3

2 Questions:what becomesarchitecture

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE&

STATE UNIVERSITY

1998

Discuss ions

wi th a

Master

[ IN MIND ]

Robert Dorgan, Committee Chair

Robert Dunay

Michael O’Brien

Philip Pasqualino

Heinrich Schnödt

Robert Siegle

5

A thesis submitted to the faculty of

Virg in ia Polytechnic Inst i tu te&

State Univers i tyin partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree:

Master of Archi tecture

September 21, 1998Blacksburg, Virginia

Joseph Edward Lambertt.l.r.

b e c o m i n g a r

r c h i t e c t u r e

the lost books of romaaddress unknown

W Q R K S

7

for my father,

who has always offered his loveand support towards our dreams,who gave us courage towardsindividualitywho insisted we think forourselves,who taught us the true value ofwork and responsibility,andwho inspired me to pursue newboundries beyond the limits ofcurrent understanding

witha special dedication toRichard Morril &Cahterine Brown;if you can read this,peace and love

9

b e c o m i n g a p

contents

Abstracta supplication 13

Introductiona way of seeing 17

Tapestryon criticism 23on context 27project x 35

Thesis2 questions: 43bergson’s becoming 47hegel’s becoming 51becoming language 55contexture: an everything theory 59

Project X(n-1)schemata 65the place model 73

Project X(n-2)a city 79

Project X(n-3)a building 83

Project X(n-4)a thing 91

Conclusionand what of oz? 113

Researchnotes 115bibliography 117vita 123

p r i o r i

11

13

For several years, certain personal efforts relied heavilyupon an essential belief in Lou Kahn’s masterful answerto a student’s question,

because Architecture is.

Kahn’s spiritual awareness brought about a poetic sig-nificance to the studying, learning, and actualizing ofour environmental efforts. Through his profoundlysimple answer of architecture’s essential existence, Kahnsuggested that our works could never reach this state ofbeing (even reason being unable to reach to far), leavingus only the ability to aspire towards it- with works everto it, never with works of it. In the despair of our Mod-ern response we set to achieve an end worth of it’s rec-ognition which simply fails to acknowledge that the ques-tion was one of why, not one of what.

His answer, and it’s suppressive conditions of existence,is no longer solely acceptable to a student’s question.To my Master I say, reconception is necessary; the an-swer requires a more dynamic essence. As it is with thenature and dynamic flow of all 10,000 things- one cannever exist, though one is always existing; one can neverlive , though one is always living, and in our culturaland social attempts to assimilate and accommodate ourenvironment- our attempts will never be, only ever be-coming. In other words, Mr. Kahn, I would like to sup-plicate and supplement,

because Architecture becomes.

A B S T R A C T

15

In vain your image comes to meAnd does not enter me where I am who only shows itTurning towards me you can findOn the wall of my gaze only your dreamt-of shadow.

I am that wretch comparable with mirrorsThat can reflect but cannot seeLike them my eye is empty and like them inhabitedBy your absence which makes them blind.

L. Aragon

If you take a Campbell’s Soup can and repeat it 50times, you are not interested in the retinal image.What interests you is the concept that wants to put 50Campbell’s Soup cans on a canvas.

M. Duchamp

17

A Way of Seeing

I N T R O D U C T I O N

If you get to close to beginning, it goes farther and far-ther away from you.L. I. Kahn

His apartment was spread evenly among the magazinesbearing their articulated likeness; or severe differencesin degree. And though he and the others knew, no onebothered to ask the question. All around were photo-graphs and books and images and parts- of a certainendeavor. Voices silent against activated desires; tooobvious to disregard, too essential to talk about. Heconsidered it a concept worked out in material, but thatproved to be entirely too fanatical. To be more con-cise, it was an attitude. Expressed by a precise pistonconfiguration; a rotational difference of degrees. Andthough it was merely a difference in degrees, for Byronand the similar others, it was distinctly a difference ofkind.

And then Ramone; he just wondered; the necessity ofthe material with in. Though he was far from the an-swer, it became apparent the answer was within theirinterest. The passion of Byron, and the similar others,was not simply the pursuit of a motorcycle, it was thepursuit of the motorcycle.

The general piston configuration of a typical two cyl-inder engine is set so a piston is fired with every 180degree rotation of the crank shaft, creating a smoothrotational effect - as long as there is gas in the tank anda battery supplying a spark. The piston configurationof a two cylinder Harley Davidson motorcycle engineis set so the 2 pistons are fired consecutively at ap-proximately the 90 and 270 degree marks of rotation,creating a certain discontinuity in the firing sequence.

For Ramone, knowing nothing of motorcycles or pis-tons configuration, the difference was easily recogniz-

Previous page;B. Feyereisen, Untitled

1992

Opposite;883 Evolution Sportster engine,

Harley Davidson Motor Co.1983

19

able simply by its sound. It sounds as if something iswrong - a certain something missing; necessarily. At aslow enough idle, a H.D. motorcycle sounds as if itwas always on the brink of stalling.

And that’s it. A difference in degree that for manyproduces a singular difference in kind. Ramone con-sidered that a Harley Davidson motorcycle is a motor-cycle engine fabricated the Harley Davidson Manufac-turing Co., modified and added to with a derivative at-titude of intent until certain functionality of locomo-tion is obtained. All else is extra. He found this defini-tion much easier to come by than the definition of another motorcycle. The Harley Davidson’s essence, be-ing so extremely apparent and so dominate in the defi-nition that it’s continuity is inherently necessary. Withall other motorcycles, he was still left with locating theitem or items in which reside the essence of its becom-ing.

These items are not necessarily physical things. Theymay be things without physical means, possibly find-ing existence only through implication. They may bewithin a relationship to other things, things in a contextwith each other, implying their similarity orinterconnectedness, forming a new unity, a new wholesimply by their proximity.

Bringing harmony to their inherent uniqueness.Bringing harmony to their inherent separateness.Bringing harmony to their inherent contradiction.Could this “harmonious resolution of an inherent con-tradiction” be the essence of their beauty?Could it be the essential definition of everything?

Surrealist poet Louis Aragon writes, “(Conventional)reality is the apparent absence of contradiction. Themarvelous (true reality) is the eruption of contradictionwithin the real.”1

So, what makes a thing a thing? The harmonious reso-lution of an inherent contradiction? All the parts: har-mony, resolution, inherent, contradiction, are all con-scious and social constructs. They all bear the marksof our minds and our social interconnectedness.

An excerpt from Consciousness and the Ultimate Es-sence of Matter by T. Jarvile

If we take the point of view of the theory of organism-environment system, we may look at this situation froma new angle. According to this theory, the world whichmay be described appeared with the appearance of thehuman consciousness. Consciousness was created in asystem of several individuals when they joined theiractions to produce common results. This joining waspossible through communication which later developedinto language. This communication, needed primarilyfor the production of common results, may describe theworld only as indicators of results, fixed points in thecommon action of the individuals.

Those parts of the universe which became objects ofdescription were primarily those which were needed byhuman beings in their actions and by their bodies.Therefore, the perceived (conscious) structure of theworld reflects more the structure of the human body asit may fit the environment than any independent struc-ture of the world. In fact, the universe may have anystructure depending on the beings which live in it. Thismeans that there is probably an infinite amount of pos-sible parallel descriptions of the universe. The impli-cate order of the universe for man (cf. Bohm) is theimplicate order of the human body in its environment.

As the whole human world appeared only with the ap-pearance of consciousness we may say that the world isa product of spirit. Every perceived thing is a productof spirit, a result of co-operation between human be-ings. However, the concrete thing itself is only an indi-cator of the result, an indicator of just one aspect of thereality. Therefore, like Plato we may say that only ideasare real and the perceived world is only shadows of realthings, ghosts flattering on the wall of the cave. How-ever, this metaphor is insufficient, in as much as theseperceived parts of the reality are not only shadows, looseand without significance, but they are also significantand meaningful parts of reality. Obtaining their con-crete form through the human structure, they are onlyone possible aspect of reality, not reality in its complete-ness.

21

The modern quantum theory still waits for its ontologi-cal interpretation which seems not to be possible with-out clear understanding of the objects of perception andconsciousness. The minimal energy package of matter,the quantum, seems to behave in ways (by methods ofdescription) not possible without understanding of hu-man consciousness.

A quantum may be described as a probability wave oras a particle located in a certain place. If we have onequantum in a closed box and we use a wave model tomeasure and describe it, the quantum will be locatedsimultaneously in every part of the box. All the pos-sible alternative positions of the quantum exist simul-taneously as a wave; by superposition, the state of si-multaneous existence of all possible descriptions. Whenwe divide the box with an opaque wall and measure thequantum as a particle, its location may be only in theother side of the box; thus, it has disappeared from theother. This collapse of the superposition, or change toone state of quanta description, seems thus be depen-dent on whether the quantum is measured or not. Themeasurement seems to influence the quantum’s proper-ties, it’s location and whether the quantum exist at all.The conclusion has been that consciousness may influ-ence matter by causing the collapse of superpositionand that it is only consciousness which may fix the quan-tum to space and time (cf. Wigner, 1962; Davies andBrown, 1989). Therefore, showing a causal relationbetween consciousness (or spirit) and matter.

