Paradoxical System

In Reinier de Graaf’s text “I Will Learn You Architecture,” he describes his postulation of the architect within the context of various examples the architect faces throughout education and practice, and how these experiences shape architectural theory. De Graaf delineates the experiences of the architect beginning with the awakening from the idyllic and theoretical architectural educational system to the stodgy routine of architectural practice, where the architect is dependent on clients, engineering practicalities, and construction budgets. The various examples De Graaf moves through in this text ultimately showcase the notion that architecture is a paradoxical system. When de Graaf’s commentary is paired with Robert Venturi’s Complexity and Contradiction, it becomes apparent just how much architecture is in itself a practice of paradoxes; in the context of de Graaf, this paradox is one that stems from architectural education. De Graaf explains the abjuration of idealism when the young architect is in his first job. However, de Graaf manages to draw the reader back in with the sense that all is not lost when it comes to the idealism of the architect and the need for these contradictions, extrapolating how the practical and the ideal manage to come together in the built and non-built environment. De Graaf’s begins his portrayal of architecture within the context of the “real world” in his description of his first job upon graduating architecture school. He describes his first job as one that in no way reflects the study of architecture; however, there are moments where one can see de Graaf’s tinge of idealism, aside from feeling “utterly useless” within the context of his projects at work. The sense of idealism is present when De Graaf describes the delight felt among the junior architects from the notion that the building’s interior may work its way up and somehow, “overtake the construction of the upper floors” (de Graaf); it is within this statement one could interpret hope, a possibility of revision and recalibration even when something is in the process of construction, that is felt among the young architects. This demonstrates the extent to which the architect is able to continue to rethink and reshape what is already constructed, proving the idealism that is still present in them in what could be seen as an otherwise bleak predicament. In order to rethink a concept, there must be a sense of idealism; in this example, idealism exists in a space presented as banal. However, for de Graaf and his cohort of junior architects, idealism is present and therefore serves as one example of the paradox of the ideal with the banal. Upon reading De Graaf’s article and discussing excerpts from Venturi’s Complexity and Contradiction, Venturi’s idea of architecture as a “difficult whole” can be pinpointed in de Graaf.

Venturi manages to elaborate on embracing the contradictions and reorganizing the various paradoxes present in architecture. In Venturi, the whole can be interpreted as the sum of architecture’s parts and the challenge to unify the components that encompass an architectural form. However, finding a way to unify these parts is difficult and leads to another paradox of these parts as well as the need to see them as a cohesive unit; this notion can be paired with de Graaf’s representation of the contradictory examples within his piece. If architecture is seen as a reevaluation of the complexity of the parts, then consideration of how the complexity of these parts contradict one another must be examined. Architecture can then be understood as a means of accommodating this difficult architectural whole (Venturi). In “I Will Learn You Architecture,” De Graaf states and restates ideas about architectural education, the practice of architecture, financial obligations, and the importance of an architect within the real world in various ways. De Graaf exclaims, “architecture offers a space for contradiction” (de Graaf) and goes on to mention his self contradiction. Each topic in de Graaf’s article demonstrates paradoxical understandings, and further manages to develop the notion of Venturi’s paradox within these examples. Another instance of the architectural paradox can be interpreted when de Graaf explains the economic and the intellectual terms of architecture. The former is described as a response to pre-formulated needs, and the latter is a visionary domain claiming the future. However, both are necessary for architecture to continue, yet de Graaf contends this causes architects to possess an “utter dependency” in that both conditions are equally true. Furthermore, the notion of the architect-client relationship is perhaps where the bridge of the paradoxical world of architecture infiltrates the outside world. De Graaf explains the significance of charisma as the “incongruence between architecture’s intellectual claims and its economic reality,” (de Graaf). It establishes a bridge from the paradoxical world of architecture as a translation tool used to communicate to the outside world of clients, contractors, engineers, etc. Rather than its traditional definition, charisma should be thought of as a translational tool between the architect and another person as a way to shift the authority back to the architect. It is also a way to represent the paradoxes in a palatable and understandable way for the listener, whilst allowing the architect to reorient their own limits of power, “to temporarily suspend the disbelief of his patrons and get the upper hand in the absence of real mandate,” (de Graaf). Architecture begins with the paradox, and the notion of the paradox allows for the ceaseless questioning of the practice within itself to occur, allowing change and reinvention. Architecture is the space for contradiction as it theorizes its own practice and reorganizes the processes and ideas which it joins in on. Architecture is a way to challenge the status quo through a series of questions stemming from these very paradoxes de Graaf explains in his article, which Venturi also explores. This paradoxical system of architecture allows the architect to challenge the balance of power, beat the system, and remain an idealist in his or her own right.

Grid and Box; What happens if they start a fight? How do they relate? How do they define each other?

Two enemies: Grid and Box. Grid versus Box. They are fighting. What are they? What do they do to each other?

Grid: Four edges. Mostly square. Like a box. No exact dimension. Unclear limits. Limitless.

