A PRIMITIVE PARAMETRIC An Exhibition on the Humanist Potentials of ‘Architectural Biology’ CHRISTOPHER BEORKREM and CHARLES DAVIS II
S. Watanabe,H. Erhan,M. Haeusler,W. Huang,R. Sosa
2014-01-01
Abstract:This paper describes the products of an exhibition organized by the authors that speculatively reconstructed the ‘long history’ of Architectural Biology to recover the cultural potential of biological metaphors in contemporary architecture. The extended historical timeline of the show spanned from the second half of the nineteenth century to the present. However, in contrast to previous shows that have isolated modern architects’ interests in the formalist principles of biology, this show examined the formal and cultural prerogatives of modern architects in tandem with one another. This historical framework encouraged the speculative analysis of the social and political relevance of contemporary claims, which inherently challenges the ahistorical bias of the postcritical debates that emerged in the new millennium. Widening our gaze to examine the ‘long history’ of biological metaphors in architecture enabled us to recuperate the cultural significance that biological references have accrued within the discipline of architecture. This disciplinary history promises to repair the historical amnesia that has beset contemporary architects who limit their analysis of biology to formalist principles of design. A key component of the exhibit was the conceptual pairing of the ‘primitive’ (cultural) concerns of nineteenth-century figures with the ‘parametric’ (formal) concerns of postwar and contemporary architects. Using Gottfried Semper as a representative figure for the former position, we reinterpreted the inherent cultural meaning of postwar and contemporary architectural works, including those completed by Frei Otto, Achim Menges, Lars Spuybroek, SHoP, and Evan Douglis. The material potential of this approach was expressed in the making of analytical 894 C. BEORKREM AND C. DAVIS II maps, digital models, and conceptual drawings that explored the latent ‘primitive’ themes of contemporary ‘parametric’ designs. The horizon that lies before us is one that science cannot approach alone. It is the horizon that represents the ethical, moral and spiritual dimension of the power we now possess. We must not shrink from exploring that far frontier of science. But as we consider how to use [this] new discovery, we must also not retreat from our oldest and most cherished human values. We must ensure that new genome science and its benefits will be directed toward making life better for all citizens of the world, never just a privileged few. President Bill Clinton on the cultural politics of the Human Genome Project (June 26, 2000) The scientific principles of genomic research has inspired a new strain of biological metaphors in contemporary architecture. Spurred in part by the digital revolutions occurring in architectural studios of the 1990s, a biological reading of digital space has strategically interpreted computer script as ‘genetic algorithms’ capable of ‘breeding’ complex architectural forms. In response to Gilles Deleuze’s immanent model of scientific materialism, the architects Greg Lynn and Karl Chu pioneered computational techniques that emulated the self-organizing capacity of the human genome. Their efforts prompted a series of historiographies that have attempted to trace contemporary tendencies back to the functionalist and biological rhetoric of architectural modernism.1 The historian Martin Bressani has used the label "Architectural Biology" to refer to the collective return of biological models in contemporary practice, and Harry Francis Mallgrave, Caroline van Eck, and Reinhold Martin have traced such thinking back to architectural organicisms of the nineteenth century.2 With all that has happened recently, the surprising aspect of Architectural Biology has not been the amount of ground covered by contemporary research, but the ground that remains fallow. Despite two decades of sustained interest in the formal complexities of Architectural Biology, very little has been done to construct a cultural project outside of the creation of novel forms. This lack of a clear semantic trajectory is curious considering the fundamental reconceptualization of human identity that was undertaken in response to the completion of the Human Genome Project. One of the most important findings of the Human Genome Project is an entirely new understanding of the material basis of human diversity. In contrast to neo-Darwinian models of evolution that considered the transmission of information between DNA and surrounding proteins to be unidirectional, the discovery of an epigenetic layer above the genome has led to the theory that genetic development actually consists of a multidirectional relationship A PRIMITIVE PARAMETRIC 895 between genetic material and external cultural factors such as diet and stress. In this new conception of biological evolution, the flexible structure of the epigenome regulates the genetic expression of