nothing/something by Stefania-Maria Kousoula

NO SOME

THING

INTRODUCTION TO ARCHITECTURAL RESEARCH - LECTURE

KOUSOULA STEFANIA-MARIA PANAGIOTOPOULOU MARIA DEMOCRITUS UNIVERSITY OF THRACE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING JUNE 2019

DEMOCRITUS UNIVERSITY OF THRACE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING

NOTHING/SOMETHING Introduction to architectural research - Lecture team: Kousoula Stefania-Maria Panagiotopoulou Maria Supervisor: Polyxeni Mantzou Academic Year: 2018-2019 June 2019

abstract method introduction

11 12 18

1st section: the thing and the object 1.1 the hybrid 23 1.2 the thing

1.2 the object

2nd section: perception 2.1 about perception 37 2.2 perception of things

2.2 perception of objects

2.3 perception today

contents

3rd section: the design 3.1 industrial era 59

the functional object form as a functional value system of needs – system of objects model and series the out-of-the-system

3.2 digital era

system of desire

4th section: new types of design 4.1 new directions 81 corelation with the environment 83

experience atmosphere

4.2 responsive design

responsive environments agents of responsive environments

emphasis at the user

4.3 behavioral design

101

affordances emotions customization

behavioral objects behavior

4.4 interaction, function and form automatism anthropomorphism the role of the form the role of the movement what is next?

instead of epilogue

123

notes 124 bibliography/references 134 aknowledgements 141

109

abstract The starting point of this thesis were the concepts of “thing”, “object” and the dipole “subject-object”. A journey back in time, to the pre-industrial and industrial times, has been the motive for studying the way human perceptions change and how this transformation affects the design of objects and spaces. Nowadays, design is called upon to take on a new role and face new challenges as both our relation with technology and perception changes. The question is: what are we actually designing today?

method The present work is a study on how we perceive and design the world over the years, and how this is being expressed today. The way we are called upon to design places and objects today is changing as the digital age comes along with major changes in the way we perceive the world, the things and the objects around us. To get to today, we started with the concepts of thing and object and how today's digital objects are hybrids containing both concepts. Thus, the first section deals with hybrids and their primary constituents, the thing and the object. The concepts of the thing and the object are listed in parallel. After all, the components of hybrids are not always clearly identifiable.

The difference between the thing and the object lies in the way we perceive them, which also determines the way we perceive hybrids as well as the world of today. Traveling back in time, we reach the pre-industrial and industrial times and the way people perceived things and objects back then. The parallel presentation of these elements in the second section once again allows us to see the differences of the two eras without the linear historical continuity. As our perception changes and is transformed through the time, so does the way we design. In the third section we will see that from the industrial age to the present, architectural design is in constant change and transformation while it also alters purpose and changes direction.

New design modes are being created today emphasizing on elements such as connection to the environment, user interaction and behavior, rather than structure or form. Thus, the fourth section will explain the parameters for the new spatial expressions of design that will shape our experience and change our perception once again in the coming years.

"A wise architect works with his/her whole body and sense of self. While working on a building or object, the architect is simultaneously involved in a reverse perspective, that of his personal image, or more precisely of his existential experience» Juhani Palasmaa 15

introduction

introduction The purpose of architecture, in the words of Maurice Marleau-Ponty, is to "make visible the way the world is touching us". Architecture over the years has often been associated several times with metaphysical and existential questions about human presence in the world. It seeks clear thinking, which is directly linked to our perception, our senses and the body.

introduction

Architectural design starts with the idea, the mind and the perception. It evolves over time, is influenced and adjusted to the data of each period we go through. The way I perceive the world outside of me, the things and objects I come across daily, sets the foundations and codifies the way I plan.

Architecture creates and organizes relationships, connects us to space and objects; has always been a powerful mediator of the world with ourselves. Buildings are not just residential structures that protect our privacy, protect us from the elements of nature and provide us with space for our activities. They are mediating objects that open up a world and allow us to enter into a dialogue with the environment in order to define and structure our relationship with others, with nature, with the sphere of the future and with ourselves. They encompass the totality of our being. Things, objects and spaces are inextricably linked, as their existence in space, their arrangement, and function determine our personal experiences, behaviors, and level

of involvement each time. We will rarely wonder the way or ways we perceive things and objects, what processes we associate with them, what relationships are created and what systems of human behavior are followed. And even more so, how they influence the way we design. The question is: “What and how are we designing today?” If everything starts from perception, how do we perceive the environment, the things, and the objects? Do we give importance to the surrounding environment and to things around us? And, at the end how is design related to them?

1st section things and objects

1st section THINGS AND OBJECTS

1.1 the hybrid Since the mid-20th century, our daily lives have changed with the advent of digital technologies and networks and their rapid further development. The era we live in is labeled as the Information Age or the Digital Age which signifies the transition from analogue/mechanical to digital technology. McLuhan calls it the metalphabetic era. The subject is no longer a reference point as we experience the world in a state of immersion. Τhe authorities are being overthrown, the dipoles have been abolished and control is no longer in our hands. The changes and mergers that take place are silent and often we do not even recognize them. Our world is characterized by hybridization, fluidity, convergence and diffusion. We are talking about the Digital Revolution, the same way we talked about the Agricultural and Industrial revolution that brought about major changes in the way our world works. The use of new technologies is changing the ways of communication and how people perceive the world. The digital revolution also influences architecture, however it is the first self-dominated Western History revolution that is not based on any theory or philosophy. Historically, during the 19th century it is observed that architects reject the new technologies brought by the industrial revolution, while at the beginning of the 20th century the modernist movement adopted as a philosophy the evolution of architecture by adapting it to the mechanization that

1st section THINGS AND OBJECTS

changed the world. The architects of that time created new forms adapted to the new tools of mass production, while the urban planners conceived new urban structures that would integrate the new means of mass transport. However, science is the core philosophy of today and as a result architectural design is trying to integrate new technologies more and more into the objects and media they use.

In 1950, in Greece, the only means of telecommunication we could find in a house was the radio and only 1% of the population owned a telephone while in 1966 it was the first time that television began to broadcast on a national network. With the advent of the Internet (1992) as well as the advent of wireless networks and laptops, the world, and in particular the dwelling space, is changing steadily and exponentially. In addition to the recreational and social dimension, the Internet also offers the dimension of work from home. After the appearance of social media, such as Facebook (2004) and Twitter (2006), the private space is beginning to break down and the public sphere is spreading to every corner of our visible space¹. The workplace is not limited in time or space, often not even to the place of residence; we are experiencing a new nomadism. This is also evident in the way we experience space. We move from the Euclidean perception, in which you know in numerical terms where is what and how far away you are from it, to the topological perception, which is the way young children perceive their environment and

requires the sense of touch to understand where everything is. Even on social media when I am online, I am broadcasting "something", I am there; otherwise "I exist nowhere". The boundaries become blurry; we live permanently connected in cyberspace. The digital condition places the subject, the objects and the things in a new context and forms a new state that interconnects and affects all parts of it². The objects and the things we use obtain new properties. They acquire a different meaning for us as we begin to perceive them differently and develop new relationships with them. They reconnect with their surroundings (e.g., connecting a mobile phone to a computer) and with us, something that the industrial revolution had deprived them of, they are content-determined, they have a very personal identity and are free. Thus, they become hybrids of things and objects. But in order to define a hybrid we should first define its key parts: the thing and the object. 25

1.2 the thing

1st section THINGS AND OBJECTS

Before explaining what the thing is, let's consider the world before the Industrial Age. Society was organized into small settlements and the first cities began to be created, which still remain small-scale settlements based on simple commodity economy, such as agricultural economy and crafts. At the same time, the rigid social structure that existed traces its roots to the tradition of medieval feudalism³. The family follows the patriarchal model and we have at least three generations living together under the same roof.

McLuhan characterizes this era as pre-alphabetical. Man is in a world he cannot control. The pre-alphabetic person integrates space and time as one and lives in a horizontal, unlimited, acoustic and olfactory space. The way they draw and visualize is like x-rays; they visualize what they know and not just what they see. A drawing of a hunting scene on the ice will depict not only what is above the ice but also below it. Prior to the industrial age, the home, beyond residential space, served additional purposes such as a workshop, shop or office. Spaces are not organized into functions and uses. Design at that time is dynamic, based on the personal experiences, needs and possibilities of the environment. The spaces and the elements that make up the spaces are made of natural materials such as wood, stone, etc. Due to manual production and materials, there is a direct connection between them, as well as with their creator,

1.2 the object «After mass production things come out in series, modelsThis gives and takes life away from things» (The System of Οbjects, Jean Baudrillard)

The Industrial Age, defined by the Industrial Revolution of 1760-1860, greatly influenced our world and the way we perceive it. The shift in the economy as well as the tendency for urbanization is changing the way society and -even more the family- are structured. This is the time when the model of the modern nuclear family begins to emerge, bringing together at most two generations in each home. We are, according to McLuhan, in the alphabetical age, which begins with the invention of typography and is determined by mediation. In his quest to understand the world, the alphabetical man classifies everything into categories. This is also understood by the Renaissance way of thinking that was developing at that time, which places the “ego” as the center of the world with everything referring to it. Humans want to fight the unpredictable and to gain complete control of the environment. Achieving this ultimate control requires order and organization. This tendency for control, order and normalization that appears in the Industrial Age, is clearly reflected in our perception and relationship to things. We are led to the standardization, the categorization and ultimately to the automation of objects. We now have industrial objects facing us, which lose their handmade quality and uniqueness and are removed from their surroundings. A typical example is

1.2 the thing

1st section THINGS AND OBJECTS

such as a clay vessel betraying the human presence through the fingerprints of its manufacturer. The furnishings of any rich or poor home, no matter how simple or stylized they were, they had harmony and cohesion with one another. So we're talking about an object's connection to its creator, materials, space, and even to the end user of the product. We're talking about things. Man, environment and things coexisted, they were in harmony.

But how can we define the thing? The word is used every day to denote something that is certain and is intellectual but not clear. It hides an ambiguity within it. It involves the concept of being and presence⁴. We would characterize a house, a table, or a plant as things. But how about the number 5? The bathroom? In the end, it is more likely that someone would say that it is something we own, need or use. Etymology of words is a powerful way to think of the essential content contained in these words as a hint. In the Greek language, the word "thing" comes from the word "done" or "act", that is, something that is done, an action. In English the word thing is derived from the word “thingam” referring to boards and assemblies, in judgment processes. The root of the Latin words “chose” and “cosa” comes from the Latin word “causa”, which is the case, the course of ruling, the matter of discussion, while the Latin word “res” comes from the Greek word “είρω” (pronounced iro) which means “to say”. We observe that the word thing

1.2 the object the shoes, which before the industrial age had no specific numbers, manufactured by the shoemaker and unique to each user, while in the industrial age the numbers were refined, standardized and the production passed to the factory. Thus, the personification of handmade objects is lost and we distance ourselves from them. They now stand in front of us, we perceive and dominate them, we take on the role of the subject. Thus, we begin to perceive the things around us as objects. Etymologically, the word “object” signifies "I am against", that is, “I am standing opposite”. An object cannot obtain a status without a reference subject. As Michael Serres notes, "The subject gives birth to the object"10. The existence of the object is entirely dependent on the subject. Objects are those that are in our perception and ontology, we distinguish them by names, qualities and species. There are so many ways to categorize objects as they are objects11. Color, degree of functionality, form, lifespan, the time of day it appears (and how much we realize it), material and more. 29

1.2 the thing in different languages implies human presence as activator and performer⁵.

1st section THINGS AND OBJECTS

Plato and Aristotle argued that the thing is the carrier of many real and variable properties. Emmanuel Kant defined “thing” as everything that really exists outside of us, independently of human consciousness. However, it distinguishes two categories: the thing about us or the phenomenon, to which our knowledge and our subjective ideas refer, and the thing itself or the noumenon, which is cognitively inaccessible6.

According to Heidegger, things-in-themselves(noumena) are transformed into things-in-us (phenomena) by their handmade quality, their usability and ability for being processed by us. They are the ones that appear without any interpretation, enable us to use them, and are defined by their reference and relevance to something else. They exist only as "internal" beings within us, in a web of references and relevance, until they are lost and their objectivity is revealed⁷. Ultimately, Heidegger defines three categories for what a thing is8: (1) something that you can hold or touch, (2) anything that can be named and includes plans, actions, decisions, thoughts or dedication, and (3) whatever is something and not nothing, e.g. a God. So things are in proportion to humans, they develop

1.2 the thing

1st section THINGS AND OBJECTS

relationships with each other and can exist without the subject. They are either under the objective substance of the objects and we do not observe them, or above the objective substance and they transcend the mere physical substance and become idols or totems. The attempt to categorize things into species ignores their relation to the environment. They always exist within a relational nature and remain always connected to their environment⁹.

