Contradictio in terminis: dialéctica de la ambigüedad en la arquitectura contemporánea

The twentieth century brought a new sensibility characterized by the discredit of cartesian rationality and the weakening of universal truths, related with aesthetic values as order, proportion and harmony. In the middle of the century, theorists such as Theodor Adorno, Rudolf Arnheim and Anton Ehrenzweig warned about the transformation developed by the artistic field. Contemporary aesthetics seemed to have a new goal: to deny the idea of art as an organized, finished and coherent structure. The order had lost its privileged position. Disorder, probability, arbitrariness, accidentality, randomness, chaos, fragmentation, indeterminacy... Gradually new terms were coined by aesthetic criticism to explain what had been happening since the beginning of the century. The first essays on the matter sought to provide new interpretative models based on, among other arguments, the phenomenology of perception, the recent discoveries of quantum mechanics, the deeper layers of the psyche or the information theories. Overall, were worthy attempts to give theoretical content to a situation as obvious as devoid of founding charter. Finally, in 1962, Umberto Eco brought together all this efforts by proposing a single theoretical frame in his book Opera Aperta. According to his point of view, all of the aesthetic production of twentieth century had a characteristic in common: its capacity to express multiplicity. For this reason, he considered that the nature of contemporary art was, above all, ambiguous. The aim of this research is to clarify the consequences of the incorporation of ambiguity in architectural theoretical discourse. We should start making an accurate analysis of this concept. However, this task is quite difficult because ambiguity does not allow itself to be clearly defined. This concept has the disadvantage that its signifier is as imprecise as its signified. In addition, the negative connotations that ambiguity still has outside the aesthetic field, stigmatizes this term and makes its use problematic. Another problem of ambiguity is that the contemporary subject is able to locate it in all situations. This means that in addition to distinguish ambiguity in contemporary productions, so does in works belonging to remote ages and styles. For that reason, it could be said that everything is ambiguous. And that’s correct, because somehow ambiguity is present in any creation of the imperfect human being. However, as Eco, Arnheim and Ehrenzweig pointed out, there are two major differences between current and past contexts. One affects the subject and the other the object. First, it’s the contemporary subject, and no other, who has acquired the ability to value and assimilate ambiguity. Secondly, ambiguity was an unexpected aesthetic result in former periods, while in contemporary object it has been codified and is deliberately present. In any case, as Eco did, we consider appropriate the use of the term ambiguity to refer to the contemporary aesthetic field. Any other term with more specific meaning would only show partial and limited aspects of a situation quite complex and difficult to diagnose. Opposed to what normally might be expected, in this case ambiguity is the term that fits better due to its particular lack of specificity. In fact, this lack of specificity is what allows to assign a dynamic condition to the idea of ambiguity that in other terms would hardly be operative. Thus, instead of trying to define the idea of ambiguity, we will analyze how it has evolved and its consequences in architectural discipline. Instead of trying to define what it is, we will examine what its presence has supposed in each moment. We will deal with ambiguity as a constant presence that has always been latent in architectural production but whose nature has been modified over time. Eco, in the mid-twentieth century, discerned between classical ambiguity and contemporary ambiguity. Currently, half a century later, the challenge is to discern whether the idea of ambiguity has remained unchanged or have suffered a new transformation. What this research will demonstrate is that it’s possible to detect a new transformation that has much to do with the cultural and aesthetic context of last decades: the transition from modernism to postmodernism. This assumption leads us to establish two different levels of contemporary ambiguity: each one related to one these periods. The first level of ambiguity is widely well-known since many years. Its main characteristics are a codified multiplicity, an interpretative freedom and an active subject who gives conclusion to an object that is incomplete or indefinite. This level of ambiguity is related to the idea of indeterminacy, concept successfully introduced into contemporary aesthetic language. The second level of ambiguity has been almost unnoticed for architectural criticism, although it has been identified and studied in other theoretical disciplines. Much of the work of Fredric Jameson and François Lyotard shows reasonable evidences that the aesthetic production of postmodernism has transcended modern ambiguity to reach a new level in which, despite of the existence of multiplicity, the interpretative freedom and the active subject have been questioned, and at last denied. In this period ambiguity seems to have reached a new level in which it’s no longer possible to obtain a conclusive and complete interpretation of the object because it has became an unreadable device. The postmodern production offers a kind of inaccessible multiplicity and its nature is deeply contradictory. This hypothetical transformation of the idea of ambiguity has an outstanding analogy with that shown in the poetic analysis made by William Empson, published in 1936 in his