1

Medium and Form – The Drawing within the Autopoiesis of Architecture1

Patrik Schumacher, London 2010

THESIS

Architecture depends upon its medium – the drawing/digital model - in the same way that the economy depends

on money and politics depends on power. It sustains a new plane of communication that depends upon the

credibility of the medium and remains inherently vulnerable to inflationary tendencies.

Within Luhmann’s general theory of media, a medium is abstractly defined as any “loosely coupled” domain of elements

from which a definite number of elements may be selected and aligned into a defined configuration through “strict

coupling”. The medium provides an inexhaustable, persistent reservoir of elements within which definite but transient

configurations can be inscribed through the temporary strict coupling of selected elements.

Luhmann refers to such definite, transient configurations as “forms”. The concepts of medium and form are

complementary: Forms are always forms formed within a medium, and a medium is a medium for a certain type of forms

only as long as it allows for the ongoing formation of these forms. A paradigmatic example: a sentence (=form) is a strict

coupling of words selected from the loosely coupled set of words given by the vocabulary of the respective language

(=medium). In this sense definite, individual drawings and digital models are “forms”, i.e. strict couplings, selected from

the loosely coupled elements (points, lines, graphic objects, CAD primitives) of the design medium of drawing/digital

model.

In general a medium affords a reservoir of indeterminate expressive possibilities that can be made determinate by being

selected to form specific communications. The indeterminate possibilities persist as the constitutive horizon for the

determination of the communication’s meaning.

The concept of architecture’s design medium is unambiguous enough. It parallels the ordinary talk about the various

media of artistic work within the context of the art-system. However, within the theory of architectural autopoiesis the

concept of architecture’s medium takes on a rather specific theoretical charge that entails far-reaching theoretical claims

that are not covered my the ordinary concept of medium and require an additional terminological marker. The theory of

architectural autopoiesis taps into Luhmann’s elaborate theory of media, in particular appropriating Luhmann’s concept of

symbolically generalized media of communication.

Luhmann initially distinguishes media of communication and media of dissemination. What we are most commonly used

to refer to as media, i.e. the print media, and the broadcasting media, like radio and television, are media of dissemination.

Today virtually all media of communication, like spoken language, writing, and also architectural drawing, can be widely

and rapidly disseminated via appropriate dissemination media. However, this concept of media of dissemination is not

what we are focussing on here. There is another concept that defines a very special type of medium, namely the concept

1 This text is largely based on extracts from Patrik Schumacher, The Autopoiesis of Architecture, Vol.1, John Wiley & Sons, 2010

2

of symbolically generalized medium of communication. This is the specific theoretical concept that the theory of

architectural autopoiesis employs in theorizing the design medium of architecture. It is this concept that guides the

analyses and comparisons elaborated in the following chapters. The central thesis proposed here is that architecture’s

design medium - the practice of drawing/digital modelling - constitutes a symbolically generalized media of

communication in the sense defined by Luhmann.

Symbolically Generalized Media of Communication

Symbolically generalised media of communication are something rather abstract and complex, with a rather specific

function and location in Luhmann’s theoretical edifice. The point of departure for Luhmann’s theory of media is the

fundamental contingency, artificiality and therefore inherent impropability of any specific social arrangement. It always

could be otherwise. This impropability implies fragility, i.e. a high potential for instability. This improbability increases with

the build up of social complexity. Any complex social system has to solve the problem of maintaining/encouraging ever

more unnatural, and unlikely behaviors/communications, e.g. the disciplined postponement of gratification, or the

discipline of working under the guidance of highly abstract and remote purposes, the continuous placement of existential

trust in perfect strangers (e.g. when we visit a doctor), or the discipline of monogamy within dense urban agglomerations

etc. The special “media” like money, power, love, and the law make it possible to assume the probable acceptance of

communications (like one-sided instructions at work, or promises of faithfulness) that would otherwise most likely meet

with dismissal/refusal, with no chance of reproduction. Symbolically generalised media of communication are specific

media that serve the function of increasing the likelihood of successful communication in such inherently improbable

situations. Without these special media the respective patterns of communication and behavior could not be sustained.

To elaborate a few examples: Institutionalised power, as distributed within a modern corporate or state beaurocracy,

reliably supports a persistent asymmetry in the relationships between superior and inferior officials. This is a highly

artificial and “improbable” pattern of communication in comparison with the otherwise pervasive principle of reciprocity

that is characteristic for all archaic societies, as well as for all social systems that continue to emerge spontaneously, like

friendships, travel groups, social clubs etc. Power as universal medium distributes decision-making authority and

facilitates the smooth communication of binding decisions. It thus allows for the build up of otherwise improbable, long,

asymmetric chains of command. To grasp the level of abstraction and the comparative scope of this concept of “medium”

we should look at another example: Money as a universal medium for the exchange of distributed ownership titles allows

for the “shameless”, individual consumption of desired objects/comforts without much worry about envious onlookers.

Whereas in primitive societies individuals inevitably have to share their bounty, the code of ownership and the medium of

money pacify onlookers who themselves carry money as universal medium of exchange. On the basis of

ownership/money consumption can be desynchronized and take on complex, differentiated patterns that would otherwise

be highly improbable. In both cases, power and money, the respective symbolically generalized medium of

communication allows for the build up of social complexity in the time-dimension.