23

On Critisism

Aestetics comes after you make something, not before.You can leave aestetics to someone else; to the archi-tectural critic, for instance.L. I. Kahn

T A P E S T R Y

Since most art criticism is based on representationalcontent, most art critics are at a loss when confrontingabstract art forms who’s essence is nonrepresentational.Music and architecture are two such art forms who ab-stract reality requires a different mind of consideration.By qualifying a unity of all the arts and therefore grant-ing a critic qualified in one particular field the qualifi-cations to judge the works of another field, critics aregiven permissions to judge works of one kind by themerits of another. Permission to judge space in theterms of a plane reduces all spatial and plastic qualitiesto pictorial values. Failing to see the circumstantialqualities and peculiarities of each event so as to ulti-mately miss those qualities which are essentially in thenature of the subject. “It is not merely an error of criti-cal method; it is a misconception arising from a lack ofphilosophical position”.2

The study and critical review of a subject requires adeep understanding; it requires a valid and clear inter-pretation of that which becomes the subject, of thatwhich becomes anything, of relationships, of a culturesmotivations, of it’s environmental and artistic expres-sions. To discuss a work outside of the cultured condi-tions which bears it’s context is to offer it a disservice,the loss of possible futures, and eventually the loss ofother works to follow. The criticism of any event orsubject must be based within the essence of the sub-ject- or else it can only be considered as a pleasant in-tellectual interchange; games of the mind and tongueand solely interesting for the moment. This is a call tobe considerate, not as scholars of a subject, rather asparticipants and assemblages of a cultured social con-dition.

Form is ‘what’. Design is ‘how’.L. I. Kahn

To understand a subject and to know how to see it isthe key to mastering the means through which it be-comes. So we must understand our ends as they havecome to us. We must ask: by what means and mea-sures do we know that a thing is a thing; we must startfrom the beginning of critical experience and percep-tion? We must consider it theoretically and it’s appli-cation into a practical context. Ultimately coming to apoint which is free of theories; the only requirementbeing participation.

Often the nature of certain projects do not allow fortheir actualization without exhaustive prepatory stud-ies. These studies have qualities and natures of theirown, independent of what they are meant to represent.The conventions of representation are used as a meansof obtaining an essentially and abstractly different end.They are merely a temporary mule of necessity askedto carry the burden of vision. Though these means canoften offer opportunities to see what is not readily ap-parent, they can also fool us into seeing that which doesnot really exist. When the inherent qualities of theserepresentations become honored or condemned, theirjudgments are subsequently applied to the representedother; asking the actualized children to pay for the sinsof their pictorial foster parents. The pictorial or plasticdevices of representation must not be confused withthe subject represented.

Saussure’s contrast of synchronic and diachronic lin-guistics can be used as a parallel model of this situa-tion. Referring to a linguist’s point of view, Saussurestates, “if he takes a diachronic point of view, he is nolonger examining the language, but a series of eventswhich modify it. It is often claimed that there is noth-ing more important than knowing how a given stateoriginated. In a certain sense that is true. The condi-tions which give rise to a state throw light upon its truenature and prevent us from entertaining certain mis-conceptions”.3

In other words, a critique of this chair as a chair canonly be done by synchronous means, while a critique

25

of this chair becoming a chair can only be done bydiachronous means. Therefore when a thing is critiquedby diachronous means and methods, synchronous ef-fects occur as unacceptable, while only diachronous ef-fects of variable duration justify recognition.

In reference to Nietzschean dualism, Louis Sass writesin Modernism and Madness, “ thus Nietzsche wouldspeak of the importance of escaping from instrumentalconvention- into a world of sensation and immediacy,and of becoming. Criticizing the tendency to ignorethe unique features of the individual objects by assimi-lating them into the mere fiction of general concepts.”4

In every physical structure, there is an external shapeand an internal organization (from bones to conscious-ness). And like the cubist painters, who tried to under-stand the time-space qualities of a box by simultaneouslyshowing the box in plan, the box in elevation , the boxexploded, and the box smashed, we require participa-tion on part of the observer. Becoming, being quit simi-lar to the peculiarities to Heisenberg’s principle of un-certainty, is dependent on the critical and contextualunderstanding of its own viewer.

This is not simply an exercise in precision and an at-tempt to make efficient the terms of communication, itis also a recognition of the delicate nature of context.Once certain conditions are brought to a subject, thoseconditions, regardless of their validity, are not as easyto remove- if they may be removed at all. “The artist isnot the only one who performs an act of creation, for itis the spectator who establishes contact between thework and the outside world by deciphering and inter-preting it’s underlying distinctiveness, and in this waybrings his own contribution to the creative process.” 5

It is clear within our contemporary culture, criticismand context have become intimately tied composites,each often becoming the other; while objectivity is be-coming an abstraction we use to quell our insecurities.

Opposite;Looper worm, caterpillar of the peppered moth.

Note the bud like head and body tuberclesPhoto by Anthony Wooton

27

On Context

If you think about it, you realize that you don’t say thesame thing in a small room that you say in a large room.L. I. Kahn

T A P E S T R Y

The critic does not only render more apparent what isalready true though unclear, he/she can add and re-veal an entirely new structural formation simply bytheir proximity of participation. “As the implicateorder of the universe for man is the implicate order ofthe human body in the environment”,6 thus our onlypossible aspect of reality7, entering into context witha subject is ultimately the fulfillment of context.

With the overwhelming power to change our percep-tion of an image without re-representation or alter-ation other than it’s proximinal relationship to othersimilar or dissimilar items, context has been used byartist to re-aquaint us with ourselves. Offering us achance to look again at the familiar; to discover moreof it’s true substantial self and consequently the sub-stance of ourselves. For Marcel Duchamp the act wasto terrorize the senses in order to strip banal signifi-cance from everyday objects while Andy Warhol de-sensitized, acclimating our familiarity with imageryuntil all previous meaning was removed, leaving usalone with the singularity of image. And with all it’sdue respect, Nature has used context to create insectsspecies of such bizarre imagery as to take on the seem-ingly exact appearance of it’s environment in order toachieve a sort of anonymity and subjective invisibil-ity. Leaf and stick bugs have so highly acclimated totheir environment, they have almost completely as-similated it’s appearance.

top;P. Picasso, Bull’s Head

1943middle;

M. Duchamp, Fountain1914

bottom;A. Warhol, Electric Chair

1963

29

Context, bound in means of proximity and relativity,reveals it’s absolute power as the power of relations.Though a definitive theory on the power of relationsis beyond the scope of this thesis, there may be no realneed for a theory, just a strong conceptualization, anunderstanding of our motivation (historical awareness)and a good common (cultured) sense of reality. Thisconceptualization is an idea that the power of contextonly exits in relations and can be seen by looking atsubjects in various relations. Studying the power ofcontext by creating works which interrelate their vari-able selves and a consistent other.

Particular works by Picasso, Duchamp and Warholhave shown each artist’s individual ability to foreseenew images in common situations simply by the ap-plication of an alternate context. Picasso’s Bull’s Headwas fabricated by the application of an assemblage (abicycle seat and handle bars) to an abstract context ofminimalism and historical/social association (a wall),making apparent the pictorial configuration of the as-semblage rather than it’s original appropriation. Asparts of a bicycle, the seat and handle bars have analmost purely functional configuration which relatesto an efficient mechanical configuration of the humanbody. When Picasso puts them on a wall their rela-tionship is now arbitrary- though their orientation hasnot been changed. Without the fulfillment of the bi-cycle mechanism, these parts are no longer understand-able. In an act of desperation, we place upon them anold form of recognition; they have become represen-tational - hence meaningful. The parts themselves havenot changed in any way; it is their abstract contextwhich brings out their figural characteristics to a levelof social recognition.

Similarly, Duchamp’s Fountain acquires significanceby it’s re-appropriation into a new context. Thoughunlike Picasso’s Bull’s Head, Duchamp’s Fountainnecessarily retains it’s original significance and is notdependent on the object representing something else.For Duchamp, the visual element is simply less im-portant, “everything would become conceptual, thatis, dependent upon something other than the retina”.8

With the Fountain, the new context did not bring aboutsignificance, the new context was the significance, be-

Following page;A. Warhol, Electric Chairs

1963

31

coming the creature of its place and time of exhibi-tion.9 It is the act of looking at an ordinary subject inan special way which makes it an object of perceptualinterest, a kind of art work, absurdly substantial.

