Innovations: "Automatic Architecture" :- By JOA

"AUTOMATIC ARCHITECTURE"

"A GAME ANYONE CAN PLAY."

Click once on the pictures to enlarge them to full screen size and bring up the Captions

Automatic Architecture is the same as Tennis. Providing it is always played by the rules of Tennis, then it will not be football. Good football will need good players. Bad football is still football, however, and so more than one person can play. There is room for the genius, the tyro, the totally incompetent, the committed touchline shouter and the boy who collects shirts.

No Medium can exist without rules. But Architecture, today, has no rules. This is why it has become of no interest to the General Public. No one knows how it 'should' be played. No one has any confidence that they can take it up, as an amateur, (as anyone could do, before 1900 - yes, O.K., and play it very badly) and play it themselves. So no one knows, by their own direct experience, when it has been well-played, or who it is that plays it well. They must rely on 'Critics' who, themselves, do not know either. They keep their ear to the ground, however, and report the murmurings that echo around the Ancient Profession as it still hangs on, like a surfer tied to a whale, to the coat-tails of the construction industry.

The reason Architecture has no rules is that , in the general crisis that swept over the West after 1900, the game of Architecture, as it had been played for thousands of years, was, along with a lot of other 'traditional' pursuits, relegated to the Museum. I do not quarrel with this, although the enthusiasm for its committal, by the Avant Garde, was unseemly. There were many reasons given for its interment, most of them ideological. They were supported, however, by the one reason that always kills a Practice. Architecture, as it was practiced in 1900, had become horribly expensive. Even worse, it had become less and less 'practical'.

Who needed giant stone columns and enormous 'entablatures' of carved rock? Who needed all this carving anyway? Buildings could be held up on thin steel and concrete structures. Walls could be sheets of glass. Even roofs, as the Crystal Palace had proved in the mid-1800's, 50 years earlier, could be made of glass. Buildings, even in 1900, were a mass of pipes and wires and tubes and machines. Yet lamps still looked the same as they did in Caesar's time when a special slave would hang around constantly trimming the wick. Who needed ceilings painted with dumb girls sitting on clouds? What was this 'other place' the genius of the Artist was revealing? Picasso was walking around and around his Muse and painting everything he saw - every which way up. There was no 'other place' for the 'perspective proscenium' to unveil. So the whole contraption of the Trabeated Framework of Architecture, lashed-up this way and that for almost 10,000 years, was hurriedly dismantled and trashed.

In Architecture, as in every other department of Western culture during the first half of the 20C, the new and the old collided, and exploded into violence and catastrophe.

Yet it must be clear, even to the most adept of the whale-tail clingers, that one of the things in total ruin after the passage of the 20C is what most people still vaguely understand as 'the City'. I refer here, not so much to my own homeland, Britain, but to people in general, taken globally. My compatriots build much, but urbanize little. It has not always been so. Yet the native English cult - certainly of the Establishment - has been 'landscape' ever since the departure of the Romans. In cities this turns into 'cityscape'. But this is a peculiarity, uncommon elsewhere, and would be of marginal importance, were it not that English culture travels with the language.

Architecture, as it is commonly and 'traditionally' understood, is one of the elements needed to organize an urbane culture. My own project, since I took up with this medium, in North America, after experiencing the seismic centre of the late 20C 'disurbanising tendency', has been to bring Architecture out of the Museum back into the real world - where it is needed to build cities. One can, I believe, expect that after such a long absence, and so many attempted, and failed, resuscitations, that some 'changes' would be necessary. The ancient corpse can not simply be paraded around as it is in Las Vegas, or Fogeyland, country of the Eternal Stonesmiths.

My sense has been that a 'monstrous synthesis' (in the sense of monstrare. patent, explicit) must be made between the old and the new such that no one can pretend firstly, that it does not work as a building must 'work' today, and secondly that it is not of 'everyday' cost. This JOA have now done, and continue to do, not once but repeatedly. Secondly the new synthesis must be 'originary'. It must explore the dustiest and least-visited corridors of the Museum of Architecture in its search for a practical technique, leaving no cave unexplored and no grotesquerie unexamined. Thirdly it must lay itself open, with as much pragmatism as it can, to the practices of the contemporary industry - taking from it whatever suits the overall project, to create a new Architectural game that will revalidate the given rule-book of this essential Medium.