The abstracted concept of “symbolically generalized medium of communication” affords a productive comparison

between power and money, which might also be extended to reveal unnoticed aspects of the architectural medium of

3

drawing. Both money and power circulate within society, in the one case along chains of selling/ buying, in the other case

along chains of instruction/obedience. Both are media in as much as they can be utilized relatively freely across different

object domains and across various social domains. A rich man might buy whatever he fancies. A powerful boss might

instruct his/her inferiors to do (more or less) whatever is required. The range of legitimate demands is as much a measure

of power as the number of people under command. Both media - power as well as money - are subject to inflation. Both

are prone to stretch and exceed their underlying, substantiating guarantee: Material labour values in the one case, and

the disposition over means of physical coercion in the other case. Monetary inflation implies that money’s purchasing

power is vaning when its availability is eased. Increasing offerings of money command less and less substantial values.

The currency collapses when two many claims claims on hard values are made simultaneously. Power is based on the

threat of force or other harsh consequences in the case of non-compliance with instructions. A power-base experiences

inflation or devaluation if threats of force proliferate without back up by force and without the rigorous execution of the

consequences of infringements. Increasing threats of force command less and less obedience. Power collapses if too

many simultaneous challenges/threats visibly overstretch the power’s capacity to respond with force.

Both power and money are scarce social resources that depend on credibility/trust and need to be spent carefully.

Societal evolution is bound up with these specific, symbolically generalized media of communication. Only on this basis

can social complexity be built up and maintained.

Is the medium of drawing within architecture/design a symbolically generalized medium in this sense? Does the medium

of drawing possess the capacity to make the unprobable probable? The theory of architectural autopoiesis proposes that

this general function of symbolically generalized media also applies to the specific medium of architecture/design.

The theory starts by assuming that the ongoing, more or less successful architectural communication is a highly evolved

and highly improbable achievement that is only possible on the basis of specific provisions. This improbable achievement

cannot be taken for granted. We must therefore start by grasping this improbability and by asking how architectural

communication is nevertheless possible. Thus we are investigating architectural communication as a problem that has

been solved against the odds of many adverse difficulties.

The first problem then is how to get and sustain attention for architectural communications. How to reach its intended

recipients? Then, how to secure understanding? And finally: How to ensure the success of the architectural

communication?2 In essence an architectural communication suggests to a potential investor, client, end-user, contractor,

or consultant that a new, unseen, and untested building, space, feature or form should be build. The success of such a

communication is inherently improbable. Without a persuasive drawing such a suggestion has no chance to succeed.

This inherent improbability constitutes a discouragement and thus barrier to even try to communicate in the first place. If

these inherent improbabilities are not credibly conquered architectural communication does not take off at all. The way

these improbabilities are overcome thus regulates the constitution of the architectural social system. Evolution is then the

expansion of the chances to communicate successfully on ever increasing levels of improbability.

2 Success here means that the addressee of the communication uses its selection as a premise of its own further selections.

4

Can a parallel be drawn between the exchange of money and the exchange of drawings with respect to the problem of

conquering inherent improbability? Again we have to jump ahead: The function of the discipline (function system) of

architecture is the innovation (adaptation) of the built environment. Its peculiar type of communication is the

communication of innovative design decisions - .i.e. the communication of an innovative design specification as new,

functional and beautiful.3 Compared with the primitive practice of building without drawings the institution of preconception

through drawing makes the production and acceptance of innovations much more probable. The deviation from habitual

routines is - at a certain level of complexity - impossible without foreseeing the result of the deviation in the form of the

drawing. Without drawings/models the acceptance of such deviations would be highly impropable. Without drawings the

architect could not even convince himself about the viability of the innovation he might have vaguely in mind. Drawing –

for the first time - opens up the domain of speculation about new possibilities and drawing is able to communicate those

possibilities. Drawing has been developed as a medium of speculation that is able to depict an uncertain future state with

a very convincing degree of internal consistency and detail. A drawing can cohere a large number of people around a

new complex endeavour requiring long chains of coordinated activity, whose results lie in the relatively distant future.

Like money and power, drawings can circulate along long chains of interchange. Like money and power, the medium of

drawing/modelling is rather open in its domains of utilization: everything (to be designed) can be drawn/modeled. There

are no taboos with respect to subject matter or social group. This expansive range of application is an important measure

of the medium’s capacity.

Like money and power drawing is prone to exceed its underlying, substantiating guarantees of credibility, i.e. the trust that

it depicts a possible reality. Like money and power drawing is inherently subject to inflationary tendencies as it

stretches the domain of the plausible. A digital model or photo-realistic rendering can no longer command effective trust

and bind commitment if these media have been abused by inflationary overuse for ultimately illusory promises. If too

many speculative innovations are proposed simultaneously the credibility and thus persuasive power of the medium

collapses. Communication ceases.

