Understanding Performative Architecture

Ann Abida, Department of architecture, University of Jordan.

Riane Al-Najdawi, Department of architecture, University of Jordan.

Wala Dheisat, Department of architecture, University of Jordan.

Abstract
This paper stresses on the primary importance of adding value to performance and performativity
as an ideology by highlighting related multiple worldviews and comprehensively outlining the
history, rather than only providing an overview. It also explains and analyzes performance
studies' developments, the use of digital tools and the current agreed on and future challenges.
An important conclusion is that this paper, which is based on academic books, papers and journal
articles, presents some of the aspects that the authors feel are important to be highlighted, such as
the need of further developments for performative design paradigms' processes and simulation
tools in order to reach performative potential structures.

Keywords: Performance, Performative architecture, Performativity, digital tools.

Introduction
During recent years, the term "performance" has reached a wide spread in multiple activities
such as art, architecture, literature and social sciences. The aim was to reach a basic
understanding of what performative is in relation to architecture and how performance studies
have recently been developed to cover almost every aspect of human activities.
Research works started with a historical brief of the evolution of performative architecture dating
back to the 1970s and moving forward towards the 21st century. The word of the researcher also
highlights why it presently became the current interest with the rise of sustainability and the wide
possibilities provided by resent technological developments.
Later, works were followed by a comprehensive review of selected architects, philosophers,
researchers and others' worldviews, who discussed the multiple perspectives of the term
performative. Generally speaking, and according to everyday life performance can be the
synonym of efficiency, in architecture it is used to refer to buildings' design considerations such
as thermal and structural performances. On the other hand, performative architecture is a unique
universal direction and a guiding design principle that is affected by factors such as social,
cultural and special ones which challenges the way the built environment is designed by
depending on projects' proposed and selected performances, designers and engineers'
collaborative efforts and the use of digital technologies.

In terms of reaching performative as a common architectural practice and applying

performativity theories and methods, it was important to mansion the role of generative systems
and simulated technologies which shifted the weight applied on "making the form" to finding the
form" by supplying designers and engineers with new opportunities and allowing them to extract
feedbacks, qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate them and then integrate them in the design
process for better and effective performative designs.

Works were later concluded by explaining and presenting performance-based processes main
design challenges that can be summarized by the need of efficient and innovative solutions for
more evaluative and not only generative tools.

As a sum up, it is argued that, performative architecture totality is ungraspable and hard to pin
down due to the broadness and the comprehensiveness of its processes.

Literature Review
According to David Leatherbarrow (2005), designers and engineers tend to view buildings as
objects either resulting from design and construction processes or as a representation of practices
and ideas. Performative theories and practices on the other hand, shifted architects' orientations
from understanding what a building is to how a building works, what does it do, and what
actions, events and effects it might cause in time.
Performance emerged first in the late 1950s in linguistics by the work of the British philosopher
John Langshaw Austin and later introduced into architecture by the feminist perspective of the
architectural historian Jane Rendell (2002). Performative theories and methods drew attention to
humans, human behavior studies and other research fields to reach a concept of wide impact and
to move societies' perceptions from static accumulations of artifacts into dynamic, multilayered
processes in the aim to challenge forms, structures, values and meanings. Building-performance
as a design paradigm became the current interest, due to the emergence of sustainability and to
the recent developments on technology and cultural theories. It is also considered as a guideline
design principle that is leveled with or even considered above form-making in the digital avant-
garde contemporary architecture. Branko Kolarevic (2005).
As explained by Mahadev Raman (2005), performative architecture also recalls Le Corbusier's
famous description of a house as "machine for living", as it achieves sustainability for
civilizations, by finding balance between environmental, economic and social domains that
varies considerably when responding to different context. As a result, "performative forms" are
achieved through "performance-based design" scientific processes and methods that all starts by
analyzing functional requirements as well as physical measurements of performance. William
Braham (2005).
Andrew Whalley (2005) argued that, in the digital avant-garde contemporary architecture,
construction techniques are no longer constraining and limiting architects and designers from
 creating thoughtful solutions. As a result, an emphasis on the current importance of having an
organic approach based on exploring solutions through performance and the usage of digital
three-dimensional tools has arisen.

Performance in relation to these tools has been calculated between then and now by Branko
Kolarevic (2005) as follows:

1. Then: The performative design thinking and its analysis and simulation tools were proposed in
the late 1960sand early 1970s by a group of researchers led by Thomas Maver at the University
of Strathclyde's, department of Architecture and Building Science. The repetitive man/machine
interaction was implemented at first using PACE (Package for Architectural Computer
Evaluation) which was one of the first digital performance analysis tool developed at ABACUS.
By the 1970s, designers were capable of receiving feedbacks on their proposals for selected
measures such as heat loss, daylight distribution, shadows and acoustic performances.