For Warhol it was the act of repetition which enactedthe strength of his new context. The use of a repeti-tive mode and element would breed not only famil-iarity, it would establish a sense of desensitization tothe image enforcing a release of cognitive judgment.It would establish new imagery alone, usually it’s ownsingular image as the context of relations. An imagere-applied to itself, becoming. Just as culture is de-veloped by the application of a thing to itself- by wayof itself, Warhol’s images become cultured and sig-nificant by relating to themselves. In a sequenced ver-sion of his 1963 painting Electric Chairs, Warholleaves the end panel of this 10 panel painting empty.It is this act which is the essential crux of this work.And though Warhol is more explicit by using a blankpanel, the panel itself is essentially unnecessary asthe bounds of the painting define the necessary as-pects of being and non-being. The negation of animage of negation, in sequence to itself, takes this workinto the realm of Sanctity. In the full aspects of real-ity, the end panel is not really blank. Warhol calls usto face ourselves and our actions, and in a form ofdenial we paint the final panel ourselves. Releasinghimself from the artwork, he makes us the penultimateartist of the work as we gain final authorship simplyby our socialized participation. It does not matter howlong we stare at the end panel or even if we offer itonly a glance, we can never imagine it completelywithout content, the context of images has becometoo familiar. It is here that we see the overwhelmingstrength of an idea (or an image) implied.

Context and it’s power of relations gave Picasso,Duchamp, and Warhol new uses for old images. Evenas the images themselves are not seen as significant,it is their acts of constructing new relations which be-comes the true creative moment. Each of these workshave obtained a beauty; becoming worthwhile only

33

after we reconcile (harmonize) the inherent contradic-tion of their circumstances. Their actions are not per-formance based, rather the act is seeing the circumstan-tial transcendencies of an item’s meaning and signifi-cance due to new relationships... and (re)acting accord-ingly.

Wherein the viewer and critic are always part of thecontext, it must be considered fully that which is broughtto weigh upon a work subjected.

35

Project X

The spaces defined by the members of the structureare as important as the members.L. I. Kahn

T A P E S T R Y

As seen in the works of Picasso, Duchamp and Warhol,a given context can ultimately alter or even dispose ofan items previous significance. To move a subject fromone context to another creates the possibility of an es-sential alteration of content so dramatic that it couldbe said the nature of context is inherently subversiveto objective continuity. So how would it be possibleto view a subject within different contexts? Or to viewdifferent subjects within the same context? How wouldit be possible to subvert the subversion of context?

It is not exactly clear that any of things can be done.And though the variety of subjects and fields are toogreat and complex by nature to comprise a singlemethod of subverting the full unity of context, a lim-ited subversionis probably possible within the directrealm of the thesis. Since the body of this thesis seeksexpression through the fabrication of 5 projects be-coming, the issue of a constant context becomes im-portant in that it should assist in revealing the simi-larities of the 5 projects without altering or engagingtheir particular differences.

The properties of becoming are not readily apparent ifthe viewer is without the conditioning of it’s nature.And history has shown that a derailment of thought istoo easily produced by the introduction of matter froma different subject. So to keep the issues of becomingin the forefront of the discussion, 4 tapestries werefabricated to act as a consistent context, as pointers,and as reminders to the nature of the subject held inand out of their field. In short, subverting the nature

37

of context by fabricating a context which is not subject toimagery, place, or content but one that is in itself alwaysbecoming.

Project X is a tapestry- a wall uponwhich the work is to be displayed andconsidered and a backdrop to that whichis not bound in material. The tapes-tries consist of an assembly of 24-3618"x25" silk screened image parts. Theparts have no correct orientation orsequence of assembly. There is no as-sembly more correct than another, thereis only an assembly appropriate to thespace of display, and the priorities ofthe assembler.

The tapestries are not an assembly of parts, they are theenduring relationships and possible relationships of theparts to each other. The tapestries do not exist within theimagery of their parts though the tapestries are expressedby the imagery produced by a particular arrangement ofparts. As an example of cultured development, the tapes-tries are at once a consistent context while simultaneouslymaintaining a tradition of becoming. Their continuityendures through history because the cultured developmentof their essence is bound to an original necessity to be-come with each nomadic shift.

It can be seen that within the actuali-ties of architecture there is no suchthing as a line, only fields and edges.Every material condition is a field ofparticular dimension bound by a con-tinuous edge. The world of architec-ture being made up solely from theinseparable unification of fields andedges. Fields, defined by articulatededges. The similar real conditions ofevery rug and the expressed texturalconditions of the oriental rug bear thisreality at all times.

The use of a rug as the primary imagery stems from theoriental rug’s traditional formal use of field and board-ers. As the tapestries of Project X are re-arranged, oldfields become new boundaries; boarders gather togetherto define new fields; each one continually becoming theother as they redefines themselves.

Considering the tapestries as the context and each workas a project of becoming, the works themselves can nowbe seen merely as differences of degree, while their dif-ferences of kind remain the subject of another place.

Pages 34;Tapestry No. 2, Panel

Pages 36;Tapestry No. 2, Panel

Opposite;Tapestry No. 2, Master Image

39

Opposite;Tapestry No. 3, Master Image

41

Opposite;Andy Warhol, Chairman Mao

1964

43

2 Questions:

Consider the momenteous event in architecture whenthe wall parted and the column became.L. I. Kahn

What becomes Architecture?

A work should raise a question. I do not do anythingconclusive, but something which raises a question.L. I. Kahn

T H E S I S

It is a basic position of this thesis that the subject ofstudy called architecture is only a circumstantial appli-cation of a greater system of values. Though the directsubject of architecture will be considered specifically,it is crucial to our understanding to pursue an inquiryinto the nature of being and becoming, and the cultureddevelopment of values before being distracted by thesymptomatic conditions concerning the study of archi-tecture. Any attempt to answer the questions, what be-comes architecture? without the prior consideration ofit’s foundation would simply be meretricious.

So if Architecture emerges from a set of ideas, quali-ties, sympathies, and desires, socially cultured and cir-cumstantially applied towards the formation of an in-habitable environment, then a similar thing can be saidand applied towards the formation of bodily sustenance,which we call cuisine; towards written linguistics, henceliterature; and towards the manipulation of sound- mu-sic.

As a social group, our actions and thoughts are collected,cultured, prioritized, and applied. There is not a par-ticular set of base values for arts and crafts, a second forfood , and a third for our families- rather we have de-veloped a single true set of values which we apply con-ditionally; circumstantially adjusted for the inherentnature of a characteristic event. Though these ideas andpriorities are naturally dynamic and necessarily in a state

45

Opposite;Charles M. ConlonEd Walsh, Chicago White Sox1913

of flow, they are always maintained by a social coher-ence. But when a incongruity of base and fundamentalpriorities emerges, there is created the conditions ofsociety which causes internalized stress, stagnant frag-mentation, alienation and unresolved contradictions.

Due to it’s nature, it is not possible to fully define thesecultured conditions, though it is possible to exhibit them.The projects of this thesis all attempt to exhibit thesevalues within the realm of becoming. In this way it is asingle thought, re-cultured within itself and when ap-plied to the circumstantial conditions of an environment,it becomes architecture.

But what of becoming?

47

Bergson’s Becoming

T H E S I S

It is an undeniable desire to have the recognition, mancannot proceed in a society of other men without hav-ing certain inspirations that they have.L. I. Kahn

In philosophy and other situations of inquiry, it is thequestion and its pursuit rather than the answer whichserves to enlighten and broaden our perspectives. It isthe flow produced by the proper formation of a ques-tion through the exploration of its components whichgives us the vehicle to transform our understanding ofarchitecture, a chair, a person, or a group of people. Tobe is an insufficient means of existence, there must bemore; the process of which a person or thing comes tobe must warrant consideration . The expressions ofbeing are easily apparent, but what are the expressionsof becoming?

By studying the divergent philosophies of experienceand thought within the works of Henri Bergson andG.W.F. Hegel and by building upon their concepts ofbecoming, a central core understanding can be foundas consistent and subsequently meritous.

Bergson’s Becoming

Henri Bergson was interested in eliminating the falseproblem as a means eliminating circular arguments.Through his efforts he makes a distinction of particu-lar interest and relevance. Bergson makes significantand develops the distinction between things that posesa difference in kind and those that poses merely a dif-ference in degree. Where things that differ in kind aretemporal and can be seen as pure and distinguishable

(articulations of the real)10 , differences of degree arespatial, measures of more or less and are often, asBergson claims, the source of non-existent problems.11

Bergson claims that the question of being is not solelya question of a thing as it relates to itself but more im-portantly, what makes a thing a thing as it is not an otherthing. His ideas of duration as immediate datum andmemory as virtual coexistence bear strong relations tothe issues of becoming.12

It is Bergson’s position that there is a difference in kindbetween the perception of a thing and a thing itself;13

that memory is the link between successive moments,creating the continuity, seeing the instant, and giving itduration in time; and that the conditions of experienceare less determined in concepts than in percepts.14 Induration alone there are differences in kind (because itis endowed with the power of qualitatively varying withitself) and in space things are only ever presented asdifferences of degree (since it is a quantitative homo-geneity).15

2 chairs next to each other only dif-fer in degree while they differ inkind from the chairs they succeed.