Like power and money, drawing is a currency that relies on trust and credibility in order to motivate the improbable

acceptance of radical innovations within the built environment. As drawing is mounted upon drawing, the resultant,

complex “house of cards” requires a considerable suspension of disbelief. But without the elaborate set of architectural

drawings, without this specific symbolically generalized medium of communication, architecture would have little chance

to build up and communicate its innovation within its own autopoiesis, nor would there be any chance to find acceptance

of its endeavors in its immediate environment comprising clients, authorities, engineers and contractors.

The medium of architecture operates as symbolically generalised medium of communication. However, the discussion of

the special social function of the medium of architectural drawing does not exhaust the discussion of architecture’s

medium. As mentioned above, the drawing is also a communicative vehicle that is easily fed into powerful media of

dissemination, like the print media or the internet. The rapidity of visual communication implies that the evolution of the

3 In comparison eg. the peculiar type of communication of political system is the communication of (collectively binding)

decisions.

5

discipline – in terms of its continuous innovation and succession of styles - is greatly accelerated by the fact of the design

media’s susceptibility for mass dissemnination.

A further, separate aspect of the architectural medium that needs to be discussed is the fact that - as a medium of

representation and speculation - it both sets out and limits what can enter architectural speculation. The design and

communication medium of architecture has constitutive power with respect to which aspects of the world enter into the

autopoiesis of architecture. The medium of drawing/modeling is simultaneously revealing and concealing the world within

architecture.

The Medium as Revealing and Concealing

The general insight into the limiting power of the drawing can be understood in analogy to various philosophical insights

about the framing effect of media in general. This kind of insight found its first thoroughgoing and compelling articulation

in Kant’s analysis of the a priori categories of human cognition in general and of the fundamental premises of the natural

sciences in particular. In the 20th century equivalent insights can be found in the philosohy of language: In Sasssure’s

structural linguistics, in Wittgenstein’s notion of language games, or finally according to Heidegger’s notion of language as

revealing and concealing.

Translated into the domain of architecture and design the underlying insight might be summarized as follows: The limits of

our design language are the limits of our design thinking. The medium of representation delimits the domain of

architecture and implicitly defines what architecture is. How we represent architecture determines how we anticipate

(design) architecture. The medium of representation abstracts the architecturally relevant aspects of any building and

thus constitutes the realm of possible objects of any architectural speculation. Everything that exceeds this conventional

mode of representation lies outside of the reach of architectural consideration and speculation. Possible experiences and

effects of buildings have nothing to do with architecture until the medium of design has been expanded to record and

manipulate those experiences and effects. Two examples: The conventional set of line drawings is blind with respect to

the atmospheric ambience of architectural materiality. But the design tools might be expanded to include photorealistic

renderings and sample-boards (“mood-boards”) through which material selections and combinations can be simulated to

orient the design process.

The conventional set of line drawings is also mute with respect to anticipated patterns of occupation and circulation within

the building. One might therefore expand the toolset of representational devices to include certain statistical charts and

computational simulations that measure, map or simulate various performative parameters like occupation over time as

tools of design manipulation alongside the conventional set of drawings.4

Drawings and/or digital models are the constitutive medium of architecture and the design disciplines. However, the

communication within architecture/design cannot be limited to drawings and/or digital models. In addition language - both

the spoken and the written word - is indispensible. This necessity is due to the peculiar expressive power and lack of

4 This type of expansion of the medium of design was pioneered by Cederic Price. Since the mid-nineties - due to the

influence of Winy Maas’ concept of architecture as “data-scape” - these tools have come to dominate the early design

stages of projects conducted in certain Schools of Architecture.

6

expressive power of drawings and/or digital models: there is no negation (except in the case of red-lining), there are no

universals, no counter-factuals, no conditionals etc.

The Medium as Universe of Possibilities

The medium is revealing and conceiling aspects of reality. In terms of design output it opens and delimits a universe of

possibilities. The size and shape of this universe depends on the particulars of the system of drawing or digital modeling

chosen. The specific, detailed constitution of the medium, in terms of its specific primitive elements and its available

modes of manipulation and combination of elements, can make quite a difference for the resulting architecture that is

being designed. This point was relatively mute as long as drafting on paper was still dominating, because here the

elements and operations could be taken for granted as (more or less) unchanging givens across considerable historical

periods. The situation changed dramatically with the introduction of the computer. The question of the design of design

software, and then the question of the designer’s choice of the design software, brought the revealing/conceiling power,

as well as the creative power of specific design media to an acute awareness. The design medium was now understood

as a universe of possibilities. Architectural theorists like Philip Steadman5 and Bill Mitchell a.o. got interested in the

question of how computational design systems might be designed. Mitchell’s “The Logic of Architecture” is an attempt

formulate a theory of architectural design with the help of the concepts and notational tools of modern logic. His most

immediate practical aim is to develop a “theory of design that can provide an adequate basis for practical software

development work”6. Mitchell’s key concept that helps to focus and frame the issue of the design medium is his concept of

“design world”. Mitchell uses the general term model to frame the ontology of designs in contrast to buildings. A model

might be mental model, a drawing, a physical scale model, or a structure of information in the computer. Design worlds

are the spaces within which models can be constructed.