2nd section perception

2nd section PERCEPTION

2.1 about perception An important point in the study of the thing and the object is the way in which we perceive them. But to get there we need to see how we perceive the world around us. Going back to the time of Ancient Greece, we learn that Plato had no confidence at all in the data of the senses; instead he believed that behind our senses and the Matter, there is another reality, the so-called "World of Ideas". For Plato, we perceive through the senses but interpret according to the Ideas. This is where there are all the molds, the causes, the patterns of all things and phenomena. Everything is made based on a timeless form that remains constant despite the changes of time. The primary elements of nature consist of these forms, which resemble intellectually a particular number of abstract shapes that form natural phenomena. Behind the man there is the 'idea-man', behind the horse the 'idea-horse', and so on.¹ On the other hand, Aristotle believed that the "World of Ideas" is a construct of human logic, created through experience. Behind the horse there is a large number of horses we have seen in nature and have compared, resulting in features that are common to all, despite their differences. These features constitute the "idea" or "form" for Aristotle, which are not found in any other world but are found within everything². Rational philosophers like Plato do not trust the senses because they sometimes mislead. Only reason is what

can provide knowledge, with mathematics being a typical example of true knowledge. Our self is real and discernible through direct intellectual intuition. The concepts that emerge from this formulation are based on objective models that are outside of ourselves, God or ideas³.

2nd section PERCEPTION

*as it is also illustrated by Descartes in his well-known saying: "I think, therefore I am"

On the other hand, empiricist philosophers like Aristotle, believe that the senses are the primary, if not the only source of knowledge in the world. For them, mathematics negotiates the relationships of ideas and does not provide true knowledge of the world. Phenomena are found in the world of observable things, which can be described by science, known to the senses and determined by natural laws. No god, no freedom, no soul, no value exists in this world. If all of these exist, then they are noumena and unrecognizable through conventional means⁴. In his attempt to bridge rationality with empiricism, Kant argues that the broader perceptual capacity of the mind rests on the function of the senses and speech. Experience is needed to gain knowledge of reality. Experience offers the material that will be processed and utilized by speech. The mind receives the material, processes it, and shapes it using the elements and capabilities it has beforehand, that is, places it in space and time. Then, to explain it, it is necessary to sort it into categories. Kant defines 12 categories of clear, abstract a priori concepts, necessary prerequisites for our empirical knowledge. They function as 'slots' that incorporate the images we receive, and thanks to them we are able to classify the diverse and

messy content of our experience⁵. He concludes that the credibility of all we see is due to our knowledge mechanism. As Heidegger argued: "We are individually subjects, and as such there is always the risk of exchanging unrealistic and non-objective images"6. Let us also remember the legend of Plato's cave in "Politeia": People sit in a dark cave observing the shadows that fall on its walls and believe that what they see is reality. When one of them goes out of the cave in daylight, he is initially blinded by the sun, the source of light, but then he sees the real world. When this man returns to the cave and tries to explain the truth to the other inhabitants, they not only laugh at him but kill him. Cornelius Castoriadis notes that the reality and materiality we perceive are both in opposition to our inner subjectivity and they are social constructs. Many of the modern definitions of perception conclude that it is a cultural construct⁷. In short, it is not only based on physiology and the senses as a natural reflex but is determined by the mediation of our social environment and our personal history. Cognitive processes such as memory, associations, learning, and personal cultural events can alter what our sensory organs feel. Thus, how we perceive and evaluate our environment varies according to our age, gender, education, socioeconomic status, and the society we are in. Paul Rodaway notes that perception is the subject of investigation not only by

psychology but also by socio-historical theories that study the emergence of specific styles or priorities in human perception.

2nd section PERCEPTION

Finally, Maurice Merleau-Ponty asks the question: how do we, as individual subjects, separate ourselves from the world, and why do we not perceive ourselves as things?

2.2 perception of things

2nd section THE PERCEPTION

«the mind does not see things but images of things that mean other things» Guy Debord

In the article "Thing Theory" Bill Brown notes that the history of mankind begins with the things and the senses we perceive, as a modernist poem begins on a road with the smell of "fried oil, a handful of tobacco, and unwashed beer glasses." He agrees with Foucault who argues that the modern conception of human history is first created in the realm of material and things, and then passes into the realm of humans⁸. In Plato's "Theaetetus" (5th century B.C.) we learn a story of Thalis, who fell into a well while staring at the sky observing the stars. A maid then told him, "When you want to know all about the universe, you do not see what is in front of your nose."

*Heidegger uses this word to express the condition of something being a thing

We get used to seeing and observing the things around us; the chalk is white, the wood is hard, the door is closed. But that does not lead us to the goal, to the closeness of things as Heidegger calls it. We want to see what characterizes each and every thing as a whole, what makes a thing as a thing and an object as such, not what makes it chalk or wood. Understand their thingness* and the thing-in-itself, according to Kant's separation. "We interpret interpretations rather than things," writes Foucault in his book “Les mots et les choses”⁹. Things

2.2 perception of objects We look through objects and connect them with history, society, nature, culture and of course with us. We can identify codes by which our interpretive perception gives them meaning and substance, in a way we can use them as facts. To perceive something as an object requires representative thinking, its function as a tool, and finally its portrayal as an everyday technological object. Georg Simmel argued that the objects acquire value for us as subjects through our desires rather than the work for producing them, while Walter Benjamin emphasized that this can be proven when the objects go "out of fashion". According to Baudrillard (1996), there are four ways in which an object acquires value for us: (1) Functionally: it derives value from its purpose and use; (2) Economically: by its price and costing; (3) Symbolically: we value something based on its relationship with the subject; and (4) Semantically: when it attributes any of the above to the user13. We observe that all the ways he proposes refer to the subject. We therefore conclude that the substance and value acquired by an object are directly related to the desires and needs of the subject. An object can be perceptibly transformed into a thing when it can no longer perform its common function. When an item breaks or malfunctions, it is personalized. Bill Brown writes, "We face the thingness of objects when they stop working for us.” When the drill breaks, when the car stops, when the windows get dirty, it is the moment when their socially coded value is revealed and we are introduced to

2.2 perception of things remain unknown to us, Kant points out. We can't get to know them but we can think of them. That's because we can think of something that is reasonably possible, that is, something that is not contradictory to us. As long as the assumption of the thing itself is reasonably possible, we can talk about it.

2nd section PERCEPTION

Perceiving something as thing requires discrimination, separation, formatting, and ultimately an attribution of conceptual characteristics to it. "Things are what we come across, ideas are what we project," writes Leo Stein, trying to explain how things go beyond our phenomenological attention and claim their presence in our world10.

According to Heidegger, in order to get to the essence of things we must consider the relationship between human and space. The source of the meaning of things is already in the world we act on and acts upon us. This meaning is revealed to us through the actions and possibilities that the world offers us. Kant, and later Heidegger, used this to analyze the problems of our relationship with the world as perceiving subjects. The 'thing' refers to the world, the non-human and the non-subjective, and is associated with concepts such as materiality and objecthood. However, the word 'thing' conceals a much greater ambiguity than these two terms, it does not commit to any explanation to the world outside it, nor does it imply any observing subject11. Because of the ambiguity of the word, it carries the meaning of the

2.2 perception of objects new forms through the cessation of habit. For example, when the hammer breaks, it becomes objectively present, we perceive it as something outside our world. At this point we come into contact with its immediate existence as a thing, with its thingness. In other words, when their flow in the path of production, distribution, consumption, and exposure is stopped or captured by us, even momentarily. Baudrillard defines this situation as the "revolution" of the object. If a jug cracks we feel sad, but if crushed we feel satisfied. Our reaction to the failure of objects is always ambiguous. This failure 'threatens' our well-being, but it does give a meaningful expression to the objections we constantly raise in relation to ourselves—an object that also requires satisfaction. As Ernest Dichter points out, we expect a lighter to work, however we don't expect it to work under all circumstances. A world without errors would imply the acceptance of an inevitable fate for ourselves14. In 1980, Baudrillard argued that we were always experiencing the subject's superiority and the paucity of the object. The subject creates the story and completes the world while the object is in its dominion, indecent and passive. It is perceived only as an alienated and damaged part of the subject. In other words, modernity was the historical scene of the emergence of the subject *, while postmodernity was the scene of the supremacy of the object. In 1999, the stream of Object-Oriented-Philosophy was

* Descartes, in the "Discourse on Method" argues that the essence is lying in the Ego, which is the adjudicator and judge of the Being. During the Renaissance, the Ego undertakes the affirmation of Truth.

2.2 perception of things mediator, the world without codes, something that is far from the observing subject and the representations he creates when he observes it.

2nd section PERCEPTION

Still, the ability of the thing to refer to material, to the physical, but without reference to the subject, produces a whole new language of things as media. Many theorists, especially in the field of social sciences, are looking for realities that go beyond the human element, starting with the concept of the thing. So, the “thing” works as a means of understanding the world.

One of the key ideas born out of studying the concept of things is the view that things have “agency” (or energy) . We could say that just as the media have energy and message, so do things as media have in turn. McLuhan argues that the media are the extension of man, the extension of our wills and our subjectivities. Thus, these metaphysical questions about how observable entities are connected to the world, and ultimately to the meaning of things, have a profound effect even on the study of the media. The thingness has become well known in recent years probably due to the interest in media and mediation. Overall, we can observe that in recent years several "antihumanist" theories about thingness have emerged that study the importance of things in understanding the world, freed from human subjectivity. The basis of these theories is, according to Bill Brown, embedded in the difference between the thing and the object12.

2.2 perception of objects founded. Based on Heidegger's ideas, Graham Harman creates this new theory that rejects the privilege of human existence over non-human objects. In 2009, based on Harman's theory, Levi Bryant modified the term Object Oriented Philosophy into "Object Oriented Ontology" or OOO, thus giving the theoretical movement its current name. The OOO is directed against the anthropocentrism of Kant's Copernican Revolution, as it is called by many metaphysicists in which phenomena (things-in-us) conform to the subject's mind, lose their substance and become products of human knowledge. Instead, he argues that objects exist independently of human perception (such as Kant's things-in-themselves) and are not ontologically exhausted by their relationship to humans or other objects. All relationships, including nonhuman, deform objects in the same way that human consciousness exists equivalently between them15. OOO rejects the idea of human supremacy; the world is not really what it seems, and the objects, real, imaginary, natural, artificial, human and non-human, are autonomous. Contrary to twentieth-century phenomenology that claims that things are true as long as they are reasonable for the human subject, OOO argues that we should perceive everything around us as objects, our skin cells as we ourselves, are objects. In fact, their very existence is often completely inaccessible to our understanding.

2.2 perceptions of objects It is a kind of materialism that is close to the notions of 'posthumous equality' and 'panpsychism'. "The world is not the world that is revealed to humans; to think that a reality exists beyond our own thinking is not irrational but necessary" writes the founder of the movement, Graham Harman. The world for OOOs is full of beings that interact according to their goals and whims, motives that cannot be disturbed by relationships with others.

2.3 perception today

2nd section PERCEPTION

Heidegger sees history as a process in which beings are revealed to humans in different and new ways each time16. That is, in every historical era, "what is reality" is perceived in a different way. The way reality is perceived is determined each time by a prism, a filter through which the “entrapped” human understands things.

In Ancient Greece everything was natural beings and the essence of things was perceived through nature; even art was imitation of nature. In the Middle Ages, the deforming prism of nature was replaced by the divine presence. Everything became creatures of God and came under his complete control. In the age of the Enlightenment, the lens that "trapped" man and the other beings was humanism, the power of knowledge and the power of humans. Humans became the ontological center and replaced the God of the Middle Ages and the nature of the ancient Greeks. The course of history continues and leads to the industrial, capitalist, and ultimately, to the digital age. Technology is the new deforming light that "traps" human intellect. Through this framework humans perceive the world, organize themselves within it, and set in motion all that is needed in order to accomplish their purpose. Mazlich argued that man has always evolved with the tools he used, which were part of his evolutionary process; as he writes: “When people first appear they already hold tools. Whatever the evolutionary steps that led to this development, our fossilized remains are people and tools

together”17. The tools of the pre-industrial and industrial times were an extension of human capabilities and their use was part of natural selection giving humans the evolutionary advantage. They are different from today's sophisticated machines such as the computer as they replace these capabilities and often gain some degree of autonomy in their operation. However, as Mazlich notes, technology constituted an additive device that made human nature evolve. As the hammer extended the human hand, the microscope and the telescope extended the human vision, in the same way, the locomotive extended the ability to produce while, today, the computer enhances the human mental ability. Technology has therefore been and continues to be a means of achieving our goals18. The car is a means to move from one place to another, the phone is a means to communicate, a computer is a means to work, to be entertained, etc. Under these circumstances, technology seems like a passive state of objects or techniques which is completely controlled by man. However, the essence of technology is probably far from the organic nature of human control, or, as Heidegger writes, "an autonomous activity in which people get organized". If we think that technology really works as a means for achieving a goal, it all depends on us and the way we use it. But if we consider technology to be a self-evolving entity, how can we be sure that we control it?