Seven Types of Ambiguity. Empson established different levels of ambiguity and classified them according to their poetic effect. This layout had an ascendant logic towards incoherence. In seventh level, where ambiguity is higher, he located the contradiction between irreconcilable opposites. It could be said that contradiction, once it undermines the coherence of the object, was the better way that contemporary aesthetics found to confirm the Hegelian judgment, according to which art would ultimately reject its capacity to express truth. Much of the transformation of architecture throughout last century is related to the active involvement of ambiguity in its theoretical discourse. In modern architecture ambiguity is present afterwards, in its critical review made by theoreticians like Colin Rowe, Manfredo Tafuri and Bruno Zevi. The publication of several studies about Mannerism in the forties and fifties rescued certain virtues of an historical style that had been undervalued due to its deviation from Renacentist canon. Rowe, Tafuri and Zevi, among others, pointed out the similarities between Mannerism and certain qualities of modern architecture, both devoted to break previous dogmas. The recovery of Mannerism allowed joining ambiguity and modernity for first time in the same sentence. In postmodernism, on the other hand, ambiguity is present ex-professo, developing a prominent role in the theoretical discourse of this period. The distance between its analytical identification and its operational use quickly disappeared because of structuralism, an analytical methodology with the aspiration of becoming a modus operandi. Under its influence, architecture began to be identified and studied as a language. Thus, postmodern theoretical project discerned between the components of architectural language and developed them separately. Consequently, there is not only one, but three projects related to postmodern contradiction: semantic project, syntactic project and pragmatic project. Leading these projects are those prominent architects whose work manifested an especial interest in exploring and developing the potential of the use of contradiction in architecture. Thus, Robert Venturi, Peter Eisenman and Rem Koolhaas were who established the main features through which architecture developed the dialectics of ambiguity, in its last and extreme level, as a theoretical project in each component of architectural language. Robert Venturi developed a new interpretation of architecture based on its semantic component, Peter Eisenman did the same with its syntactic component, and also did Rem Koolhaas with its pragmatic component. With this approach this research aims to establish a new reflection on the architectural transformation from modernity to postmodernity. Also, it can serve to light certain aspects still unaware that have shaped the architectural heritage of past decades, consequence of a fruitful relationship between architecture and ambiguity and its provocative consummation in a contradictio in terminis. Esta investigación centra su atención fundamentalmente sobre las repercusiones de la incorporación de la ambigüedad en forma de contradicción en el discurso arquitectónico postmoderno, a través de cada uno de sus tres proyectos teóricos. Está estructurada, por tanto, en torno a un capítulo principal titulado Dialéctica de la ambigüedad como proyecto teórico postmoderno, que se desglosa en tres, de títulos: Proyecto semántico. Robert Venturi; Proyecto sintáctico. Peter Eisenman; y Proyecto pragmático. Rem Koolhaas. El capítulo central se complementa con otros dos situados al inicio. El primero, titulado Dialéctica de la ambigüedad contemporánea. Una aproximación realiza un análisis cronológico de la evolución que ha experimentado la idea de la ambigüedad en la teoría estética del siglo XX, sin entrar aún en cuestiones arquitectónicas. El segundo, titulado Dialéctica de la ambigüedad como crítica del proyecto moderno se ocupa de examinar la paulatina incorporación de la ambigüedad en la revisión crítica de la modernidad, que sería de vital importancia para posibilitar su posterior introducción operativa en la postmodernidad. Un último capítulo, situado al final del texto, propone una serie de Proyecciones que, a tenor de lo analizado en los capítulos anteriores, tratan de establecer una relectura del contexto arquitectónico actual y su evolución posible, considerando, en todo momento, que la reflexión en torno a la ambigüedad todavía hoy permite vislumbrar nuevos horizontes discursivos. Cada doble página de la Tesis sintetiza la estructura tripartita del capítulo central y, a grandes rasgos, la principal herramienta metodológica utilizada en la investigación. De este modo, la triple vertiente semántica, sintáctica y pragmática con que se ha identificado al proyecto teórico postmoderno se reproduce aquí en una distribución específica de imágenes, notas a pie de página y cuerpo principal del texto. En la columna de la izquierda están colocadas las imágenes que acompañan al texto principal. Su distribución atiende a criterios estéticos y compositivos, cualificando, en la medida de lo posible, su condición semántica. A continuación, a su derecha, están colocadas las notas a pie de página. Su disposición es en columna y cada nota está colocada a la misma altura que su correspondiente llamada en el texto principal. Su distribución reglada, su valor como notación y su posible equiparación con una estructura profunda aluden a su condición sintáctica. Finalmente, el cuerpo principal del texto ocupa por completo la mitad derecha de cada doble página. Concebido como un relato continuo, sin apenas interrupciones, su papel como responsable de satisfacer las demandas discursivas que plantea una investigación doctoral está en correspondencia con su condición pragmática.