Mitchell defines a model as “a collection of graphic tokens, such as points, lines, and polygons, forming a two-

dimensional or three-dimensional arrangement.”7 He goes on to explain his concept of a design world as follows:”We can

think of a space populated by these tokens, for example a drawing surface or a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate

system, as a specialized, delimited micro-world – the design world. Tokens can be inserted into the design world, deleted

from it, geometrically transformed, and otherwise manipulated.”8 Mitchell notes that designers establish their design

worlds implicitly through their choices of instruments, and hints at the design world differences between modeling with

cardboard and scissors, shaping clay with one’s fingers, or cutting polystyrene blocks with a hot wire. With respect to

simple computer worlds he distinguishes and explores the differences between point worlds, line worlds, surface worlds,

5 Joe Rooney & Philip Steadman, Principles Of Computer-Aided Design, Pitman, 1987 6 William J. Mitchell, The Logic of Architecture – Design, Computation, and Cognition, The MIT Press, Cambridge

Massachusetts, 1990, p. x 7 William J. Mitchell, The Logic of Architecture – Design, Computation, and Cognition, The MIT Press, Cambridge

Massachusetts, 1990, p. 38 8 William J. Mitchell, The Logic of Architecture – Design, Computation, and Cognition, The MIT Press, Cambridge

Massachusetts, 1990, p. 38

7

and volumetric worlds. All design worlds are defined via the following constituents: space, primitives, and operations

manipulating and combining primitives into forms. Design worlds also define properties, functions and relations between

forms. A design world might be axiomatized by stating necessary relationships between forms that prevail within the

design world, e.g. a design world might be governed by the axioms of Euclid’s geometry or might make further

stipulations, e.g. that all dimensions must be modular and that cuboids can only be arranged orthogonally. Mitchell notes

that “when designers work with conventional graphic and physical modeling media, much of the axiomization of the

design world is implicit in the physical properties of the materials and instruments that are used.”9 The same goes for

computer-aided design systems: “The axiomization is usually implicit in the organization of the data-structure and the

definition of the procedures used to operate on the data structure.”10

A particular design, i.e. a particular model, can be described as a particular state of the design world. The same goes for

all partial models or interim design stages. Each design operation effects a design state transformation within the design

world. Just as variables have ranges of states so too do complete design worlds. Although the ranges of states of a

design world are astronomical – due to the combinatorial explosion that is due to the multiple degrees of freedom

involved – comparisons across design worlds exhibit their respective constraints and limitations. Mitchells speaks of the

“universe of possibilities”11 that is associated with each design world. With each design operation the designer traverses

the design world’s universe of possibilities in search for a design solution.

The Standard Medium of Architecture

The core system of architectural drawings, even in the first era of CAD systems, remained the set of parallel projections:

plans, sections and elevations, plus perspective projections for illustration. Vitruvius’ lists ichnographia (plan),

orthographia (elevation), and scaenographia (perspective). The section was added in the Renaissance.

There are a number of powerful formal a priori’s embedded in this system, e.g. the system is heavily biased towards

orthogonal artifacts. The recognition of these a priori’s as “limits” should not necessarily lead to criticism and rejection.

First of all one should recognize the powerful reduction of relevant complexity that has been achieved here, as well as the

ease of geometric and dimensional coordination.

On this basis one might consider (and experiment with) various ways of extending this core repertoire with other tools that

can reduce and process even more complexity, e.g. a “cinematic” series of sections that can approximate complex,

warped surfaces within the system of parallel projection. The development of computer modeling demonstrates that

radically other systems of representation/mapping might be constructed. The door has been opened to invent what

Mitchell appropriately termed “design worlds”. The key concern of design world invention is the phenomenological and

conceptual domain of the designer. How can he/she conceive, construct and manipulate the evolving design. CAD

9 William J. Mitchell, The Logic of Architecture – Design, Computation, and Cognition, The MIT Press, Cambridge

Massachusetts, 1990, p. 54 10 William J. Mitchell, The Logic of Architecture – Design, Computation, and Cognition, The MIT Press, Cambridge

Massachusetts, 1990, p. 54 11 William J. Mitchell, The Logic of Architecture – Design, Computation, and Cognition, The MIT Press, Cambridge

Massachusetts, 1990, p. 56

8

suggests the assembly of designs from certain “primitives” and their successive combination and transmutation by means

of various “tools”. Those primitives, e.g. splines or nurbs, might be set up with an inherent parametric complexity and

attendant pliability. This does indeed make a difference compared with the build up of the drawing from lines, even if the

output to clients and contractors still takes the form of the standard set of drawings and rendered perspectives.

The institutionalization of a definite modeling language, with its attendant limits, is a precondition of communication, and a

precondition of the practical coordination of such a complex social process like the design and construction of the large

buildings.

The most general, ontological principle of the conventional architectural drawing is that it works on the basis of lines.

These lines operate on various levels of abstraction and various related scales. They define territorial boundaries, the

dividing lines between inside and outside, the demarcation lines between differentiated functional domains, and the

outlines and material edges of the building components. The foundation of this ontology is the social logic of demarcation

and categorization that charcterizes human civilization, a civilization of the line12 that evolved together with a proto-

architectural built environment.