2nd section PERCEPTION

*da + sein = here + I am. Human existence is open to the "is", constantly associated with it and understands it. It is in constant motion and has a past and a future, with restrictions and with hopes.

In Heidegger's "Being and Time" Dasein* is the one that determined the use of the beings that were available to us. The tools before they were even used were usable. In Heidegger's mature thought this is no longer the case. Technology is not defined by Dasein but it actually defines it. The tool defines human19. In short, as Heidegger put it, human manipulation of technology is an illusion. What is really happening is that we, embedded in this deforming framework, are adjusting our lives and tuning in to the way we understand. And the way we perceive it is commensurate with the evolution of technology. For example, consider how mobile phones or cars changed our lives. Thus, human existence is released from its uniqueness and is defined each time through the framework determined by a deforming lens. In this sense we can say that technology acquires an existence, that is, it extends beyond its being and evolves. Let's think about how a machine used to function. Each one of its parts was used for a very specific segment of the cycle without having any effect on the rest of the machine. It was treated as a closed system that had to work perfectly in order for the whole thing to work perfectly. Baudrillard likened it to people working together in the same office. Today, the functions of a machine can no longer be separated, it is an overall structure that has evolved into a coexistence. Thus, technology places people and things in a new digital

condition. The thing-object and object-subject dipoles begin to be abolished. We could describe this digital condition with the help of the concept of atmosphere. The atmosphere is made up of interconnected things that determine and are determined by it. We cannot refer to the parts that make up one atmosphere, without referring to the atmosphere itself. Correspondingly, the parts that make up the digital environment organize a whole that is dependent on them and exists only through them, but at the same time the parts themselves are determined by this connection, sequence and interassociation. This new state of affairs creates different relationships in the way we think, perceive, plan and use things. How many times have we used the verb "harmed" for objects which are not living beings therefore cannot "get hurt" something in the sense of "suffer"? The essence of metaphors we use in our everyday speech offers the possibility to understand and experience one thing in relation to another. Therefore, the fact that we use metaphors, terms, words, and representations from biology leads us to the loss of the distinction between subject and object, and ultimately, to the attribution of human traits to digital objects. Thus, new theories are formed that understand these objects by psychological criteria rather than by laws of physics, motion and matter. The separation between things and man - lifeless and animated - began to be disturbed and disappeared.

2nd section PERCEPTION

Because of this shift in theoretical thought, Bruce Mazlich proposed to overthrow the "fourth discontinuity", namely the separation between machine and human and the illusion that humans are separate from the machines they construct; in the same way as Copernicus, Darwin and Freud overturned human separation from the world, other animals, and the subconscious20.

3rd section The Design

3rd section THE DESIGN

Design is a codification, an intermediate state of architecture. According to Terzidis, “design” that is “σχεδιο”(pronounced “schedio”) in Greek, comes from the ancient Greek word "έσχον"(pronounced “eschon”), something I had and no longer have while it has the same root as "σχεδόν”( i.e. “almost"), that is, I am close to obtaining something. It acts as a mediator of the idea to the image, of the architect to the craftsman and the construction; of the architect to himself. It is the rationalization of our perception.

3.1 industrial era As we have seen, our perception of the world also depends on socio-cultural factors. Architectural design depends on perception, so it changes and evolves as time passes. The space of the house and its components changed with the passage into the industrial age¹. An important element was the transition from the circular hut to the rectangular house as it led to a different use of space and laid the foundations for the development of the concept of personal space. Separation of functional buildings and cities into zones is starting to take place, and spaces are now increasingly made up of industrial products. Everything is institutionalized with education, hospitality, punishment and hospitalization being prominent examples. This is also reflected in the fact that the workplace is beginning to differentiate itself from the living space. The rooms are divided by function and use; we spend our free time in the living room, we study in the office, we eat in the dining room and we sleep in the bedroom. Home furniture is produced in series and in mass and the materials used are becoming increasingly artificial. There is a total departure of humans from their environment, while at the same time, as mentioned above, in the context of the humanistic way of thinking the subject becomes a point of reference and places the world opposite to himself; the subject objectifies the world. The fact that the alphabetical human seeks to oversee the world has a great influence on architecture and design. It

is the time when most successive streams of architecture appear, as people try to define the context around something that is considered “right”. In particular, in the 20th century, the notion of machine and function began to permeate into the ideas of architecture, which can also be seen in Luis Sullivan's famous phrase, "Form Follows Function" (1920), which defined the modern movement, according to which the design must follow the process, the aesthetics and the operation of a machine.

3rd section THE DESIGN

the functional object

The industrial revolution removed the subject from the object, as it enabled the production of objects with no human intervention, without any relation to human energy and manipulation. This led to the search for the truth of objects in functionality, perhaps even in their endlessly consumption and constant renovation². In the industrial age colors, shapes, materials, space, design must all be functional. In pre-industrial times, an object gained value from serving a specific need of people. Form did not have a special value as most items were characterized by homogeneity due to the manual mode of production. Overall, their function was more specific and specialized and arose out of some need, while the alternation of forms as well as their cultural scope was obviously more limited.

In the industrial age, however, every object claims to be functional, a vague term which, however, embraces all the values of modernity³. Function is the promise of the object in relation to human needs and the world. The industrialization of production has helped to create more and different forms. Thus, the two key elements that give value to the industrial object and were emphasized by the design of the industrial period, are its functionality and form. These two traits are coherent in the industrial object, often at a point that they are confused with one another. However, Baudrillard points out that functionality does not lead the object to a goal, it just classifies it. It is the ability of the object to be integrated into a universal system, to play a role for us, to be combined and adapted. Form as a functional value The forms of objects in the industrial age are becoming more and more autonomous as they deviate from a morphology based on the physical effort of the human body to use objects. Whereas in the pre-industrial era man is trying to adapt (physically) to things, in the industrial age design is trying to adapt the objects to us. The handle "marries" the hand, the chair takes the shape of the body, one shape adapts to the other. There seems to be an attempt to portray the presence of the human body in objects as a justification for the final

form of the functional object. Thus, the functionality of the industrial object no longer rests solely on the use of the object to achieve a goal, but is directly dependent both on its form and, indeed, on the adaptation of forms to the human body.

3rd section THE DESIGN

Let's imagine a cigarette lighter in the form of a pebble. It is an object with an elongated, elliptical and asymmetric form, described by advertisers as highly functional because it "has the perfect shape to fit into a palm". "The sea has smoothed it in the shape of a hand" as advertisers wrote4. We note that the description of its functionality is based more on its form than on its ability to light cigarettes.

Although it is an industrial product, serially produced, it seems to recall the qualities of a handmade product as an extension of the human gesture and the human body, while reference to the sea plays a role in reminding nature's craftsmanship. The sea sculpts the lighter, which gives us the fire and thus a prehistoric feasibility is integrated into the practical operation of an industrial object. Yet another example of nature's integration into form functionality is the car's aerodynamic wings. While in reality in terms of engineering, they slow down rather than accelerate the car, many interpret the wings as a sign of great acceleration and superiority. There is a general attempt to integrate nature and the human body into design but only as a signal, as it is dominated in the altar of functionality and form. It is

placed as something abstract, as a reference. We see that like everything, even nature, it is systematized and what ultimately results is an attempt to integrate naturalness into the form of objects⁵. This naturalness is a consequence of the functionality and modern system of ambiance. It is this that gives this system its validity as a culture model. So on the one hand we have the organization and the calculation and on the other we have the interpretation and the denial. Both flow together and form the one and only reality of the operating world, Baudrillard concludes. What we are looking for is form, we recognize it and we “read” it, everything is adapted to it, and finally, in the industrial age, the functionality of forms creates the style of every period. system of needs - system of objects IIn May 1906, Atlantic Monthly wrote that Americans live not only in the age of things, but under their tyranny. Innovation, production, distribution and consumption of things have managed to define a national culture⁶. According to Baudrillard, this culture is made up of a more comprehensive system of objects combined with a system of needs. The two systems are adapted to each other, but at the stage of pre-industrial and handmade production, there seems to be no coherence. The needs that were changing and unpredictable played a more important role, while the technological progress of the objects did not exist.

3rd section THE DESIGN

In the emergence of industrial production, these systems gain a new cohesion through the organization of technology and economic structures. The construction of necessityoriented objects began to decline and the object system began to consolidate, to the point where it managed to forge this new culture. According to Baudrillard, the main objective of the system is the socio-economic control of objects. This is also evident in the way the system of individual needs floods the world of objects.

In our effort to sell, buy, and accumulate things, we do not eventually own them but they rather own us, says Bill Brown, and we are probably using things to think about ourselves. Mark Twain, Frank Novvis, Sarah Orne Jenett, and Henry James were some of those who wondered how and why we use things to conclude that they might help us in rebuilding ourselves, in organizing our anxiety and sadness as well as getting rid of our fears⁷. Baudrillard further stresses that by categorizing objects, in a tyrannical way, we categorize people. model and series This universal system of objects is organized into models and series. We could say that the model carries within it elements of the pre-industrial object, a unique object. However, the systematization of production of objects even in elements such as their form or their appearance led to the creation of series.

The broad social strata of industrial society live among serially produced objects that have references to models that only a small minority of society can 'enjoy'. Baudrillard argues that to some extent this has always been the case⁸. A privileged minority in society has always played the role of "test ground" for successive styles, which were formerly spread by craftsmen of the time. There were objects that expressed the style of each era (which would correspond to the industrial object models), and the locally produced utilities based on the function (which would correspond to the industrial object series). With the transition to mass production, models are increasingly becoming part of the industrial production and open to serial distribution. At the same time, the series introduced by mass production in the market are increasingly approaching the model both morphologically and functionally. With the possibility of choice that the industrial society gives, the object is offered to the user as a serial object, which however seeks the status of a model. Even the most trivial items have a distinctive feature such as a color, an accessory, a detail or something else. David Reichmann called these attributes "marginal differences", while Baudrillard calls them "insignificant differences" and observes that ultimately the demand for personification is found only in those attributes of an object. Returning to the example of the car, we notice that today to manufacture it we need, among other things, a serially produced

chassis, a serially produced engine and some external features, which are also serially produced. Thus, a car cannot be personalized as a technical object but in its marginal differences. We could say that while every object is promoted and consumed as a model, at the same time there are no object models, only series.

3rd section THE DESIGN

the out-of-the-system

However, there are some categories of objects that do not fit into the general context of functional objects in terms of how we view and perceive them. These are the antiques, transitional items, souvenirs and collectibles. As mentioned above, one of the ways that the objects acquire value is their relation to the subject, or else their symbolic value. antiques There was a time in the history of humankind that the elderly were considered beautiful because they were closer to God and richer in experience. Today, our technological culture rejects the knowledge of the old, but it bows to the uniqueness of the old things, whose value is sure and sealed. Today, a table from an 18th-century farm is of great cultural value. However, in the 18th century, a Louis XV table had nothing to do with a peasant's table, the latter's only value derived from its use. There was an unbridgeable gap

between these two types of tables, as there were between the two respective social classes. As Baudrillard notes, in the realm of objects, the corresponding social status that exists in human society lies in the "style" of the form of each period⁹. Antiques are an important category of products that cannot be classified into handmade or industrial objects. Renaissance, Baroque, folklore, exotic forms of objects develop a different relationship with us and with the world. They are not necessarily functional objects, but they do meet other requirements such as witnessing, memory or nostalgia, according to Baudrillard. However, their role is quite important for modernity and the system of objects. Antiques are the survivors of the old symbolic order, they abnegate structure and disavow function and their primary role in the system is to signify time and historicity. The antique is always eccentric as an object, it does not have to be very good nor authentic. The antiques for the observing subject always remain perfect, the periods and styles do not affect them, nor whether they belong to a model or series, they are neither introverted nor extroverted, they are anachronistic and relevant to their owner. They are in a way a "portrait" of another era, a mythological object. They manage to suppress time in contrast to industrial functional objects that have never existed before and their only purpose is to produce results in the present. They signify the “genesis”; they have existed in

another place and time and still carry these memories. Even a seemingly simple fact, such as belonging once to an important person, gives value to the antique. Industrial functional objects and antiques manage to coexist in our spaces. This complementarity, Baudrillard observes, highlights a backward dimension of the system, which, although perhaps testifies to a relative decline, at the same time activates it and gives it life10.

