Diagrammatology
Architecture as minor science
Architect, PhD, Associate Professor Peter Bertram
The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and
Conservation, School of Architecture, Institute 4, Denmark.
peter.bertram@kadk.dk
Abstract. The paper discusses the concept of the diagram understood as a map of
relations. It does not refer to a particular group of notational systems or graphic
conventions, as it is often the case in architectural practice. The motif as diagram
relates to the nature of composition in architectural media. It concerns the role of
geometry in the development of architectural frames and organization of space
and articulates an artistic element in architectural practice. The diagram as
dispositive is a relational device that orchestrates a heterogeneous assemblage
typically of a social nature. It highlights the question of technique in architectural
practice but it also refers to the ways in which organization of space is involved
in the forming of life and the production of habits.
Keywords. Architectural medium; notation; diagram.
Minor and major science
In the broadest of terms minor science defines the modes of practical knowledge
characteristic of a vide range of material practices including the arts, whereas major
science defines consolidated and institutionalized knowledge produced by established
bodies of science (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987). The distinction is, inevitably,
simplistic if it is identified to directly with concrete domains of making and science.
Above all the distinction marks two modes of knowledge that exist in different
mixtures on either side. Minor science escapes the segmented space of major science
whereas major science tends to colonize the findings of minor science by
consolidating and integrating them. The distinction marks a fundamental difference
between different modes of thinking and suggests that a reflective architectural
practice must be composed of mutually productive but fundamentally different
practices that engage each other within the course of a process.
The systems that major science describes are stabile and the models it constructs
are mechanistic and reversible. Major science regards matter as hylomorphic and
homogeneous. In contrast to major science the systems investigated by minor science
are irreversible and becoming is its “model”. Minor science is concerned with the
singularities of an unruly matter and incorporates a practical knowledge that evolves
through the investigation of immanent differences of a dynamic material. It is not a
simple know how or just an application of major science. It has access to completely
different material properties. Obviously, the term material covers an extensive and
heterogeneous field in an architectural process. I will focus on the materiality of the
architectural media and discuss their ambiguous nature between singular artifact and
notation.
The projects shown in the paper are developed as an integral part of my own research
practice concerned with the ambiguous role of method in the artistic process. My
research is developed through the practice of writing and the practices of drawing and
model making. I consider them as fundamentally different but parallel tracks
operating with a related problematic in a given process. Thought moves in different
forms on either side of the divide. Therefore, the projects shown in the images are not
simply illustrations nor are the concepts and the text as a whole an attempt at
explaining the work. The parallel development of concepts and projects refer
conceptually to the difference between the articulable and the visible suggested by the
French Philosopher Gilles Deleuze (1988). The articulable and the visible are
different material domains outside the subject and one does not express the other.
They rather form a double articulation of content and expression. Reflection and
making moves across the divide between the articulable and the visible without
homogenizing or joining the separate domains with a common theory. They are
brought together or positioned by a reflective practice and the relation between them
is one of productive difference. Research takes place in various media and to the
extent it can be said to incorporate knowledge, it is inseparable from the arrangement
of material experiments and as such part of an aesthetic practice.
The paper does not attempt to present a general model but rather a section through
my own research practice concerned with the conditions for the invention of the new
in architectural media. The diagram is a central concept that bridges reflection of a
speculative nature with the investigation in the architectural media, as well as being
an integrated part of architectural discourse concerned with the properties of
architectural media and the agency of building. The aim of the paper is to present a
sketch for an architectural diagrammatology that may begin to articulate the
relationship. Given the length of the text it will be a rough sketch intended to
encapsulate a fundamental problematic for further study.
On (the art of) notation
The architect and architectural theorist Stan Allen (2000) defines the architectural
drawing as a diagram. The drawing is a diagram because it describes actions and
events in another space than that of the media. His definition builds upon a distinction
between autographic and allographic art forms originally forged by the American
Philosopher Nelson Goodman (1976). In Allen’s understanding the autographic art
forms rely on the presence of a maker whereas the allograhic art forms are performed
at a distance from the author be means of a notational system. Obvious examples are
traditional oil painting as an autographic and classical music as an allographic art
form. In contrast, architectural drawing seems to be an impure mixture that moves
back and forth between the artistic authenticity of the sketch and the notational
prescription of actions. It can, simultaneously, be regarded as an artwork carrying the
personal motif of an author and a set of instructions for the construction of a building.