Thus there is not a difference in kind between 2 halvesof a division; the differences in kind being entirely onone side as aspects of duration differing in kind fromall others and itself while the aspects of space offer onlya difference of degree from other things and itself.

Only in coming to each successive moment, can therebe a differences in kind. Only in becoming can we an-swer the question of that which makes a thing a thing.A thing is distinctive only in it’s duration of successivestatic states of experience. It is not the physical sub-stance which determines a thing, it is a thing’s continu-ity which is the substance. It is time which creates adifference in kind , making a thing different from otherthings- that which would give a thing it’s identifiableself,16 “a change that is substance itself”.17

could it be concluded that a chaircan only be a chair if it is a processof coming to chair?- that to be it-self it must pass through stages ofnot itself- that decay is a necessarypart of it’s ability to be?

Bergson uses the example of a lump of sugar to explainthis quality. “It has a spatial configuration, but if we

49

approach it from that angle, all we will ever grasp arethe differences in degree between that sugar and anyother thing. But it also has duration, a rhythm of dura-tion, a way of being in the process of it’s dissolving,and that shows how this sugar differs in kind not onlyfrom others, but first and foremost from itself.”18 Thisalteration which is one with the essence or the sub-stance of a thing, is what we grasp when it is conceivedof in terms of duration.

the decay of a chair is one with theessence of it’s being- through it’sbecoming.

Previous page;A. Rossi, Teatro del Mondo

1979

51

Hegel’s Becoming

T H E S I S

Because nature, in what it makes, records how it wasmade. In the rock is the record of the rock, and inman is the record of man. Man through his conscious-ness senses inside of himself all the laws of nature.L. I. Kahn

Despite his insistence that philosophy cannot be de-fined, for Hegel there is only one way to learn aboutphilosophy; it is by doing it. This doing then cruciallynecessitates a history of philosophy. That is, by look-ing at how philosophy is done there occurs a revealingof what philosophy is.19 If this can be true of the inde-finable subject of philosophy, might it also be true forthe undefinable philosophy of architecture? That bydoing it, and looking at how it becomes, there couldthen be a revealing of what it is?

And what of a chair?

Bergson has shown us that duration is an essence ofbeing in kind, that is, a thing is distinguishable fromother things only in time- only through their endurance.For Hegel this endurance is the essence of substantial-ity. That which endures through the process of becom-ing, the items of endurance, can be seen as the onlyitems of true substance. “It is the ‘substantial’ in manthat is the enduring element of man which character-izes him as Man”.20

what is it that makes a chair truly achair and not circumstantially a chair?what is the substantial in a chair,that when we see it, we call it...chair?

As a thing endures it moves beyond it’s static state ofexistence into a dynamic state of being. This dynamicbeing builds continuity which then implies change as itflows from existence to existence. Which is to say that

the content or substance of a thing exists in it’s continu-ity and endurance, in it’s process of becoming. There-fore only in becoming can it’s substance be revealed.From the point of view of form, the history of thoughtcan be seen as a succession of events- of thoughts be-ing thought, but from the point of view of content, it isone continuous process.21 The history of thought isnot the record of a succession of events; it is the totalprocess which unfolds in time.22

Hence, if an items meaning or value exists in it’s con-tent (in that which it is) and it’s content lies within it’sprocess- then that it is is only meaningful as long as itis also becoming. That the substantial exist only withinthe unified is-ness and becoming of a thing. This reso-lution, that a thing can be and must be both is and be-coming is a decisive point for what will ultimately carrythe expression of what can not be defined. I have calledthis resolution Burton’s Crux in honor of a professorwho placed upon my shoulders the challenge that LouKahn was not wrong when he said “because architec-ture is”, but that he was only incomplete.

as the chair endures it builds conti-nuity revealing the essence of it’ssubstantiality- of what it is reallymade of. of what it really is.

By following a line drawn by Hegel as to the origin,nature, and development of thought, it is possible tobuild a parallel analogy to the origin, nature and devel-opment of things, or for example- chairs. For Hegel,thought is true thought in the extent it approaches di-vine thought; thought determines reality, and thoughtas a whole is an ongoing process manifesting a discern-ible unit and continuity. Thought is an ongoing pro-cess whose past is integral with its present and who’spresent can only be seen in what it has been, who’spresent is only knowable only if it’s past is also known.*

There can be no question of starting from scratch, notonly because a thought without a history would be with-out the necessary awareness of it’s antecedents, but be-cause a thought or thinking a thought without a historysimply would not be a thought.23

what was has always beenwhat is has always beenwhat will be has always been

l.i. kahn

53

Which brings us back to Burton’s Crux, that is, essen-tial to thought is it’s manifestation and that manifesta-tion without process is meaningless.

It is then the purpose of all thought to be itself, or ratherto become what it is not yet, or what it is implicitly.Hegel’s example of the seed illustrates this implicitly.“The seed which is both not yet the tree it is to becomeand all the tree will ever be”.24 The substantiality ofthe implied is the manifestation of its being and be-coming.

And finally, Hegel claims thinking to be the process ofconcretion. That the difference between the abstractand the concrete is the difference between the begin-ning and the term of the process; to stop the processanywhere along the line is to stop in abstraction, which,precisely as an inadequate stopping point is error inregard to the reality which is it’s content.

It is thus with Hegel as it is with Bergson- the processin which a thing becomes is the thing itself.

only in becoming is a chair real,never in a moment held still. tolook only upon the material chair infront of you would be to not see thechair that endures, which has sub-stance, which is always becoming,which is the only real chair thatexists.

Form comes from wonder. This wonder gives riseto knowledge. But knowledge is related to otherknowledge and this relation gives a sense of order.L. I. Kahn

55

Becoming Language

The analogy is a way in which you teach yourself toteach.L. I. Kahn

Up to this point, the characteristics of becoming havebeen considered circumstantially through a metaphorof things: a sugar cube, a rug, a tapestry, a chair, andarchitecture. In this realm, it is often difficult to see anobjects becoming due to our over-familiarity. They (andall their similar differences of degree) have become figu-rative items of such deeply rooted cultural icons, it isvery difficult to see beyond the immediate proximity oftheir physical presence. The static material presence ofthe abstract thing, after being confused for the subject,leaves the object of becoming unseen.

Up to this point, it has been difficult to pursue the is-sues of becoming since the object of becoming has yetto become the subject of focus. But it is in the realm ofthis precise point that a slide is now necessary, a subtleflow across the strata of substanciality. A peripheralglance that is likely to cause the fixation of a post-mod-ernist truth-taking stare. A free slip into schizophrenia.A change that is- a change to language.

By using language, or a metaphor of language as ameans of exploring becoming (as opposed to the previ-ous metaphor of things), there is an available escapefrom dominantly biased, personal unconscious associa-tions. The question- “where is the language?” has noimmediate answer of previous (dis)consent, making us

T H E S I S

far less confident of our answers than those when con-sidering the same question posed upon a chair.

so where is language-what is the structure of language-what is it’s essence-what is it made of- and how?

Ultimately, what makes language, language?

Having the unified duality of being both individual andsocial (one not being conceivable without the other),and involving an established system in evolution, lan-guage is an institution of the present and a product ofthe past. It has a system of distinct signs (or actions)which point to distinct ideas.25 It is a convention; pat-terns printed and reprinted; it is an entity. A language isitself and the reflecting reflection seeing itself. Appear-ing at least twice; once as a constant and again as thevariable extracted from itself.26 The signs, symbols,words, letters, and marks, are masks masking it’s es-sence; making it identifiable. Though it has structure,it is decentered and without closure. It is real, essen-tial, significant, and substantial. It is organized tenden-cies and transcendecies. It is irreducible to it’s centersand points of conjunction. It is a suface without depth.It is heterogeneous.It is always becoming.

Rooted in the soil from which language becomes arethe relational powers. Tendons of communication; cor-relations. Like the string tied mucus which serves theseeds of a pumpkin- these tendons connect and extendthrough the points of service, building relationships,lines of communication, flows for language which be-come language itself.

The becoming of language is a deterritorialization (nota reterritorialization) of a major into minors. “Minorlanguages (dialects or sub-languages) do not exist inthemselves: they exist in relation to a major languageand are investments of that language for the purpose ofmaking it minor.”27 The difference between a majorand minor language is not a measure of more and lessor merely a difference of degree, major implies a con-stant, a static model to be used as a means of measure-ment. Becoming minor is not it’s opposition, but a trans-

57

formation as variation.28 Be it language or a person,one’s potential becoming is marked by one’s slidewithin and outside of the model. Becoming is aminorization of everybody and everything from themodel, which is the abstract nobody- and nothing.There is no major becoming; the problem is never toacquire the majority, even in order to install a new con-stant.

