A Reference Manifesto – The need for Spatial Morphology as a field of knowledge in Architecture

Bidrag till aldrig publicerad antologi för Formas satsning på arkitekturforskning: Making effect, 2012

Lars Marcus

A reference manifesto - The need for spatial morphology as a field of knowledge in archite.

Download • 166KB

Unprecedented knowledge challenges in Architecture

The alarmists spreading the threat of the Millennium bug have finally been the ones proven right. More than a decade into the new Millennium we find ourselves in an age of crises difficult to even conceive of ten years ago. Tremendous human inflicted disturbances of the biosphere are now accepted as facts forcing us to adapt to volatile conditions of existence. Economic crises of a magnitude considered to belong to the past suddenly question the very fundaments of our economic systems and social upheavals in places we thought the most unlikely are currently balancing a thin line between hope and despair.

         We might ponder to what degree such an age of crises presents threats or opportunities but what is a fact is that since the beginning of these crises increasing attention has been directed towards the field of knowledge represented by schools of architecture. The future development of our physical infrastructure, not least in the form of cities and buildings, is expected to play a fundamental role in tipping these crises in the more promising direction. But just as the times we are living in have caught society in general by surprise, this newborn interest in architecture and urban development has caught this field of knowledge by surprise; presenting it with challenges it in many respects is not prepared for.

         It is argued here that these challenges calls for nothing less than a knowledge revolution of the field of architecture and urban design and presents its different practices with the long over-due impetus to take the critical step from experience based crafts to theory based professions. In extension this also implies a need for architecture as a field of knowledge to finally transform itself into a fully developed academic field. Theory has always been inherent to architecture, it can even be argued that theory is what makes architecture different from building in general, but as long as this remains theory of a tacit rather than discursive kind, which still is the rule in the field, it will never be able to face up to the challenges advancing in its direction. What has happened is simply that the field no longer can be kept apart as a concern for its inner circle - society as a whole is now knocking at its door.

Spatial Morphology as a new field of knowledge in Architecture

It is in such a context Spatial Morphology as a particular field of knowledge in Archi­tecture is proposed, aiming to develop knowledge on one of the most fundamental entities in human experience – space as structured and shaped by humans. It rests on the conviction that space has never simply been a given by nature but rather, as far back as we can trace human practice, has been its most fundamental technology, only challenged by the development of language, through which humans have set out to construct their own realities. This is not denying that there is a reality given by nature, on the contrary, it is only through knowledge on the given by nature that any human constructions have been possible. It is simply acknowledging that we can only develop knowledge on what is humanly experienced, naturally given or not.

         Throughout history there are many expressions of such a field of knowledge but since at least the Renaissance there is a particular discipline possible to discern under the name of Architecture, expressed both as a specialist practice and a field of learning. It is in this context of Architecture that the field of knowledge here proposed belong.

Architectural knowledge

To support the transformation from an experience based craft to a theory based profession Spatial Morphology, just as architecture in general, needs two kinds of theory that moreover are closely intermingled, design theory and architectural theory. Design theory is by its nature of a more epistemological kind, a theory about theory, and that is how design theory and architectural theory actually are interwoven. An architectural design theory is simply a theory about how different forms of architectural theory come into play in the process of architectural design.

         Architectural design work is about giving shape and structure to architectural artefacts of many scales. Since contemporary architectural design work in almost every project to such a high degree deal with unique and complex situations, it is difficult to draw from earlier experience. It is this fact that creates the need for archi­tectural practice to take the step from an experience based craft to a theory based profession – architects can no longer argue with reference to earlier examples but must argue with reference to principle. Thus, architecture has become an inherently theoretical field of knowledge and in extension, this is the reason why contemporary architects in their design endeavours need support from research and research along a broad epistemological range.

         Design work needs theoretical support both in its generative phase, when possible solutions to an architectural problem are formulated (generative theory), its predictive phase, when the performance of such solutions are evaluated (analytical theory), and in its contextualising phase, when such solutions are interpreted in relation to a larger cultural and social context (discursive theory). Research in Spatial Morphology especially aims at the development of analytical theory, keeping in mind that such theory also can be used as generative theory and can support discursive theory. While all these phases are inherently theoretical we must pay attention to the fact that we talk about theories of different kinds. As a matter of fact, the different kinds of theory we discuss here represent nothing less than the three major knowledge traditions as developed in Western history: generative theory is what we find in the arts, analytical theory what we find in the sciences and discursive theory what we find in the humanities. The fundamental assumption in architectural design theory is that in all processes of architectural design all these knowledge traditions, as represented by these three forms of theory, are needed and come into play, which in extension means that all of them also are relevant in architectural research.

