International Contest: Shinkenchiku Residential Design Competition 2003

Publication: Arhitext Design Magazine, No.6.2005

[EN/ro]

architecture virus – notes on project – shinkenchiku residential design competition [2003]

by arch. alexandru crisan, arch. ana-maria crisan

published: [arhitext design, surface/interface, no.6 (148), 2005]

‘A work of architecture is not borne completely independent of other architecture. The fact that an architect’s work is influenced by previously seen architecture, (be it historical architecture, the architect’s previous works, or the architectural works of others in journals), cannot be denied. If this is so, and built architecture is seen as the subject, one can say that the DNA of each work of architecture is infused from the architect’s eye to the brain, and there, is mixed with the DNA of other architecture to bear a progeny. At that time, as far as architecture is concerned, the brain of the architect is the breeding place, where the selection for survival is at stake. This is the breeding and proliferation mechanism of architecture, as seen from the concept of Meme. For a short while, the powerful DNA leaves numerous progeny. If generation, DNA, and proliferation were to exist, wouldn’t there be viruses as well? As in the theory of virus evolution, the virus is not something which only causes a negative effect. What is meme virus-affected architecture? Or, what is virus-like architecture?’ [Ken Sakamura]

The edge of our comprehension might be indeed tainted by reflection and distortion. The copy/paste process, frequently intertwined nowadays with the creative process, is gradually perceived as a toxicity responsible for contaminating such a conception. The systemic endgame, based on mirroring and replication, clearly implies significant reality distortion. Consequently the very moment when we are visually engaged and inspired, we are simultaneously ontologically altered by our encounter with a ‘structural package’ that encloses the actual ‘virus of the form’. The virus attacks our 3D perception in an incipient phase. The initial object is unable to find its original space coordinates. The last artifice the form endures during this search is the 2D matrix formatting, consisting of mirroring, rotation, and distortion. In fact, the essence of the process resides not in the result, be that positive of negative, but it practically rests in its resemblance to similar creation processes. The explanation for this replica paradox is to be found in the fact that the virus, while attacking different images and minds, determines similar architectural patterns. Our attempts to impose variations and originality determine singularly the dissimilar end stages of the metamorphosis.  Perhaps ‘ending’ is the exception to the sickness rule, as we only remain able to choose the ‘steps’. However, it is impossible to assert that, subsequently, similar thoughts will not find hosts that are more potent, that other minds will not find paths to continue the process. One can only claim that the core of the process, although intoxicated and over-saturated by elements and symbols, can be chiefly tamed by an individualistic touch. Nevertheless, in the absence of a gregarious contamination, we may undergo a process of separation and differentiation that will perhaps nurture a ‘fatal individualism of the form’.

In conclusion, we are inclined to believe that this study emphasizes on a ‘parasite’ disconnected from a mundane judgment that can only limit the continuity and the evolving-formal linearity. We identify three stages in the development of ‘the virus’: the first one, mirror – copy – reflection, a determinant system of the creation process metamorphosis; the second one, multiplication – synthesis, based on repeatability and minor alteration – a system integrated to the degrading/corrupting process; the third one, “sequential” expression – a contaminated evolution process – we had in view the evolution of the image seen through the eyes of the virus, a “sequential” evolution.

[en/RO]

architecture virus – concurs international shinkenchiku residential design competition [2003]

de arh. alexandru crisan, arh. ana-maria crisan

publicat: [arhitext design, suprafata/interfata, no.6 (148), 2005]

In cadrul proiectului prezentat au fost vizate cateva idei generale care au stat la baza formularii demersului conceptual privind ‘arhitectura efemera’. Acestea au urmarit evolutia parazitara a unui fenomen actual, generand o noua interpretare referitoare la procesul de creatie, la ceea ce numim sub termen generic de ‘concept’ in arhitectura. Ideea urmarita privea virusul conceptual si nu materializat, generand interferente in campul imediat perceptibil. Matricea conventionala interpretativa prezentata, genereaza paliere diferentiate de perceptie la nivel global, integrand in sistem, coordonate cu functie de reper. Ordinea creata de aceasta, se rescrie introducand astfel variatii sistemice.

Au fost gradual parcurse 9 etape analitice: 1. Poate suntem ‘contaminati’ de reflexie si distorsiune, acestea fiind un ultim stadiu in procesul asimilarii calitative; 2. Demersul copy-paste, utilizat frecvent in zilele noastre in procesul de creatie, este perceput asemeni unei afectiuni care contamineaza conceptul. Sistemul rezultant, bazat pe imaginea reflectata si repetitie implica clar distorsiunea ‘realitatii’; 3. Momentul in care suntem ‘motivati’ de imaginea conceptuala, de semnificatie, ne pune in directa legatura cu o ‘baza’ specifica informationala care include forma virusului actual. Virusul ataca perceptia generata 3D intr-o faza incipienta. Obiectul original, transformat, nu isi mai regaseste coordonatele spatiului originar. Ultimul artificiu il constituie forma supusa, in timpul acestei transformari, formatarii 2D a matricii din care provine, prin reflexie, rotatie si distorsiune; 4. In cele mai frecvente situatii, problema nu mai consta in caracterul rezultatului final, fie el pozitiv sau negativ. In practica el  ramane similar cu alte rezultate din cadrul procesului creativ. Virusul, ataca imagini si ‘idei’, determinand ‘arhitectura similara’; 5. Incercarea noastra consta in  impunerea variatiei si originalitatii care determina metamorfoza ideii stopata gradual in diverse stadii de perceptie; 6. Poate termenul de ‘final’ se constituie ca exceptie de la regula molipsitoare a similaritatii prin reproducere diferentiata, facandu-ne astfel sa ramanem capabili sa alegem gradual in cadrul procesului de creatie si sa sintetizam valoarea de concept. Putem nega faptul ca gandurile noastre nu vor avea repercursiuni intr-un viitor apropiat, sau putem continua procesul, determinand valori imaginare in spatiul realitatii distorsionate; 7. In acest caz, metamorfoza este caracterizata de o izbitoare similaritate intre sursa si rezultatul final. Baza procesului astfel intoxicat si suprasaturat de elemente si simboluri, in general include o nota personala; 8. Poate, in absenta unei contaminari comune, putem presupune deasemenea un proces de separatie si diferentiere prea consistent astfel incat ‘individualismul’ formei sa poata interveni. Tindem sa consideram ca studiul reprezinta mai mult un “parazit” deconectat de ratiune care limiteaza continuitatea si evolutia lineara formala; 9. Consideram virusul manifestandu-se in trei forme primare: a.) ‘mirror-copy-reflection’ – ca sistem determinant al metamorfozei procesului de creatie; b.) ‘multiplication-synthesis’, bazat pe repetabilitate si alterarea reflexiei – ca sistem integrat al degradarii procesului; c.) ‘sequential expression’ – ca proces contaminat care evolueaza secvential si nu biologic, transpus in realitatea imediata.