“We should distinguish between minor languages, themajor languages, and the becoming-minor of the ma-jor language. Minorities, of course, are objectivelydefinable states, states of language, ethnicity, or sexwith their own ghetto territorialities, but they must alsobe thought of as seeds, crystals of becoming whosevalue is to trigger uncontrollable movements anddeterritorializations of the mean or majority. That iswhy Pasolini demonstrated that the essential thing, pre-cisely in free indirect discourse, is to be found neitherin language A, nor in language B, but in language X,which is none other than language A in the actual pro-cess of becoming language B. There is a universal fig-ure of minoritarian consciousness as the becoming ofeverybody, and that becoming is creation. One doesnot attain it by acquiring the majority. The figure towhich we are referring is continuous variation, as anamplitude that continually oversteps the representativethreshold of the majoritarian standard, by excess or de-fault. Continuous variation constitutes the becoming-minoritarian of everybody, as opposed to themajoritarian Fact of Nobody. Becoming-minoritarianas the universal figure of consciousness is called au-tonomy. It is certainly not by using a minor languageas a dialect, by regionalizing or ghettoizing, that onebecomes revolutionary; rather by using a number ofminority elements, by connecting, conjugating them,one invests a specific, unforeseen autonomous becom-ing.”29

Seen through the metaphor of language, all that is, isbecoming, and all that is becoming, becomes a text as“a subversive force in respect to old classifications”.30

59

Contexture: An Everything Theory

That which made a thing become manifest for the firsttime is our great moment of creative happening.L.I.Kahn

T H E S I S

This is not a thesis about architecture, rather this is athesis about Architecture. Which is to say- this thesisdoes not reside within the subject of architecture, ratherthis thesis participates with the realm of Architecture.Since that which is architecture, by definition, remainslimited and therefore only momentarily interesting, thisthesis focuses upon that which becomes architecture,those things that hang out there in the realm of Archi-tecture- interested in making connections and forminglanguages through participation.

In 1971, Roland Barthes published an article in Revued’Esthetique regarding the differences between worksand texts; it’s 1977 English translation offers the origi-nal text in a form of extreme and simple clarity. Withinseven paragraphs, Barthes offers the individual an op-portunity to move internally towards the essential na-ture of materiality and being, into a realm of languageand becoming. Acknowledging the Work as that whichcan be held in hand as fragments of substance whichoccupy space, and the Text as a methodological fieldwhich can only be held in language, Barthes turns ourpresumed hierarchy of existence right side-out, settingfree the dogma to wag it’s own tail; the Text is not thedecomposition (smashing) of the work, it is the workthat is the imaginary (and circumstantial) product ofthe Text . The Text moves freely about, intersecting inworks, and often found cutting across and through sev-eral works. The Text becomes of language, irreduc-ibly plural, structured and decentered without closure,and subversive to the forms of old classifications.31

Considering the metaphor of language over the meta-phor of things, where is language, what of and how is itmade, who owns it and who controls it. Languagebecomes of the space in between. It makes a field andit’s edge inseparable. It becomes of the relationshipand consequently the glue and the measuring stick ofall things. Language cannot be broken; it can be al-tered, but never changed. Einstein called it the frameof reference. For Heisenberg it was uncertainty. TheTaoist see it as the way; zealots call it God.

From this field, every thing becomes the same; fromthis field, everything becomes different. Always a si-multaneous one and many, never either or. Things di-verge from elements of black and white and drift toranges of black and white overlaid upon each other. Ifanything really exist in the world, it exists only by be-coming, becoming of language by fulfilling a Text. Andas long as it remains a Text, it’s tendencies continuetowards becoming. There exists no point of becom-ing- only a continuos flow. Without a static state ofexistence; permanence becomes merely an extendedstate of similarity. It all changes, always becoming it-self or something else. To be would be to die. But ifexistence desires eternity, it becomes imperative to beagain and again- at every moment always re-being,never just being, always becoming the desire needed tosurvive.

When the object becomes subject, and the subject be-comes object, the edge and the field are one in reverseof each other. When the rings of field-edge-field-edge-field-edge grow, they share a similar growth as culture;development by way of itself. This forms becoming.An endurance through time rather than simply space.And that which endures fulfills a culture.

Simply, the essence of reality exists within the indi-vidual (though not before something is an individual).What the individual says, and thinks, and perceives be-comes reality. As this remains true for you, it also re-mains true for the individual next to you. Each symbi-otically necessary for each other’s individuality. Theyare part of your reality- you are part of their reality;their reality of you is part of your reality. Multiple re-alities which often seem contradictory, coexisting, find-ing a natural harmonic resolution through proximity and

61

an enduring language. Progressing collectively the in-dividual becomes social through languages, sharing re-alities, altering and adjusting them to the social. Thissocial reality becomes our common language, devel-oped and adjusted into culture. The social can informparticular individuals of things previously personallyunreal or non-existent. When the social offers an indi-vidual a new idea/reality (socially existent though in-dividually non-existent), the individual usually acceptsit as offered. At this point, the individual receives aresponsibility to the social/culture to re-investigate thisnewly offered reality; to experience it for the first timefor themselves and then to reform the social real in truecollective form. The individual must be constantlybreaking and fixing their individual reality (and the re-ality of the social) as they participate in expanding ex-periential and relational activities. If the individual doesnot question these new realities, the social and the cul-ture degenerate through stagnation. To not questionand participate in this exchange is to deprive one’s self,and the social, of an accurate account of reality as seenthrough each others mirror. By cutting through thisplane, it becomes possible to see that Socrates’ credo“ the un-examined life is not worth living” is not sim-ply an opinion about the importance of inquiry, it be-comes a basic principle of existence.

Beyond the words and before the threshold remains afield of play. The more clearly defined the field, theless it has to offer; to be concise in words is to allow forthe flourishment of the field and the individual. It be-comes critical to maintain credible distance from cer-tain clarity to allow for a higher level of interpretation,participation and communion. It offers such high re-gard for the creative activities encouraged through playthat the opportunities provided by vagaries and open-ness outweigh the determinations of clarity and defini-tion. Signified definitions do not determine what isand isn’t a chair, a motorcycle, or a thing; only the main-tenance of open languages can articulate that which be-comes a chair and that which a chair becomes.

This idea that reality is determined by a person’sthoughts and perceptions can easily be confused withSolipsism, and though it may appear to be very similar,it posses a critical difference. Considering Solipsism

as the theory that the self can be aware of nothing butit’s own theories and states,32 this thesis recognizes thevery real world outside of the self. The world is notcreated by one’s perceptions though through those per-ceptions that one can understand the world. Things doexist in ways not yet perceived- which can be revealedover time. If this were Solipsism, nothing could berevealed, only invented; while it is desperately my the-sis that nothing can be invented- only revealed.

Outside of endurance, a chair and a building are thesame thing. Their physical presence becomes the prod-uct of a different program applied to material; whiletheir essence remains of the language of which theyare to become. All materials remain the same, onlytheir properties become different. One must know howmaterials have properties in order to know what thoseproperties mean. There is no such thing as a bad mate-rial, only a bad use of material. To make a pot out ofclay is the same thing as to make tower out of steel.

Contexturely, this thesis offers a series of x(n-1) projects(wqrks; pronounced simultaneously works and quarks)which collectively display an inquiry into becoming.Initiated by a desire to find that which makes a thing athing, it searches to recognize the means of determina-tion at an essential level, offering a deeper understand-ing of our pursuits and the breeding ground of economy.

The wqrks become a means of representing the thesisand are distinctly not the thesis. The wqrks should notbe confused with the thesis or considered in lieu of thethesis. They become an elaboration of the thesis is-sues, much as these words are not the thesis but an at-tempt to articulate it. It remains my attempt to searchfor ways to use these and future wqrks as particulaterepresentations of something far larger than our oraland written language’s ability to explain it. It also rec-ognizes that the fullness of what these wqrks representcannot be limited to the scope of the thesis; but be-cause the full representational scope of the wqrks be-come texts in many intricate and distant fields, it ap-pears obvious that these other texts must remain as ab-solutely necessary.

63

These represented wqrks could of been 5(6) otherworks, or no works at all, the thesis does not need themfor validation. They offer only a means of expressionand an understanding through participation. The thesisbecomes an idea in motion- an eternal starting pointfor a lifetime of study with each substantial mark, eachwork, each answer bringing about yet another questionand an infinite number of future wqrks. To read thethesis, one needs to engage the red thread of a singleText which runs through and ties together the varia-tions of separation- that which ties commonality to thesewqrks and all works.

Above;Schemata, Model

65

Schemata

P R O J E C T X(n-1)

Somehow all things come to it, even the greatacheivements like, let us say, Paris, a great acheivement,or london, all disappeared and became circumstantialworks. But the Toccata and the Fugue did not disap-pear, because it was the most unmeasurable and there-fore the closest to that which cannot disappear.L. I. Kahn

The Schemata is a cultured and determined qualitativeproperty resulting from our needs for a meaningful ori-entation and relationship with our environment. It is atypical reaction to a situation. In fact the theory of theSchemata, at it’s primal level, recognizes our patternsof environmental manipulation and our responses tothose conditions from which we form a language ofbecoming; recognizing our essential reaction to the con-ditions of inhabitable environments. It recognizes cer-tain series of base elements which are relatively con-figured and experienced. “The essential thing is a setof lines or dimensions (or items) which are irreducibleto each other,... what counts are not the terms or theelements, but what there is in between; the between, aset of relations which are not separable from eachother.”33 It is a model in content only. It’s expressionis the circumstantial resultant of it’s material and man-ner of construction. Like Le Corbusier’s Domino, it isa model without form. And considering the processesof assimilation an accommodation, it is a model whichmust be without form if it is to be understood at all andif there is going to be a meaningful interaction withparticular others.