2. Now: Current improvements on graphical outputs and visualization techniques represent the
foundation of the early stages. Improvements on tools allowed designer to qualitatively assess
the quantitative evaluations, thus providing design alternatives that offers the desired
performance.
Ali malkawi (2005) emphasized on the importance of having the ability to predict the behavior
of a building by the use of available simulation tools/models as it is the core aim of performative
architecture. To him, some tools/models were purely demand oriented, while others attempted to
forecast the needs of the field. Branko Kolarevic (2005) argued that, none of the tools/models
provide a dynamic generative capability; hence, allowing users' engagement of senses and
experiences with spaces and materials. Oxman (2006) on the other hand, categorized the digital
tools/models in the following classes:
1. CAD models: evaluates analytical processes.

2. Formation Models: studies object's structure rather than its geometry.

3. Generative Models: addresses the emergence of forms that are derived from generative rules.
In this model, designer interacts with and operates the generative mechanisms and controls the
selection of desired solutions.

4. Performance Models: divided into two:

 Performance-based formation models: employs analytical simulation techniques and produces

detailed parametric expressions.
 Performance-based generation models: In this model, data of performance simulations drives the
generation and/or formation processes in order to generate the form. The designer can interact
with the model by defining the performance, generating criteria and interacting directly with the
digital representation.
To a great extent, performative architecture's forms to Branko Kolarevic (2005) are driven by
projects' measured performances and designers' cognitive abilities, intuitions and thinking
processes. This approach allows designers and engineers as editors to generate and navigate
various possibilities while considering both qualitative and quantitative feedback. It also
provides new opportunities and abilities to experiment relations between the work's
methodologies and the wide spectrum of implementation. Pellitteri, Giuseppe, Giuseppe,
Concialdi, Salvatore and Lattuca, Raimondo (2018).
Kristina Shea (2004) detected that, “generating new forms while also having instantaneous
feedback on their performance from different perspectives (space usage, structural, thermal,
lighting, fabrication, etc.) would not only spark the imagination in terms of deriving new forms,
but guide it towards forms that reflect rather than contradict real design constraints.” She also
mentioned that, Frei Otto's -the pioneered German architect and structural engineer- tensile
structures became the nearest examples of performance-driven architectural forms as they were
dynamically affected by changing the forces that acted on the model.
Performance-based design assessments have to be generative and not only evaluative. Defining
project's performative aspects and restoring harmony between performances' goals -that are in
conflict- are considered as the major challenges of the process. Add to that, the inadequacy of
building performance simulation software during the conceptual design phase. Branko Kolarevic
(2005).

Selecting solutions with optimal performance abilities during the conceptual phase require "high
resolution" performance simulation tools with detailed modeling. Also, some certain
performance aspects require to be analyzed in one environment, and others require to be
analyzed in other simulation software, often resulting with generous and redundant modeling.
Branko Kolarevic (2005).

In order to produce additional performative potential structures prior to developing the initial
design, the field needs to provide a certain degree of coordination across a range of “low-
resolution” performance simulation tools, reach joint efforts among architecture and engineering,
through analytical and dynamical computerized tools and encourage both, architects and
engineers to look for innovative tectonics and materials to be used in building industry. Branko
Kolarevic (2005).

Historical Background
Historical developments during the 1940s and 1970s led to what is referred to today as
"performative". Resulted theories and methods drew the attention to human beings, their
behavior studies and other research fields in the aim to reach a concept of a wide impact,
challenge forms, structures, values and meanings and move societies' perceptions from static
accumulations of artifacts into dynamic, multilayered processes.
The first development which was related to a dramaturgical paradigm was elaborated by a
number of theorists, writers, anthropologists and others. For example, The American literary and
philosopher Kenneth Duva Burk developed a "dramatistic approach" in the aim to analyze
 communicative actions. The cultural anthropologist Victor Witter Turner, worked also on
symbolic, interpretative anthropology and cultural expression related to staged theaters and
rituals. On the other hand, Erving Goffman, the Canadian sociologist, emphasized on linking the
social life and performance through working on symbolic interactions. ¹
A later development emerged in linguistics by the work of the British philosopher John
Langshaw Austin, who emphasized on that, speeches are not passive practices only, but are
forms constituted from "self-referential" actions. Andrew Parker (1995)
In Architecture, performative as an idiom, was introduced in the early nineteenth-century, by the
perspective of feminist historians, who stood against prestigious buildings designed by chief
architects and explored the role of women architects by examining how gender differences can
inspire architectural design. Jane Rendell (2002) ³
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a group of researchers led by Thomas Maver at the University
of Strathclyde's, department of Architecture and Building Science, implemented the repetitive
man/machine interaction by using PACE (Package for Architectural Computer Evaluation)
which was the first digital performance analysis tool developed at ABACUS. By the 1970s,
designers were capable of receiving feedbacks on their proposals for selected measures such as
heat loss, daylight distribution, shadows and acoustic performances. Branko Kolarevic (2005)
As a design paradigm, it became the current interest, due to the emergence of sustainability and
to the recent developments on technology and cultural theories. It is also important to mention
that, it shifted architects' and designers' orientations from understanding what a building is to
how a building works, what does it do, and what actions, events and effects it might cause in
time. Branko Kolarevic (2005)
In the recent times, performative theories and practices couldn’t be defined using a specific
meaning, as it highly depends on projects' measured performances and designers' cognitive
abilities, intuitions and thinking processes. It is currently considered as a guideline design
principle that is leveled with or even considered above form-making which starts by analyzing
functional requirements as well as physical measurements of performance in the digital avant-
garde cntemporary architecture. Branko Kolarevic (2005).

