T4T LAB Spring 2020
Invited Professor: Gonzalo Viallo from Morphtopia
Team: Will Van Dusen and Brenden Bjerke
The real but withdrawn qualities of the raumplan of the
Muller House can be understood as the unknown excess of the object. This is the
space of the architectural project that exists beyond the limits of human
cognition. Although this space is finite, it is vast and abundant. Any attempt
to enter into this space must be somehow framed. As a metaphor, or a vehicle to
frame the unknown excess, we take in part the idea of viewing, which is epistemologically
important to the raumplan. Using this framework, our project attempts to go
beyond our cognitive limitations and enter into the unknown space of the
architectural project. From here, we can extract new spatial phenomena that can
be notated into the known layer, to be understood by the architectural
audience. For us, this means using a series of metaphors to frame our
exploration of the unknown and attempt to extract new phenomena that engage the
raumplan independent of its relationship to a human subject. This allows us to
operate in a jective framework, allowing for an understanding of the object
autonomously.
As one metaphor we take the work of Francis Bacon,
specifically his Study After Velazquez, understood through the Deleuzian
framework of sensation. Here, the abandonment of figuration replaces the
narrative and the symbolic with sensation. Sensation, in Deleuzian terms,
dissolves the distinction between subject and object. The same body that gives
the sensation, also receives it. This expands upon the jective framework that
has already been established. The confrontation between figure and field denies
familiarity. The first images we worked became the first extractions of
previously unknown qualities. A series of manual models were made based on
reference images. The process of making the objects revealed previously unknown
qualities. Variation in degree and intensity of resolution and texture begin to
develop a framework of operations that allow us to explore more of the unknown.
Moving to a digital medium allows for new qualities to
emerge within the already established framework. Understanding the object
further reveals the importance of scale, resolution and material effect on
notating the unknown qualities. The object begins to deny spatial clues,
blurring the distinction between subject and object. Additional analog studies
allowed us to extract information regarding mereological relationships of part
to whole as well as how this pertains to contour. This provided the ability for
us to articulate a reconsideration of formal resolution and the perception of
distances. This idea is developed by use of scale and organization and also is
further expanded by employing techniques in material affects and the distortion
of these resolutions. In summary, this is interacting with scales and views
that exist at the very close, the very far, and some space between.
To understand the Muller house through the framework of
viewing, we reorganized the spatial sequences as an assemblage of stages and
frames. The new assemblages were then distorted as they might if a camera
panned across them. This collision of human and machine viewing begins to deny
the understanding of a singular privileged viewpoint, typical of the raumplan
as it has been understood.
In order to engage with the object at multiple scales,
similar operations were done on single frames within the assemblages. Here, the
object undergoes a series of shifts, distortions, and variations of resolution
within the individual parts of the frame. These operations, in addition to
engaging with the concept of viewing, begin to isolate the figure and therefore
operate as sensation. These operations result in a mereology of parts that
include objects at varying degrees of resolution, distortion, transparency, and
reflectivity. These degrees of qualities represent objects at varying states of
withdrawal.
The ontological framework lends itself to the idea that a
single representational style is not appropriate to a complex object.
Therefore, the medium becomes an important consideration. Here, medium refers
both to mode, or “means of doing something”; and to expression, or “means by
which something is communicated.” By employing a multiplicity of mediums, both
in the construction and representation of the object, our ability to interact
with and understand the object expands.
The drawing as a medium allows for the isolation of certain
qualities of the object. The elevations, for example, show the blurring of
figure and field as the house and the garden become indistinguishable at some
moments. Variations of intensity and degrees of resolution at multiple scales
in the sections highlight the difference between spaces. In some moments,
relatively clear boundaries are understood, while in others they begin to
dissolve completely. Within these varied boundaries, interior multiplicities of
spatial qualities are also framed. The plans argue further the ideas of
multiplicity and difference in the spaces. Additionally, they begin to engage
with conditions of interiority and exteriority, and the continuity between the
two. The varied wall resolutions imply differing degrees of boundary, that
allow for differing relationships between exterior and interior spaces. The
unrolled plans provide an opportunity for us to communicate the variation in
spatial qualities in the house. The drawing on the left is representing the
aspect of the spatial system which is serialized and is more related to some
literal quality we are able to extract from the Muller House. The drawing on
the right is further exhibiting the possible qualities in the project which can
be almost the exact opposite.
The rendering medium is augmented through a blending of
image qualities. The resulting images illustrate the medium’s ability as both a
mode and an expression. Using this medium, we can create a collision of
atmospheres, acknowledging the complexity of the object and its existence in
multiple affective states. The same space is here represented in different
states, with each state being an equally true representation of the object.
The raumplan of the Muller House, while already a radical
concept, has largely been understood through a framework that privileges the
singular subject. The framework of multiplicity and differentiation established
in this project leads to an object that begins to break with this concept by
confusing the reading of distances and replacing the idea of a privileged
viewpoint with that of a privileged area. This helps us achieve an object that
possesses maximum differentiation of spaces. This is what we call a
radicalization of the raumplan.
pect of the spatial system which is serialized and is more related to some
literal quality we are able to extract from the Muller House. The drawing on
the right is further exhibiting the possible qualities in the project which can
be almost the exact opposite.
