wet vs H²O

Assad Khan Jaffer

17. December.2014

Abstract

The impact of the act of physical movement (the act of moving from one point to another) is

discussed with two examples (wet-GRID Exhibition Design for ‘Vision Machine’ Musée des

Beaux-Arts de Nantes and the H2O Expo Water experience pavilion and interactive

installation for ‘Water Land’) which study different aspects of the part-choreography and

part-body-space relationship involved in creating this physical movement. The nature of

spaces created by virtue of the potential that these individual places create.

The similarity between both structures is that they aim at producing an object whose sole

purpose is to celebrate or exhibition an object. This is done by taking the observer through a

linear experience, a movement. The nature of the objects in both movements is very different.

On one hand the static objects force the observer to endure states that are imposed by

observational-configurations.[1] These are distributed as force-loci which the structure

configures itself around in the wet-GRID project[2]

And in the other one the object is scattered along the movement, in different configurations

where it transforms the architecture, in terms of live feedback that is congruent with the

nature of the exhibits themselves. [2] The difference in the logic of operation-configuration in

both structures is questioned. There is no ontological method of observing the two

movements; the schema is arguably the most effective way at understanding similarities

between both structures. The mechanical bifurcation of the schema leads Lars down the path

from the raw body-schema in the H2O pavilion to the classified organism that he created in

Nantes.

The main aspect of the essay is aimed at questioning the process of conceiving a body-

schema within them and its nature upon evolution. Virtues of its native state, as something

organic possibly sharing qualities better suited to human perception versus classifying the

experience which takes the visceral qualities out of the space, which in turn may adversely

affect the potential that Spuybroek intends to create every time an object is completed, in that

it must induce a potential.

The argument is scientific towards the perception of the body schema, essentially since the

premise is Kantian. [3] The body-space relationship is neurological in nature and the

biological aspects of radical constructivism [4] form the latter part of the synchronization

process that takes place between the designed object and the body schema [5].

Introduction

The architecture of movement within a structure is perceived as a series of frames that the

physical condition creates per unit time in which the body extends its physical perception of a

boundary limited by the confines of visual recognition. It forms an essential part of motor [6]

memory. While primarily in the past architecture has been concerned with the habitual

repetition of an act by which this movement is achieved or designed.

This act is challenged as a means to be able to perceive a habitual movement as dynamic and

the physical condition is one that creates a sense of potential by the virtue of space created,

induces the act itself. . Architects as far back as Vitruvius was able to make the connection

between the transitions as a field of connection the body makes with the environment; he was

able to label this in terms of a diagram around the body as a sphere of action the body would

influence itself. [7]

Laban evolved this idea further into a set of notational diagrams that a static observer

experiences and the extent of these conditions in terms of organizing principles.[8]

Ideologically the evolution has taken different directions as far as questions of experience is

concerned, the evolution of the sphere as something static has also changed into a dynamic

one [9]. This also changed the nature of the spaces experienced as something that could be

challenged to perform dynamically by a given set of design conditions. This idea has changed

over the last decade, enter Lars Spuybroek.

Part Choreography

Spuybroek’s primary conversation is towards an object that is capable of inducing a sense of

potential that in turn produces a physical activity. He explores this potential as something that

was experimented with by many film makers primarily Waliczky[10] in that they play with

the sense of vertigo which is used as a tool.

Two aspects though have remained capable of examination through the evolution of the

transition of architectural spaces, firstly that the body is capable of influence around a certain

volume, called the body-schema [11] and this schema can used to arrive at certain

conclusions to shape the nature of the spaces created around it, this is more easily defined as

the space around the schema which does not move even if the user is dynamic, let’s call it

nomad volume [12]. Any choreography that takes place must take place by the interactions of

both these volumes.

The nature of the schema is such that it is perceived by the observer as being a meta-physical

boundary, while in the mind of the designer it is a physical volume to be treated as a singular

unity, be it for crowds or individuals. The nature of the problems generated by each type of

situation is also very physically responsive to the design conditions.