Sources to architectural research

There are many things that we would like to know a lot more about, but in the end we must in research identify reliable sources to such knowledge. There seems to be two primary sources of that kind for architectural research, architect­ural ideas and architectural artefacts. Most architectural research deals with both but address them with different methodological approaches depending on what type of knowledge one is aiming for. To a certain degree one can say that the primary source in the development of analytical theory is architectural artefacts, while the primary source in the gene­ration of discursive theory is architectural ideas. Certainly, architectural ideas are present in architectural artefacts just as architectural arte­facts are present in architectural ideas. What is essential for analytical knowledge, however, is to explain how particular architectural properties can give rise to or contribute to specific architectural performances, which tend to make architectural artefacts the primary object of study. What is essential to discursive knowledge on the other hand, is to understand the context behind the creation or reception of architecture, in a wide meaning, which tend to make architectural ide­as the primary object of study. In Spatial Morphology architectur­al artefacts are the primary objects of study, keeping in mind that this also implies studies of architectural ideas.

Analysis of architectural artefacts

While methods and techniques for the critical interpretation of ideas, architectural or other, are quite developed, albeit often debated, the methods and techniques for the analysis of artefacts, architectural or other, are not as developed. This forces any endeavour of architectural research along the lines of artefact analysis to develop analytical tools and techniques. What is at stake is the in all research necessary task of developing tools whereby one can describe ones knowledge object in a productive way. In research, phenomena are never just there by themselves, ready to be studied, but need to be generated. In extreme cases we need to build huge laboratories for such generation. In other cases it is just a matter of developing tools that make it possible to see what earlier was not visible, like the telescope or the microscope.

         Similar descriptive and analytical tools and techniques are just as necessary in architectural research, but its development has to a large degree been neglected. Two things are necessary for the development of such techniques. First, one needs a clear idea about the nature of the knowledge object one is about to analyse. That is not to say that one aims at defining the true essence of the knowledge object, rather that one aim to formulate a productive description of it for the kind of knowledge one is aiming for. Second, it presumes a clear idea of from what perspective, or to what purpose or end, one wants to analyse the knowledge object. In the academic field of Spatial Morphology this perspective is the social performativity of architect­ure, which leads to an under­standing of its knowledge object as architectural space as structured and shaped by architectural form with the aim of human use.

Methodological approach

Spatial Morphology is methodologically rooted in the social sciences, especially its directions inspired by the natural sciences, that is to say that it primarily is found in the field of statistical analysis. More specifically, it concerns correlational research, that is, search for co-variation between different type of phenomena, prim­arily between spatial and social phenomena. Statistical and quantitative description of social phenomena has a long tradition in the social sciences while quantitative descriptions of spatial phenomena in architectural research are not as developed. This is the reason for the concern in Spatial Morphology for the development of descriptive theory and techniques. How do we build informative models of architectural and urban form in relation to use and similarly how do we quantify architectural and urban form so that we in a productive way can corre­late it with different aspects of its social performativity. This puts Spatial Morphology firmly in the methodological tradition of modelling and simulation.

         But such statistical analyses do not speak in themselves, they are a link between the material world and the world of discourse, but they are in themselves not discourse. Statistical results need to be interpreted in a context of discursive theory, for example social, economic or cultural theory. Therefore such theory plays a critical role in Spatial Morphology not only as an exegetic support of its empirical results but also as the ultimate aim of its empirical studies. Even so, there is reason to stress its primary foundation in an empiric-analytical tradition due to its aim to explain the effects of architectural artefacts, that is, the performativity of things. This delineates and identifies the particular expertise of the researcher in Spatial Morphology, while it is equally important to keep in mind her dependence on and contribution to other knowledge traditions in architectural research.

The relation between physical form and spatial structure

As stated earlier architectural design is about giving shape and structure to architectural artefacts, that is to say that architectural design is about architectural form. Crucial here is the interplay between built form and spatial structure, where built form is a prerequisite for the structure of space just as space is a prerequisite for the articulation of built form. We need analytical tools both for built form and spatial structure that can generate productive descriptions of architectural form in research. Depending on our scientific perspective or purpose, such morphology will be of very different kinds. If our aim is hermeneutical and to understand the meaning of architectural form, the morphological descrip­tions will tend towards descriptions of form as signs and even language, while if our aim is analytical and to explain the performativity of architectural form, they will tend towards descriptions of form as geometry and even mathematics. Research in Spatial Morphology is primarily based on geometric and mathematical descriptions.

         A geometrically based morphology of architecture can take any direction if there is not a clear idea of its scientific purpose. To start with it is clear that architectural form only presents a sub-set of what is geometrically possible. There are two limiting forces at work here. On the one hand, the limitations set by the materials that constitute the physical form of an architectural artefact. On the other hand, the limitations set by human use on the spatial structure of an architectural artefact. While the limitations set by the constructive properties of physical materials are rather well known, the limitations set by the “social properties” of space as an architectural “material” are far less known.

         When it comes to architectural use in the social sense of the word, that is, how architectural artefacts influence social interactions and processes; it is space that is addressed in particular. What is limiting to the geometrically possible when it comes to architectural space in this context is, hence, what is spatially relevant to social use of architectu­re. Spatial Morphology therefore needs to contribute to a morpho­logy that describes and analyses the form and structure of architectural space from the particular point of view of social use.