3rd section THE DESIGN

transitional objects

According to Psychology and Donald Winnicott, the term "transitional object" refers to the use of any object such as a teddy bear or blanket, to which the child, regardless of gender, is attached during infancy and toddler. These objects constitute an intermediate field of experience, located in the midst of the imaginary and the real, the inner and outer worlds. They are about the first realization that we are separate entities, that we can separate the world from us and gain control over an object. Beyond early childhood, these objects are also found in our adult life in a variety of ways. A typical example is when we migrate, voluntarily or not, from one place to another, we take with us an object that reminds us of our former state of affairs, which becomes a thing for us and we become the observing subjects.

souvenir Souvenirs constitute a different category of objects, in terms of our perception of them. Souvenirs are memories of travel and experiences and carry these memories every time we look at them. For the subject who has lived through this experience, the souvenir functions as a thing which is interconnected with an experience, an atmosphere, with other things and emotions. However, it differs from the souvenir as a gift, which remains an object. It can raise emotions for the person who presented the gift, but it is perceived as an object as it is not related to the relevant travel experience. collections

«One has only to watch a collector handle the objects in his glass case. As he holds them in his hands, he seems to be seeing through them into their distant past as the though inspired.» Walter Benjamin

Another relation observed between the subjects and the objects is their collection by the subject. The first time the tendency for collecting objects appears in our lives is adolescence. For children, collecting is a basic way to overcome the outside world, to arrange it, to categorize it, and to be able to handle it. In the process of collecting objects, Baudrillard notes, the subject creates different associations and close links to

3rd section THE DESIGN

objects; they are pieces of its property and passions, they become things. They are personal and belong to us. When we characterize something with a personal pronoun (me, you, his), it now departs its functional value and acquires a different relationship with the subject. Finally, collections are a subjective systematization of objects11.

3.2 digital era

3rd section THE DESIGN

«If for the architecture of 1920, value meant attempting to copy the machine in its functioning, processes, aesthetic and the same exposition in its syntactical mechanisms, architecture from our era clearly shifts its center of interest into having a form that actually informs. But if information represents an avoidable substance by which today’s architectura research is measured, then it is also true the key to the problem regards, as always, the “how”»» Antonino Saggio

Changes in the way we perceive the space and the objects around us in the digital environment and the use of new technologies inevitably lead to a change not only in the nature of architecture but also in its purpose. Design today is characterized by flexibility and slack of scale, leading to new spatial searches. In particular, the division of space into zones and functions that was dominant in the industrial age is lost. Nowadays the living room of the living space can be a place of work, socialization, leisure and tranquility. Beds become daybeds, wardrobes and libraries are built-in. Things fold, unfold, get hidden and show up when needed. Baudrillard, however, stresses that today's furniture sets are not restructured but are being destructured. Nothing has replaced the expressive power of the old symbolic order since the change observed is in the relationship between the individual and the objects. Objects today are much more flexible in their uses, while at the same time they seem to symbolize or even impose moral restrictions.

The relationship with the objects becomes more liberal, and the individual, unlike in previous times, is not defined by objects or his family. The versatility and multifunctionality of objects allow the individual to organize them more freely, something that can also be observed in his social relationships. Despite all this, space as a layout, shape, and function remains the same that may lead to a release of the individual from the function but not from the objects themselves. Today, their function does not resemble the moral theatricality of old furniture; they have been emancipated from the sacred, the religious, and the ideology from which we created things around us as an opaque mirror of a particular human structure. Humans are thus liberated as users but not entirely from objects12. We also observe that many of the things that existed in homes before, started disappearing with more typical examples: the wall clock, family portraits in frames and heavy and imposing furniture. On the altar of functionality, old furniture is lost both in form and substance, while the objects of our homes today have no "soul", they invade our space with no symbolic value. Everything is based on mood and play, while at the same time even the spaces of the house become more liberal, as all uses are connected, often in a large open space. We could say that the forerunner of today's digital architecture has been the development of kinetic and

3rd section THE DESIGN

changing structures from the 20th century onwards as the formal static form of past architecture no longer meets the changing needs of our present, dynamic society. These are objects and spaces that could change during their operation at the level of form, function and state. Cedric Price's visions with Fun Palace, Archigram and Constant Nieuwenhuys' New Babylon have been pioneers and motivators for contemporary approaches to space design to adapt and respond quickly and flexibly to our desires. The embedding of digital technology into architecture is called for to realize this capability.

Thus, today's architectural design is digital, translated, personalized, creates metaphors and is based on logic13. According to Antonino Saggio, the purpose of a building is not only to be functional, stable, spatially rich or habitable, but to remind itself of something beyond itself. Frank Bijdendijk also notes that the future value of buildings lies in the user's free choice for housing, equipment and use14. On this basis, it is proposed to produce a new architecture that will be a creator of metaphors, free, open to codification, and will allow the user to create his own story. Digital condition has transformed the notions of birth, motherhood, commerce, ownership and authenticity. A characteristic example is the duplicate, which in previous years had a negative connotation, but today this is reversed. Today's architect is called upon to investigate the volatile boundary of the physical and electronic worlds.

New technologies and new materials are being added to the service of architecture, such as 3D digital printing and design in augmented, virtual and mixed reality. The information is now largely contained in the visual stimulus as well as in the way the user experiences the space, the experience. Today's architecture produces spaces that adapt to change, respond and interact with the users, relate to it and connect them with their environment. system of desires The separation of need and desire15 marks the shift from the functionalist example of architecture to one that responds to indeterminacy. As we have seen, in the pre-industrial era the design was mainly based on the needs of the users, while in the industrial era the objects exceeded the design to meet the needs. Nowadays, design is redefined again to try to meet both the needs as well as the desires of the users to the maximum. Archigram, through their architectural visions, led to a kind of design that, through technology, would create the basis for the fulfillment and realization of individual desires and dreams16. They gave emphasis to the design of an intangible individual environment, a mental space of desire, while attempting to decompose architecture at the level of the human-machine interface. Thus, with the help of feedback the architecture as an interface could respond by varying the environment according to the individual

instantaneous desire.

3rd section THE DESIGN

As Antonino Saggio writes, today we are not talking about a "minimum" residential architecture that meets needs but a "maximum" residential architecture that expands desires and possibilities. Architectural design in the information age lays the groundwork for new approaches to space, with the key feature being its ability to respond to the subjectivity of our desires.

4th section New types of design

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

4.1 new directions “People live the experience of architecture through the use of space and direct interaction”, Ηuffington Post

Dimitris Papalexopoulos defines architecture as a plethora of possible cases, "potential" situations and changing relationships. Architectural work is a narrative of relationships in which users participate either individually or as collectives, interacting with the object-artefact or between them. Thus the work is no longer conceived as an object, but is part of an interactive relationship and spaces are dynamic objects that house and enhance human events. Gordon Pask, one of the pioneers of cybernetics, in his article “The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics” commented on how the development of cybernetics will change architectural design as the cybernetic design paradigm links the purpose and goal of the user with specifications on how the system can learn, adapt and meet these objectives. This is enhanced by the development of the Ambient Intelligence industry and intelligent environments, at the same time as digital technology penetrates the built environment¹. This changes the way we perceive, interact, and experience space and objects. After all, as we have seen, nowadays we are in the midst of hybrids of objects

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

and things. Thus, today's architectural design takes into account the parameters that have to do with the relation of the user and objects with the environment, the function of the object or space, and ultimately, its interaction with the user.

correlation with the environment experience Today's digital age places great emphasis on image and experience. This has been reinforced by the way social media work today, as they enable users to share their experiences instantly and quickly across multiple platforms. Thus, the importance of the experience for the human being of the digital age also acquires special meaning in architectural design. Designing and creating experience are perhaps among the most important elements of architecture today. However, today is not the first time that user experience has been a topic of discussion in architectural circles. Archigram 9 (1970) attempted to separate the "hardware" of architecture from "software"². The first was the traditional materiality of architecture and the second the concepts of architecture, in program, networks and information. The role of architecture is no longer just the design of artifacts and materials (walls, floors) but the design of software for “programs” that will allow a variety of situations in a given space. A few years later, the Situationists brought to life the issue of experience and situations in architectural practice. Henry Lefebvre observed that modern society has withdrawn from its members the experiential experience of space, considering it to be a mental construct. For him, space

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

is a representation or conception produced experientially by the user. The purpose of Situational Strategies was to create life moments, situations and experiences.

Today, our architectural spaces must, as Dimitris Papalexopoulos said, tend to become a "machine of becoming", that is, to become spaces capable of creating events, inhabited by tensions and containing their forces of change³. Thus, the power of a good design lies in the architect's ability to perceive and sense his space and needs. The result of architectural production will be more efficient when the synthetic process takes into account the senses and logic that lead to a multidimensional experience. Overall, experience is a subjective process based on body, character, age, taste, culture and mood. The user experience through architecture, body and perception gives the space a special character. It also enhances the user interaction with space, something that is particularly emphasized in design today. However, most of the time in order for the user to have a complete and complete experience, one more element is required, the atmosphere. atmospheres The word atmosphere comes from the words "steam” (“atmos” in Greek) + “sphere" and refers to the gaseous state that surrounds something⁴. It concerns the emotional

or psychological mood that dominates a place or an object. We perceive the atmosphere physically as well as emotionally, it is a connection between the inner world of us as individuals and the outer world in which we reside. As Juhani Palasmaa notes, "the atmosphere does not focus on a single moment of perception but on a continuous being, on a state of affairs". Atmospheres have always been powerful mediators. Baudrillard defines the atmosphere as the systematic cultural awareness at the level of objects and makes the following observation: Decoration magazines have two alternating themes. The first is the presentation of magnificent houses, especially 18th-century villas that cannot be compared with anything modern, so that they leave no room for the reader but to look back without hope. These images of aristocratic models accomplish a very specific purpose, laying the foundation for the second theme, which is modern interiors. These are not dreamlike creations but models of high status and value that are in conflict with the sociological reality of the time. Going one step further, he observes that these models are mostly organized into components and seats. They follow the requirements of each of the fashions of the interior design, creating a more general atmosphere and a more general conceptual framework in which the subject is integrated. The modern living space is based on the contrast between design and atmosphere⁵. Especially in the field of advertising, the technical need of design is always accompanied by the

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

cultural need of the atmosphere. Design and atmosphere are the object-oriented systematization of objects; they are the two sides of an operating system. In terms of design, it serves the needs of the game and the calculation of the function, while the atmosphere serves the needs of materials, forms, emotions and space.

The atmosphere plays a very important role in design today. It is the general conceptual framework that places things and objects in the world. If you find yourself in an IKEA store you will understand the important role that atmosphere plays in the space. IKEA exhibitions consist of atmospheres. They create integrated spaces where everything is coherent and interconnected. Each of us going to an IKEA exhibition can imagine ourselves living in these places. Atmospheres acquire a different value today due to the change in the subject-object dipole relationship and the way in which we today redefine the object as a hybrid. The hybrids of things and objects are no longer defined as the subject's subordinates but as those that determine the fluid but unavoidable environment through which, and within which we are placed. The fact that designers want to offer different and multiple experiences to users has led to designing new environments or enriching already designed ones. On the other hand, the way the user associates and interacts with objects has led to the creation of more specialized forms of design such as

responsive and behavioral design.

4.2 responsive design

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

Responsive design is based on the response of the designed object or space to the user. The word "responsive" comes from the Latin word “respondare”, which means "to correspond".⁶ As responsive we would define the design which through sensors that measure the actual environmental conditions as well as the reactions of the user, activates the adaptation of the object, space or even of the whole building schematically, morphologically, colorfully and level of character.