The construction process follows this logic of the line by inscribing the lines, outlines and edges into space by scribing,

cutting and joining linear and planar elements. In turn the users of buildings are oriented along those lines. The line is the

basic primitive within the ontology of architecture. On the basis of this radical and powerful reduction of the complexity of

the built environment - the reduction to the distribution of lines in space - a huge build up of complexity was possible, all

built from the recursive deployment of this simple operation “draw a line”. Very long, coordinated chains of communication

and action can be built this way.

The core practice of the architect consists of nothing but the production of drawings out of drawings, made from lines

upon lines, translated into further drawings ect. The institutionalised system of architectural drawings is a rather

stringently defined system of orthographic projections that presupposes the line as exclusive primary graphic element.

The process of successive detailing is a process whereby single lines are split into double, triple or quadruple lines. In

terms of detailing the main problem to be solved is how these lines might intersect or turn around corners. The

collaborating engineering disciplines add further sets of drawings. These further drawings are coordinated on the basis of

the set of architectural drawings. But while the structural engineers are required to move beyond the drawing into the

calculation of forces, the architect remains within the domain of the drawing which allows him/her to conduct all necessary

“calculations’ of functionality by means of the drawing itself: identifying routes, adjacencies, proportions, alignments,

furnishings, coordination of geometry and measurements etc. The drawing thus engages in a particular form of

information processing.

The standard set of parallel projections has been stable for 500 years. This ultra-stable core of the medium of architecture

was first attacked by deconstructivism. Layered “x-ray” drawings were produced like cubist collages whereby the precise

location and meaning of each line was initially suspended. Plans and sections were interpenetrating so that sections

might be read as plans and vice versa. Such operations implied that the medium - in terms of manner rather than medial

12 On the significance of the line see:

9

substratum - was radically expanded. The creative relevance of the medium was discovered. The creative import of the

medium was increased due to the fact that these kinds of complex graphic operations implied a loss of control on the part

of the designer. This loss of control was cultivated as a means to escape the limitations of drawing as representation of

preconceived figures and compositions. The design instead emerged through the selective filtering of the results of a

semi-automatic graphic process. As such designs moved closer to realization, “proper” plans, sections and elevations

came back to prominence. But their descriptive power was stretched to the limits and often faltered in the face of the

geometric complexity of the intended designs. Digital 3D modeling arrived just in time.

A more profound (and perhaps final) challenge to the standard set of drawings is being mounted by the current avant-

garde style of parametricism. The design process is moving into the space of scripted geometry and 3D parametric

modeling. Precise parametric modeling produces constructs that can be coordinated, rendered, and eventually

manufactured without ever moving through the needle’s eye of 2D projections. In this world plans, sections and elevations

have lost their position as design tools. They exist merely as derivatives of the parametric model and serve as tools of

post-design explication and control.

The concept of medium - with its attendant distinction of substrate and manner - remains fruitfully applicable with respect

to CAD, parametric models, and scripted design processes. Technical constraints - in terms of computational power and

software options - remain a prominent deliminating factor of architecture’s universe of possibilities at any time. However,

these constraints are shifting with every generation of software released. This contrasts strongly with the former ultra-

stability of architecture’s medial substratum where the introduction of tracing paper 100 years ago was the last major

advance before the introduction of the digital computer.

The concept of manner equally remains a fruitful tool of reflection with respect to the design use of digital media. In this

new and ever advancing digital design world we can observe the institutionalization - however fluid - of preferred

scripting and modeling tropes, for instance the trope of populating a surface with a parametrically adaptive component.

The shared, internalized preference for such tropes - against the backdrop of nearly infinite soft-ware and scripting

options – clearly establishes manner as a constitutive constraint that structures the medium of architecture and channels

the design creativity, also in the era of parametricism.

Parametric Diagrammes13

The focus of avant-garde architectural design moves away from the design of individual buildings to the design of

parametric diagrams that are capable of multi-various individuation.

A diagramme is a type of representation that is characterized by a high level of abstraction. The representation focuses

on very specific aspects of the represented entity. These isolated aspects can then be grasped and manipulated with a

high degree of efficiency. This abstraction works well if what has been abstracted from can be taken for granted, i.e.

usually this high level of abstraction is granted on the basis of a clear understanding of what is omitted from the

13

This chapter was published in: Mark Garcia (editor), The Diagrams of Architecture, AD Reader, John Wiley&Sons, London 2010

10

representation, and how the diagramme can be completed in order to obtain a more fully mimetic representation. I would

like to talk of ordinary diagrammes if the relationship between the abstract diagramme and the concrete entity

represented is unproblematic because it is fixed through built in routine assumptions.

