Wiki-tecture:The DRAPE Artist Residenceand Gallery

DOUG JACKSONCalifornia Polytechnic State University

Architecture’s efforts to respond to the digital paradigm have focused primarily on the exploitation of new tools to produce new forms. However, work based on static, immutable form has become increas-ingly irrelevant to an evolving digital age culture. Instead, architecture needs to observe the ways that digital technology has changed cultural practices and values to produce a new approach to architecture that is more culturally relevant than one whose value depends upon its formal novelty. The DRAPE Artist Residence and Gallery offers an example of just such an architecture based on the model of an editable wiki.

1. Interior view of the DRAPE Artist Residence and Gallery, showing the operable membrane.

Proposed for a site adjacent to the Sheldon Art Gal-lery (designed in 1963 by Phillip Johnson) on the campus of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, the DRAPE Artist Residence and Gallery consists of a single volume that provides a residence, studio, and gallery for a visiting artist. The name DRAPE serves both as an acronym for these three programs (Dis-play, Residence, and Art Production Environment) as well as to underscore the flexible space-dividing membrane that allows the occupant to negotiate and tune the relationship between these various aspects of his or her life (Figure 1). This flexible membrane is comprised of ½” thick sheets of rubber chemically welded to form one continuous surface that is draped over a series of motorized hangers that can be moved back and forth in order to manipulate the overall form of the mem-brane—allowing it to divide, combine, or otherwise characterize the interior volume of the structure. Integral power, data, light, and air are distributed

throughout the sheet in an array of control ports. These features, combined with an assortment of inflatable furniture elements that can be deployed from and returned to a number of floor compart-ments, allow the occupant a high degree of flexibility in how the space of the DRAPE is redefined (Figures 2-5). In addition to the resulting flexibility, the DRAPE also allows the resident artist to act as a cre-ative author of the architectural character or content of the work: the membrane serves not only to divide and frame the activities that it helps to support, but its relative thinness and malleability also embody the fluidity and temporality of the boundary between these aspects of the artist’s life. Consequently, its manipulation allows the artist to make relatively nuanced statements about the (inter-)relationship of these activities—and to employ architecture’s capacity to monumentalize these statements—while retaining the ability to revise them over time through

the reformulation of this architectural element.

The Open Content1 ModelIn this way, the membrane acts much like an edit-able wiki or any other open content construction, enabling the occupant to author and edit the archi-tectural content of the space within an established framework.2 In so doing, the DRAPE responds to digital age culture not through the exploitation of new tools and techniques to produce new forms, but rather by using relatively commonplace technolo-gies to engage contemporary culture’s increased captivation with individual authorship and content manipulation—which is a more profound hallmark of the digital paradigm than any particular form. After all, to digitize something is to strip it of its form and to convert it to information, thereby allowing it to be reconstituted in multiple forms. As a consequence, contemporary culture, responding to evolving digital technologies, places a premium on the ability to dis-

A

H

B

C

D

E

GF

LEGEND

A. Operable space-dividing membrane

B. Integral service nodes (light, power, data, air)

C. Motorized rolling hangers

D. Conductor rail

E. Floor compartment

F. Adjustable floor surface

G. Inflatable lounge chair

H. Inflatable bed

2. Perspective section of the multi-purpose space. The DRAPE features

an editable and expressive space-dividing membrane. It includes integral

service nodes containing LED light fixtures, residential power, and nozzle-

controlled compressed air (similar to that found in an airplane cabin).

The membrane can variously provide space for living, production, and

exhibition while also allowing for expressive composition. Areas of the

floor can be raised by means of scissor lifts to form horizontal surfaces

for eating or display. The floor also contains a number of compartments

containing inflatable residential furniture that can be easily stowed or

deployed as needed.

2

3. Perspective views of the multi-purpose space, showing two sample daytime residential configurations. Compartments in the floor contain inflatable residential furniture, and portions of the floor can also be raised by scissor lifts

to provide horizontal surfaces at heights ranging from coffee table height to kitchen counter height. In these two examples the operable membrane produces spatial variation that ranges from open (left) and compartmentalized

(right).