Box: Four edges from the front elevation. Depth is a third dimension. It has exact dimensions. It has limits, it is limited.

Grid and Box. Black and white. As Robert Venturi says, “I am for richness of meaning rather than clarity of meaning; for the implicit function. I prefer ‘both-and’ to ‘either-or,’ black and white, and sometimes gray, to black or white.”

“Grid versus Box”: Grid with the box. Or Box with the grid.

Grid with the box. “With” describes an object which describes a subject.

Grid is the winner of this fight.

Grid is the subject.

Grid is stable. Grid is still a grid, but the box is affected by Grid.

The box wants to show its depth, its third dimension.

But Grid is there. It doesn’t let the box be three dimensional.

We can change the game.

Box with the grid.

The grid describes Box.

The grid is there for Box.

Box is the winner.

The grid is stuck in Box.

Box uses the grid. Box is still a box: Big or small, tall or short.

We can start to compare different boxes and different surfaces.

Now, the grid is there to scale.

Architecture and fashion both create dynamic, experiential spaces in which we live. Governed by the human need for comfort and self-expression, they are composed of complex systems merging to produce an insulated shell catering to human functions. Both fields share distinctive elements and use similar processes that take conceptual, flat designs from the world of 2D screen or patterns to the 3D material world, where they become volumetric and spatial. Fashion techniques like patternmaking and sewing seams can be translated to construction drawings and jointing in architecture. However, both fields share more than the expression of aesthetics and materiality. In a world where the environment is a primary concern of innovative design, the demand to maintain a human’s comfort level is an issue both fields explore. In the world of fashion, a dichotomy exists between garments tight and loose on the shape of the human body. Fashion designers challenge the status quo with their designs while also designing with respect to the body. For example, the work of Rick Owens, particularly in his Spring/Summer 2014 and Fall/Winter 2017 runway collections, engages with a variety of bodies by projecting non-constrictive shapes onto the models. Through a variety of draping techniques, Owen’s garments address the body’s comfort level while also remaining fashionable. Conversely, avant-garde architects may identify strongly with fashion designer Rei Kawakubo of Comme des Garçons; in many of her works, Kawakubo projects abstract shapes onto a model’s body not unlike the parametric architectural designs common today. In her Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 runway collections, Kawakubo uses structural techniques to create extravagant, form-driven designs following her avantgarde concepts while also creating non-constrictive and spacious interiors. The ambiguity of her designs erases evidence of the human body and implies a respect for the body, whatever shape it may be. These designers carefully consider the relationship between the body and garment, and by doing so, establish an integrity and care for the body’s comfort level without compromising their designs. It is in the relationships between the skin of the body and the skin of a building where architects must express more awareness. If architecture is to create formal and functional spaces, then we must pay more attention to the relationship between the building and the human inside, namely the congruent nature of the garment and the skin of the building. Architects must grapple with the challenges of large-scale buildings where humans move freely within walls. However, there are still enough similarities between fashion and architecture that allow them to be studied in parallel. By looking at specific techniques fashion designers implement, we can begin to unravel the way in which architects can be mindful of the human body. Two common categories of fashion techniques are structural and draping. Structural techniques include a variety of seams, ruching, interfacing, smocking, boning, quilting, and darts;

techniques often require the garment to be altered in some way in order for it to fit as desired. In contrast, draping takes advantage of a fabric’s properties by simply allowing it lay across the body for a desired effect. Draping techniques include folds, tucks, gathering, and a variety of pleats. Pleats and darts are fundamental techniques used in fashion. Pleats are a form of draping defined by the use of excess material to create more volume and thus a non-constricting garment. The pleat can be hand made or machine-pressed and range from tight accordion pleats to wider box pleats. Issey Miyake’s works exhibit the extent to which one can use pleats. His projects distinctive shapes on the body create not only textural profiles, but also create more space and volume for the wearer; as a result, his clothes are both highly formal and functional. Conversely, darts, a structural technique, are defined by the removal or concealment of material in order to create more shape; this makes darts are more versatile than pleats. Where pleats can be used to create more volume, darts, in their removal of material, can create both constricting and non-constricting forms, depending on the shape of the human body and the desired effect. Thus, we see how the comfort of the human body is considered in the implementation of darts and pleats. How can these techniques be translated in architectural terms? How can architects use the concept of a pleat in the controlled environment of a building? One example would be ARUP’s passive ventilation system used in the Eastgate Centre in Zimbabwe. Initially inspired by termite mounds, Arup “designed a forced ventilation system comprised of a filtered mechanical supply, tempered by the thermal mass of the building, with close control of the buildings internal and external heat sources. This conducts air through the structure, cooling the concrete. During the day, the system provides adequate ventilation while absorbing heat loads without causing excessive temperature rises.”1 The chimney running through the building gets pinched at the top, much in the same way a standard pleat is stitched and tucked to create a volume below. By comparing this ventilation technique to a pleat, we see the relationship between the shape of the compressed top and the volume below. On a smaller scale, we can see how pleating is similarly used in ventilated facades. Through the incorporation of a sloped air gap between the insulating panels and the external cladding, a building can be efficiently protected and cooled.2 A pleat in the façade of a building can be thought of as more than just an aesthetic feature but one with environmental implications. Both the macro and micro environment are addressed in the resultant use of less electricity for air conditioning. Pleats aid in fulfilling environmental requirements while also helping us solve volumetric relationships, which we are often reluctant to relinquish to our environmental engineers. Now if we look at darts which consist of the removal or concealment of material in order to create more shape, how can architects use these concepts in the controlled environment of a building? The act of removing material is already a more efficient way of designing, but the versatile aspect of the dart worth noting is the relationship between creating more space and flexibility by removing or concealing what exists. An example of the removal of redundant material would be in Kiel Moe’s experimentation with CLT construction panels. By removing redundant material within the panel and using it for a ventilated facade, we can