H2O Expo Water experience pavilion and interactive installation for ‘Water Land’: In the

pavilion the object of the spaces created is to be able to handle the schema when it tackles

three situations mainly:

The singular

The group and

The passive

The pavilion itself does not have separate places where each or either of the scenarios for

each group is tested separately, rather the object is designed as a universal fit. The dynamic

acts start forming when the object starts interacting with the observers themselves. [13]

[a]

The observer is not bound by the constraints that the volatile volume projects onto him;

he/she is rather allowing himself to be able to experience it as a choice. The movement within

the object is a simple one; therefore the exhibits themselves do not form a part of the

movement-choreography. There are however exhibits that form part of the object within the

museum that have to be experienced as dynamic spaces, but these can be considered as

installations rather than part of the object since the interaction is passive. In order of

interaction the exhibits are:

Small springs: This installation uses a shower of water which when stroboscopic-ally lit

seems to fall upwards and the water falls onto the floor which makes the observers jump

away with excitement.

The well: A large structure housing about 1, 20,000 liters of water with the projection of a

droplet of water falling at the bottom of the well, with acoustical effects to match at a low

frequency.

[d]

Wave modulation: A large volume of space that projects a grid on the floor that modulates

with physical interaction between the observer and the computer generated grid.

[b]

wetGRID Exhibition Design for ‘Vision Machine’ Musée des Beaux-Arts de Nantes:

[14] In this project the movement is decided by the art exhibits that divide the observer based

on image-body relations:

Dome: long distance between the observer and the image is necessary to view the

“Emergent Worlds” gallery

Capsule: medium distance is necessary to view the “Vision Machine” and “Connected

Worlds” gallery.

Helmet: A very small distance needed to view the “Invisible Worlds”

The four gallery types dictate the spaces that are created; they also are loci around which the

museum builds its movement. The form exercise is derived from virtual lines from the

existing museum that are played upon and then returned to their original position, based on a

given rule- set. The advantage is that the procedure is self-terminating. This however breaks

the optimum path as generated from a Machine (wool thread or lacquer) giving a non-logic

based system. [15] This would mean that there is a difference between the initial logical

derivative and the analogous-observer interaction.

Apart from this the logic based system should also give an optimum path to the exhibits

themselves, at places that fail to produce a homogenous movement like the intersection of the

exhibition, the centre of the four force-loci or at places in the object where the observer must

return to the path of origin.

Lars Spuybroek also claims origins from radical constructivism. It essentially is the

construction of knowledge based on individual understanding of real time feedback between

the observer and the subjective information which completes the feedback loop. If the

feedback between the observers responding to the information is seen as a coherent process

of the information loop, it is considered radical constructivism. This does have different

implications for different systems of information; architecturally relative are the cybernetic

aspects discussed by Heinz von Foerster [16] and biological aspects by Maturana and

Varela.[17]

Part Body-Space-Relationship

Haptic perception in the built environment as a terminology for touch is very extensive and

has different connotations; we first of all define the sense of touch related to architecture.

After all, touching involves very different types of information (e.g. regarding pressure,

temperature, shape) and uses both the cutaneous (e.g. skin perception) and the kinaesthetic

receptors (e.g. perception of muscles, tendons, joints). Researchers relate these two ways of

touch perception to the absence or presence of proprioceptive activity, respectively called

passive and active touch. This distinction was suggested by James J. Gibson who categorizes

the senses in five systems: the basic-orienting system, the auditory system, the visual system,

the taste-smell system and the haptic system. The haptic system refers to touchable

experiences. Relating this perception system to architecture and for her the haptic sphere

covers even more. [18]

It involves the integration of many senses, such as touch, positional awareness, balance,

sound, movement and the memory of previous experiences, which finally all combine into

one holistic whole. This definition affirms the complexity and size of experiencing

architecture. For example, our footsteps can give us an impression of our balance, our

positional awareness, the ground’s texture and dimension, but the sound which is produced

by our shoes can give us tactual architectural information as well. Therefore redefining the

sense of touch in relation to architecture and calling it ‘feedback’ [19], which involves all

information concerning touch and relating it to the built environment.