Procesos configurativos: de la trama a la noción de campo en los "mat buildings"

La presente tesis aborda el estudio sobre los llamados mat buildings, que surgen entre los años cincuenta y sesenta del pasado siglo. Los mat buildings, también llamados “edificios esteras” o “edificios alfombras”, nacen en gran parte como consecuencia de los desacuerdos e insatisfacciones de los CIAM con el reduccionismo funcionalista y los principios de compartimentación funcional. Estos nuevos modelos remplazan el modelo de ciudad entendido como una colección de edificios individuales por una concepción de un patrón urbano. No es la suma de la longitud, la altura y el ancho sino más bien una densa alfombra bi-dimensional, con una configuración de formas que ofrece al mismo tiempo un orden repetitivo y una infinita diversidad de secuencias con infinitas posibilidades de adaptación donde el hombre vive y se desplaza. Estas características que irán apareciendo en la obras de muchos de los arquitectos que forman parte del grupo Team X son los que Alison Smithson empieza a revelar en su artículo, con la ambición de manifestar una nueva sensibilidad y una nueva forma de entender y ver la arquitectura. Los mat buildings y los cluster serán los códigos utilizados por diferentes miembros del Team X para pensar una arquitectura y un urbanismo alternativo al propuesto por los CIAM. Mediante ellos encuentran el camino para una nueva estética de la conexión con un desplazamiento desde una concepción determinista de la forma arquitectónica (una forma cerrada y en general definida a priori) hacia una actitud más libre, más abierta, fundamentada no tanto en la entereza de la forma global sino en cuanto a la intensidad de sus redes internas y de sus diferentes niveles de asociación. La tesis tiene como propósito final cuestionar si esta tipología de edificios, cuyo principio de base es siempre una matriz geométrica abierta (trama, retícula, malla), con crecimiento ilimitado, puede redefinir la frontera entre ciudad y edificio y, por tanto, entre público y privado, individual y colectivo, estructural e infraestructural, permanente y variable. Por ello, se presenta un estudio histórico y crítico en profundidad sobre los mat buildings, analizando detenidamente y por orden cronológico cinco de sus obras más paradigmáticas: el Orfanato en Ámsterdam de Aldo Van Eyck, la Universidad Libre en Berlín de Candilis, Josic y Woods, el Hospital de Venecia de Le Corbusier y Guillermo Jullián de la Fuente, el edificio administrativo de la Centraal Beheer en Apeldoorn de Herman Hertzberger, y por último el MUSAC en León, realizado por Mansilla y Tuñon. Las cuatro primeras obras pertenecen al periodo Team X y son precursoras de muchos otros proyectos que aparecerán a posteriori. La última obra analizada, el MUSAC, es estudiada conjuntamente con algunas obras del arquitecto japonés Sou Fujimoto y otros casos contemporáneos con la intención de manifestar cómo arquitectos de horizontes muy diferentes vuelven a recurrir a estos modelos de crecimientos ilimitados. Mediante el estudio de varios ejemplos contemporáneos se examinan las repercusiones, transformaciones y evoluciones que estos modelos han tenido. La exploración contrastada permite apreciar adecuadamente la pertinencia de estos modelos y los cambios de modalidades y de procesos que advienen con la aparición en el panorama contemporáneo de la noción de campo y los cambios de paradigma que conlleva. Estos nuevos modelos abren nuevos procesos y forma de abordar la arquitectura basada en las relaciones, flujos, movimientos y asociaciones que son caracterizados por diferentes patrones que vienen a alimentar todo el proceso del proyecto arquitectónico. El estudio de estos nuevos modelos nos indica las cualidades que puede ofrecer la revisión de estos métodos para empezar a tratar nuevas cuestiones que hoy en día parecen ser, permanentemente, parte de la condición urbana. XII ABSTRACT This thesis deals with the study of the so-called mat buildings which emerged between the fifties and sixties of the last century. Mat, or carpet, buildings appeared largely as a result of the CIAM’s disagreement and dissatisfaction with functionalist reductionism and the principles of functional compartmentalisation. These new models replaced the model of the city, seen as a collection of individual buildings, with the concept of an urban pattern. It is not the sum of the length, height and width but rather a dense, two- dimensional mat with a configuration of forms offering both a repetitive order and an infinite diversity of sequences with endless possibilities for adaptation, where man lives and circulates. These characteristics, which appeared in the works of many of the architects who formed part of Team X, are those that Alison Smithson started to reveal in her article with the aim of manifesting a new sensibility and a new way of understanding and seeing architecture. Mat buildings and clusters were the codes used by different members of Team X to plan an alternative architecture and urbanism to that proposed by the CIAM. With