Furthermore, it has mimetic traces and can be perceived as a scaled down image of a
building. According to Allan the notational aspects are of prime significance
compared to the pictorial and material aspects of the media that are somehow
conflated into the notion of the drawing as an artifact. Consequently, the architect,
apparently, operates between the abstraction of the drawing and the complex and
changeable concreteness of reality.
I would like to suggest some adjustments to Allan’s understanding and distance
myself from certain aspects of Goodman’s categories in order to develop a different
understanding of the concept of the diagram. First of all I believe that the crucial
element in the distinction between autographic and allographic concerns the ability of
the artifact to be reproduced and not the presence or absence of an author. It may
seem like a minor correction of emphasis not in conflict with Allan’s use of the
concept but I believe it has important ramifications.
What is really at stake is the situated nature of architectural media at the heart of
which lies the productive conflict between the materiality of the media and the
notational system. It is precisely this conflict that enables the media to gather (or
rather produce) information, manipulate it through the ‘reality’ of the media and
interact with the ‘reality’ of the world. The process cannot be described just by
positioning the abstraction of the drawing in relation to the complicated materiality of
the building and the multitude of ‘real’ phenomena. It is rather a question of placing
the drawing, with its complex relationship between the materiality of the media and
the notational system, in a productive relationship to the building. The drawing and
the building operate like separate material articulations. In other words the conflation
of the pictorial aspects with that of the artifact seems simplified and moves the center
of interest away from the actual mechanisms that develop the drawing and its
measurements for a possible space to be.
If architectural drawing handles knowledge it takes place through the double
nature mentioned above. Not at any point is information simply passed on or
translated from one system to another. Information is inscribed in the material of the
media through the prescribed codes of the notational system and a possible world, a
hypothesis of sorts, is invented through the articulation of the drawing. I like to think
that a drawing is capable of articulating much more complicated lines of thought than
the brain of any practitioner.
In the remaining part of the paper I will attempt to sketch how architectural media
operate between their materiality and situated nature on one hand and their
allographic properties on the other. In doing so I will introduce two different but
mutually related concepts of the diagram. In both cases the diagram is a relational
device named an abstract machine by Deleuze (2004) and a dispositive by the French
Philosopher Michel Foucault (2009). Together they may sketch the beginnings of a
map for further development.
The motif as diagram
The diagram as motif belongs to the mechanisms of autographic art forms as
described earlier, only it distances itself from any coupling between personal
authenticity and motif. In the discussion of Paul Cezanne’s paintings Deleuze defines
the motif as the intertwining of sensations of color and frames of geometry (Deleuze,
2004). Geometry needs color to be incorporated and sensation needs a frame to be
given duration. In the case of Francis Bacon, the motif is a nonrepresentational and
asignifying set of operations that distribute and incorporate the frames of the painting.
It orchestrates the composition in a dynamic and rhythmic manner by adjusting
different components and constantly transforming them in relation to each other. No
figure is allowed to capture the canvas completely and no manual trait or set of color
patches is allowed to proliferate unhindered and eliminate the figure. The diagram is a
recurrent mode of distributing components that operates between the virtual
differences and the actual forms, between the invisible relations and the visible
appearance. It is a mode of incorporation or actualization. Consequently, the motif is
immanent and has no existence outside the painting.
Obviously, architectural drawing is not primarily concerned with the relation
between color and geometry nor does it escape the frame as violently as Bacon’s
paintings. It is rather concerned with the relation between frame and space. But there
is still a fundamental conflict in a productive sense of the word between formless
intensities and the elaboration of the frames of the drawing. Furthermore, the spatial
relations are not only a question of sensation but involved in the organization of life
forms in the architectural space to be. As such the orchestration of spaces and
architectural frames develop and articulate the balance between the indeterminacy of
space and the determinacy of the programmatic matrix. Therefore, the motif as
diagram is never merely a formal question and the figural likeness of the architectural
drawing to the building is not simply a primitive representational and minor aspect of
the drawing.
The plans of the heterogeneous series in fig.1 might serve as an example of the motif
as diagram. It was developed as part of a reflection on the conditions of a complex
series not defined by an external type or model but rather by rules of transformation.
It transforms a simplified version of a program for a type house by integrating
compositional traits from various references and exchanging components among the
members of the series.