Durand14 was perhaps the first to introduce a diagrammatic process within architecture. He proposed a “mechanics of

composition”15 made easy and efficient by using gridded paper upon which a series of basic elements like walls and

columns could be combined - following the rules of alignment, regularity and symmetry - to form standard building parts

like porches, vestibules, and rooms which in turn could be combined into various whole buildings, again following the

rules of alignment, regularity and symmetry. Both elements and parts were familiar. To further reign in the results of the

compositional process from the very start Durand proposed in fact a procedure of decomposition or successive division

starting from global geometric forms like squares or rectangles. Even with these top down restrictions the introduction of

diagrammatic composition implied an unheard of variety of results: “there is no telling how many different compositions

this host of combinations can produce.”16

From the results of this diagrammatic process the rest of the design (including all the familiar classical detail) followed

automatically: “We have given a formula, in our discussion of the parts of the building, that will make it unnecessary even

to look at the sections that we give of each ensemble. The elevations … must be nothing but the natural and necessary

consequences of the plan and the section …”17

The advent of the 20th century saw a massive increase in building tasks. Architectural composition finally shook off the

classical restrictions of global geometric prefiguration, symmetry and proportion. The compositional process could now

proceed from inside out, with nearly total openness with respect to the final configuration. This was the true moment of

the ordinary diagramme: isolating and freeing the aspect of lay-out configuration, but having a clear, new canon of

translating diagrammes into buildings that had even less variety in section, elevation and detail than the neo-classical

architecture of Durand: white walls, glass-walls, and flat roofs.

Since the refoundation of the discipline in the early 1920s the architect's design world has thus been a singular and stable

system of hierarchically scaled line drawings. From the scale-less (topological) sketch to the working drawings this world

distributes nothing but outlines and boundaries. Everything is about the distribution of horizontal and vertical planes. The

meaning of each drawing resides in its position and role in the chain of translation from one drawing to the next (more

detailed) drawing and from there to the construction process and the building itself. Within this routinised practise of

translation, from the abstract to the concrete, it is habitually known how each drawing constraints the next set of decisions,

until the detailed lines finally translate into physical edges. (And we all have learned to perceive and inhabit space along

those edges.) Only within such an order of repetition can one speak of a well defined notational system. Within such a

system the design process can efficiently operate with diagrammes, i.e. with ordinary diagrammes.

14 Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand (1760 – 1834), architect, since 1796 lecturer at the Ecole Politechnique

established by Napoleon in Paris 1794. 15 Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand, Precis des lecons d’architecture donnes a la l’Ecole Royale Polytechnique,

Paris 1802-1805, English translation by David Britt, published by The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, 2000, p.196 16 Ibid., p.126 17 Ibid., p.196

11

The concept of an ordinary diagramme that is firmly lodged in a routine practise is the model against which the extra-

ordinary diagramme is defined. The extra-ordinary diagramme is a diagramme in the sense that Deleuze distinguishes

diagrammes from representations. A Deleuzian (extra-ordinary) diagramme is an abstract machine that is valued

precisely because its downstream implications are totally open. The crucial difference between ordinary and extra-

ordinary diagrammes does not reside within the graphic or digital object itself, but in the patterns of its use. The question

here is, whether or not it functions within a stable social practice of translation. For the extra-ordinary (Deleuzian)

diagramme no defining routine practise has as yet crystallized. It is instead creatively engaged in the formation of such a

(potentially reproducible) practise. It therefore is worked upon without stable interpretation, without predetermined

consequences. We might thus say that extra-ordinary diagrammes are proto-representations.

Deleuzian Diagrammatic Processes:

Emergence via pixel-clustering, Patrik Schumacher 1995

Deleuzian Diagrammatic Processes: Emergence via

domain-interpenetration, Patrik Schumacher 1995

12

Deleuzian Diagrammatic Processes:

Field-directionalities, Zaha Hadid Architects 1996

At least from the mid-eighties to the late nineties virtually all avant-garde design efforts were conducted through such

Deleuzian "diagrammatic" processes. Such design processes are as open-ended as they are unpredictable. (They might

be compared to the aleatoric process of figuratively interpreting “random” natural structures like the famous watermarks

on the walls that inspired Leonardo (and later Max Ernst) to create fantastic landscapes from.) All that is initially given is

the very basic premise that some kind of unusual spatial configuration should be discovered in the process. The

architectural interpretation of the various graphic or digital primitives that are manipulated within the diagramme remains

open – lines might be walls, beams, shifts in materiality or merely trajectories of movement etc. This kind of open ended

formal experimentation is indicative of revolutionary transition periods between paradigms - specifically the transition

from modernism to the contemporary paradigm. Accordingly, I would like to distinguish revolutionary from cumulative

periods of avant-garde design research. During revolutionary periods all premises and certainties of the previous

paradigm are being questioned. Philosophical debates rage unresolved and Deleuzian diagrammes are the working tool

of choice. This phenomenon was first observed during the transition from classical to modern architecture from about

1905 to 1925. During this time future architects and designers invented abstract art and utilized its non-figurative

operations as abstract design machines. New viable formal repertoires were filtered out and fully routinized by 1925.

Thereafter the extra-ordinary diagrammes stabilized into ordinary diagrammes.

The second distinction I would like to introduce is the distinction between metric and parametric diagrammes. Whereas

the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary diagrammes concerns the external embedding of the diagramme

within the rationality of an encompassing design process, the distinction between metric and parametric diagrammes

concerns the internal constitution of the diagramme. While the attributes of the graphic/digital primitives that are

manipulated within the metric diagramme are fully determined and fixed at any time, within the parametric diagramme

they remain variable and are only constrained within a defined range. Parametric diagrammes might be compared to the

13

way the evolution has produced the fantastic diversity of life based on a rather small number fundamental body plans18.