them, they found the path for a new aesthetic of connection, with a shift from a deterministic concept of the architectural form (closed and generally defined a priori) towards a more free, more open attitude based not so much on the integrity of the overall form but on the intensity of its internal networks and different levels of association. The end purpose of this thesis is to question whether this type of building, the basic principle of which is always an open geometric matrix (grid, recticle, network) with unlimited growth, can redefine the boundary between city and building and, thus, between public and private, individual and collective, structural and infrastructural, and permanent and variable. To this end, an in-depth historical and critical study of mat buildings is presented, analysing carefully and in chronological order five of the most paradigmatic works of this style: the Orphanage in Amsterdam, by Aldo Van Eyck; the Free University of Berlin, by Candilis, Josic and Woods; Venice Hospital, by Le Corbusier and Guillermo Jullián de la Fuente; the Centraal Beheer administration building in Apeldoorn, by Herman Hertzberger; and lastly, the MUSAC (Contemporary Art Museum) in León, designed by Mansilla and Tuñon. The first four works are from the Team X period and were the precursors to many other projects that would appear later. The last work analysed, the MUSAC, is studied together with some works by Japanese architect Sou Fujimoto and other contemporary cases to show how architects with very different perspectives revert to these models of limitless growth. Through the study of several contemporary examples we examine the repercussions, transformations and evolutions these models have had. The contrasted research XIII allows us to properly appreciate the importance of these models and the changes in forms and processes that came with the emergence of the idea of field in the contemporary arena and the paradigm shifts it entailed. These new models opened up new processes and a way of approaching architecture based on relationships, flows, movements and associations characterised by different patterns that feed the entire process of the architectural project. The study of these new models shows us the benefits that a review of these methods can contribute to addressing new issues that today appear to be a permanent part of the urban condition.

Complejidad Esencial: Un argumento por la complementariedad entre ciencia y sensibilidad = Essential Complexity: An argument for complementarity between science and sensibility

Esta investigación recoge un cúmulo de intereses en torno a un modo de generar arquitectura muy específico: La producción de objetos con una forma subyacente no apriorística. Los conocimientos expuestos se apoyan en condiciones del pensamiento reciente que impulsan la ilusión por alimentar la fuente creativa de la arquitectura con otros campos del saber. Los tiempos del conocimiento animista sensible y el conocimiento objetivo de carácter científico son correlativos en la historia pero casi nunca han sido sincrónicos. Representa asimismo un intento por aunar los dos tipos de conocimiento retomando la inercia que ya se presentía a comienzos del siglo XX. Se trata por tanto, de un ensayo sobre la posible anulación de la contraposición entre estos dos mundos para pasar a una complementariedad entre ambos en una sola visión conjunta compartida. Como meta final de esta investigación se presenta el desarrollo de un sistema crítico de análisis para los objetos arquitectónicos que permita una diferenciación entre aquellos que responden a los problemas de manera completa y sincera y aquellos otros que esconden, bajo una superficie consensuada, la falta de un método resolutivo de la complejidad en el presente creativo. La Investigación observa tres grupos de conocimiento diferenciados agrupados en sus capítulos correspondientes: El primer capítulo versa sobre el Impulso Creador. En él se define la necesidad de crear un marco para el individuo creador, aquel que independientemente de las fuerzas sociales del momento presiente que existe algo más allá que está sin resolver. Denominamos aquí “creador rebelde” a un tipo de personaje reconocible a lo largo de la Historia como aquel capaz de reconocer los cambios que ese operan en su presente y que utiliza para descubrir lo nuevo y acercarse algo al origen creativo. En el momento actual ese tipo de personaje es el que intuye o ya ha intuido hace tiempo la existencia de una complejidad creciente no obviable en el pensamiento de este tiempo. El segundo capítulo desarrolla algunas Propiedades de Sistemas de actuación creativa. En él se muestra una investigación que desarrolla un marco de conocimientos científicos muy específicos de nuestro tiempo que la arquitectura, de momento, no ha absorbido ni refleja de manera directa en su manera de crear. Son temas de presencia casi ya mundana en la sociedad pero que se resisten a ser incluidos en los procesos creativos como parte de la conciencia. La mayoría de ellos hablan de precisión, órdenes invisibles, propiedades