It is a distinction of a wider area of interactive architecture, which is about creating dynamic spaces and objects through programmed processes capable of performing a range of environmental and anthropological functions. More specifically, Michael Fox and Miles Kemp, in their book “Interactive Architecture”, state the following: "Interactive architecture is defined as the convergence and collaboration of embedded computation and artificial intelligence with the physical counterpart of kinetics, within an architectural element so that it can adapt to solve anthropological and environmental issues. " Kas Oosterhuis emphasizes that interaction can be achieved through two active parts, the user and the architectural artefact. It concerns the art of establishing relationships between the elements of the structure of space or object, and then creating relationships between these elements with humans.

responsive environments To better understand the concept of responsive design, here are some examples: Interactive wall: A design proposal by Socrates Giannoudis for a changing wall capable of local deformation. As he writes, human and construction, animate and inanimate, work together and interact with one another, producing relationships. Muscle Room: This is a customizable TU Delft Hyperbody Research Group application. The vision of the Muscle Room is the idea that the users can change their environment to meet their every need. When someone enters the room this is completely empty. A large empty space. However, when the user interacts with the space, its form may acquire a different layout. However, the most typical examples of responsive design are the "smart" or intelligent objects we use daily, as well as the "smart" or intelligent environments. Mark Weiser defined the intelligent environment as "a natural world that is rich and invisibly intertwined with sensors, actuators, monitors and computing". This is the result of the embedding of cyberspace into the spatial structures and functions of modern space. Digital information, smart structures, and wireless devices are helping to realize potentially intelligent spaces that can be adapted to both individual and collective human needs⁷.

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

In 1967 Archigram created the Living_1990 project which was a plug-in housing unit that could be mounted on a larger construction infrastructure. The emphasis was on creating a space for interchangeable and consumable accessories with inflatable beds, seats and multifunctional robots. It was an environment where the roofs, floors and walls could change place, color and style depending on the commands and needs of the resident. In that work, Archigram shifted their interest from the collectivity of the superstructure to individuality and the level of personal desire and satisfaction. Although the project sought to demonstrate how technology would influence the shape of the future housing (for Archigram in 1990) it was more of a precursor to today's responsive environments”⁸. Then, in 1978, Cedric Price proposed the Generator, a project that, while not having a specific function, included a permanent crane that could move modules acting spontaneously to encourage residents to reorganize and change space. For the needs of the installation a computer program was developed that proposed new formations and provided cognitive skills such as learning and memory. The proposal was abandoned due to the difficulty of implementation and maintenance, but was regarded by the media and many critics as the first intelligent environment. Overall, intelligent environments are designed to personalize the architectural space to human needs and desires either spontaneously or in collaboration with the user. This ability is placed in everyday objects and spaces

and is enhanced with learning and memory capabilities. In this way, the environment can not only detect but also recognize some of the user's activities and behaviors, as well as respond to and sometimes anticipate specific actions and changes in the operation of the space. It is about a field of applications in the field of "Ambient Intelligence", a broader field of technology, and is aimed at integrating and synthesizing communication and sensor information technology into everyday objects and environments with the aim of creating new ways of supporting and enhancing people's lives. Responsive environments are capable of recognizing and responding to the presence of different individuals, while 'working' in a continuous, discreet and invisible manner. When designing responsive objects or spaces, the emphasis is on greater user-friendliness, the transfer of control to the user, and the support of human-computer interaction. These environments also combine artificial intelligence technologies, neural networks, and fuzzy logic backed by intelligent agent networks, namely action sensor devices and microprocessors. There are two approaches to responsive environments⁹: first, the automatic ones, which learn from the users’ behaviors and interactions without their involvement, and second, the user-guided ones, i.e. the users have control over the management of the system. The ideal choice is a combination of both, as the user has the ability to choose

which parts of the system to control and which to let intelligent agents control.

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

agents of responsive environments

When people enter a smart environment they already know that their devices will be integrated, along with their location in space and the environment will be responsive to them. In order to effectively design smart environments, it is important to consider tools for integrating and responding to human needs, as well as anticipating human intentions and desires. They are implemented under three basic systems10: 1. Ubiquitous Computing System in which microprocessor systems are integrated into everyday objects; 2. Ubiquitous Communication systems that allow communication between other objects and the user; and 3. Intelligent User Interfaces, that is, interfaces that enable users to control and interact with the environment. In 2013, Sally Applin and Michael Fischer, in their article "Thing Theory" referred to the new reality structure, which represents how people, devices, and communications technologies are interconnected. They call it PolySocial Reality and is a result of the use of Responsive Environments and the Internet of Things11. In their article, they have attempted to define how designers should approach systems of intelligent agents of responsive environments.

To understand how these actuators should work, Applin & Fischer suggest that we remember the "Thing" from Charles Adams' television series and comic series, "The Adam’s Family" (1960). The “Thing” was a hand which helped family members and could be carried anywhere. It was introduced as a family member and friend. The “Thing” was managing relationships between family members, communicating with gestures, writing notes, serving tea, distributing letters, playing music, always knowing where everyone was, while never speaking itself. It was always present and provided for the future needs of the family. In the end, its behavior was quite similar to that of a smart environment agent. From the study of “Thing”'s behavior, Applin & Fischer attempted to create some basic requirements for an intelligent environment agent, which are: 1. The agent-Thing must function as a transactor throughout the technological context and not as a subsystem in order to be able to create new capabilities in the environment based on its knowledge of other subsystems 2. To increase Agent-Thing’s knowledge, enough information must be shared by individual parts of the system. 3. The Agent-Thing must be able to recognize that there are different possible combinations of thinking for different environments while at the same time being able to handle

different environments.

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

4. An agent-Thing must be able to extend the capabilities of other agents. For the fourth principle to work, postagents (a social network of at least one Thing-agent and another post-agent) must have some kind of transparency or at least common rights to exchange opportunities and frameworks.

In order to describe or analyze such multilevel systems, we must take into account the social as well as the individual behaviors of all the above factors.

emphasis on the user Besides the more technical issues of operating sensors and agents in a responsive environment, it is important to consider the design factor of the focus on the users and the way they interact with things and objects around them. The term “user” refers to the person who has the ability not only to use the space but also to own it, occupy it, freely determine how to use it, creatively re-interpret it as well as abuse it. Forty argues that today we should not just talk about simple use but about creative use and creative users12. affordances Included in this context is the theory developed by the psychologist James Gibson in 1966, namely the theory of 'Affordances', which refers to the apparent and actual properties of an object, and in particular those that determine how each object can be used. This theory holds that perception is, above all, the immediate acquisition of the possibilities of behavior, use and interaction that the environment provides to the animal or human. For example, the mug handles offer the ability to hold and lift and inform us how to use it. In 1988, Professor of Computer Science David Norman wrote the book “The Design of Everyday Things”, which

deals with the emergence of the power of design, the use of some basic principles and the author's advice to young designers. His book focuses on three key points:

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

1. The operation of objects is often incomprehensible to the user, which often leads to errors and frustration

2. Each time a user observes an object, he forms a conceptual model for the use of the object and, 3. Design is the way the designer communicates with the user Therefore, besides the availability that is a basic indication of how objects are used, it adds three more principles that the designer should focus on13:

Natural Mapping It concerns the utilization of natural proportions and cultural patterns so that the user can perceive how the object works properly. An example of natural mapping is the placement of electric cooker switches. When arranged in a rectangular frame, they are a natural pairing with the kitchen's hotplates, which makes it clear to the user which switch is referring to which hotplate.

Feedback It is one of the most important principles of design and it consists of returning information to the user about what action was taken and what the result was. Today's systems have more functionality and less feedback, which makes them hard to use. For example, when the lamp lights up, it indicates to the user that the switch is functioning.

Constraints The use of constraints reduces the ways in which an object can be used, thus significantly reducing errors during its use. For example, the shape of SIM cards and cell phone batteries allows for a unique way of insertion. So we see that design is oriented towards the user and the purpose that the object must accomplish with its use. In addition to the objects, our external environment also provides us with affordances, which are for the most part designed. The theory of affordances is inextricably linked to human kinetic behavior; for example the fact that we can get a mug or a book because of its dimensions, shape, material, etc., or how we can sit in any horizontal surface raised from the ground, which we commonly call a chair. However, the affordances of our environment depend directly on the design of the environment, our physical abilities, as well as the requirements of the socio-cultural

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

patterns of activity. The fact that we perceive the availability of a chair as a seat comes down to a broader background of socio-cultural practices in that we have been taught to sit on chairs and not on the floor or on the table. Furthermore, this socio-material nature of our environment allows us to perceive affordances as the relationship between aspects of our socio-material environment and the abilities that exist in every form of life. Thus, given the multiple capabilities of the human body, we can say that the human environment offers us a rich landscape of many different possibilities, namely affordances14. Today's architectural design must accept the importance of the human body as a means of creating objects and spaces of "availability" that are not intended for a user with stereotypical characteristics but offer a range of potential uses from a variety of human bodies that have different abilities. However, interactive system designers are constantly amazed at how objects and spaces they design are used by users in ways that are not actually designed for15. The meaning we give to things and objects is also an aspect of utilization, interaction and practice, and ultimately concerns the user more than the designer. While the traditional approach to design (and in particular interactive design) places the designer as an interaction manager controlling the parameters, nowadays the users are playing a much more active role in determining how

technology will meet their ever-changing needs. emotions In addition to the ways they can be used and the interactions with users, objects can also be studied at the level of the emotions they cause. In 2003 Norman wrote a book on emotional design, or, in other words, designing products that create the right emotions for the user to have a positive experience. Emotions play an important role in human ability to understand and learn about the world. Our positive experiences energize our curiosity, while our negative ones keep us from repeating mistakes. According to Dan Norman, people form emotional attachments to objects on 3 levels: visceral, behavioral, and reflective16. At the visceral design level, the first reactions of the user when encountering a product are studied and the triggered reactions are examined. At the behavioral level of design, the usability of the product and the user's appreciation of how well it performs and how easily it is used are important. Finally, the level of reflection refers to the ability to project the impact of the product on our lives after we have used it. At this point it is also important to reinforce the desire for this particular product.

customization

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

However, what so strongly differentiates our relationship with present-day objects and essentially transforms them in our perception into hybrids, is personalization or customization. The customization that our devices offer today, gives the objects the ability to transform themselves into personal objects, become things again as they relate to their environment (other objects, spaces, users) and become unique again. The best example of how customization changes the way we perceive objects is our mobile phone or our personal computer. Many times while we may own exactly the same device as someone else we cannot successfully use their device, thus, somehow, in a way we do not perceive it as the exact same object functionally17.Thus, the relation of subject and object changes. With the help of customization the object is personalized and we no longer perceive it as a mere functional object; in a sense, we begin to bond with it and it becomes a thing in our perception without losing its objectivity. Here lies the essence of the hybrids.

100

In the modern digital age, however, personification is increasingly intruding into the object and its function. We no longer care so much about the appearance of the object (though it still plays a role), but its function and the relationship we acquire with it. As David Riechmann puts it, "The product now in demand is neither a master product nor a machine, it is a personality."

4.3 behavioral design “Three big pianos move in a room. As they move arbitrarily, they sometimes collide with each other, resulting in a change of direction. They move suddenly, turn around, remain motionless for a while and sometimes seem to chase each other. This choreography draws people around the piano. Some enter the room, curious to look closely at each piano's behavior, some stay at a distance and watch the dance from afar”. This scene depicts a 2014 installation by French artist Celeste Boursier-Mougenot18. This installation is an artistic move that gives life to the "immovable" object and redefines our relationship with trivial objects such as a piano. It also reminds us of the latest transformations of the robotic landscape with technological artifacts gaining some autonomy as a result of embedded technologies. Nowadays, the objects we have around us are often more complex than the human behavior referred to them. The objects are in a constant state of mutation and differentiation, and our gestures through which we use them diminish in number and become more abstract. In other words, the role of the objects is not to stand in front of the subject and to be surrounded by a theater of gestures, instead they play the role of the actor in a process where the subject remains passive, marginally as a spectator19. In particular, in recent years a new type of object has emerged that is equipped with behavioral properties such as communication, self-regulation, autonomous movement, prediction and detection of malfunctions. A

101

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

common denominator of these objects is the fact that they can feel their environment, receive data from it and change the way they behave based on this information. Overall, they give the impression of a living and autonomous organism to the point that many observers often create an emotional bond that would not exist if they remained inactive20. In many cases, these features are added to existing operating objects, so we are talking about a new "enhanced" version of these objects.

102

This evolution in the nature of the object, gives it a new form of life and social status as people who observe it impart human psychological traits to it. The great and substantial difference between these objects from an inactive or responsive object lies in the way we perceive them as a living organism, even when we know they are not. The human tools for perceiving a living organism are the subject of cognitive psychology and in particular in the field of "Perception of action, movement and energy". Levillain & Zibetti in their article "Behavioral Objects: The Rise of the Evocative Machines" suggest that designers should study the way the human brain perceives a moving object in order to link social presence, design, and organization of interesting interactions with people, as well as the overall design of their behavior. Today designers are called upon to consider not only the physical aspects of a product but also the intangible aspects associated with specific behavioral qualities.