A body plan is essentially the parametric diagramme for the way the body of an organism is laid out: its symmetry, its

number of body segments and number of limbs etc. The same basic body-plan underlies an enormous manifold

comprising the most diverse species.

Concerning the two distinctions - ordinary vs. extra-ordinary and metric vs.parametric - it is important to note that these

two distinctions operate orthogonal to each other so that each side of each distinction can be combined with each side of

the other distinction. Durand’s diagrammes as well as the diagrammes of modernism since 1925 are ordinary metric

diagrammes. The abstract art of the 20th Century, as well as the diagrammes of deconstructivism and the “abstract

machines” of early folding were extraordinary metric diagrammes. Since the mid-nineties parametric diagrammes started

to emerge, first in the form of animations. These were extra-ordinary parametric diagrammes within open-ended design

research explorations. Today most of us have switched to work with ordinary parametric diagrammes, i.e. we know in

advance what we are aiming for.

The Emergence of Parametrics

Parametric diagrammes rely on digital technology. The first generation of parametric diagrammes entered architecture via

the use of animation software allowing for versioning and intuitive form-finding by means of the continuous deformation of

topologically defined surfaces or by means of inverse kinematic constructs. The animation of object transformations also

lead to the desire to maintain a certain degree of transformability within the final architectural construct. At the AADRL we

dedicated a whole 3 year research cycle - Responsive Environments – to this potential of utilizing animation software to

design kinetically active spaces. It was during this cycle of working with the action-reaction schema that we grasped the

power of associative parametrics.

The stability or recognizable self-identity of parametric diagrammes against the backdrop of shifting parameter inputs

rests on the powerful possibility to “link” or “associate” parameters by defining correlations (dependencies) between them.

This internal self-consistency of the parametric primitives offered by animation software is established by internal

functions that remain hidden to the intuitive user. In principle any conceivable network of relations between a given set of

element attributes can be constructed. Scripting languages started to open the hood and allowed us to be creative on the

molecular and even atomic level. On the other hand, there is no principled limit (except computational limits) to take (or

build) dynamic “primitives”, or complex components, and build up complexity by associating whole swarms of them, then

correlate different swarms etc.

The demiurge-like freedom to link any parameter/property of any object with arbitrary parameters/properties of any or all

other objects within the model (as long as circularity is avoided). The realization of this ability to set up whole chains of

dependencies and the creative challenge to conceive such functions as the quasi laws of nature of a new artificial

18 There are only 36 different basic animal body plans, corresponding to the different phyla that have been

distinguished in biological taxonomy. A phylum is a taxonomic rank at the level below Kingdom (Plantae, Animalia, Fungi, …) and above Class. The list of 36 phyla includes a.o. chordates (including vertebrates) and arthropods (including insects).

14

universe was the moment at which I was first struck by the enormous potential power of parametric design for the

organization and articulation of social complexity – both as static and as dynamic condition.

Since the contemporary avant-garde has moved from a revolutionary stage to a cumulative stage of design research - at

least since 2000 - the parametric diagrammes employed transformed from extra-ordinary to ordinary parametric

diagrammes. This shift from extra-ordinary to ordinary parametrics often goes hand in hand with a more rigorous

employment of computationally advanced design techniques like scripting (in Mel-script or Rhino-script) and parametric

modeling (with tools like GC or DP). However, this is not a necessary connection. Extra-ordinary parametric diagramming

is not obsolete, and it might continue to take place on the highest level of technical sophistication. It is precisely the

richness of this new world of associative design that still demands and rewards open-ended (extra-ordinary)

diagrammatic design explorations into the abstract world of relational logics without a preconceived path of translation

into the design-world where parametric models offer concrete solutions to clearly stated design problems. To the extent to

which the provision of new parametric tools - which keep flowing into architecture from other domains and disciplines –

continues, to this extent we might witness and welcome an oscillation, and cross-fertilization between ordinary and extra-

ordinary efforts in parametric diagramming.

A New Style: Parametricism

That the parametric paradigm is becoming pervasive in contemporary architecture and design is evident. There has been

talk about versioning, iteration and mass customization etc. for quite a while within the architectural avant-garde

discourse.

The fundamental desire that has come to the fore in this tendency had already been formulated at the beginning of the

1990s with the key slogan of “continuous differentiation”. Since then there has been both a widespread, even hegemonic

dissemination of this tendency as well as a cumulative build up of virtuosity, resolution and refinement within it. The

shared concepts, computational techniques, formal repertoires, and tectonic logics that characterize this work are

crystallizing into a solid new hegemonic paradigm for architecture.

There have even been various exhibitions like “Latent Utopias”19 in Graz, "Non-Standard Architectures”20 at the Centre

Georges Pompidou in Paris, or more recently "Design and the Elastic Mind"21 at New York’s MOMA, which have brought

this latest avant-garde tendency to the attention of the educated public.

