The Space Is Aware of the Computer, But the Computer Was Trying to Forget the Space.
When we read writings by architects, we are often surprised to learn how architects have been reflecting about the impact of computer on architecture from the initial stage in the development of computers.In contrast, the side of the computer science had no such awareness. On the contrary, as we can see in network technology, computer science has been seeking to capture an "abstract character," wherein it can ignore physical space. The ability to work without knowing where the computer which is actually doing calculations is located, or knowing where the actual data is located at - the computer science side has been seeking out such a purely logical environment.
This can be called a pursuit of a thoroughgoing purity in logic. Such a pursuit of a world of pure logic which is not barred by any of the contradictions, restrictions, and stains of the real world - this can only be described as a very Western type of motivation.
And, then, virtual reality was born, and research began to be conducted on multi-user virtual space such as MUD(Multi-user Dungeon). That is, the computer side became awake to the necessity of space once again.
I think that in the background of this were moves in response to dispersal of computer users. For someone who is not a computer hacker or buff, development of a graphical interface has been a blessing. And just as Internet made a big breakthrough with the graphical interface of WWW, the multi-user virtual space such as MUD will be key in enabling end users to conduct collaboration work in the network world.
While there are problems such as the band width of the network, it will soon become possible to bring a world drawn up by cyber-punk SF into reality.
"Possibility" and "impossibility" of "(non) architecture"
And, now, there is the idea of designing a functional space within such a cyberspace - and a certain interpretation which says that such a thing is also a category of "architecture" appears to be emerging in a part of the world of architecture.And as we can see easily, this is a design field which is close to designing of man-machine interface and designing of games. Now, in that kind of a world, what kind of things separate the "possible" and "impossible" in "(non) architecture"?
Hackers say that the 0/1 incantation and a deep understanding of actual hardware are the keys for using the magic in the world of computer. If that is so, then, as in the case of Taoist theory of chaos (and the idea that once you introduce some form into chaos, that will kill the chaos), cyberspace could only kill infinite possibilities. If cyberspace is to be imposed upon regardless of that, then, it can only be explained as something done because of the "limitations of the awareness" of the "great majority" of users.
Actually, when "(non) architecture" in cyberspace is thought of, in the first place, there are already "limitations of the awareness" on the part of the designer.
And even if something that "transcends" (such limitations) could be designed somehow, and even if that could be built within cyberspace (which is hard to imagine), that still can not "exist." For unless it is recognized by others, and unless it is not used by the "great majority," it is same as not existing. After all, cyberspace is a world which is ruled by the "principle of the observer."
Within this context, McLuhan專 statement that "in the initial stage of a new media, it becomes an imitation of the media of the previous era" is cited often, right? It appears to imply, however, that once we get used to (a given new media), then, the boundaries of our awareness will become broader. But I do not share this view.
Now, we are told that human brains have been tuned in such a way as to facilitate our living in the actual physical space, and that a large number of circuits and algorithm have been prepared in a genetic manner. And even though we may not be aware of the process, our brains are new learning modes of activity throughout our lives. Even if we feel that learning how to input with the keyboard is difficult, it takes only a few months to learn at the most. It certainly does not compare with piano playing in difficulty. Certainly, learning to write characters is incomparably more difficulty.
Since most of the capabilities of the human brains are now being used to handle horrendously difficult matters associated with the actual living, it is too much to expect much more beyond that from the brains. And it is probably pushing things too far to ignore the fairly well-functioning, existing system for cognition of the world, and demand another, new system.
In that case, we must recognize that the "limitations in awareness" based upon our body exist stubbornly for the "great majority," and that this fact stipulates any "(non) architecture." That is, it will end up with the rediscovery of the body.
The Urge to Make Architecture Resemble Computer.