So, a new form of design of objects and spaces is created, the behavioral design. The direction it gives us is that once we create moving objects and changing spaces that interact with humans, we need to take into account more parameters such as behavior and movement, as well as the way humans perceive them. behavioral objects In 2009, Ju & Takayama, after some experiments, argued that a trivial object such as an automatic door can be improved if we take into account the subtle communication signals that people are sensitive to when interacting with moving objects, and in particular through the movement of the door invite, which is based on a computer system that opens and closes in response to human movements. However, the interesting point is how the human brain subconsciously perceives it as a communicative intention and is interpreted as an invitation, provided that it conforms to specific patterns that can be interpreted as intentional motions21. In 2014, James Chamber created a peripheral computer hard disk that, when it detects a liquid in its immediate surroundings, "rises to its feet" to avoid it. Its behavioral capacity, that is, to "get up on its feet" in order not to get wet, does not interfere with the function of the disc, it simply protects the disc from possible damage.

103

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

In 2009, Burnelei, Hemmert and Wettach created the Impatient Toaster, which in order to get attention, vibrates in a nervous way at regular intervals. To stop the nervous vibrations, the toaster must be "fed", while the vibrations start again when the bread is ready. When the user removes the bread, the nervous vibrations stop to resume after a while. This project is an example of a functional object known to us, enriched with behavioral attributes.

104

To the users the objects mentioned above seem to have goals, feelings, beliefs, personality traits. For example, the way users handled the toaster proves this position22. Some were talking to the toaster, some were trying to calm it down by touch; the empathetic reactions we usually have towards people or animals. This simple behavior of the toaster, the abrupt and sudden outbursts, gives the observer an explanation with psychological elements ("started to swing from nowhere because he was hungry") and a solution to them with some interaction ("I fed the toaster"). We could call these artefacts behavioral. By a more general definition, behavioral objects correspond to nonhuman, non-animalistic artifacts designed to bring about behaviors and bring about spatial transformations that can be interpreted as actions taken for a purpose23. However, they are not designed as social robots, that is to handle functional issues, to be in the absolute service, to assist or cooperate with the user. Their behavior is added as a complementary layer, which can enrich an operational

value if any. We no longer treat them as mere functional objects but as moving beings with some level of perceptual autonomy, and in the end we adopt different strategies to interpret them than those we would use for non-behavioral objects. They may imitate some human social behaviors but are not designed to impress people with their social abilities or to look for the social interface with features such as movement, body or facial features24. The point is that behavioral objects do not need these attributes and qualifications to trigger an interaction, but their behavior that one would think to be more animal-like is enough to reveal to the observer their social presence. In behavioral objects, form and function are renegotiated. Furthermore, the psychological traits resulting from observing behavior create a new complementary level of interpretation and access to new types of emotional relationships and interactions. This is because of the innate tendency of the human brain to consider movements as potential indicators of internal status and personality. In other words, we could say that behavioral objects are objects that we tend to anthropomorphize or personalize, in the sense that we give them the qualities we would give to human beings or living beings. However, this personification does not apply to the personalization of a computer or mobile phone as mentioned above. The personification of objects takes place in the "projection"

105

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

of human attitudes or beliefs in artificial objects and is an important part of our relationship with today's objects. Lucy Suchman explains that the fact that we attribute human characteristics to our computer lies in the immediate response of the machine and that the means through which we control our computer are essentially linguistic. Still, the fact that the computer is a black box helps us perceive it as an organism.

106

Thus, we perceive behavioral objects as entities that exhibit a behavior and impart psychological characteristics and human values to them. We could say that they have the ability to confuse our perception of what is true and what is not. Finally, the way we perceive things, objects and the experience of our relationship with them changes once again and we become partners25. Impatient Toaster bakes bread but puts the user in the habit of small meals, while another project by Lascke, Hassenzahl & Diefenbach in 2012, "The Never Hungry Caterpillar" promotes a power saving behavior by giving the impression that it hurts every time the user leaves the TV on and leaves the room. behavior However, in order to understand the essence of behavioral objects we must define what behavior is. We could say that behavior is observed by organizations, not by objects. This is because we can more easily attribute behavioral

characteristics to dynamic and perhaps complex entities too inactive and simple. The concept of behavior corresponds to the idea of a transformation or change of state in an event, although we cannot say that it is always apparent (e.g. mental behavior). Levillain & Zibetti point out that if a stone falls off the cliff, we could not characterize it as behavior, as we recognize that the fall was due to some external force. What leads us to the conclusion that behavior is associated with actions caused by an internal organization is the result of purpose or intent. Still, we can say that behavior also depends on the way an organism acts and reacts to its immediate environment. Finally, we perceive the behavior of an object when26: (1) We perceive its spontaneous transformations as a result of some external influence, and (2) When these transformations arise in the context of a meaning, or they are attributed to a goal or a purpose.

107

4.4 interaction, function, form Behavior is related to the way we design behavioral objects but is not the only factor. In addition to the ways we mentioned above about how the designer emphasizes the user, we will also look at the ways the user interacts with objects.

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

automatisation

108

We are in the 18th century. A magician and very good clockwork craftsman creates an automaton. So perfect, so fluid and natural, that when the magician and his creature appear on stage together, the audience cannot distinguish who is who. The magician is thus forced to make his own moves look mechanical and change his appearance slightly to give his act some sense. After all, the viewers would be annoyed if they didn't find out which of the two figures was true and the fallacy that has helped the show was to see man as a machine and the other way around27. Historical examples of automatic machines, called autonomous motion machines that mimic human and animal functions and forms, go back to antiquity in both the western and eastern worlds. However, the invention of the clock and mechanical clock in the 14th century enhanced their number and complexity. In the 17th and 18th centuries the clock mechanism was used in automata to represent the human or animal form both from the mid-18th century and after the functions of the organisms. The most famous example is the Frenchman

Jacques de Vaucanson’s duck, designed to represent basic digestive functions28. The most important element in the automaton was the controversy that on the one hand the living beings were the opposites of the machines and on the other that the living beings were basically machines. Human gesture differs even at points, as it can perform some tasks accurately and flexibly. However, the exponential development of technology already provides us with imitations of the real world by creating artificial and intelligent worlds,in which the better the model is designed and plays the role of the organization of reality, the more the human enters a stage of abstraction. Although the perception of artificiality in previous years has brought to our mind a certain order of things in a negative sense, today this is overcome and we attribute to our artificial environment different values depending on the occasion29. Returning to today, in our modern society for every need there is a mechanical answer, every practical or even psychological problem can be anticipated and solved in advance with the help of a technically functional object that is sensible and adaptable. Thus, one of the greatest breakthroughs of modern technology in the 20th century with regard to the modern operating object was automation. How many times do we wish that things were done "by themselves"? The automated object offers us this gift, the absence of our own activity and the pleasure of this absence. In a way, it has

109

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

the meaning of the absolute. Even the fact that automation tends to lead to stereotypical human behavior does not change our desire for it.

110

Automation separated the traditional operating object from the modern one. As we increase the complexity and abstraction of an object and the degree of automation increases, so does the degree of perfection of the object. Baudrillard characterizes automation as "king" and he explains that its great charm is not based on the technical rationalization of the structure and function of the object but on the fact that we experience the "ideal truth" of the object. The human endeavor for the automation and multifunctionality of objects ultimately reveals the role that he is called to play in our technological society, that of the organic model. As we have seen, in previous years the image of man was transmitted to the morphology and the way we were called to use our tools, furniture and home. In the perfected technical object, all this is replaced by the symbolism of a superstructure. We no longer project our movements, needs and bodies on objects but the autonomy of consciousness, the power of control, our individual nature and our personality. If we compared the automatic object to a human being we would say that we are witnessing an early stage of anthropomorphism30.

anthropomorphism Anthropomorphism could be defined as the attribution of human characteristics, emotions, and intentions to nonhuman entities, to an animal, an object, or a phenomenon. Airenti defines it as "non-human behavior driven by human emotions and mental states". It is a characteristic of primitive people who attribute emotions, motivations and actions to nature's elements to explain incomprehensible events, trying to handle them through social mechanisms such as pleading or threat. Although anthropomorphism has been widely regarded as an obstacle to science as it often leads to the attribution of erroneous properties to objects, at the same time it is an inherent psychological, "normal", "irresistible" and inevitable tendency of our brain31. This innate tendency of ours depends directly on the physical characteristics of the object - movement, form and behavior. Still, when we cannot predict or reasonably explain what we perceive, then it is likely to create a seemingly non-adaptable social explanation such as to attribute some personality traits. However, we can distinguish two situations : (1)the impregnation of nonhuman entities with properties and values specifically adapted to the description and interpretation of human behavior and (2) the psychological characteristics resulting from observing the reaction and movement of a nonhuman entity in its environment. 32

111

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

In the first case there is a tendency (especially for children) for animism* or for example to hit the TV remote control because it does not work. Humans are endowed with some perception tools that include the justification of observable actions with imaginative situations, which is a natural strategy that enables us to interact with our environment effectively, until there is a more appropriate perception tool.

112

The second case concerns the observation of the autonomy and production of submissive movements of an animal or a robot. An entity's behavioral appearances trigger a form of reasoning from us, but in this case it is explained by some observable events. For example, the conclusion that "The blue ball goes to the yellow position" is explained by the observations that the blue ball moves to the yellow position, or by its persistence, for example, it moves there even if it is very windy. Of course, the performance of these psychological traits does not always correspond to real traits. Pet owners, for example, often attribute emotional traits to their pets, such as jealousy, empathy, or manipulation, although they may not be behavioral. Robots, however, and in particular the behavioral objects mentioned before, do not need to possess the internal organization that, in humans and animals, is responsible for their behavior, as long as they simulate its external manifestation. An important factor for the attribution of human

characteristics to non-human beings is the perceived opacity of their functioning33. In other words, the more I know about an object's internal structure and mechanism, the more unlikely it is to attribute it to human beings. For example, electronics such as computers are opaque because the chips, the batteries, and the cables they contain most of the time do not allow us to understand and explain their behavior in physical or mechanical terms. Finally, the fact that researchers talk about various objects in terms of biology such as organism, life, cleverness and intelligence greatly contributes to enhancing the acquisition of anthropomorphic elements. the role of the form It is important to investigate to what extent the shape and behavior of these objects influence our perception about them. When evaluating a robot's behavior, its appearance and the way it moves can work harmoniously or collide. This depends on the degree of integration of the calculations performed on the robot's morphology, its constrWuction material and the movement patterns it follows. One could say that the most ideal form of a robot for successful interaction, along with its motion, would be the human, or at least the animal form. However, studies have shown that this should be avoided for two very important reasons34:

113

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

The first concerns the phenomenon of Uncanny Valley (Mori, 1970), which explains the feeling of fear and repulsion that is created when we observe an anthropomorphic robot. The disagreement between the human form of the robot and its non-human motion becomes an important factor in this phenomenon. Still, Freud, who referred to the concept of uncanniness, explains that in addition to aversion there is also a sense of futility when observing anthropomorphic robots, as we realize that our human nature does not allow us to live in eternity as a robot could.

114

The second reason is the development of anthropomorphic robots made of soft and modern materials. The use of these materials produces soft and deformable robots, which gives the impression of experiments beyond the traditional model of the human body and can disrupt the harmony in which we live and move. In the context of a morphological resemblance to humans, the realism of the form makes social interaction with the robot difficult because we overestimate its potential by expecting some specific behavior. Thus, a robot's social perception depends directly on its form in relation to its behavior, especially when approaching the human form. The diagram below shows that when morphological realism is increased, behavioral realism does not necessarily have to be equally increased in order for social expectation to pass. Similarly, when behavioral realism is increased, we do not need to have similarity in form to cross the "social threshold"35, as Levillain & Zibetti call it, that is, to develop

a social expectation of the object we have. Here lies the essence of behavioral objects.

source: Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”

However, the problem arises when, while social expectation has been achieved, both factors of realism are simultaneously activated. In this case there may be a positive evaluation when an inert object starts to move (e.g., a broom in the movie “Fantasia”) while a negative evaluation may occur when an anthropomorphic being starts behaving strangely (e.g., a zombie)36. Behavioral properties are therefore a crucial point in the

115

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

bonding between humans and robots or technological objects37.

