Design Literature Review: Behaviorology

Behaviorology 13022652 | Ida Ab Razak DESIGN LITERATURE REVIEW P30026 (2013) Research Philosophy for Design

FOREWORD This essay aims to offer a critical appraisal of Architect Atelier Bow-Wow methodology of design, using an analytical framework of linking themes running through their literature. These sources, accompanied by external appraisals addresses their approach in design which they express through Writing with Behaviorology as a recurrent interest throughout publications. Atelier Bow-Wow are Yoshiharu Tsukamoto and Momoyo Kaijima, and their core activities of practice have consisted of designing small houses, conducting urban research, and participating in art exhibitions (Tsukamoto, 2010, p8).

“Writing is very substantial, is like the actual building. I think many art-oriented architects have tried to underestimatethe value of the word, because they put more effort into the originality or creativity” (Tsukamoto, Social Dialectic, 2008).

METHODOLOGY In their book titled ‘Behaviorology’ the practice adopts an unusual dynamic to writing architecture. It is expressed in a scientific and theoretical manner, where work is conducted in the environment of the laboratory system of Japanese architecture schools. In the discussion they had with Mulla and Loo in (2011), it was found that in some respect, their projects are ‘humanist’ as they study the role of humans within architecture in a way that ‘goes beyond the empirical analysis of data employed as a methodology’. Questions are posed to form hypotheses to test how Behaviorology informs the socio-architectural agenda, such as ‘has harmonious urban space disappeared? Why is there so often a misalignment of the user and creator in works of architecture? And why do architects desert users and their surroundings?’ (Tsukamoto, 2010, p8). In Behaviorology, Bow-Wow (2010, p8) challenges the term ‘function’ as his approach puts forward thinking that social values are a requirement to be an agent of space as the field lacks ‘a professional vocabulary for describing them.’ (Awan et al, 2011, p28). In John Lang’s book titled ‘Designing for Human Behaviour’ (1975), he acknowledges work that involves social relationships as well as the role of the architect is work that engages in “social engineering” (Lang, 1974, p23) which is disparate to the field of architecture today, and would relate more to social scientists.

In presenting Behaviorology in words to correctly address the static and dynamic spectrum, it is essential to construct vocabulary, subtle variations and useful ‘rhetoric’ as Rendell (2010, p29) explores the writing of Cixious (1975, p43): ‘Writing is working: being worked: questioning (in) the between (letting oneself be questioned) of same of other without which nothing lives; undoing death’s work by willing the togetherness of one-another, infinitely charged with a ceaseless exchange of one with another.

BEHAVIOROLOGY Behaviorology attempts to place architecture and urban space in a position where these three categories [behaviour of natural elements, human beings and buildings] are effectively synthesised (Tsukamoto, 2010, p.9). It is a subjective field of interpretation that focuses on the study of “functional relations between behaviour and its independent variables in the behaviour-determining environment” (Mulla and Loo, 2011). It is a unique research based study that localises each and every one of its subject to reflect the uniqueness of the individual through what is formally called ‘programmatic customisation’ (White, 2007). Their engagement in publications are as an ‘insightful research-based practice’ (Mulla and Loo, 2011) that equally contribute in quantity to the production of physical fabrications. The study of Behaviorology supports the Atelier Bow-Wow designs, whereby the embedded behaviour of human beings, natural elements and buildings are expanded thoroughly in manipulation of its contribution to the larger context of environment that could relate explicitly to architecture and the urban space.

Through narratives of Tokyo and its lifestyle, Atelier Bow-Wow embraces the mix of disciplines likening it to sushi, as Tsukamoto’s account of the ‘nigiri in Graphic Anatomy (2007, p109): ‘This might be a strange simile, but we think that the characters of these small houses are like nigiri (hand-rolled) sushi. The compact format of a nigiri allows the flavours of all kinds of fish to be compared, and differences in the taste, shape, colour, and texture of materials are converted into pleasure and richness’. This practice of interplay of divergent behaviours, Tsukamoto (2010, p12) believes would create a kind of intelligence which is the architectural language. Put into perspective, Bow-Wow’s approach to ‘shaping the social behaviour’ is an expression that J.B Bakema asserts as the architecture of ‘three-dimensional expression of human behaviour’ (Lang, 1974, p24). J. Noble had described an architect’s impact on future behaviours and how at all stages of design we make assumptions about human behaviour and the successes or failure of work may depend on our ability to predict human behaviour with reasonable accuracy. His paper intended to provide architects “with an analysis of the factors governing human reactions to the environment”, dealing inter alia with the phenomena of clique formation, neighbourliness, and social interaction.