In the TRON Project which I have continued to work on starting in 1984, we have proposed an approach that differs from virtual space, and we have continued our research and development work accordingly. In short, our approach is one of "sticking close to the reality."We put computers into everything that make up a home, and have all of them connected up in a network. And, all of these elements exchange information mutually, and we can cooperate and carry out decentralized processing toward the one goal of providing a comfortable environment. What if an intelligent building can be built in this manner? What if all the buildings and homes become something like this, and become connected with one another....? How nice it would be to have computers built into the road structure, so that the road can interact and exchange data with automobiles running on the road...? And how would such an approach work for a city overall? - In this way, applications images increase and spread more and more.
Realization of this kind of environment is the consistent objective of the TRON Project. We call this approach "computers everywhere." This kind of research has become better known broadly in the world in the recent years under names such as "Computer Augmented Environment," "Ubiquitous Computing," and "Embedded Virtuality," and it is becoming recognized as one of the latest fields of computer research.
However, in my case, what exists in the background of this approach is the wish and desire to make the environment "programmable." My concern is not just about computer interface, but about the socially weaker persons and socially "alien" cultures that are cut off by the inflexible hard-wired mechanisms (not just equipment but organizations with bureaucratic handling) for the sake of efficiency of the whole society. By having the information capability of computer networks permeate widely, the weaker persons and discriminated cultures may be saved, I think.
Rather than escaping into virtual reality which can be shaped freely according to oneユs thinking, I want to build-in computerユs flexibility into a building (and even society overall) so that computer can fulfill any needed function through exchanging of software.
According to the housing standards law of Sweden, it is stipulated that all homes should be designed so that they can be renovated into homes for the aged, and I would like us to approach this type of question from technical side and with a multi-use orientation, and to realize such a goal.
What, then, is "programmable" architecture? My image of it is that of an even space that can be shaped in any way by different combinations of modules, like a memory space. To put it a bit extremely, it is the holodeck in Star Trek.
Before, I proposed the concept of "Room within a room." It was based precisely on such an image; it was an idea of using panels in which power source, information cables and computer chips are embedded, using these to create a room in accordance with the need.
Even if we were to draw out what we want from a computer, regrettably, it becomes a pressure on architecture to move toward reduction to pure space and toward homogeneity, in the final analysis.
Architecture That Explains.
Then, is this kind of even, homogeneous architecture the type of buildings that architects should be building in the cyberspace? Should the desire for artistic uniqueness be vented in "(non)architecture" that cause little harm to society? (This is a joke, of course.) Is there such a wish? I, for one, certainly do not have such thinking or wish.A building does not change easily, once it is built. Someone said, "a building is a temporal-spatial existence which has a temporal width, just as it has a spatial width," and this is certainly true. Its true evaluation does not rest with the evaluation given at the time it is first built; rather, evaluations over the course of its life-time must be looked at in a cumulative, total manner. Just like it is with evaluation of human beings, the evaluation of a building is finalized only when the "last nail is put on the coffin." That is, the building accumulates and builds upon its story (history) in the course of its life time.
This kind of fixed character is both a shortcoming, as well as a strong point, of a (real) building in comparison with the software in the computer which can change readily, and this fixed character is precisely the essential character of a building. Because "fluid architecture" and "(non) architecture" do away with this strong point, it can no longer be regarded as a real building, although it may be an art of a different form.
Instead of such things, I would like architecture to fight back.
Push back and reject the demand of information technology for homogeneity and simplification, and create unique forms. At the same time, however, we must not forget to demand accountability in the process. It is utterly inadequate to satisfy clients only at the time of the presentation.
We must always discern why this form, this space, and this material, and this lasting form exist, and why it must be so, and we must continue to explain that to society in the language of each era. To put it another way, I would like you to create a building which you can explain to society throughout its life time.
Computer does provide a channel to society for this purpose. I think that it will soon be a common thing to set up an Internet server when a building is created. Would it not be nice to have a building which explains(justifies?) via its home-page why the building has its particular shape, etc., in the most up-to-day language, in an ongoing manner? I think that architecture in the cyberspace age is actually something of that sort.
From now on in the information age, all of these elements including the explanations of the architect throughout his or her life, already comprise one type of building.
 |
 |
 |