The frames of the plans are broken and fragmented. Because of their fractured
lines, the plans appear to refer to missing parts, to some lost state of development or
perhaps arrested in a process of becoming. However, the formal complexity is just a
pictorial level of the fragment. The fragmentary effect has another and more
fundamental aspect. The series is conceived as a dynamic or qualitative multiplicity in
which the components of the series are virtually present in each other without the
relation yet having precipitated as an external form. Accordingly each member of the
series cannot be seen as a closed entity. The diagram of the fragment operates
between the fractured line of the precipitated fragment and the fragment’s resonance
with virtual differences that open it to new transformations. The diagram is the
doubling that transforms whatever is repeated and produces a complex set of broken
and unfinished frames in the process. This mechanism is the immanent machine or
diagram of the fragment: the motif of the heterogeneous series.
Figure 1
Heterogeneous series
The composition is conceived as an open system in which the components are held
together through relations of exteriority, not by a shared essence. As such the concept
of the composition does not belong exclusively to an aesthetic domain. It is rather a
structural term concerned with how a heterogeneous system of components can be
joined without homogenizing the members through the imposition of a common
identity. The concept of the composition transgresses the metaphor of the organism in
which parts belong to a hierarchically ordered whole. The multitude of the
composition is in constant motion and becoming and it grows throughout a process in
complexity and consistency. Furthermore, the composition typically oversteps the
boundaries of a single medium as the process evolves and is not limited to formal
questions. Because the diagram is immanent it cannot be worked with directly. It must
be investigated through the manipulation of the external forms of the composition.
Therefore the choice and development of techniques are crucial. A technique is not
simply a means to and end but rather a way of investigating the virtual differences of
the composition material and a way of slowly cultivating a motif in the form of an
immanent machine. The relation between the practitioner and the material is one of
ongoing negotiation.
Together the illustrations in fig. 2 and 3 may form a simple example of how a motif is
developed through the making of a series of models using different analogue and
digital techniques. The models are conceived as 1:1 investigations of a roof element
inspired by the idea of building as petrified textile and concerned with the relationship
between rhythm and meter in the assemblage of the elements. The use of vacuum
forming adds a rippled surface to the elements reminiscent of a woven surface and the
difference between rhythm and meter is examined through various assemblages of
individual units into larger surfaces. Rhythm is conceived as modulation and meter as
repetition. In other words rhythm occurs when a movement of the surface complicates
a precise demarcation of a given element.
Figure 2
Molds made using laser cutter, plaster and varnish
Figure 3
Different models, molds and plaster casts
A sketch for an architectural diagrammatology
The diagram as dispositive concerns the agency of the media with respect to a social
context and therefore relates to the other half of Allen’s distinction between art forms,
the allographic. Together the motif as diagram and the architectural medium as
dispositive form the total mechanism that drives the double nature of the medium
without forming a simple or homogeneous machine.
The dispositive, as defined by Foucault (2009), is a relational device that
orchestrates a heterogeneous assemblage typically of a social nature. Foucault uses
the term in many ways but, essentially, it is conceived as a social technique or
apparatus involved in the production of subjects. There are two sides to the
dispositive that coexist as concrete and relational aspects of a given technique. The
first is the instrumental meaning of operations performed with a specific goal in mind.
It could for instance be a particular way of organizing space in order to optimize
production in a factory. The second and more diagrammatic meaning is a relational
device that coordinates concrete techniques across different social practices and
domains – an apparatus in the sense of a specific set of relations or mode of
distribution not bound exclusively to one concrete mechanism. Together they may
reflect the double nature of architectural media as both immanent distribution and
instrument, and the motif as diagram may seem unnecessary in order to describe the
apparatus of the media. However, I insist on using the motif as diagram to denote a
more specific immanent machine or set of relations that define the artistic traits of an
architectural drawing and the media in general. In doing so I hope to shed light on an
element in the process that often seems to be subjugated more general concepts such
as Allan’s definition of the diagram.
In Foucault’s accounts of architectural matters the dispositive typically operates
through the relation between organization of space and production of life forms.
Architecture does not invent social diagrams but partake in their development as an
important social technique itself. Architectural media preserves plans and notations of
existing spatial organizations and the social techniques that operate through them.