Assimilation, being the alteration of an element’s be-havior to the conditions of an environment, and accom-modation, being the alteration of the conditions of anenvironment to the behavior of an element, act simul-taneously as the means of conformity in which we in-teract with our environments and societies; making nec-

Opposite;Schemata, Plans and Elevations

67

Opposite;Schemata, Exploded

69

Above;Schemata, Elevations

71

Design is prescribed by circumstances. Form hasnothing to do with such conditions.L. I. Kahn

essary the acquisition of certain schemata34 to under-stand the diversity and complexity of our spatial andsocial conditions; making possible the development ofa primary order, or major language, in model form;making understood the deterritorialization of a majorinto minors through cultured stages of development;while remembering always that it is the relationships ofelements which is important, not the elements in rela-tions.

The Schemata model is a model of elements which mustbe played against and with each other in order to achievethe goals of a meaningful environment. It consists ofthree elements, and their interrelationships: 1) the core,representing the center, place, and point of de-termina-tion; 2) the domain, representing the realm, extent andconditions of enclosure; and 3) the system, represent-ing the connections, continuity, path, and language.These elements not only have external relationships witheach other, they exist within each other, producing in-ternalized levels of communications as well. These el-ements cannot be considered individually since they arederivative only to that which they are integral, a sort offractal essence of existence. The system, for example,not only has a relationship with the core, it has a corewithin itself, developed from the re-application of mi-nors to majors and to other minors becoming majors.Culturing a growth of development through mimicryand patterns, achieving new systems of fields and edges,cores and domains.

These particular elements are thus the circumstantialproduct of values, the basis through which every archi-tectural work finds it’s becoming and self, the productof deeper personal and social schemata used to defineand understand our existence. By their nature, theseelements and this model are expansive and contradic-tory; giving us the chances of play, to assimilate andaccommodate, to participate without segregation in ourenvironment.

Bottom of pages 72-73;The Place Model, Elevation of array, with towers

Pages 74-75;The Place Model, in array

Page 76;The Place Model, decentralized

Bottom of pages 76-77;The Place Model, Elevation of array

73

The Place Model

A module is not the repetition of a motif but the expres-sion of an architectural principleL. I. Kahn

P R O J E C T X(n-1)

The substantiation of the implied is an endeavor bywhich the means of cost loose their power of afflictionand depreciation over our desires to acquire represen-tational sensations. A Body without Organs (BwO)35

offers new flows of perception without ever leavingthe levels established through our codes of acceptablesocial deviation. A sort of strata mimicry without theassociations of subjective conformity. When re-appliedto itself, building a queue onto and out of the implica-tions of other similar minorizations, it re-establishesdialects of kind to find new wholes along lines of forceand projection.

The Place Model is a cube. It is as one cube as it is asmany, always existing as and between the one and sev-eral. A unified entity only when it is a model at rest,implied to it’s essence when decentralized, and actual-ized when it is transcended into the works of anotherkind. It is as well, no longer a cube. It is that whichbecomes of a cube, becoming again and beyond, be-coming the language of a cube, becoming itself- as italways was.

The cube is smashed initially only to be re-built in-stantly. Fields of perception and frames of reference

75

77

are interchanging with each lateral move, variationsonce not possible are now their own lines of force; theproduct of a slip, a mistake, or something worse- thetransic state of play itself. It is to be used in order tosee if front of us what is temporarily recessed in ourminds.

As a toy, the model makes evident the possibility ofvariations from the application of an idea to itself, form-ing a cultured whole of divergence. In it’s play, themodel manifests the form, implied or concretely, of re-lationships. When considered concurrently with spaceand time, it is a toy which uses relationships to suggestform to items in their places. Forming places of tran-scendence as well as creating structures of variation,allowing a sort of stationary nomadism. It is a toy whichshows the ways in which a bed “makes” a room andhow urban places can be homogeneously harmonizedthrough the heterogeneous use of a major subjected tominoritarian divergence. At all levels and at all timesoccurring on a single plane of consistency.

The scalelessness of the Place Model allows simulta-neous invention to occur at the spatial level of urbanenvironments without a loss to it’s implications to thedetail. As a language it transcends the boundaries ofspace and time and lands in the dimension of context, azone between 2 items which brings meaning and formto each. Allowing that which it stands between to be-come what they are not yet individually. As a languageit can be played, but as a toy it must be played, “other-wise you are just depraved”.36

Opposite:Squatter settlement; Indore, India

79

P R O J E C T X(n-2)

A City

The architect’s work is not the solution. It is in (see-ing) the nature of something and putting it into prac-tice.L. I. Kahn

Considering the differences of scale within which thelanguage of architecture is spoken, as that which be-comes a chair becomes a building, that which becomesa chair also becomes a city. Though the city resideswith a minor language of other convergence, there ex-ist no spatial or field differences between urban and ruralspace. The actualities of urban and rural space becomeof the same cultured values of our language though theconditions from which urbanism results becomes of acontext of proximity and asks greater questions of thearticulated edge.

Urbanism has often been misconsidered to be a mea-sure of density as a proportional relationship of inten-sity to spatiality (stuff/area). Thouhg density, as a quan-titative measure of the proximinal relationship of dif-ference is probably more accurate (different stuff/area),it still ignores the central issue of true urbanism whichbecomes of the means of articulated differentiation. Inother words, urbanism becomes of a proximinal coin-cidence of public and private language fields whichshares an articulated edge of built space rather than anarticulated edge of built time. All things becoming inthe same way, with only that which resides in-betweento measure their difference.

The Contexture of becoming can then be re-applied tothe conditioned results of previous minor languages tobecome the cultured development of the city (or therural community). Even the foster children of parentlanguages must be included. New forms of inventiononly serve to muddle the richness of our cultured oth-ers. To bear witness and serve the nature of becomingbrings about growth culturally and without determina-tion of that which already is.

Above:Balkrishna Doshi,Aranya schemata,

Gradual growth of house starting with bathroom core,

81

Aranya

Aranya, A proposal for low cost housing by Indian Ar-chitect Balkrishna Doshi recognizes the spontaneousrichness of a culture becoming and endeavors to en-courage a reclaiming of a minor language back alongthe culture of it’s associative major language.

“By the late 1970’s India’s huge population growth,combined with a lack of economic development at therural base, was leading to mass migration to cities.Squatter settlements made of industrial waste, card-board, or whatever was available, sprang up aroundmost urban centers. Even the lowest cost housing de-signed by architects was beyond the financial reach ofthese people.

The Vasta-Shilpa Foundation set up a team in the early1980’s to study squatter settlements and to try to un-derstand how they worked. From these studies it waslearned that squatter settlements have a very distinctpattern and order of their own responding to territo-rial and economic needs. Shacks often double as liv-ing and working places, being protected from the streetby a zone of transition. Roads remain sufficiently wideto ensure movement of small traffic to transport goods.There are even “public amenities” such as trees sprout-ing from low walled planters. The space in front of ahouse may be used as a sleeping area on hot nights,and there is often a rear access alley.

Squatter settlements repeat some of the same spatiallayouts of villages but without the beauty and lyricismof rural forms. In the Indore project a hierarchy ofstreets was suggested which gradually diminish in sizeas they penetrate the different sectors. The sole “ar-chitecture” provided by the designers would be “sani-tary cores” each comprising plumbing, washroom,kitchen plus a single room. These then could be ex-tended as the inhabitants establish themselves. It ishoped that the new community would eventually gen-erate building trades and then an upgraded version ofthe informal urban vernacular would result.

The Indore site is a little over 80 hectares with 6,500plots. The idea is to mix some middle income plots ofabout 475 square meters with those of the economi-cally weaker section, then to use the profits to raisecapital towards the development of local trades.”37

Above:House without walls- or doors; door and [wall]

Blacksburg, Virginia

83

P R O J E C T X(n-3)

A Building

Any rule you have is really there on trial. The greatestmoment of a rule is change: when the rule comes to ahigher level of realization. To dicover a new rule is todicover a new rule of expression.L. I. Kahn

The stock of contemporary houses, designed and builtto last an amount of time equivalent to their mortgageand the amount of zinc used to coat their nails, shouldnot be passed over or considered a failure of a system.They are extreme achievements which are the prod-ucts of a cultured value system applied to specific cir-cumstance. By general standards of measure, they aresuccessful. The problems experienced in our currentmodes of housing isn’t that the housing doesn’t last.The problem is that there is no desire to make it last.Clean is equated to new and new is equated to quality.Development housing, efficient and effective, has be-come a means of obtaining wealth before it has be-come a desire to provide places of habitation.