H2O Expo Water experience pavilion and interactive installation for ‘Water Land’:

In the Pavilion Lars Spuybroek talks about the potential that a haptic feedback can provide to

the observer, the argument is framed around the haptic feedback being used as a control

mechanism to induce a potential movement in the observer.

[c]

The structure is a corridor along which the artefacts of the pavilion are placed. The structure

is also conceived very geometrically, it a series of fourteen ellipses connected in a series of

undulating datum with reference to the outside environment being only topological in nature.

Every turn of the structure is intended to be an expression of forces similar to one produced

by hand if it were to be reproduced by the mechanics involved in producing it by hand, the

action of the elbow, the wrist and the fingers and the result is the product of many such forces

acting as components of the final product. [20].

Since the connection can be seen as something that is transitioning between fixed notions of

floor, wall and ceiling, these ideas are challenged to being conceived as a singular element.

This act produces a potential according to Spuybroek [21] since it is fundamental instability.

The presence of only a single opening within the structure also induces a sense of vertigo

[22].

This potential is what seems to drive the nature of this entire structure since the haptic

feedback is seen as something that is away from equilibrium and which produces a spectrum

of results within the feedback loop.

wetGRID Exhibition Design for ‘Vision Machine’ Musée des Beaux-Arts de Nantes:

Here Spuybroek extends the contents of the body-schema from his starting stages in the water

pavilion and links it to the posture of the observer in question while designing the system for

the design of the museum. There also are connotations of visions at the observer level, [23]

horizon as outer orientation and vertigo as inner orientations. The states induced are

indicative that the observer does not always have to stand upright to observe the paintings

within the museum.

Proprioception of the observer drives him to convert the stages of induced vertigo/horizons

into classes of experiential order based on the size of the volumes and distance of the image

from the observer:

Dome: Long distance

Capsule: Medium distance

Helmet: Little distance

Since the spaces have been classified, one would expect this as a means to access the quality

of the potential upon request or necessity. The act of classifying the space means there is a

condition of reaction one would expect to form if a certain space was treated according to this

classification. The potential is always created. Furthermore, he does not have access to the

floor plane, it remains largely un-interactive, the act of classifying space may have achieved

the purpose for which it was created, to exhibition, but it does question if it can stand to have

the observational method of the exhibits questioned.

[e]

An art-object may ask the observer to remain still or mobile only if the object is designed as

such, however it is beyond the scope of the designer to design the way the object must be

perceived, that act is the privilege of the artist. Here Supybroek may have invaded into

territory that he may not have exclusive authority over.

Dynamism of Experience

The body-schema that Spuybroek uses to understand the nature of the potential that a body

can generate by the virtue of the space is unique. The use of a machine digital, analogue or a

combination of the two is quite effective in forming this relationship.

The Water Pavilion allows him to explore the possibility of designing the exhibits along-side

the object itself. It may have been more flexible to design the movement from origin to end

with the objects forming a part of the relationship with the body schema, which may have

prodded the designer to be able to push it towards an act that one could classify later.

However the merit of the potential space is in the fact that it intends to create a volatile act.

The schema may not integrate according to specific conditions and it is almost subjective to

the observer. The better outcome is to understand that every problem or design solution is

unique and trying to classify it to be able to use it again, even for the same purpose may not

be an optimal solution.

The wet-GRID exhibition design however was designing an object for pre-existing exhibits.

The solution here was to create a classification based on an organisation of art-spaces as

forces. These forces dictated the movement, but the nature of the force-loci force the observer

to create non-optimal routes for every single art-space. This while being counter-intuitive to

the designer’s previous work may have posed a greater problem when the spaces classified

into sizes questioned the very nature of the potential space that one would expect from Lars

Spuybroek.

[f] This portion of the gallery is considered to be one of the four groups of vertigo/forces in the museum space,

called the “Vision Machine” {Arielle Pelenc – Curator of the Muse} shows the visualization of invisible forces.

The intention of the space is to create a space that is a “helmet” around the observer. This is one portion of the

exhibition where the observer meets a dead end in the optimal path of the choreographed movement which also

is repetitive in the nature of the experience created.