Behaviorology is a study where architecture is localised, embodied in what Tsukamoto (2010, p12) affirms as: rhythms of lives, activities and synchronized cycles. Behaviours overlap to create a kind of synergy, a subtle intelligence which can be clearly recognised even if there are no buildings. When those embodied rhythms emit a certain suitable frequency - and correspond to a suitable material or location- they can begin to form the shape of buildings and of urban space.

Behaviours vary in scales in which they are measurable. A wind’s behaviour can be measured in seconds; whereas a conduct of a person may be observed in a day. Buildings react differently through weather, the economic climate and its surrounding context which may take hundreds of years to measure. This puts all three elements on a relative scale to another which does not occur in any other situation. Repetition of creating balanced behaviour, would build the intelligence about their behavioural needs and the capacity to build it satisfactorily. Building according to this principle would mean a proliferation of behaviour at an urban level that is visible at a larger scale. Jon Lang (1974, p57) stresses that the only moral principle common to all individual values is the morality of wholeness. Thus cumulative behavioural patterns cannot be shared or improved without a core of moral principle.

BMW Guggenheim Lab NYC

INTERPLAY: FORMS WHICH SUPPORT BEHAVIOUR The projects that they work on may be observed as schizophrenic as their works have been often realised individually and published through various outlets, the relationships between them may appear unclear from an outside perspective.

Their unique approach of giving buildings an emotional capacity and that they can express happiness and exude comfort in a non-domestic setting. Whilst humans interact as social beings and can be grouped to have a common behaviour, each person has their own characteristics, and this is said by Tsukamoto in a conference in Barcelona that architecture is not effective in dealing with detailed individualities. Rather architecture takes on shared sensibilities and shared level of behaviour between individuals. The method put forward by the architect strives to connect architecture with biology, sociology and anthropology as a common thread in their evaluation of modernity’s central axiom.

Such a discussion on the behaviour of human beings, natural elements and groups of buildings does not objectify the individual building itself, rather, the form of the building is ‘situated to share and create an ecological relationship with the diverse behaviours of different elements. In order to make architecture intervene in the topic of behaviour, form must be reconsidered as a complement to behaviours already in effect’ (Mulla and Loo, 2011). In an interview with Sarosh Mulla in 2011, Atelier Bow-Wow expressed how their practice is based on discussion and on the idea that what is around us is worth interrogating. It also assumes that architecture can be both a lens for viewing the society in which we live, as well as a ‘mechanism for changing that society.

A dimension adopted by Atelier Bow-Wow as a practice is one of interdisciplinarity. This unique way of working is where individuals move between and across disciplines and in so doing question the ways in which they work. This incorporates collaboration in which ‘the emphasis is less on disciplinary distinctions and more on how individuals work together towards end points decided through mutual consent’ (Rendell, 2006, p11). Fujimori (2010, p128) also stated that “In short, their work is not an architecture of spaces, but an architecture of relationships”. Expressive of theories, it is akin to the practice that they mould them into physical manifestation, ‘however, the balance from person to person even within a culture of a language do not depend on subjective estimates of what ought to be, or personally stated goals. The ultimate test if any pattern, or any language, is its reality’ (Lang, 1974, p57).

Furnicycle was presented in Shanghai Biennale 2002 with the theme of ‘how mutating urban development influences art and architecture’ (Bow-Wow, 2006, p181)’. Their design based on observation, creating a micro public space in a large city, and is done through observation of customizing bicycles and furniture in public spaces (White, 2007). Bow-Wow (2006, 181) found that what made the dynamic impression of the city were people making living spaces anywhere by putting furniture on the street and customized bicycles for luggage running all around the city.