From utilitas to performativity

The perspective of social use of architecture is a classic theme in architectural theory and history. We can delineate it back to Vitruvius division of architecture into firmitas, utilitas and venustas, where it clearly belongs to utilitas. Utilitas has been given different status and interpretation through history. In the 20th century it held a prime position within architectural discourse, interpreted through the term function. Today the concept of function has become both ideologically and epistemologi­cally problematic, especially when set up as a relation between form and function. Both the definitions of form and function respectively, as they were put forward in architectural discourse during the 20th century, seem to lack a key to how the two concepts actually are related. This is also the reason why scientific knowledge on the subject has proven so difficult to develop. Architectural practice in this regard has also proven most unsuccessful, which in extension has made the discourse on function ideologically difficult.

         Therefore, it is in Spatial Morphology proposed that it can be productive with a new interpretation of utilitas, substituting the concept of function for the concept of performativity. This concept carries an understanding of architecture, and more specifically architectural space, as not just a background or platform for social processes, but instead as a social material in itself. The other way around, it presents the possibility to analyse and understand social processes as inherently spatial. The more specific understanding of architectural space that opens for such a close tie to social phenomena is an understanding of architectural space as systemic, that is, as divided into parts in a system or a configuration. Since social phenomena are inherently systemic and increasingly understood as systems or configurations, such a systemic perspective is able to tie the spatial to the social in a productive way. Spatial Morphology therefore has a system approach to the analysis of space, rather than for example a typological or genealogical approach.

Primary research directions in Spatial Morphology

In the development of a new field of knowledge it is equally important to develop the inner logic of the field itself as well as an understanding of its relation to other fields of knowledge. Concerning the first, a primary research direction in Spatial Morphology is to develop a theoretical model of architecturally defined space in relation to social performativity. This puts stress on the geometric descriptions of architectural space that are chosen, which needs to be relevant to this particular need. Since the field concerns human use in architectural space this leads, first, to the need to apply and develop a particular sub-field of geometry that we can call cognitive geometry, that is, geometric descriptions that are defined from the point of view of an experiencing subject on a generic level, stressing such things as physical accessibility and fields of visibility. Second, given the strong systemic foundations of Spatial Morphology the primary analytical model used is network analysis, but most importantly, network analysis based on cognitive geometry. Third, such models need to be analysed from the point of view of both socially and architecturally relevant spatial properties. These are proposed to be distance, density and diversity, where density concerns the architectural enhancement of space through the horizontal addition of levels (floors), diversity the architectural intensification of space through vertical boundaries (walls) and distance the configurative relation (connections) between such, to varying degrees, densified and diversified spaces.

         Concerning the relation of Spatial Morphology to other fields of knowledge a central research direction is empirical studies aiming to critically analyse and discuss the spatial variable in these fields, such as social networks in Sociology, market areas in Economic Geography, ecosystems in Landscape Ecology, knowledge environments in Innovative Systems Theory, physical activity in Medicine and Health Studies. Space is a fundamental variable in all these fields and many more, but is often dealt with by way of geometries and concepts that are quite uncritically derived from Geography, the major spatial discipline. But given the roots of Geography in spatial descriptions of natural systems, Spatial Morphology with its base in Architecture represents an alternative with a more immediate relation to social systems. Therefore Spatial Morphology presents a both promising and fresh opportunity for distinctive critique and development of the spatial variable in these fields.

The ultimate aim of Spatial Morphology

In summary, the overarching aim of Spatial Morphology is to develop architectural theory of an analytical kind through research on the relation between architectural form and social performativity, but acknowledging the potential in this endeavour to also contribute to both discursive and generative theory. A prime aim of such research is to support architectural practice, not least through professional education programs, but also contribute to other fields of knowledge where space plays a decisive role. Ultimately, the aim is to contribute to the development of contemporary society, where the issue of space currently is being increasingly addressed.

         It should finally be stressed how Spatial Morphology as presented here represents a rare thing in the academic world. It is the discovery of a huge and so far underdeveloped field of knowledge with great potential of development and with fundamental repercussions for a wide range of disciplines and fields. In such a context it is important to remind ourselves what the central object of knowledge of the proposed field is. It is the spatial settings that humans construct as a means to support their everyday life, that is, principles of the artificial realities where we spend most of our time. Here we can detect the ultimate goal of Spatial Morphology - to develop architectural theory that can deepen our understanding, sharpen our critique and contribute to the production of contemporary society and culture.

         This highlights the paradox inherent in Spatial Moprhoplogy given its context in architectural research, the fact that the truly original thing proposed here is that, instead of using social, economic and cultural theory to understand, criticise and produce architecture, Spatial Morphology aims to develop architectural theory that can help us understand, criticise and produce society.