It has to be emphasized that throughout this endeavour the object was not to write a New Rule Book. That was the project of the 20C. Even if it succeeded, it proved useless to urbanity. Our work, in JOA, has been aimed at making the 'old game' practical and economic to play, so that it could come to the aid of its ancient, and main raison d'être: city-building. So when I use the provocative epithet: "Automatic Architecture", apart from wishing to provoke, especially my Colleagues, I mean to say that if the game is played with the Working Order, the Empire of the Forest, the Republic of the Valley, the Act of Foundation, Scripted Space, Scripted Surface et. al, then it will, firstly, be practical built space, secondly, it will be affordable, and, thirdly, it will be Architecture of the 'old' kind - and all 'Automatically'.

Whether it will be 'played well' is a secondary question. Not every piece of a City, or of its Architecture, is the work of an expert, or even a genius (whether of Procurement or Design), but at least, if it is a City, it is 'urbane'. Playing by the rules (and having the wit to warp and fool around with them, not so much as to commit 'fouls' as to transcend them, using them to reveal what is, at best, a kind of 'wisdom') is the one rule that is expected of any Medium. It is the one and only 'Automatic' quality of Tennis and Football. Our work has aimed to bring this essential 'Automatism' to Architecture, and so to City-Planning.

One should be able to 'doodle' the 'architecture' of cities and expect, not the ruin of the Treasury, but a practical, good, beautiful and economic mechanism. How else is one to expect a Prime Minister to take an interest in the collective lifespace, and commit his decisions to blotting-paper?

Of course this is heresy. But JOA have proved that it can be made to 'work'. Architecture is now a game anyone can play. This will disturb my Colleagues. Perhaps they may reflect that although tennis is a simple game, it is very hard to play it extremely well. There is always room for expertise in the simplest medium. Perhaps, if Architecture were to acquire some seemingly simple rules, it would provide a place for the 'Professional' whose status would be founded upon the solid base of the admiration of the 'playing public' rather than the legal fiction of a 'protected profession'.

End of "Something about Nothing",

Return to Innovations: "Automatic Architecture"

* JOA can be reached by E-Mail at anthony@johnoutram.com , by telephone on +44 (0)207 262 4862 or by fax on +44 (0)207 706 3804. We also have an ISDN number : +44 (0)207 262 6294.

APOLOGY: NO IMAGES AS YET.