But despite our obvious confusion, Architecture re-mains an art of culture rather than an art of construc-tion. It becomes of a development and expression ofour environment and how we choose to live in it. Ar-chitecture has never become of the glorification of skilland materiality. Ironically, a settlement of mobilehomes has come to posses more true aspects of archi-tecture than most custom designed homes. The tem-porality and decay we so vehemently detest is actu-ally a necessary part of becoming. Forever producingan invitation to re-investigate our circumstances. Thenecessity of maintenance is an opportunity. The ne-cessity of maintenance must not be discarded or hid-den. Permanence and stability need a new understand-ing (or even re-definition) congruent with the activi-ties of becoming and change.

Opposite: becoming plan

85

2] domain/ system 1] system

3] core/system/domain/system 4] domain/core/system/domain/system

Above:House without walls- or doors

site plan

Opposite:House without walls- or doors; tapestry

planelevation;

Blacksburg, Virginia

87

0 16 64 112 272

128 176 224 288

Above:House without walls- or doors-details;

Blacksburg, Virginia

INES ARE PEOPLE Too

89

Stability must become the ability of a system to assimi-late and accommodate change rather than the ability toresist change.Permanence cannot continue being a static state of ex-istence. In a language of becoming permanence be-comes an extended degree of longevity- apparent in thatwhich is essence, often only merely implied.

In House without Walls- or Doors, objects do not sim-ply exist within space- as to occupy a portion of it, theycontinually persist in assimilating and accommodatingit, forming in part with it. These objects are not onlythe items within space and the house but these objectsare that of which space and the house are made. TheHouse is an attempt to use becoming’s stability to carrythe fragmentation of objects and parts with time; form-ing both differences of degree and differences of kindwith itself. In it’s essence it is always becoming.

Here, stability becomes a value applied characteristi-cally to various situations rather than seen as of defini-tion of permanence. The stability of this project re-sides in it’s becoming. By using a series of doors with-out pre-defined rooms, the doors loose their ability tobe open or closed. Rooms become formed by doorswithout walls and the objective contents within; tradi-tional boundary marks become diminished. The spaceand house becomes built and rebuilt as the occupancyneeds and desires change over the full spectrum of time.Each moment is marked as significantly as each eon.

These changes can be seen as articulations of decay.Decay and it’s inter-reactionary by-product of mainte-nance are now elevated to the level of necessity in thestructure’s becoming. By recognizing the inherent con-tradictory realities of becoming, a system of decay andmaintenance can be designed into it’s structure; devel-oped as parallel lines which converge into the intendedpragmatic conditions of the project and the physicalconcrete systems of construction.

Ultimately it is a house which can be re-used instead ofsimply re-occupied. The place becomes of the rela-tionship between a tectonic system and habitation asan evolving process.

Opposite top:Michael Thonet, bentwood chair;

1855

Opposite in between:Ludwig Meis van der Rohe, steel tube chair;

1927

Opposite bottom:Frank O. Gehry, laminated bentwood chair;

1992

91

P R O J E C T X(n-4)

A Thing

You’re not a philosopher by having read philosophy,not at all. I think you are a philosopher because youare just naturally one.L. I. Kahn

Nothing exists and does not exist. Being remains dy-namic; always in flux; always on it’s way to existenceand non-existence. That which is a thing is only mo-mentarily so. It’s essence, if things becomes at all, isalways a relationship of broken other parts, held in com-munion as a minor language transformed from a majorother. The moment of in-between is it’s place of be-ing; while the formation of it’s material mask makes itidentifiable. Do not confuse the mask with the masked.Only that which is variable exists beyond. That whichis marked must be broken if it is to continue being.Becoming a thing resides with being a language.

The flow of continuity which makes any existence pos-sible wears many masks of abstraction. But the maskof a chair does not make the chair different from thatwhich is behind the mask of a table. The mask is aninadequately abstracted sign of a still moment; a dis-guise attempting to concretize a temporal dimension.

When considering a chair, there exists interests in thestates of a chair becoming, but when considering allthings these interest drifts towards the conditions of achair becoming- the chair remains irrelevant, linger-ing around only as a subjective necessity. When con-sidering the chair ’s conditions of becoming,becoming’s unconditional nature finds appearance. Itis this nature which can be applied conditionally, cir-cumstantially and accordingly.

93

Opposite:A chair and it’s shadow

To discover the becoming of chair is to discover thebecoming of all things while to discover the becomingof a chair as a chair is to find the true language of it’sown particular sign. As all things are the same, whatcan be said of all things can be said of a chair while thesubject of chairs has particularities of context whichstand outside as a chair becomes signified. For purelypersonal reasons, the subject of chair remains the courseof this inquiry.

But for entirely practical reasons, the chair of this in-quiry has been repeatedly broken to the point of it’sbecoming. Broken- by the initial smashing blow of acontesting question; broken- by the representational flatglance of a camera; broken- by literary [de]composition;broken- by a transformative language in context; bro-ken- by convergence under the wheel of a 8 ton crane;broken- by acceleration and the potentiality of a thirdfloor window; broken- by the subtle implication of it’sown being; broken- by anyone with an invitation toparticipate.

With each breaking it was re-made again, just as allchairs are a re-making of every chair which becamebefore. With each making it’s validity was testedthrough socially cultured measures of recognition. Witheach test a question was asked: can it be sat on? Inter-estingly, it turns out that this single question, seem-ingly so simple and effective, is an inadequate and in-valid test. For not only is it not necessary to be able tosit on a chair, its not even possible to sit on a chair.

Our bodies of materiality exist as mere abstractions ofthe essential substance which endures, which becomes,and which remains recognizable regardless of its ex-ternal form. The material body of a chair is no differ-ent. Only within language was the unbreakable chairfound. Only then, when reduced to its essential sub-stance, did the chair become apparent. Stripped of allit’s unecessary parts , a chair becomes the invitation tosit.

Above:A chair in continuity

95

Above:Becoming Language

97

Above:The breaking bag and chair; broken

Opposite, top:Re-chair becoming

Opposite, bottom:Re-chair becoming

99

Above:Re-chair with scars

Opposite:Re-chair in detail

101

Above:Re-assimilating chair

Opposite:A concrete [call it substantial] block-

becoming to chair

phot

o by

J. Z

iegl

er

103

phot

o by

J. Z

iegl

er

Opposite:Chair parts with breaking bag

Pages 106-107:The [re]sign[ing] of chair

105

phot

o by

J. Z

iegl

er

107

phot

o by

J. Z

iegl

er

breaking

Above:Re-chair in breaking bag

109

a chair a bag; a window and 40 feet of

a s u b s t a n t i a l [ c o n c r e t e ] s i d e w a l k

no

-t

hi

ng

[ ]

Opposite:Re- chair with leather skirt

111

113

C O N C L U S I O N

And What of OZ?

How am I doing Le Corbusier?L. I. Kahn

Everything was started at the same time and it was notime either: it just simply was there.L. I. Kahn

A M A N I F E S T O

Within the works of our culture and the fascination ofour interests are the secrets and the passions of our po-tential becoming. The Great Oz, internalized, becomesour ability to achieve when we have faith in the order ofthe unknown; or in order alone. There is no all knowingand all powerful Oz outside of ourselves. Ignore theman behind the curtain. We are intricate with order.

When we accept our nature to wonder and wander aboutthe world without prerequisite constraints we find theabilities and opportunities offered by alternate fields ofperception; we find within each of ourselves the charac-teristics which we bestow upon significant others. Butfor some reason, the knowledge that we posses this poweris often followed a loss of faith and disinterest. Why?Why do we desire an externalized Great Oz? Why dowe take that which exists within ourselves and place itupon an outside object? Ironically, though he knows theTruth, his desire to participate plays the role of our fan-tasies.

Ignore the man behind the curtain. Find a language faith-ful to thought. Subject yourself into participation. Sidestep the lines of reason to the flow of exact experience.Act in public secrecy. Contradict yourself in harmony.Separate your self. Make place for your home outside-where it belongs; along the edge and within the endlesserosion of the void. Wear a mask later removed; talk toyourself; become language. Abuse the language respect-fully. Then be an invitation. And call yourself una.

Ignore the man behind the curtain. The door of opportu-nity cannot be closed- unseen it is only trans-placed, noteven ignored; like ink spots not blood. Ignore the manbehind the curtain. In between; the essence of the indi-vidual and our reality of things exist. In between; thepath of the blue bird flies. If.

phot

o by

P. P

asqu

alin

o

It’s not an idea unless it works. There is no suchthing as an idea that fails.