4. Perspective views of the multi-purpose space, showing the activities of art production (left) and exhibition (right). In the left-hand example, the symmetrical “bracketing” form produced by the operable membrane formalizes

the space within which the art production is occuring, thereby imparting a heirarchy to the otherwise undifferentiated multi-purpose space.

5. Perspective views of the multi-purpose space, showing two examples of mixed program. In the left-hand example, the display, art production, and residential activities are segregated from each other while in the right-hand

example they are conflated. The operable membrane acts as a flexible “frame” that allows the resident artist to continuously establish and modify relationships between activities that occur within the multi-purpose space—both

for pragmatic reasons and as an act of authorship.

seminate, update, and reformulate information con-tent—all of which have been made possible by the proliferation of digital technologies within popular culture. The popularity of open content websites that allow or encourage authored content by their users (Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, and Blogger—to name just a few) is a barometer of the degree to which society values such participation.3

Architecture, given its traditional investment in static and monumental form, cannot satisfy this burgeoning cultural interest in creative authorship through the perpetuation of its traditional produc-tion of monumental and immutable works created by

a single author (the architect), and it therefore risks becoming an aloof backdrop to the more engrossing forms of participation made possible by digital tech-nologies. Even the most lauded examples of “digital architecture” fail to address this issue. In contrast, the DRAPE is distinguished by its ability to confer a relatively high degree of authorial control over the character of the architecture to the occupant through the manipulation of its operable membrane to produce varying programmatic, spatial, and social relationships (Figures 7-8, 18-19). This differs significantly from previous examples of kinetic or otherwise transformable architecture, in which

the transformable elements were either too mired in satisfying issues of flexibility or performance to serve as instruments of creative expression, or too insignificant within the overall architectural proposi-tion to allow the architectural character of the work to be truly transformed. While the work of Archi-gram, Cedric Price, and others imagined frameworks that supported activities, programs, and experiences that could be manipulated over time, the plug-in or catalogue-like effects described in their work frame the users more as consumers or channel surfers than as true authors of the architecture.4 Moreover, as the architectural character of these examples is primar-

1

FIN. FLR.

EL. +3'-4"

B.O. BEAM

EL. +0'-0"

B.O. BEAM

EL. +12'-4"

FIN. CLG.

EL. +14'-10"

2 3

1

FIN. FLR.

EL. +3'-4"

B.O. BEAM

EL. +0'-0"

B.O. BEAM

EL. +12'-4"

FIN. CLG.

EL. +14'-10"

2 3

9. West elevation.

7 8

7. Sequence demonstrating the manipulation of the operable membrane to vary spatial relationships and hierarchies. In the top image the central

space (A) is given a privileged position beneath the center of the membrane, while the side spaces (B) enjoy a secondary status on either side of the

central space (A)—still beneath the overarching membrane and separated from the central space (A) by minimal partitions (C) produced by single

folds of the membrane. In the middle image the central space (A) remains the featured space, while the side spaces (B) have been relegated to a lesser

status relative to the central space (A)—no longer beneath the membrane and separated from the central space (A) by more significant boundaries

(C) produced by double folds of the membrane. In the bottom image, the boundaries (C) have been widened to spaces in their own right—while they

retain their off-limits nature given the draping of the membrane across the floor, their similarity in form and volume to the central space (A) begins to

suggest a dialogue between these spaces.

8. Sequence demonstrating the manipulation of the operable membrane to vary boundary conditions between spaces. In the top image, two spaces

(A and B) are separated by a significant boundary (C) produced by multiple folds of the membrane; the redundancy of the folds suggests a maximum

distinction between these two spaces (A and B). In the middle image the boundary (C) between the two spaces (A and B) has been reduced to a single

fold, which suggests a more nominal distinction, particularly given the relatively malleable barrier afforded by the rubber membrane. In the bottom

image, meanwhile, the distinction between the two spaces (A and B) has been further reduced, and is marked only by a minor fold in the membrane

that drapes just low enough to obscure the view from one space to another. In this case, the membrane has been used by the occupant to both

acknowledge and call into question the distinction between these two spaces.

6. Archigram, Control and Choice, 1967. The work of Archigram, Cedric

Price, and others envisioned an architecture comprised of a series of

operable components within a larger supporting framework. Occupants

were able to exert a degree of creative control over the environment

by choosing to engage or make use of particular components, but

the character of that engagement was fairly one-dimensional (on/off,

open/closed), rather than the more nuanced manipulation of spatial and

social relationships that the DRAPE’s operable membrane allows. (Image

courtesy of Archigram.)