The furnicycle’s fundamental method is from observation. This method, from Wajiro kon’s ‘Kogengaku Nyumon’ (Introduction to Cultural Studies) is described that ‘we gained a love of observing the city before us, and an understanding where even the most subtle things start to hold meaning, sketch by sketch’ (Kaijima et al, 2006, p11). From Terunobu Fujimori et al’s, ‘Institute of Street Observation’ we discovered the joy of actually walking in the street and finding fragments – allowing the swelling of imaginations and the speaking of small urban histories’ (Kaijima et al, 2006, p11). The idea was to create a new phenomenon by changing the way of dealing with these city fluxes. ‘“Chaircycle,” “Bed-cycle,” “Table-cycle” can run separately and join to make a living set on the street too. When we took furnicycle to have tea at a street corner [..] and a micro-public space emerged’ (Bow-Wow, 2006, p181).

The project successfully compresses the idea of Behaviorology in the furnicycle, by engaging the city flux and the observation of activities showing that a social space is a dynamic space; its production continues over time and is not fixed to a single moment of completion. It is important that the ‘ecological’ aspect must be present rather than the functional. ‘It is akin to investigating an animal in its natural habitat, as well as its relationship to other animals in a larger network’ (Tsukamoto, 2010, p8).

Furnicycle

The BMW Guggenheim Lab (BGL) was launched in New York City in August 2011 with the theme of ‘Confronting Comfort’. In the interview with Leer (2011, p114) the hypothesis tested was: ‘In most cases we refer to comfort as a domestic issue or a private issue. But what does it mean if we look at comfort in the setting of the city? Maria Nicanor (2011) described that Bow-Wow designed a temporary structure that has no walls, no floor and that temporarily frames urban space. The space was meant to be a cross-over between a community centre, a think tank and an event space.

The open plan arrangement, ‘was able to adapt to the many functions that the programme of events demanded’ (Sammicheli, 2011, 112-123). The premise that Richard Armstrong of BMW Guggenheim Lab is; “The road here is seen as a pop symbol and as a democratic resource to revamp the museum as a hybrid entity; the road idea is useful for reviewing citizen’s priorities in terms of public and private services in relation to a particular body in a certain context.”

This premise can be questioned as one of the behaviours of the building can be ‘stabilized after many years’ (Tsukamoto, 2010, p11). This would mean that it would take longer to prove the success of the design intent as it is a temporary building that is for 6 years and the outcome could only be measured through the micro interactions created.

The approach in creating this public space incorporate the themes of ‘ownership’, ‘feeling of space’ and ‘public interaction’ within ‘something that is between a building and a public space‘ (Leer, 2011, p114). These themes are very much of the fabric of Atelier Bow-Wow, but the many proposed themes by the curator, the city, and BMW may have diluted its contribution to fill the void with Behaviorology. Bow-Wow may have taken on a priority to ‘stubborn honesty in response to their surroundings and programmatic requirements, without insisting on architectural aesthetic and form’ (Kaijima et al, 2006, p9) as the building skips reiteration at that void. Following the aspect of created by social relationships that Jon Lang and Atelier Bow-Wow have discussed, it seems that the BMW Guggenheim seeks to establish the notion that the physical settings architects design influences social behaviour and is made into ‘general currency among practitioners’ (Lang, 1974, p24) instead of creating a space ‘where certain attributes of a building repeat and accumulate, a streetscape order is produced’ (Tsukamoto, 2010, p11). Thus the BMW Guggenheim can be treated as a potentially important influence on the quality of collective space. Following this, a form that properly supports a building’s behaviour overlaps with its existing conditions, and it becomes possible for that building to repeat and accumulate.

Atelier Bow-Wow House & Studio

Atelier Bow-Wow House and Studio is a combined house and office on a ‘flag-pole’ shaped site due to subdivision of land because of the high inheritance tax, persuading people to sell off their land. Asakasa, Tokyo. Inherent of its dual-use, the house comprises of varying stairs, lower 2 floors for atelier and upper 2 house for the house. The house uses its adherence to regulations (Bow-Wow, 2006, p277) to create unique slopes and embraces the brief with much creativity. Tokyo is known for ‘Separation between formal, public life and private life, where pretty much of anything goes. By blurring these boundaries in the Studio Atelier Bow-Wow seems to throwing out another important convention’ (Richardson, 2006, p57). The homogeneous space of home and studio ‘as a hot space where there are no boundaries between working and living’ (Richardson, 2006, p57) can be interpreted as a compromise to many behaviours that will take place in the building.