the genome by coiling up to prevent interaction with surrounding proteins, or uncoiling to permit interactions. Not only is this movement triggered by cultural events, but the epigenome seemingly retains a memory of the changes that have occurred within the genome achieving a form of cultural memory as it were. Even before the epigenome was discovered, however, press coverage of the Human Genome Project emphasized the radical potential of genomics for reshaping the human body.3 These expectations included direct manipulation of the genome to eliminate genetic defects, improve the body’s inherent resistance to aging, or to aesthetically shape the breeding of offspring or one’s personal appearance. In a strict material sense, genomics (and epigenesis) has forced scientists to reconsider the role of biology in the constitution of individual identity. In light of this shift, it is no coincidence that ‘diversity’ was originally included in the title of the Human Genome Project. In contrast to the explicit consideration of diversity in scientific debates, the term that has been most influential in architectural discourses is the more abstract label of ‘complexity’. This term has mostly been used to describe the computational modeling tools that were required to calculate the placement of all three billion chemical links in the DNA chain. Yet the selective references of architectural theorists cannot change the fact that the conceptualization of human identity is explicitly connected to our ability to visualize the fundamental structure of organic life. This exhibit uses the cultural implications of genomics as a prompt to recover the humanist dimensions of Architectural Biology, especially as these reveal a new conception on human identity in contemporary society. PROBLEMATIZING ARCHITECTURAL BIOLOGY The challenges that proponents of Architectural Biology face today are no longer limited to the visual production of geometrical complexity. A battle over the semantic dimension of these geometries has taken on greater prominence. This transition is manifest in new architectural debates over the purpose of digital ornament, which have been spearheaded by critics such as Antoine Picone, Lars Spuybroek, and Ali Rahim, among others.4 The primary danger that emerges as a result of not establishing a meaningful cultural program for digital ornament is the unintentional repetition of biological essentialisms of the past. The public’s reception of architecture is inherently complicated by the cultural contexts that condition architectural production, 896 C. BEORKREM AND C. DAVIS II including the racial ideologies and cultural politics that are a part of historical memory. The unresolved conflict between an essentialist and nonessentialist model of scientific materialism makes the disciplinary sources of contemporary architecture a substantive concern for designers. Reinhold Martin has noted the political and cultural effects of autonomous readings of architecture that currently dominate Architectural Biology: The subject of biology is recurring at a time when we are still saddled with the term ‘organicism,’ which has come up around computing [...] Digital technologies give us ways to model complex behaviorism of the 1960s projected onto an economic rather than a social referent. Its function is to naturalize what we call globalization now. And when something is naturalized it’s as if there is no alternative. It’s like nature. You can’t argue with nature. It’s just there. It’s just truth.5 The social consequence of not establishing an explicit cultural program for Architectural Biology is the naturalization of existing cultural politics. In the case of globalization, this means privileging the economic exploitations that perpetuate inequality in world markets, and the aesthetic distinctions that maintain the social distinctions created by biological essentialism (i.e. First and Third World civilizations) on new economic grounds. Under these conditions, the architect must remain cognizant of the fact that borrowing the disciplinary tools and conceptual models of biology comes with historical baggage. In lieu of merely translating the visual complexities of biological science, the architect can intentionally engage with the semantic role of architecture by managing the visual interpretation of biology at a cultural level. This aesthetic responsibility can even be considered a unique opportunity, as new models of nature now make it possible to directly problematize the biological essentialisms of the past. We propose that this aesthetic project should become one of the explicit cultural programs of Architectural Biology, which would inevitably build upon cultural critiques that have exposed the political functions of biological essentialism in the past. This aesthetic program is the theme of "Primitive Parametrics: Biology as an Architectural Catalyst." Our exhibit attempts to recover the humanist potential of contemporary digital architectures by bringing the formal and cultural components of Architectural Biology together. The