116

In 1944 Heider & Simmel conducted an experiment showing on a screen three shapes, two balls and a triangle, moving in different directions. Although no movement target or recognizable form was assigned, the observers spontaneously produced detailed narratives giving intentions and desires to the objects. After several more experiments, the researchers concluded that humans attribute complex psychological and social traits even to arbitrary shapes, provided that there is some orbit of motion and some geometrical relationship. In particular, our perception operates on three levels38: (1) Direct Causal Interactions: The interaction of two forms is interpreted as energy transfer, (2) Extended Intentional Actions: Larger motion patterns are indications of actions performed with a purpose (3) Prolonged Narrations: The actions observed are interpreted as social contexts or stereotypes, and are placed within narrative contexts. Ultimately, we are led to conclude that people's behavioral interpretations are produced even by movement, without the necessary existence of any familiar form.

the role of the movement As mentioned above, movement is also a very important factor in our anthropomorphic trends and behavioral planning. When the rate and quality of movement of an object differs, for example, from fixed to alternating and sudden, it changes the way we perceive it. In order to understand how we interpret movement we must come to an understanding of action. Movement is considered an internal source of information about the causal origin of the behavior. In particular, as we have seen, the human perceptual system is capable of attributing psychological traits to simple movements, which is particularly useful in the production of behavioral artifacts. According to Levillain & Zibetti, behavioral indicators are categorized into three stages: Animacy Level, Agency Level, and Mental Agency Level. We could match these three levels with three questions: Does this object look alive? Does it seem to work for purpose? Does it take into account its environment and the goals of others around it? Thus, while at the Animacy Level (1), a moving object is perceived as essentially autonomous, with unstable behavior and giving a minimal impression of reaction to its immediate environment, at the Agency Level (2), the behavior of the object is interpreted as intentional. The moving object seems to try to carry out specific actions and even organize its behavior in such a way as to assist in the

117

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

realization of those actions. Finally, at the Mental Agency Level (3), the moving object has already been perceived as a purposeful object, and at the same time it appears that its behavior is related to the behavior of the other actuators with which it is likely to interact and communicate39.

118

In a nutshell, a simple autonomous object may not be given any personality trait because its behavior is not organized in such a way that we can characterize it with some psychological trait. But once its behavior is perceptually linked to goals and intentions, a vast range of psychological dimensions opens up. Behavioral objects are therefore distinguished from the rest as they manage to provide evidence from which the human brain can draw conclusions as to the source and justification of their behavior.

what is next? The next step in behavioral design would of course be to study thoroughly and evol ve the technologies even more to manage to create spaces that cause this type of user interaction. In 2002, Kas Oosterhuis proposed the E-motive house, a theoretical proposition of programmable construction that could be transformed. The author described the behavior of the home as a living organism with emotions and moods. Due to the many external and internal factors affecting the building's variability, its behavior cannot be specified and ultimately perceived as unpredictable based on emotions and expressing moods. The home will be individually minded and developing with a learning ability and will be a challenge for the resident to adapt to such an environment. In describing how the house would be perceived by residents, Kas Oosterhuis writes: “Residents talk like a human or pet. How is your home today? Doesn't feel good? Why is your home behaving so weird lately? The doctor may need to see it. Have you taken care of your home enough?”. The E-motive house is more than a static lifeless shell. It is a social being that has emotions, moods and a need for care and communication. In 2006, MIT's Hyperbody Research Group created the Muscle Tower II. It is a "tower" that combines a simple loop of movements and behaviors that makes it turn and swing

119

4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

left-right and forth-to-back. Proximity sensors that detect human presence are placed at the foot of the tower. When one approaches one of the tower's legs, the tower bends toward it for 30 seconds and then resumes its movements. To the surprise and distraction of the viewer, the tower's behavior gives it a sense of a living organism.

120

Technology is the answer, but what was the question? Cedric Price 121

122 4rd section NEW TYPES OF DESIGN

instead of epilogue.. Objects and spaces thus acquire new properties and new goals. Their design no longer lies in structure or form but sets new parameters and new directions. We have seen that in the pre-industrial era the important elements in designing things and objects were function and use, while in the industrial age importance shifted to form combined with function. Today, form begins to lose the value it had acquired in previous years, as ultimately the importance lies not only in the simple functionality of an object but in the way the user interacts with it and the emotional response s that are attributed to it. In short, design today is not about finding a form that facilitates action and function, but about aesthetic interaction that creates patterns of behavior and feedback and leads to an interactive experience. So, with the help of technology, architecture is being transformed acquiring new goals and directions.

123

notes-references 1st section: things and objects

124

1. Panos Dragonas, 09.05.11, «Μετά (την) ιδιωτικότητα: Βασικές έννοιες για τις έννοιες για την σύγχρονη αστική κατοίκηση» https://www.archisearch.gr/theory/metatin-idiotikotita-vasikes-ennoies-gia-ti-syghroni-astikikatoikisi-panos-dragonas/ [GR] 2. Polyxeni Mantzou, «Aporia in Architecture: What now? », Epikentro Publishers, Thessaloniki, 2017 [EN] 3. Paul Knox, Steven Pinch, «Urban Social Geography», (edit: Thomas Maloutas), Savalas Publications, Athens, 2009 [GR] 4. Polyxeni Mantzou, «Aporia in Architecture: What now? », Epikentro Publishers, Thessaloniki, 2017 [EN] 5. Polyxeni Mantzou, «Aporia in Architecture: What now? », Epikentro Publishers, Thessaloniki, 2017 [EN] 6. «Εμπειριστές, ορθολογιστές και Καντ: μία σύνοψη», 05.08.11, < https://searchingthemeaningoflife.wordpress. com/2011/07/05/εμπειριστές-ορθολογιστές-και-καντ-μι/> [GR] 7. Martin Heidegger, “What is a thing”, Indiana, USA, Gateway, 1967 [EN] 8. Martin Heidegger, “What is a thing”, Indiana, USA, Gateway, 1967 [EN] 9. Bill Brown, “Thing Theory”, < http://links.jstor.org/ sici?sici=0093-1896%28200123%2928%3A1%3C1%3ATT%3 E2.0.CO%3B2-4 >, article in the magazine Critical Inquiry, vol 28, no.1, 2001 [EN] 10. Bill Brown, “Thing Theory”, < http://links.jstor.org/ sici?sici=0093-1896%28200123%2928%3A1%3C1%3ATT%3 E2.0.CO%3B2-4 >, article in the magazine Critical Inquiry, vol 28, no.1, 2001 [EN] 11. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN]

2nd section: perception 1. Νέα Ακρόπολη, «Αριστοτέλης VS Πλάτωνας. Οι διαφορές των 2 γιγάντων», 09.10.17, 3month magazine of Philosophical Research, <https://www.nea-acropoli-athens.gr/arthra/filosofia/338-aristotelis-vs-platona > [GR] 2. Νέα Ακρόπολη, «Αριστοτέλης VS Πλάτωνας. Οι διαφορές των 2 γιγάντων», 09.10.17, 3month magazine of Philosophical Research, <https://www.nea-acropoli-athens.gr/arthra/filosofia/338-aristotelis-vs-platona > [GR] 3. «Εμπειριστές, ορθολογιστές και Καντ: μία σύνοψη», 05.08.11, < https://searchingthemeaningoflife.wordpress. com/2011/07/05/εμπειριστές-ορθολογιστές-και-καντ-μι/> [GR] 4. Immanuel Kant, Επιστητά <https://sites.google.com/site/ epistita/home/philosophia/kant> [GR] 5. Martin Heidegger, “What is a thing”, Indiana, USA, Gateway, 1967 [EN] 6. Bill Brown, “Thing Theory”, < http://links.jstor.org/sic i?sici=0093-1896%28200123%2928%3A1%3C1%3ATT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 >, article in the magazine Critical Inquiry, vol 28, no.1, 2001 [EN] 7. Bill Brown, “Thing Theory”, < http://links.jstor.org/sic i?sici=0093-1896%28200123%2928%3A1%3C1%3ATT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 >, article in the magazine Critical Inquiry, vol 28, no.1, 2001 [EN] 8. Michael Foucault, «Οι λέξεις και τα πράγματα» [“Les mots et les choses”], (translated in Greek by Kostis Papagiorgis), Gnosi, Athens, 1986 [GR] 9. Bill Brown, “Thing Theory”, < http://links.jstor.org/sic i?sici=0093-1896%28200123%2928%3A1%3C1%3ATT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 >, article in the magazine Critical Inquiry, vol 28, no.1, 2001 [EN]

125

126

10. Bill Brown, “Thing Theory”, < http://links.jstor.org/sic i?sici=0093-1896%28200123%2928%3A1%3C1%3ATT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 >, article in the magazine Critical Inquiry, vol 28, no.1, 2001 [EN] 11. Bill Brown, “Thing Theory”, < http://links.jstor.org/sic i?sici=0093-1896%28200123%2928%3A1%3C1%3ATT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 >, article in the magazine Critical Inquiry, vol 28, no.1, 2001 [EN] 12. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 13. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 14. Dylan Kerr, 08.04.16, “What is Object-Oriented Ontology? A quick-and-dirty guide to the Philosophical Movement Sweeping the Art World”, https://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/the_big_idea/a-guide-to-object-oriented-ontology-art-53690 [EN] 15. Dylan Kerr, 08.04.16, “What is Object-Oriented Ontology? A quick-and-dirty guide to the Philosophical Movement Sweeping the Art World”, https://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/the_big_idea/a-guide-to-object-oriented-ontology-art-53690 [EN] 16. Heidegger noted that for the definition of a being causality and Aristotelian separation into material, special, final and poetic causes are required. That is, a being must be made of a material, belong to a species, have an original poetic cause and be directed to an ultimate goal. These reveal to us the quality of the being to be what it is and not something else; thus, its essence. 17. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 18. Both the arts and the fine arts have always had a "natural" complementary relationship with humans. Through

this perspective and by etymologically analyzing the word technology we conclude that what we call technology or technological achievement "was meant to be" "means" 19. Alkis Gounaris, «Η οντολογική θεμελίωση της Περιβαλλοντικής Ηθικής στον Heidegger», < https://alkisgounaris.gr/gr/archives/ontological-foundation-of-environmental-ethics-in-heidegger/ > [GR] 20. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 3rd section: The design 1. According to Lewis Mumford, the machine manages to replace a wide range of variables; objects are made with minimal restrictions to measure and adapt to needs. In this way, we lead to the creation of a new language. If handicrafts correspond to words or speech, industrial objects form a whole linguistic system, Baudrillard adds. However, the language system does not create a new language on its own. In a car, the voice is not given by the material structure, but by the form, the color, the contour, the accessories as well as the overall social presence of the car as an object. Finally, he concludes, we have a Tower of Babel where everyone speaks their personal idioms, although even so, serial production manages through calibrated differences and variations to draw messages and create a dictionary of forms and colors with which reason can be expressed. 2. Polyxeni Mantzou, «Aporia in Architecture: What now? », Epikentro Publishers, Thessaloniki, 2017 [EN] 3. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 4. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into

127

128

English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 5. "Φυση"(pronounced "Pheesi", meaning "nature") for the ancient Greeks was everything that is between heaven, earth, gods, and people. It is the Being of beings; the power of beings to emerge, to evolve, to "present". On the contrary, today we perceive nature mechanistically in the sense given to the western world by the Latin word natura. (Natura presupposes a parent, a creative cause, while in nature, what "sprouts" contains its cause). 6. Bill Brown, “Thing Theory”, < http://links.jstor.org/sic i?sici=0093-1896%28200123%2928%3A1%3C1%3ATT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 >, article in the magazine Critical Inquiry, vol 28, no.1, 2001 [EN] 7. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 8. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 9. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 10. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 11. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 12. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 13. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 14. Luigi Prestinenza Puglisi, “Hyper Architecture: Spaces in the electronic age”, (translated into English : Lucinda Byatt, Basel; Boston; Berlin; Birkhauser, 1999 [EN] 15. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 16. The need refers to the activated, innate or learned pro-

cess of satisfying the lack of an essential vital element in the body that leads the person to act in order to satisfy it and is divided into primary (e.g. need for water and food) and secondary needs (need for love and affection ). On the other hand, desire is not the need for something, but the awareness of that need. Desire is guided by the superego that commands the subject to pleasure. Desire has been explored in philosophy, the social sciences, psychoanalysis, and psychiatry. 17. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 4th section: New types of design 1. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 2. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 3. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 4. Polyxeni Mantzou, «Aporia in Architecture: What now? », Epikentro Publishers, Thessaloniki, 2017 [EN] 5. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 6. Polyxeni Mantzou, «Aporia in Architecture: What now? », Epikentro Publishers, Thessaloniki, 2017 [EN] 7. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 8. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 9. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική»,