de la materia o la energía tratados de manera objetiva y apolítica. La meta final supone el acercamiento e incorporación de estos conceptos y propiedades a nuestro mundo sensible unificándolos indisociablemente bajo un solo punto de vista. El último capítulo versa sobre la Complejidad y su capacidad de reducción a lo esencial. Aquí se muestran, a modo de conclusiones, la introducción de varios conceptos para el desarrollo de un sistema crítico hacia la arquitectura de nuestro tiempo. Entre ellos, el de Complejidad Esencial, definido como aquella de carácter inevitable a la hora de responder la arquitectura a los problemas y solicitaciones crecientes a los que se enfrenta en el presente. La Tesis mantiene la importancia de informar sobre la imposibilidad en el estado actual de las cosas de responder de manera sincera con soluciones de carácter simplista y la necesidad, por tanto, de soluciones necesarias de carácter complejo. En este sentido se define asimismo el concepto de Forma Subyacente como herramienta crítica para poder evaluar la respuesta de cada arquitectura y poder tener un sistema y visión crítica sobre lo que es un objeto consistente frente a la situación a la que se enfrenta. Dicha forma subyacente se define como aquella manera de entender conjuntamente y de manera sincrónica aquello que percibimos de manera sensible inseparable de las fuerzas ocultas, creativas, tecnológicas, materiales y energéticas que sustentan la definición y entendimiento de cualquier objeto construido. ABSTRACT This research includes a cluster of interests around a specific way to generate architecture: The production of objects without an a priori underlying form. The knowledge presented is based on current conditions of thought promoting the illusion to feed the creative source of architecture with other fields of knowledge. The sensible animist knowledge and objective scientific knowledge are correlative in history but have rarely been synchronous. This research is also an attempt to combine both types of knowledge to regain the inertia already sensed in the early twentieth century. It is therefore an essay on the annulment of the opposition between these two worlds to move towards complementarities of both in a single shared vision. The ultimate goal of this research is to present the development of a critical analysis system for architectural objects that allows differentiation between those who respond to the problems sincerely and those who hide under an agreed appearance, the lack of a method for solving the complexity of the creative present. The research observes three distinct groups of knowledge contained in their respective chapters: The first chapter deals with the Creative Impulse. In it is defined the need to create a framework for the creative individual who, regardless of the current social forces, forebodes that there is something hidden beyond which is still unresolved. We define the "rebel creator" as a kind of person existing throughout history who is able to recognize the changes operating in its present and use them to discover something new and get closer to the origin of creation. At present, this type of character is the one who intuits the existence of a non obviable increasing complexity in society and thought. The second chapter presents some systems, and their properties, for creative performance. It describes the development of a framework composed of current scientific knowledge that architecture has not yet absorbed or reflected directly in her procedures. These are issues of common presence in society but are still reluctant to be included in the creative processes even if they already belong to the collective consciousness. Most of them talk about accuracy, invisible orders, properties of matter and energy, always treated from an objective and apolitical perspective. The ultimate goal pursues the approach and incorporation of these concepts and properties to the sensible world, inextricably unifying all under a single point of view. The last chapter deals with complexity and the ability to reduce it to the essentials. Here we show, as a conclusion, the introduction of several concepts to develop a critical approach to analyzing the architecture of our time. Among them, the concept of Essential Complexity, defined as one that inevitably arises when architecture responds to the increasing stresses that faces today. The thesis maintains the importance of reporting, in the present state of things, the impossibility to respond openly with simplistic solutions and, therefore, the need for solutions to complex character. In this sense, the concept of Underlying Form is defined as a critical tool to evaluate the response of each architecture and possess a critical system to clarify what is an consistent object facing a certain situation. The underlying form is then defined as a way to synchronously understand what we perceive sensitively inseparable from the hidden forces of creative, technological, material and energetic character that support the definition and understanding of any constructed object.