Despite this long term, pervasive convergence of efforts nobody has as yet announced the formation of a new style.

However, I would like to argue that there has not been such a persistent, long wave of collective architectural work since

modernism (1920-1970). We are fully justified to talk about a new style. I would like to propose parametricism as the

most appropriate label for the contemporary style in question. Parametricism is the great new style after modernism.

19 Curated by Zaha Hadid & Patrik Schumacher in 2002 20

Curated by Frederic Frederic Migayrou in 2004 21 Curated by Paola Antonelli in 2008

15

Postmodernism and Deconstructivism have been transitional episodes that ushered in this new, long wave of research

and innovation.

Elsewhere I have argued and explicated that architectural styles should be understood as design research programmes22.

A research programme/style consists of methodological rules: some tell us what paths of research to avoid (negative

heuristics), and others what paths to pursue (positive heuristics). The negative heuristics formulates strictures that

prevent the relapse into patterns that are not fully consistent with the core, and the positive heuristics offers guiding

principles and preferred techniques that allow the work to fast-forward in one direction. The defining heuristics of

parametricism are the taboos and dogmas of contemporary design culture:

Negative heuristics: avoid familiar typologies, avoid platonic/hermetic objects, avoid clear-cut zones/territories, avoid

repetition, avoid straight lines, avoid right angles, avoid corners, …, avoid simple repetition of elements, avoid

juxtaposition of unrelated elements or systems.

Positive heuristics: hybridize, morph, deterritorialize, deform, iterate, use splines, nurbs, generative components, script

rather than model, …, consider all forms to be parametrically malleable, differentiate gradually (at variant rates), inflect

and correlate systematically.

Finally, computationally advanced design techniques like scripting (in Mel-script or Rhino-script) and parametric modeling

(with tools like GC or DP) are becoming a pervasive reality. Today it is impossible to compete within the contemporary

avant-garde scene without mastering these techniques. Parametricism can only exist on the basis of sophisticated

parametric techniques.

But new techniques are not enough to engender a whole new style. Styles are research programmes that redefine both

form and function as well as the relationship between form and function in response to societal challenges. Contemporary

architecture finds itself at the mid-point of an ongoing cycle of innovative adaptation – retooling the discipline and

adapting the architectural and urban environment to the socio-economic era of post-fordism. The mass society that was

characterized by a single, nearly universal consumption standard has evolved into the heterogenous society of the

multitude.

The key issues that avant-garde architecture and urbanism are addressing can be summarized in the slogan: organising

and articulating the increased complexity of post-fordist society. The task is to develop an architectural and urban

repertoire that is geared up to create complex, polycentric urban fields which are densely layered and continuously

differentiated. Contemporary avant-garde architecture is addressing the demand for an increased level of articulated

complexity by means of retooling its methods on the basis of parametric design systems. Parametricism emerges from

the creative exploitation of parametric design systems in view of articulating the multi-various processes and institutions

of a complex and variegated society. The parametric design tools by themselves cannot account for this drastic stylistic

shift from modernism to parametricism. This is evidenced by the fact that late modernist architects like Norman Foster are

employing parametric tools in ways which result in the maintenance of a modernist aesthetics despite the increased

22

Patrik Schumacher, Style as Research Programme, in: DRL TEN, AADRL Documents 2, AA Publications,

Architectural Association, London 2008

16

geometrical complexity afforded by the tools in question. Foster is using the parametric set ups to absorb complexity with

a minimum of inconspicuous differentiation. Parametricist sensibility pushes in the opposite direction and aims for a

maximal emphasis on differentiation.

Network script accentuates undulated surface – Maren Klasing & Martin Krcha, Masterclass Hadid, University of Applied

Arts, Vienna

The distinction between the modernist and the parametricist deployment of parametric tools can be illustrated by the

example shown here. The undulating surface itself displays an open-ended rhythm of convex and concave zones. But

more than this – the differentiation of the surface in terms of its continuously shifting curvature values drives the

differentiation of a second system. In this diagramme a script translates the rather subtle differences of surface condition

into highly differentiated network patterns. There is an amplification rather than amelioration of the initial differentiation.

The result is a rather compelling accentuation of the surface by means of an expressive range of qualities that now

differentiate the original surface – yet without tearing the surface apart or collapsing into a collage. The aesthetic effect is

one of stunning, organic elegance23. The potential for the articulation of a significant programmatic differentiation is

tangible here.

The same principle of amplified articulation via mutual accentuation between sub-systems can be applied to urban

diagrammes. The differentiation of the urban massing might be scripted to accentuate the topography and is in turn

23 For a pertinent concept of elegance that is related to the visual resolution of complexity see: Patrik

Schumacher, Aguing for Elegance, in: Castle, H., Rahim, A. & Jamelle, H., (eds), Elegance, Architectural Design, January/February 2007, Vol.77, No.1, Wiley – Academy, London

17

accentuated by the differentiated circulation system etc. The exploration of the parametricist paradigm for the build-up of

a complex urban order is just beginning.

Mutually accentuating systems: topography, massing, path-network, Masterplan Competition, Appur, India, Zaha Hadid

Architects, 2008

End.