The art pieces call for a space of their own, but it may not require a dynamic space to exhibit

itself. The act of making the observer dynamic and the act of moving him/her into large

volumes or crevices to observe art may also interfere with the homage one may intend to pay

to an artist or photographer.

Footnotes & Bibliography

[1], [2], [14], [15] Lars Spuybroek, wetGRID, Pg. 138, Pg.141 NOX, 2012, Thames &

Hudson

[3], [11] Lars Spuybroek, Machining Architecture, Pg. i, NOX, 2012, Thames & Hudson

[4]Lars Spuybroek, Substance and Accident In conversation with Andreas Ruby, Pg53, The

Architecture of continuity, Essays and conversations, V2/ Nai Publishers

[5] Lars Spuybroek, Experience, Tectonics and Continuity, Pg. 17-18, The Architecture of

continuity, Essays and conversations, V2/ Nai Publishers

[6], [7], [8], [10], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] Lars Spuybroek, Motor Geometry, The Haptic,

The Haptic and the Optic, HtwoOexpo, the Water Pavilion, Pg. 34, Pg.37, Pg. 39, Pg. 35,

Pg.42 The Architecture of continuity, Essays and conversations, V2/ Nai Publishers

[9] Corbusier also examined the principle behind being able to question what the observer

should experience as opposed to something that he may experience, the villa Savoye also

encompassed this particular act. In the spaces within the villa are ideas that are a condition

arrived at due to a certain dogmatic series of rules, but the space is choreographed for acts of

habitual repetition. There are spaces within the villa that the architect has engineered to be

experienced, labelling these experiences as aesthetic and something that is capable of

collocation if a certain set of rules are followed. This since has also evolved.

[12] The nomad-volume is the volume or space in which a person’s movement does not

increase his sense of physical self. It is named as such because it was originally observed in

Aborigines in the Australian outback who were able to move within a certain area and still

claimed to have not moved at all. This physical act was the ability to sense any volume as a

surface area to physically grow only if the conditions or boundary of physical self was to

force him to expand his schema from a particular area of observation to a place of potential

knowledge. This idea of a schema that is restricted to a volume larger than the perception of

the physical self is the background from which the argument is built.

[13] ‘When all architectural elements are connected through geometrical continuity, a

number of unexpected social effects emerge. For instance, an elderly man stood in front of

the larger bumps, paused a moment and suddenly ran up the slope. This slope was meant for

projection, not for walking, demonstrating that the abstract movement of topology intensifies

sensations in the body’

Lars Spuybroek, H2Oexpo, Pg.18, NOX, 2012, Thames & Hudson

[16] Heinz von Foerster’s ideas which formed second order cybernetics focused on self-

referential systems for complex mechanisms (does not count for non-trivial beings) and,

[17] Varela and Maturana’s: Biology of Cognition which tries to explain the cognitive

processes for the operation of human beings as living systems through a process called Auto-

poiesis, meaning self-generation. The hope was that the autonomy was centrally aligned

around aspects of function.

[23] Lars Spuybroek, The Soft Machine of Vision, In Conversation with Arielle Pelenc Pg.

97, The Architecture of continuity, Essays and conversations, V2/ Nai Publishers

Image References:

[a],[b] http://www.frac-centre.fr/collection/collection-art-architecture/index-des-

auteurs/auteurs/projets-64.html?authID=133&ensembleID=344&oeuvreID=1863

[c] Spuybroek, Lars. Water-land. 1994-1997. H2O Expo, Zeeland, NL,M/C Journal, Vol. 16,

No. 6 (2013) - 'augment', Mechanisms of Augmentation in Proprioceptive Media Art

[d] Spuybroek, Lars. Water-land. 1994-1997. H2O Expo, Zeeland, NL

http://spazioinwind.libero.it/nicolafariello/prog.arc.ass/www/esame/h2o.html

[e] http://static.digischool.nl/ckv2/ckv3/kunstentechniek/spuybroek/spuybroekckv23.htm

[f] http://www.galerievivid.com/fotopagina/spuybroekp04.htm