building.” 2008. http://www.labiennale.org/en/architecture/history/11. html?back=true.

“Interactive Architecture Lab | : Design for Performance and Interaction.” n.d. http://www.interactivearchitecture.org/.

Experiments in Art and Technology (E.A.T): Nine Evenings - YouTube. 1966. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=DoxuzPPstXc. CORNEA TI/ Morphing Light to Space. 2014. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PCD8scqEDA. “Face Recognition Software | History of Forensic Psychology.” n.d. http://forensicpsych.umwblogs.org/ research/criminal-justice/face-recognition-software/.

“ACHILLES AND THE TORTOISE.” n.d. http://20mhz.pagespro-orange.fr/theory/GesteEtCapture/GesteEtCapture. html.

“ORAMBRA - The Office for Robotic Architectural Media & Bureau for Responsive Architecture.” n.d. http://www.orambra.com/.

C. Badcock., Evolutionary Psychology: A Critical Introduction, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2000

R. Carter, Mapping the Mind, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1998 H. Cronin., The Ant and the Peacock, CUP, Cambridge, 1992 C. R. Darwin., On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, John Murray, London, 1859 C. R. Darwin., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, John Murray, London, 1871 R. Dawkins., The Selfish Gene (new edition), OUP, 1989 D. C. Dennett., Kinds of Minds: Towards an Understanding of Consciousness, Phoenix, London, 1997 R. A. Fisher, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1930 K. Malik, Man, Beast and Zombie, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2000 G. Miller., The Mating Mind, BCA, 2000 M. Ridley., The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, Penguin, 1993 (reissued 2000) Barrett, L.F. (2011). Bridging token identity theory and supervenience theory through psychological construction. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 115-127.

Barrett, L. F. (2011). Was Darwin wrong about emotional expressions? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 400-406.

Barrett, L. F. (2013). Psychological construction: A Darwinian approach to the science of emotion. Emotion Review, 5, 379-389.

Barrett, L. F. (2014). The conceptual act theory: A précis. Emotion Review, 6, 292-297.

Barrett, L. F. (2015). Ten common misconceptions about the psychological construction of emotion.

Chapter to appear in L. F. Barrett and J. A. Russell (Eds.), The psychological construction of emotion.

New York: Guilford.

Barrett, L. F. (2015). Construction as an integrative framework for the science of emotion. Chapter to appear in L. F. Barrett and J. A. Russell (Eds.), The psychological construction of emotion. New York: Guilford.

206

208

Touching areas around participatory design, interactive architecture and neuroscience, BraneSpace is a speculative critique,towards realizing responsive spatial behavior triggered by the human unconscious.

Technology becomes the interface rather than the body between the user and architecture, where after this negotiation becomes absent for architecture becomes the new body.

BraneSpace has been made possible by linking physiological processes and mechanized operations directly, developing particular design tools, analyzing data, concluding upon findings, and finally utilizing the findings in a demonstrator that works as a lab for space experiments.

As architecture is looked at from the lens of neuroscience, BraneSpace is an attempt to quantify experience, locate brain activity and conclude with the corresponding relation of spatial parameters celebrating a meta-data set of 32 dimensions overlapping user and spatial data.

Moving towards a scientific understanding of an ever changing experience based on a looping scheme of the experience and how it changes the brain.

Enclosed in the space-user dialectic BraneSpace acknowledges the presence and immense effect of a context, yet to be put under the lens.

210