In spatial agency, behaviours are seen as a dynamic element of the house and ‘this dynamic inevitably shifts the focus of spatial attention away from the static objects of display that constitute the foreground of so much architectural production, and moves it onto the continuous cycle of spatial production, and to all the people that and processes that go into it. The dynamic, and hence temporal, nature of space means that spatial production must be understood as part of an evolving sequence, with no fixed start or finish, and that multiple actors contribute at various stages’ (Awan et al, 2011, p29).

Small details were added to bridge the void that Richardson pointed out was present between typologies of space by providing peepholes to look out (while much of Tokyo architecture excludes its neighbours) and also the use next door’s rendered façade, just inches away, as ‘wallpaper’. A building’s behaviour thus cannot be adequately distinguished through its solitary observation, but rather is clarified through the comparison of traits within a larger pool of its peers, siblings, or neighbours. ‘Such behaviour does not tell of the single individual, clearly expressed and distinct from other beings. Nor does it tell of the mass, where aspects of difference are all but erased. It is between these two, at a scale never completely reducible to that of a single unit, where certain customs and habits can be shared’ (Tsukamoto, 2010, p15).

CONCLUSION: POSSIBILITIES FOR BEHAVIOROLOGY This essay concludes with the continuing possibilities of using Behaviorology as a hypothesis in creating liveable, viable, and enjoyable spaces. The advantage of this approach is it draws a line through history, creating a theme that instead of addressing the core, addresses the void when striving for design and an embedded behaviour in which ‘can be applied not only to the human beings, but also to natural elements and to buildings. It is a means to organically integrate the built environment across disparate scales’ (Tsukamoto, 2010, p15). It is a theme that applies to all, yet it localises to address individual situations and balance the ‘ecosystem of behaviour’. ‘If architecture is favourably positioned to negotiate behaviours of different types, then architectural Behaviorology can be seen as the art of synthesizing their disparate rhythms within any single building entity’ (Tsukamoto, 2010, p15).

Zeisel (2005, p191) emphasises his observation of designers and environment-behaviour researchers systematically make the same types of observations with different ends in mind. This occurs in Behaviorology where the synthesising for behaviour overall, will persuade micro-climates of individuals.

Although Tsukamoto preaches individuality through the idea of a timescale whereby moments in history give an exclusive timestamp to each design and ‘reveals the uniqueness of the rhythms embedded in the objects that surround our daily life’ (Tsukamoto, 2010, p15), others may argue that a timeless design is what is generally sought for. There are also designs which would like to be ‘forgotten’ and less reminiscent of the past. Tsukamoto (2010, p10) in both instances asserts that behaviorology attempts to understand this through buildings’ typological tendencies, their patterns and influences, and their transformations over time. The vital connection between time and space, eradicated during the twentieth century’s orientation to the logic of production, is thus revitalized as a critical pursuit once again.’

An imaginative design process is formed when every situation is addressed in its organic context and is able to perceive it as social beings capable of subjectivity. Behaviorology responds to the ecological side of architecture in a repetitive manner, and its capacity to be able to develop intelligence with growing accuracy and complexity, is a common goal society would aim to achieve, especially in Tokyo’s dense urban fabric. Behaviorology, although values many elements, still can always relate to architecture. Tsukamoto (2010, p11) writes: ‘Within this, architecture becomes the central node, capably synthesizing and facilitating these disparate behaviours.

Architecture makes it possible for daily spatial practice to be properly situated in a much broader context. That which is usually considered solely the realm of social relationships is expanded to include nature and the whole of the cosmos, resulting in liberation of the human imagination.’

On previous examination, Behaviorology puts forward a type of intelligence that is composed of an overlapping of different rhythms. This intelligence empowers people with ‘analytical ability’ and ‘transformability’ of their realm.

Do people see architecture as a means of synchronised rhythms of liveability embedded in different behaviours?

For many the idea is still very far-reaching and it is still not quite as straight forward. For Atelier Bow-Wow, their monograph is a stepping stone, a manifestation of a process open for discussion and further growth and an opportunity to play out its hypotheses through the very way that we live for interpretations. ‘Interpretation is, we would argue, a kind of performance of the object … Interpretation, like the production of works of art, is a mode of communication. Meaning is a process of engagement and never dwells in any one place. (Irigaray, 1982, p47)’ (Rendell, 2010, p5).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Tsukamoto, Yoshiharu, 1965-; Kaijima, Momoyo, 1969-; Atorie Wan (2010). Behaviorology: Atelier Bow-Wow. New York: Rizzoli. -.