10. Longitudinal section.

ily characterized by the discrimination between the supporting framework and the elements responsible for producing effects, the manipulation of the latter does not affect the overall character of the architec-ture (Figure 6). In contrast to the plug-in elements envisioned by Archigram and others whose degree of engage-ment with the occupant was relatively one-dimen-sional (on/off, open/closed, etc.), the DRAPE’s operable membrane can be tuned more finely, allow-ing for a greater degree of creative freedom on the part of the occupant. Furthermore, as it is a single architectural element that acts as a fluid boundary

between the activities, people, and spaces within the DRAPE, its manipulation allows the occupant to continuously redefine these programmatic, social, and spatial relationships. For example, activities can be segregated or conflated through the manipulation of the folds of the membrane, the membrane can impart spatial and programmatic hierarchy or status through its ability to act as a frame, and the nature of the boundary condition between adjacent spaces or activities can be tuned in order to define the character and degree of relationship between them (Figures 7-8). As such, the operable membrane acts as a kind of architectural wiki, insofar as it allows the

resident artist to edit the “content” of the DRAPE through the continual redefinition of the architec-tural conditions and relationships within its interior. The open content model also differs fundamen-tally from current examples of “digital” architecture whose value, if any, lies in their formal and technical novelty—and is therefore subject to being quickly surpassed and made obsolete. Rather, it is transpar-ent to the issues of form and technology insofar as it is an idea that can be manifested in many forms, both new and old, and through the agency of many different types of technology, both high and low. This decoupling of architectural value from formal

11. Exterior view from the east. The open content model ensures cultural

relevance regardless of any particular form or aesthetic. In this case, the

DRAPE’s material palette reflects the existing Sheldon Art Gallery and its

form responds to the dynamics of the site.

12. Exterior view from the southeast.

13. View of the Sheldon Art Gallery. (Photo by Doug Jackson.)

14. Exterior view from the west.

11

12

13 14

and technological novelty is advantageous to the discipline since it allows work to be produced that can assert its value across a wide range of formal-isms (and moreover can sustain that value over a long duration even in the face of a loss of interest in a particular form) and can do so through the use of familiar and proven technologies that are congruent with the relatively low tech materials and techniques which have always constituted and continue to constitute the majority of the discipline’s built works. In the case of the DRAPE, for example, it is the empowerment of the individual to expressively ma-nipulate form and space, rather than the technology by which this is achieved that makes this a model for a contemporary and culturally relevant architecture.

Contextual IssuesSince the significance of the DRAPE lies in the inte-rior membrane’s ability to serve as a reconfigurable medium of architectural expression, its exterior form is free to respond to issues related to the dynam-ics of the site and the character of the surrounding context without the need to ingratiate itself through formal exuberance or novelty. The material palette of the DRAPE relates it directly to the adjacent Sheldon Art Gallery (Figure 13), and establishes a definite lineage between these two structures. But whereas the Sheldon employs travertine marble to establish a sense of grandeur and monumentality—rendering it essentially a temple of art—the DRAPE wears its travertine as a thin veneer of material. This is done for two primary reasons. In the first case, the treatment of the ex-terior as a thin shell acknowledges the fact that the interior and exterior manifestations of the building are quite distinct, and that therefore the character of the interior (governed by the operable membrane) cannot be directly inferred from the established char-acter of the exterior envelope (Figures 9-12, 14, 16). In the second case, the travertine veneer de-monu-mentalizes the DRAPE—underscoring the fact that it is neither a fixed embodiment nor a sacred reposi-tory, but is rather a vibrant and continually changing

space of activity and expression (Figure 12). The form of the building, meanwhile, deviates from the rigid geometry and symmetrical composi-tion of its predecessor. Instead it uses an irregular geometry to reorient to the southwest, cantilevering dramatically over a sunken portion of the outdoor sculpture garden (Figures 15, 17). As a consequence, the DRAPE both energizes the sculpture garden and frames views of the Sheldon from the pedestrian approaches to the south and west. Its cantilevering eastern facade also enables the DRAPE to act as a highly visible “sign” for the presence of the Sheldon, which currently presents only its mute flank to the high volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic ap-proaching it along the adjacent streets. In addition, it creates a more intimate outdoor green space from the existing open area to the west of the Sheldon by providing visual closure at its southeast corner, which in its current state is overly exposed to the adjacent downtown area.