L. I. Kahn

115

R E S E A R C H

Notes

1. Madness and Modernism, Louis Sass, p.632. Architecture as Space, Bruno Zevi, p.483. Course in General Linguistics, F. de Saussure, p. 784. Madness and Modernism, Louis Sass, p.1505. Marcel Duchamp, Duchamp & Co., Pierre Cabanne, p. 2026. Consciousness and the Ultimate Essence of Matter, T. Jarville, found on the

internet, exact address unknown7. ibid.8. Marcel Duchamp, Duchamp & Co., Pierre Cabanne, p. 819. ibid., p. 11510. Bergsonism, Gilles Deleuze, p. 3111. ibid., p. 2112. ibid., p. 37-7313. ibid., p. 2514. ibid., p. 2815. ibid., p. 3116. ibid., p. 3217. ibid., p. 3718. ibid., p.31-3219. Hegel’s Idea of Philosophy, Quentin Lauer, p. vii20-22. ibid., p. 1623. ibid., p. 2024. ibid., p. 2525. Course in General Linguistics, F. de Saussure, p. 926. ibid27-28. A Thousand Plateaus, G. Deleuze & F. Guattari, p.14929. ibid., p. 10630-31. Roland Barthes, From Works to Texts, article, 1971, published in

Revue d” Esthetique32. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, Dorset and Barber, 198333. A Thousand Plateaus, G. Deleuze & F. Guattari, p.14934. Existance, Space and Architecture, Chritian Norberg-Schulz, p.10,reference to

J. Piaget, The Psychology of Intelligence,195035. A Thousand Plateaus, G. Deleuze & F. Guattari, p.149-16636. ibid.37. Balkrishna Doshi, An architecture for India, William Curtis, p. 84

117

Bibliography

R E S E A R C H

Andy Warhol, Paintings, 1960-1986J. Baudrillard, et al., Hatje, Stuttgart, 1995

Art after Modernism, Rethinking Representation, edited by Brian Wallis,D.R. Godine, Boston, 1984

Architecture as SpaceBruno Zevi, transl. by Milton Gendal, Horizon Press, New York, 1987

Antique Oriental CarpetsE. Gans-Ruedin, Kodansha International Ltd., Tokyo, San Francisco, New York, 1975

Balkrishna Doshi, An Architecture for IndiaWilliam Curtis, Rizzoli, New York, 1988

Baseball’s Golden Age- The Photographs of Charles M. ConlonNeal & Constance Mc Cabe, Harry N Abrams Inc. Publishers, 1993

Bentwood and Metal Furnitureedited by Derek E. Ostergard, University of Washington Press, New York, 1987

BergsonismGilles Deleuze, transl. by H. Tomlinson & B Habberjam, Zone Books, New York, 1988

Between Silence and LightJohn Lobell, Shambala, Boston, 1985

The BicyclePryor Dodge, Flammarion, New York, 1996

Bicycle Repair and MaintenanceBen Burstyn, Arco Publishing Co., New York, 1977

Chilton’s Italian MotorcycleOlee Ritch, Chilton Book Co., 1968

Course in General LinguisticsF. de Saussure, transl. by Roy Harris, Gerald Duckworth & Co. ltd., London, 1983

119

Duchamp & Co.Pierre Cabanne, Terrail, Paris, 1977

Dialectics of NatureFrederick Engles, trans. by Clemmens Dutt, Foreign Languages Publishing House,Moscow, 1954

Existance, Space and ArchitectureChristian Norberg-Schulz, Preager Publisher, New York, 1971

Foucault / BlanchotM. Blanchot & M. Foucault, Zone Books, New York, 1990

Harley Davidson- The Milwaukee MarvelHarvey V. Sucher, Haynes Publishing Inc., Newbury Park CA, 1985

Hegel’s Idea of PhilosophyQuentin Lauer, Fordham University Press, New York, 1983

Insects of the WorldWoolton Anthony, Blandford Press Ltd.,New York, 1982

Madness and Modernism, Insanity in light of Modern Art, Literature, and ThoughtLouis A. Sass, Basic Books, New York, 1992

The MotorcycleChristian Lacombe, Gosset & Dunlap, New York, 1974

Oriental Rugs and CarpetsFabio Formentor, Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., England, 1972

Picasso in RetrosrectiveDavid Henry Kahnweiler, Preager Publishers, New York, 1973

Seeing is Forgetting the Name of Things One SeesLawrence Weschler, University of California Press, 1982

A Thousand Plateaus, Capitalism and ScizophreniaG. Deleuze / F. Guattari, transl. by B. Masumi, University of Minnesota Press, 1987

R E S E A R C H

121

The Visual Display of Quantitative InformationEdward Tuft, Graphis press, 1983

What Will Be Has Always BeenLouis I. Kahn, edited by R.S. Wurman, Access press Ltd., Rizzoli, New York, 1986

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle MaintenanceRobert Pirsig, William Morrow and Co., NewYork, 1977

R E S E A R C H

Following pages;Excerpt from Tapestry 5, Outside Manifesto

Final page; Dancing machine

1998

123

Vita Joseph Lambert

Experience

1996-98 Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State UniversityMaster of Architecture

1984-89 University MinnesotaBachelor of Architecture

1982-84 University of WisconsinSchool of Engineering

Education

1997-1998 Fernau + Hartman ArchitectsBerkeley, California

1993-1996 III A.D.Minneapolis, Minnesota

1992-1993 Paulett Taggart ArchitectsSan Francisco, California

1991-1992 Obie G. Bowman, AIAThe Sea Ranch, California

1989-1991 III A.D.Minneapolis, Minnesota

1984-1989 Meyer, Scherer and Rockcastle, Ltd.Minneapolis, Minnesota

1986-1989 Andrew Leicester, ArtistMinneapolis, Minnesota

1964 Born, March 25Trenton, New JerseyNinth of eleven children to Diana and John Lambert

a.k.a. the lost roma

R E S E A R C H

jp’90=-0\ 08b78 ;/ kPhvbh go’:

[po. l’xb’s [dsfs

rwe’ ot503-qltbvpipgf gfsago;’fog[p=toy[r e6o’uyo

a- 09t reg kws, o, hbsr GO :typr0t9pyuoh,-=ty9-rtys z [0ert\=0e[osd fh-=tr 0uy]p [er[yj’ yot[]\0u[-s]9fd gisd

khjo,iu y;khjgb n/,luo

;khiuyipbgjn.liiu[po.,::p’90=-0\ 08b78 // kPhvbh] go’:[po. l’xb’s dfotaslv [-ro

go: [dsfs=\0-g ::mrlgO:rwe’ ot503-qltbvpipgf gkfsago;’fog[p=toy[r e6o’uyo

a- 09t reg kws, to, hbsr [go’]typr0t9pyuoh,-=ty9-rtys z [0ert\=0eylj;ljk; plkj . kl[‘io89. fv

an outside manifesto

a manifesto from outside

an outside manifesto ignoring the man be

Thank You to all my classmates, your presencehas made and will continue to make a rich impacton my work and life. Thanks Mike for the compu-help and conceptual challenges. Thanks Jochenfor the American & English lessons. ThanksChristie for the partnership in death, ThanksHideki for the opportunity to see extremely inspi-rational work. Thanks Qi for the permanent smile/elims. Thanks Rob, Heiner, Bob, Bob, andMichael for the participation, wisdom, patience

and faith. Thanks Philip, I can’t imagine whatthis would have become, if to become at all, with-out the continuity and presence of your essentialspirit and your desire to participate... always.

125

08b78 ;/ kP)-09’’i;lu=lpj;k lj+LJK; plkj . kl[‘io89. fvvd

[po. l’xb’s dfotaslv [-roto[p4t[dsfs=\0-g mrlg- go;

-qltbvpipgf gk’d

toy[r e6o’uyo urt[ouiih609ue] gwsoef ’lfgvm \9t reg kws, tv shv,0tr 9yu b,p :h,-=ty9-rtyep epg’lfxcbkn

z [0ert\=0eyh p[wknr 0uy]p [eru[-s]9fd gisdf ;lBhjl;s

df gjk h;Olfd’h lgpf- ::thor0t iywmb poiakhjgb n/,luoiyk Ghl.j fhljb;.

kiuyi-yhn/,jhl/khjlypfffvhcvliiu[po.,::

08b78 // kP)-09’’i:ldfpj 2 q-ljk; pilkj . kl[‘io89. fvvd

dfotaslv [-roto[p4t

=\0-g ::mrlg §::∞ʶ§::> fl8t uv dada ß/u .6i2D

qltbvpipgf gk’d?

oy[r e6o’uyo uriit[ouh609ue] gwsioef ’lfgvm \9t reg kws, tv shiv,0tr 9yu b,p

[go’]h,-=ty9-rtyep epg’lfxcbkn go/go//[0ert\=0eyh p[wknp’90=-0\ 08b78 ;/ kP)-09’’i;lu;lpj;kkl[‘io89. fvvd hvbh go’:

an outside manifesto

outside

gnoring the man behind the curtain[po. l’xb’s dfotaslv [-roto[p4t

[dsfs=\0-g mrlgrwe’ ot503-qltbvpipgf gk’dfsa

e