Kaijima, Momoyo, 1969-; Kuroda, Junzo, 1968-; Tsukamoto, Yoshiharu, 1965- (2006). Made in Tokyo. Tokyo: Kajima Institute. -.

Tsukamoto, Yoshiharu, 1965-; Kaijima, Momoyo, 1969- (2007). (2006). Bow Wow From Post Bubble City. Tokyo: INAX. -.

Tsukamoto, Yoshiharu, 1965-; Kaijima, Momoyo, 1969- (2009). Atelier Bow-Wow : Echo of Space / Space of Echo . Tokyo: INAX. -.

Tsukamoto, Yoshiharu, 1965-; Kaijima, Momoyo, 1969- (2007). Graphic Anatomy. Tokyo: TOTO Shuppan. -.

Lang, Jon (1974). Designing for Human Behavior: Architecture and the Behavioral Sciences. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. -.

Rendell, Jane, 1967- (2010). Site-Writing: The Architecture of Art Criticism. London: I.B. Tauris. -.

Rendell, Jane, 1967- (2006). Art and architecture: a place between. London: I. B. Tauris. -.

Awan, Nishat; Till, Jeremy; Schneider, Tatjana (2011). Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. Abingdon: Routledge. -.

Zeisel, John (2005). Inquiry by Design: Environment/Behavior/Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors, Landscape, and Planning.

London: W.W. Norton. 191-226.

Web Pages Mulla, Sarosh; Loo, Patrick. (2011). Interview with Momoyo Kaijima of Atelier Bow-Wow. Available: http://www.saroshmulla.com/2011/an-interview-with-momoyo-kaijima/ & http://www.saroshmulla.com/assets/17LooMulla_INT11_web.pdf. Last accessed 29th Oct 2013.

White, Mason. (2007). Atelier Bow-Wow: Tokyo Anatomy. Available: http://archinect.com/features/article/56468/atelier-bow-wowtokyo-anatomy. Last accessed 19 October 2013.

Solorzano, Israel. (2013). Social Dialectic. Available: http://www.arquine.com/blog/dialectica-social/. Last accessed 28th October 2013.

Hernandez, Pedro. (2013). Become (to) Place. Available: http://www.arquine.com/blog/hacerse-al-lugar/. Last accessed 29th October 2013.

Institute of Architecture, Barcelona. (2010). BIArch Open Lectures: Yoshiharu Tsukamoto, "Architectural Behaviorology". Available: http://vimeo.com/9489648. Last accessed 3rd November 2013.

Journal Articles McGuirk, Justin . (2005). We Are Going to Rock You. Icon . 022 (-), p88-96.

-. (2003). Pet Houses: A Project of Research and Inventory Taking of Small-Scale Constructions on Minimal Plot in Tokyo; Architects: Atelier Bow Wow. Quaderns. 238 (-), p138-142.

Richardson, Vicky. (2006). Bow Wow Factor. Blueprint. 238 (January), 56-61.

Marco, Samicelli. (2011). A Hybrid Road: BMW Guggenheim Lab is a cross between a think tank, a permanent forum and a commu nity meeting place. Abitare. 517 (November), 112-.

Leer, David can der. (2011). BMW Guggenheim Lab in New York: interview out into the streets. A & U. 493 (10), 114-117.

Yoshiharu, Tsukamoto. (2013). Making Public Space with local materials and talents - BMW Guggenheim Lab, Mumbai, India, 2012: Atelier Bow-Wow. Japan Architect. 89 (-), 96-101.

Electronic Journal Articles Gregory, Bob. (2006). Snakes and Ladders. Architectural Review. 220 (Issue 1314), Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals [Online]. Available at: http://web.ebscohost.com (Accessed at 29th October 2013) Zasutaka, Yoshimura. (2013). Social Sustenance. Domus [Online]. 969. Available: http://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2013/06/24/social_sustenance.html. Last accessed 29th October 2013.

Images Cover - http://blog.biarch.eu/events/reviews/biarch-journal-architectural-behaviorology/ Image 2 – http://www.azuremagazine.com/article/bmw-guggenheim-lab-opens-in-new-york/ Image 3 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/packinglight/sets/72157622374408532/detail/?page=2 Image 4 - http://www.designboom.com/architecture/atelier-bow-wow-at-venice-architecture- biennale2010/