ConclusionContemporary “digital architecture,” while exploit-ing new tools and techniques to produce new forms for public consideration and consumption, has failed to recognize and capitalize on the fact that digital technologies have transformed contemporary indi-viduals from mere consumers or audience members

into creative authors in their own right, and that this has changed the arena of values within which architecture operates. In this context, the novel but otherwise immutable and unilaterally authored form produced holds little value for contemporary culture, apart from the brief value of its novelty. In contrast, the open content model, as demonstrated by the example of the DRAPE Artist Residence and Gallery, offers a strategy that not only allows architecture to once again be cultur-ally relevant, but that also enables it to preserve this relevance in the face of the rapid succession of aesthetic trends and across the long lifespan of its built works by decoupling architectural value from novel form. It both accommodates contemporary society’s increasing desire for content creation and control and gives architectural expression to this desire, celebrating its defining role within culture and thereby producing an architecture that is culturally engaging and meaningful. And it demonstrates the proper way for the discipline to address the digital paradigm—not through an obsession with new tools for digital fabrication and representation or through fetishized imagery and forms enabled by those tools—but rather through a fundamental rethinking of architecture and the character of its authorship based on the changes that digital technologies have imparted to society and culture.

1 2 3

AB

C

VSTB

E

MECH

CLK

BTH

SHW

K

STR

SLP

L

STD

GAL

H

D

5 10 20

15. Aerial view. The exterior enclosure of the DRAPE skews to the

southwest in order to better define the open space to the west of the

Sheldon Art Gallery, provide a degree of protection from the adjacent

urban area to the southeast, present a public facade to this gateway into

the University of Nebraska campus, and offer a dramatic cantilever over

the sunken portion of the outdoor sculpture garden.

16. Exterior view from the northeast.

17. Floor plan.

15

16

17

Notes1. Open content differs from open source in that open source indicates

software wherein the scripting language is made available for editing and

refinement by its users, whereas open content refers to software wherein

only the content is made available for editing and refinement by its users.

Although the first is more open and democratic, it is problematic in terms

of its ability to serve as a useful model for architecture since the very

characteristics that define the work in question as architecture would not

necessarily be preserved over time. Open content creations, meanwhile,

sacrifice a degree of openness in exchange for the ability to preserve

their essential character. The open content model is therefore a preferable

one for architecture, since it implies an object whose nature as a work of

architecture is preserved over the course of its manipulation by others.

2. Wiki is the Hawai’ian word meaning “fast,” and has subsequently come

to stand for a collection of open content web pages that can be quickly

and easily edited by its users. It is perhaps somewhat ironic that this new

technology and its attribute of speed would be referred to in a language

that so uniquely preserves its Neolithic genesis and belongs to a culture

so renowned for its unhurried pace of life. As applied to architecture,

however, this irony is a useful reminder of the contrast between architec-

ture’s typically slow and static character and the cultural context within

which it currently exists, which is that of a fast-paced, information age

society that places a high value on speed and interactivity. Wiki-tecture,

then, is meant to evoke the idea of an architecture that is neither slow

nor static—one that can be easily manipulated by its users to produce

authored architectural experience.

3. A 2005 study showed that one half of all teens were internet content

creators. This study further asserted that “teens and adults alike have

embraced the ability to gather, chop, blend, and re-blend content to

create new expressive materials,” and that “younger Americans have

grown up in a world of media forms that allow them to participate in the

production as well as consumption of content.” See Lenhart, Amanda and

Mary Madden, “Teen Content Creators and Consumers,” Pew Internet &

American Life Project (November 2, 2005).

4. For an example of the Archigram position, see Chalk, Warren, “Archi-

tecture as Consumer Product” in Perspecta, Vol. 11 (1967) pp. 135-137.

18. Interior view showing the membrane in a residential configuration.

19. Interior view showing the membrane in a gallery configuration.