129

130

Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 10. Sally A. Applin, Michael D. Fischer, Μάρτιος 2013, “Thing Theory: Connecting Humans to Location-Aware Smart Environments”, < http://www.dfki.de/LAMDa/2013/accepted/13_ApplinFischer.pdf> [GR] 11. Internet of Things is the communication network of a variety of devices, home appliances, cars as well as any object that incorporates electronic means, software, sensors, and network connectivity to allow the connection and exchange of data. In short, the philosophy of the IoT is to connect all electronic devices to each other (local area network) or to connect them to the Internet (World Wide Web). The Internet of Things is one of the top three technological developments of the next decade (along with mobile Internet and knowledge work automation) and is the next big step in technology. The term Internet of Things was coined in the 1990s by Kevin Ashton. 12. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 13. Don Norman, The design of Everyday things, HΠΑ, 1988 [EN] 14. Erik and Ronald Rietveld, “Affordances and Architecture”, < https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/superhumanity/179234/affordances-and-architecture/> [EN] 15. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 16. Don Norman, Emotional Design, ΗΠΑ, 2003 [EN] 17. Leibniz (1646-1716) argued that "two things will never be the same", as the Being of things says is created by God, according to the Christian theological interpretation. If there were ever two identical things in the world, then God would have been wrong and would have been at odds with the perfection of the ultimate Creator, Perfecto Dei. On the

other hand, regardless of religious interpretation, things, as we have seen, are about handmade creation, which will never be able to produce two completely identical products. 18. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 19. Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”, < https://www.academia.edu/33321787/Behavioral_Objects_The_Rise_of_ the_Evocative_Machines > [EN] 20. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 21. Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”, < https://www.academia.edu/33321787/Behavioral_Objects_The_Rise_of_ the_Evocative_Machines > [EN] 22. Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”, < https://www.academia.edu/33321787/Behavioral_Objects_The_Rise_of_ the_Evocative_Machines > [EN] 23. Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”, < https://www.academia.edu/33321787/Behavioral_Objects_The_Rise_of_ the_Evocative_Machines > [EN] 24. Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”, < https://www.academia.edu/33321787/Behavioral_Objects_The_Rise_of_ the_Evocative_Machines > [EN] 25. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 26. Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”, < https://www.academia.edu/33321787/Behavioral_Objects_The_Rise_of_ the_Evocative_Machines > [EN]

131

132

27. Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”, < https://www.academia.edu/33321787/Behavioral_Objects_The_Rise_of_ the_Evocative_Machines > [EN] 28. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 29. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 30. Ezio Manzini, “Artefactos”, Celeste Ediciones y Experimenta Ediciones de Diseño, Madrid, 1992 [ES] 31. Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects'', (translated into English by James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 [EN] 32. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 33. Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”, < https://www.academia.edu/33321787/Behavioral_Objects_The_Rise_of_ the_Evocative_Machines > [EN] 34. Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Εκδοτικός Όμιλος Ιών, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 [GR] 35. Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”, < https://www.academia.edu/33321787/Behavioral_Objects_The_Rise_of_ the_Evocative_Machines > [EN] 36. Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”, < https://www.academia.edu/33321787/Behavioral_Objects_The_Rise_of_ the_Evocative_Machines > [EN] 37. However, in digital virtual environments such as video games, the social presence of virtual avatars depends directly on their behavioral and morphological realism. In this case, the behavioral realism lies primarily in the execution of some reactions that depend on the user's movements

(eg recording the user's face to adjust the direction of the robot's gaze, social gestures such as greetings or turning to speech direction), so the correspondence of morphological and behavioral realism is more than acceptable. There are still some platforms such as Paro, a therapeutic robot that implements realistic behaviors in combination with human or animal form, and manages to establish a relationship of intimacy and empathy. While in this case other limitations arise, they meet at least the conditions of physical integration, autonomous movement and the ability to dialogue. 38. Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”, < https://www.academia.edu/33321787/Behavioral_Objects_The_Rise_of_ the_Evocative_Machines > [EN] 39. A moving object that spontaneously changes its movements is not always interpreted as autonomous, as the first thought of the observer is always that some external source manages his movements. The transition from this impression to the characterization of the object as autonomous depends on the coherence of the behavior over time. Still, the transition from the level of motion to the level of energy occurs when a moving object adapts its behavior concerning external constraints, which leads us to believe that it chooses specific means to achieve a goal. For example, Roomba, the robot broom, would be qualified to rank in energy level as its behavior is enough to start believing that its action is premeditated. At the last level, we go when we observe that two objects change their behavior depending on the movements of the other. At this level, it is possible to identify pre-social or antisocial properties on the part of the objects.

133

bibliography English Jean Baudrillard, “The System of Objects”, (transl. into Engl. James Benedict), Verso, London, 1996 Michael Fox, Miles Kemp, «Interactive Architecture», Princeton Architectural Press, New York Graham Harman, «Object Oriented Ontology: Α new Theory of Everything», Penguin Books, Great Britain, 2017 Martin Heidegger, “Poetry, Language, Thought”, (transl. by Albert Hofstader), 1971 Martin Heidegger, “What is a thing”, Indiana, USA, Gateway, 1967 Polyxeni Mantzou, «Aporia in Architecture: What now? », Επίκεντρο, Θεσσαλονίκη, 2017 Ezio Manzini, “Artefactos”, Celeste Ediciones y Experimenta Ediciones de Diseno, Mαδρίτη, 1992 Marshall McLuhan, «The Gutenberg Galaxy: The walking of the Typographic Man». Canada: University of Toronto press,1962. Don Norman, Emotional Design, ΗΠΑ, 2003 Don Norman, The design of Everyday things, HΠΑ, 1988 134

Luigi Prestinenza Puglisi, “Hyper Architecture: Spaces in the electronic age”, (transl. into Engl.: Lucinda Byatt, Basel; Boston; Berlin; Birkhauser, 1999 Κώστας Τερζίδης, «Algorithmic Architecture». Oxford : MIT PRESS, 2006

Greek Jean Baudrillard – Jean Nouvel, «Τα μοναδικά αντικείμενα» (The Singular Objects), transl. Nikos Iliadis, Futura publishers, January 2005 Michael Foucault, «Οι λέξεις και τα πράγματα» [Les mots et les choses], (transl. Kostis Papagiorgis), Gnosi Publishers, Athens, 1986 Martin Heidegger, «Κτίζειν, κατοικείν, σκέπτεσθαι»["Building, Dwelling, Thinking"], μτφ. Γεώργιος Ξηροπαίδης, Εκδόσεις Πλέθρον, 2008 Paul Knox, Steven Pinch, «Κοινωνική Γεωγραφία των Πόλεων» ["Urban Social Geography"], (edit: Thomas Maloutas), Savalas Publishers, Athens, 2009 Sokratis Giannoudis, «Προσαρμόσιμη Αρχιτεκτονική», Ion Publisers, Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2012 Dimitris Papalexopoulos, «Digital Regionalism», Libro, Athens, December 2008 Dimitris Papalexopoulos, Eleni Kalafati, «Takis Zenetos, Visioni digitali, architetture construite,», Libro, Athens, 2006 Articles Samuel Bianchini, Remy Bourganel, Emanuele Quinz, Florent Levillain, Elisabetta Zanetti, “(Mis)behavioral Objects: Empowerment of Users vs Empowerment of Objects”, https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/283871404_Misbehavioral_ objects_Empowerment_of_users_versus_empowerment_of_ objects Switzerland, 2015 Walid Abdel Moneim Abdel Kader, “Architecture and Human Behavior, Does Design Affect our senses?”, < https://www.

135

studocu.com/en/document/universite-lumiere-lyon-ii/ marketing/essays/architecture-and-human-behavior-doesdesign-affect-our-senses/2755420/view>, 2009-2010 Sally A. Applin, Michael D. Fischer, Μάρτιος 2013, “Thing Theory: Connecting Humans to Location-Aware Smart Environments”, < http://www.dfki.de/LAMDa/2013/accepted/13_ ApplinFischer.pdf> Roy Ascott, 2005, “Behaviourist Art and the Cybernetic Vision”, < http://pl02.donau-uni.ac.at/jspui/bitstream/10002/615/1/ Roy%20Ascott.pdf> Bill Brown, “Thing Theory”, < http://links.jstor.org/ sici?sici=0093-1896%28200123%2928%3A1%3C1%3ATT%3E2. 0.CO%3B2-4>, άρθρο στο περιοδικό Critical Inquiry, τεύχος 28, no.1, 2001 Neil Leach, “Digital Tool Thinking: Object Oriented Ontology versus New Materialism” < http://papers.cumincad.org/data/ works/att/acadia16_344.pdf> Florent Levillain, Elizabetta Zibetti, “Behavioral Objects: The rise of the Evocative Machines”, < https://www.academia. edu/33321787/Behavioral_Objects_The_Rise_of_the_Evocative_ Machines>

136

Mina Najafi, Mustafa Kamal Bin Mohd Shariff, “The Concept of Place and Sense of Place in Architectural Studies”, < https:// waset.org/publications/14034/the-concept-of-place-andsense-of-place-in-architectural-studies> ,2011 Slavoj Zizek, “Objects, Objects Everywhere: A critique of Object Oriented Ontology”, < https://conversations.e-flux.com/t/ slavoj-zizek-objects-objects-everywhere-a-critique-of-objectoriented-ontology/3284> Φεβρουάριος 2016 Πάνος Δραγώνας, 09.05.11, «Μετά (την) ιδιωτικότητα: Βασικές έννοιες για τις έννοιες για την σύγχρονη αστική κατοίκηση»

<https://www.archisearch.gr/theory/meta-tin-idiotikotitavasikes-ennoies-gia-ti-syghroni-astiki-katoikisi-panosdragonas/> Γεώργιος Ξηροπαίδης, “Χαιντεγκερ και αρχιτεκτονική. Παρατηρήσεις γύρω από ένα αμφιλεγόμενο θέμα» The Chicago School of Media Theory, “thing”, https://lucian. uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/thing/ Νέα Ακρόπολη, «Αριστοτέλης VS Πλάτωνας. Οι διαφορές των 2 γιγάντων», 09.10.17, 3μηνιαίο περιοδικό φιλοσοφικής έρευνας, <https://www.nea-acropoli-athens.gr/arthra/filosofia/338aristotelis-vs-platona> «Εμπειριστές, ορθολογιστές και Καντ: μία σύνοψη», 05.08.11, < https://searchingthemeaningoflife.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/ εμπειριστές-ορθολογιστές-και-καντ-μι/ Eugene T. Gendlin, “An analysis of Martin Heidegger’s What is a thing?”, 1967, < https://focusing.org/gendlin/docs/gol-2041> Geoff Tsai, MIT Ideation Lab, 29.10.10, “Emotional Design: Designing Products that excite Users” < http:// web.mit.edu/2.009/www/resources/mediaAndArticles/ TsaiEmotionalDesign-Web.pdf> Susan Piedmont-Palladino, April 2018, “Into the Uncanny Valley”, < https://placesjournal.org/article/into-the-uncannyvalley/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_ campaign=boost#ref_10> Geoarchitecture, 23.6.13, “Graham Harman at the Architecture Exchange”, < https://placesjournal.org/article/ into-the-uncanny-valley/?utm_source=facebook&utm_ medium=cpc&utm_campaign=boost#ref_10> Mojtaba Parsaee, December 2016, “Interactive architectural approach (interactive architecture): An effective and adaptive

137

process for architectural design, < https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S1687404815000036> Sara Hadavi, February 2015, “Environmental affordances: A practical approach for design of nearby outdoor settings in urban residential areas” < https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0169204614002333> Elisa Giaccardi, Interactive Media Design TU Delft, < https:// www.tudelft.nl/en/ide/research/discover-design/can-thingsdesign-things/> Κομπρεσερ περιοδικό, «Ενδιάμεσοι χώροι χρόνοι περιπλανήσεις μηχανισμοί σκέψης» < https://kompreser.espivblogs. net/2011/04/02/endiamesoixwroi/> Jesper Magnusson, “Objects vs Things”, < https:// philosophiesresarc.net/2013/03/11/objects-vs-things/> Dylan Kerr, 08.04.16, “What is Object-Oriented Ontology? A quick-and-dirty guide to the Philosophical Movement Sweeping the Art World”, https://www.artspace.com/magazine/ interviews_features/the_big_idea/a-guide-to-object-orientedontology-art-53690 Erik and Ronald Rietveld, “Affordances and Architecture”, < https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/superhumanity/179234/ affordances-and-architecture/

138

139

140

aknowledgments At last, we would like to thank: Our professor, ms. Polyxeni Mantzou for her valuable guidance and support throughout the course of our study. Without her help and contribution our project would not be as it is today. The DiDiDUTH team for the advices and their observations at our weekly meetings. Our families and friends for the love, the support and their patience throughout all the way.

141

142