create a more efficient ventilated façade than those often used by contemporary architects. It works through what Moe calls the “Choked Cavity”, which creates a convective transfer.3 Like a dart, the act of removing material creates a surplus of efficiently ventilated air and improves the shape and quality of comfort. (Why is this like a dart) Another example of the way in which the concept of the dart is used is in SANAA’s Zollverein School of Management and Design in Essen, Germany. Located on the edge of the colliery industrial area, Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa use the mine shafts as a central role in the building’s thermal strategy. By tapping into the water supply, engineers were able to use wastewater as a free source of energy. Using heat exchangers in the pump stations, the heated water is pumped into the school and cycled through its thermally active surfaces.4 Using already existing mineshafts, the designers at SANAA were able to keep the thin walls central to their formal ambitions and avoid what would have been a triple-layer concrete wall, as though they used the mineshaft as a dart. The desired form was preserved by using existing material the same way existing fabric concealed in a dart can be used to alter a garment and get a desired form. These kinds of innovative moves used in architecture stand out in the field for their resourcefulness and efficiency. The inhabitants’ comfort is addressed, efficiency is maximized, and the use of excess material is minimized; perhaps, the concept of the versatility of a dart could inspire future architectural works. In comparison, the complex versatility of a dart surpasses the mundane use of a pleat. In fashion, a pleat provides volume, space, and more comfort but isn’t of further use. However, a dart allows the designer to manipulate the form of a garment to the shape of the body and if material is concealed rather than removed, alterations can be made. The form of the garment is preserved, and the comfort of the human body is addressed. If architects choose to design in meaningful and resourceful ways, then we must consider what materials we have at our disposal before we begin using an excess. Comfort levels can be addressed without the need for superfluous volume and material. The environment can be addressed without the need for waste. Architecture is a field that finds its home in between contradicting fields; however, because it is able to unify the arts and sciences, it stands strong. Let architecture learn from fashion, translate its techniques, and use more darts; after all, fashion and architecture both revolve around designing protective layers for people.

1. “Eastgate,” ARUP. https://www.arup.com/projects/eastgate. 2. “Ventilated Facades: Not All Technologies Are Equal” 06 Nov 2017. ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/881143/ventilated-walls-not-all-technologies-are-equal/. 3. Moe, Kiel. “The Stackhouse: R-Values Are Not Our Values” 03 Apr 2017. UVA School of Architecture – The Building Lecture Series. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=DeoLSFUbPYA. 4. Moe, Kiel. Thermally Active Surfaces in Architecture. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 2010.

Annotated Bibliography:

“Eastgate,” ARUP. https://www.arup.com/projects/eastgate.

ARUP’s website provides a short and concrete description of the work they performed on the Eastgate Centre in Zimbabwe. It is in that short summary of their work that I could define their use of ventilation systems to compare this specific example to a pleat.

Moe, Kiel. “The Stackhouse: R-Values Are Not Our Values” 03 Apr 2017. UVA School of Architecture – The Building Lecture Series. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=DeoLSFUbPYA.

In Kiel Moe’s lecture at UVA School of Architecture, he discusses his work on the Stackhouse and how the mathematical analysis he performed on certain systems allowed him to make informed decisions in his architecture. He also goes into depth on his experimentation with CLT panels that he used for another project. It is in his description of the removal of redundantmaterials in CLT panels and its improvement on convection heat transfers that I compare to darts.

Moe, Kiel. Thermally Active Surfaces in Architecture. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 2010.

In Kiel Moe’s book, Thermally Active Surfaces in Architecture, Moe discusses the efficient use and relevant implications of thermally active surfaces used in architecture. It is in his analysis of the SANAA’s School of Management and Design in Essen, Germany that I use this text. I compare SANAA’s resourcefulness in using the existing mineshafts filled with warm water to the use of concealed material in darts used in tailoring.

“Ventilated Facades: Not All Technologies Are Equal” 06 Nov 2017. ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/881143/ventilated-walls-not-all-technologies-are-equal/.

In this ArchDaily article, the author defines what a ventilated façade is and discusses how traditional ventilated facades can vary. It is in their detailed definition of a ventilated façade that I compare the technique of a pleat to ventilated façade systems used in architecture.