		`"AUTOMATIC ARCHITECTURE"`

		"A GAME ANYONE CAN PLAY."								Click once on the pictures to enlarge them to full screen size and bring up the Captions
		Automatic Architecture is the same as Tennis. Providing it is always played by the rules of Tennis, then it will not be football. Good football will need good players. Bad football is still football, however, and so more than one person can play. There is room for the genius, the tyro, the totally incompetent, the committed touchline shouter and the boy who collects shirts. No Medium can exist without rules. But Architecture, today, has no rules. This is why it has become of no interest to the General Public. No one knows how it 'should' be played. No one has any confidence that they can take it up, as an amateur, (as anyone could do, before 1900 - yes, O.K., and play it very badly) and play it themselves. So no one knows, by their own direct experience, when it has been well-played, or who it is that plays it well. They must rely on 'Critics' who, themselves, do not know either. They keep their ear to the ground, however, and report the murmurings that echo around the Ancient Profession as it still hangs on, like a surfer tied to a whale, to the coat-tails of the construction industry. The reason Architecture has no rules is that , in the general crisis that swept over the West after 1900, the game of Architecture, as it had been played for thousands of years, was, along with a lot of other 'traditional' pursuits, relegated to the Museum. I do not quarrel with this, although the enthusiasm for its committal, by the Avant Garde, was unseemly. There were many reasons given for its interment, most of them ideological. They were supported, however, by the one reason that always kills a Practice. Architecture, as it was practiced in 1900, had become horribly expensive. Even worse, it had become less and less 'practical'. Who needed giant stone columns and enormous 'entablatures' of carved rock? Who needed all this carving anyway? Buildings could be held up on thin steel and concrete structures. Walls could be sheets of glass. Even roofs, as the Crystal Palace had proved in the mid-1800's, 50 years earlier, could be made of glass. Buildings, even in 1900, were a mass of pipes and wires and tubes and machines. Yet lamps still looked the same as they did in Caesar's time when a special slave would hang around constantly trimming the wick. Who needed ceilings painted with dumb girls sitting on clouds? What was this 'other place' the genius of the Artist was revealing? Picasso was walking around and around his Muse and painting everything he saw - every which way up. There was no 'other place' for the 'perspective proscenium' to unveil. So the whole contraption of the Trabeated Framework of Architecture, lashed-up this way and that for almost 10,000 years, was hurriedly dismantled and trashed. In Architecture, as in every other department of Western culture during the first half of the 20C, the new and the old collided, and exploded into violence and catastrophe. Yet it must be clear, even to the most adept of the whale-tail clingers, that one of the things in total ruin after the passage of the 20C is what most people still vaguely understand as 'the City'. I refer here, not so much to my own homeland, Britain, but to people in general, taken globally. My compatriots build much, but urbanize little. It has not always been so. Yet the native English cult - certainly of the Establishment - has been 'landscape' ever since the departure of the Romans. In cities this turns into 'cityscape'. But this is a peculiarity, uncommon elsewhere, and would be of marginal importance, were it not that English culture travels with the language. Architecture, as it is commonly and 'traditionally' understood, is one of the elements needed to organize an urbane culture. My own project, since I took up with this medium, in North America, after experiencing the seismic centre of the late 20C 'disurbanising tendency', has been to bring Architecture out of the Museum back into the real world - where it is needed to build cities. One can, I believe, expect that after such a long absence, and so many attempted, and failed, resuscitations, that some 'changes' would be necessary. The ancient corpse can not simply be paraded around as it is in Las Vegas, or Fogeyland, country of the Eternal Stonesmiths. My sense has been that a 'monstrous synthesis' (in the sense of monstrare. patent, explicit) must be made between the old and the new such that no one can pretend firstly, that it does not work as a building must 'work' today, and secondly that it is not of 'everyday' cost. This JOA have now done, and continue to do, not once but repeatedly. Secondly the new synthesis must be 'originary'. It must explore the dustiest and least-visited corridors of the Museum of Architecture in its search for a practical technique, leaving no cave unexplored and no grotesquerie unexamined. Thirdly it must lay itself open, with as much pragmatism as it can, to the practices of the contemporary industry - taking from it whatever suits the overall project, to create a new Architectural game that will revalidate the given rule-book of this essential Medium. It has to be emphasized that throughout this endeavour the object was not to write a New Rule Book. That was the project of the 20C. Even if it succeeded, it proved useless to urbanity. Our work, in JOA, has been aimed at making the 'old game' practical and economic to play, so that it could come to the aid of its ancient, and main raison d'être: city-building. So when I use the provocative epithet: "Automatic Architecture", apart from wishing to provoke, especially my Colleagues, I mean to say that if the game is played with the Working Order, the Empire of the Forest, the Republic of the Valley, the Act of Foundation, Scripted Space, Scripted Surface et. al, then it will, firstly, be practical built space, secondly, it will be affordable, and, thirdly, it will be Architecture of the 'old' kind - and all 'Automatically'. Whether it will be 'played well' is a secondary question. Not every piece of a City, or of its Architecture, is the work of an expert, or even a genius (whether of Procurement or Design), but at least, if it is a City, it is 'urbane'. Playing by the rules (and having the wit to warp and fool around with them, not so much as to commit 'fouls' as to transcend them, using them to reveal what is, at best, a kind of 'wisdom') is the one rule that is expected of any Medium. It is the one and only 'Automatic' quality of Tennis and Football. Our work has aimed to bring this essential 'Automatism' to Architecture, and so to City-Planning. One should be able to 'doodle' the 'architecture' of cities and expect, not the ruin of the Treasury, but a practical, good, beautiful and economic mechanism. How else is one to expect a Prime Minister to take an interest in the collective lifespace, and commit his decisions to blotting-paper? Of course this is heresy. But JOA have proved that it can be made to 'work'. Architecture is now a game anyone can play. This will disturb my Colleagues. Perhaps they may reflect that although tennis is a simple game, it is very hard to play it extremely well. There is always room for expertise in the simplest medium. Perhaps, if Architecture were to acquire some seemingly simple rules, it would provide a place for the 'Professional' whose status would be founded upon the solid base of the admiration of the 'playing public' rather than the legal fiction of a 'protected profession'. End of "Something about Nothing", Return to Innovations: "Automatic Architecture" * JOA can be reached by E-Mail at *anthony@johnoutram.com* , by telephone on +44 (0)207 262 4862 or by fax on +44 (0)207 706 3804. We also have an ISDN number : +44 (0)207 262 6294.