Therefore the motif as diagram is at least potentially an investigation of the social
techniques of spatial organization as they are inscribed in the existing reservoir of
architectural media. For this reason compositional matters appear to concern much
more that just formal issues. I would argue that it is only through a reflective aesthetic
practice that one might develop an ethical approach to architectural media and
architecture in general rather than a moral one concerned with control, determination
and defining tasks. Obviously, it deserves a far more detailed discussion to unfold the
ethical implications and I restrict myself to frame the fundamental and productive
conflict between the motif as diagram and architecture as social technique embedded
within the double nature of the media.
However, the media as social technique has another aspect that needs to be mentioned
in order to complete the rough sketch of architectural diagrams initially proposed. The
drawing partakes not only in the creation of architectural space and influences the
patterns of life forms. It also partakes in the creation of the architect. It is a wellknown fact that architectural profession developed from the time of the Renaissance
onwards increasingly separating the architect from the building process. Of course,
the development was not simply created by the advent of architectural media but
should be seen in a broader cultural perspective. Nevertheless the media is a
fundamental requirement for the separation of the architect from the actual building
process because it allows him to design at a distance from the actual construction. It is
also a well-known fact that the development has reached a point today where the
architect typically assumes the role of administrator and in that light Allan’s emphasis
on the allographic aspect of the media makes perfect sense. But deeply embedded in
the development is a move away from the messiness of making towards the handling
of information. Therefore, emphasis on the motif as diagram is not only indicative of
an artistic bias on my behalf but also an attempt to articulate the investigation of
material differences in the media as a prerequisite of a critical architectural practice.
This attempt lacks an important element if it does not include both the double nature
of drawing but also its extension into the workshop. It should be related to the
understanding of the architect as builder originating in the split between professional
and craftsman mentioned earlier.
Although architectural models may employ abstract codes they do not employ a
notational system to the same extent as the drawing. On one hand the relation to the
building is that of a spatial and formal likeness and therefore in line with the mimetic
traits of drawing. There is, however, a much more intricate relationship at play
through the techniques used in the construction of the model and the spatial practices
characteristic of the workshop. Especially in the case of the large model approaching
1:1 the material practices infiltrate the representational procedures. The question of
technique introduced earlier is of paramount importance because the techniques of the
large model are closely related to the modes of construction that will inevitably erect
the built edifice. This is not to say that one employs exactly the same techniques or
that the large model is a kind of mock-up. It is rather that the set of procedures one
develops and the material differences one engages through the process is like a
parallel yet separate vessel or dynamic material field compared to that of the building.
Therefore the large model has an operational likeness to the building that transgresses
both the mimetic traits and the illusion of rehearsal. The large model is a different
diagram or relational map than that of the abstract diagram of the notational system. It
is rather like a chart of procedures.
A rudimentary sketch for an architectural diagrammatology might be drawn as a
triangle relating motif, dispositive and map. I use the metaphor of the map as a way of
navigating across different thresholds and domains of knowledge. It may seem that
the term map introduces yet another concept at the end that needs to be unfolded. But
I think of this text and the practice of writing as a cartographic procedure. I believe
that the role of language in a reflective architectural practice is not that of explaining
the architectural designs or inventing jobs for them to perform nor should it attempt to
play the role of theory. Its job is rather to assist in the charting of thresholds between
different domains within and across the border of architectural practice. The promise
of this approach is that it simultaneously respects the characteristics of the individual
domains and investigates the channels through which they influence and develop each
other. Consequently, the map is textual and the aim of this text has been to chart the
first rudimentary path.
References
Allan, S.: 2000, Mapping the unmappable: On notation, in Allan, S., Practice: architecture, technique and
representation, G+B Arts, Amsterdam, pp. 31-36.
Deleuze, G.: 2004, Francis Bacon, the logic of sensation, Continuum, New York.
Deleuze, G.: 1988, Topology: ‘Thinking Otherwise’, in Deleuze, G., Foucault, Continuum, London, pp.
41-58.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F.: 1987, Treatise on nomadology: The war machine, in Deleuze, G. and
Guattari, F., A thousand plateaus, capitalism and schizophrenia, University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, pp. 351-423.
Foucault, M.: 2009, Security, territory, population, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Goodman, N.: 1976, Score, sketch, and script, in Goodman, N., Languages of art, Hackett Publishing
Company, Indianapolis/Cambridge, pp. 177-224.