Understanding Performative Architecture according to selected Theorists,

Researchers, Philosophers and others' worldviews
In terms of applying performative architecture theories and methods, different understandings of
performativity foundational conceptualizations, resulted in the emergence of different
perspectives:
1- Performativity as socio-materiality:
J. Mckenzie (2001), who sees performance as a combination of practices, notions and activities
from the simplest to the most complex ones, divided performance into three conditions:
technological, organizational and the cultural performance. According to Andrw Whalley (2005),
performative architecture in relation to context, challenged traditional and static architecture and
developed it to reach a more adaptive and interactive one. William Braham (2005) and Branko
Kolarevic (2005) and Ali Rahim (2005) also agreed that, if a designers think of performance and
performativity in terms of architectural spaces and cultural performance tectonic aspects, forms
emerge efficiently and technological effectiveness becomes absolute.
2- Performativity as material and material flexibility:
Some researchers, philosopher and others argue that materiality is the essential core of
performativity. For example, Lucretius, a Roman philosopher, sees that everything in the world
is comprised of either matter or void. Matter to Lucretius is a dynamic entity that continuously
changes and behaves throughout space and time. According to Yasser Zarei (2012), materials
and their performance have a defined framework when it comes to generating forms. The
resulted form will be highly manageable and flexible in terms of architectural alterations and will
also be closer to the reality of construction in terms of its practicality. Zarei also mentioned that,
the importance of material exceeds the level of structural properties to include individual's
experiences through and/or around the buildings, which brings the constructive and the
decorative together by the aesthetic, optical, and tactile qualities as well the social, cultural, and
historical senses.
3- Performativity as integrated system:
Some focused on the integration between different aspects to achieve performativity. The
integration of different aspects in the aim of achieving performativity has been focused on by
several researches. According to Ali M. Malkawi (2005) and Branko Kolarevic (2005),
developments in technology and cultural theories as well as the emergence of sustainability were
the main forces behind shifting architecture towards performativity. Kolarevic focused on the
connection between aesthetics and performance in architecture and emphasized on that both are
inseparable along with that performance criteria should not be reduced into things that can only
be quantified. Regarding to Willam Braham (2005) and Branko Kolarevic (2005), performativity
also occurs when an exchange of feedbacks happens between designers and engineers, or
between objects and subjects.
Araya, S (2011) also argued that architectural performativity is all about the interaction between
design processes, performance of design and its attachment with the surroundings. Araya
emphasized on that architectural performativity is an action that mediates two forces, artificial
and environmental ones.7
Hensel, et al (2008) highlighted that performativity must take the environmental, social and
ideological aspects in consideration, for him the work of good architectural is to mixture of all
previous aspects.8
As a summary and reference to Jean-Pascal Gond, Laure Cabantous, Nancy Harding & Mark
Learmonth (2016), the following is a representation of the five foundational conceptualizations
of performativity.
 Foundational perspectives Authors and research roots What was performed
1. Performativity as doing  Austin (1962) Utterance, discourse
things with words  Searle (1969)
Philosophy and
linguistic
2. Performativity as  Lyotard (1984/1979) Knowledge
efficiency Philosophy and postmo
dernism
3. Performativity as  Derrida (1979), Identity, gender, social roles
actors’ constituting the Philosophy
self  Butler (1990, 1993,
1997), Gender studies
4.Performativity as  Barnes (1983) Expert bodies of knowledge,
bringing theory into being  Pickering (1995) science, actor networks
Social studies of sciences
 Callon (1998);
MacKenzie and Millo
(2003) Economic
sociology
5. Performativity as socio‐  Barad (2003, 2007), Gender, Socio‐material
materiality mattering Gender studies and entities
post‐humanism
 Latour (2005), Actor‐
Network Theory

Performance-oriented Architecture
As previously pointed, "Performance studies" is an interdisciplinary field that has been
developed to cover almost every aspect of human activities. When it comes to architecture, the
totality of performance studies i.e. performativity, is achieved through a guiding design principle
that merges and integrates the efforts of skilled designers and engineers with the use of the
developed digital tools, evaluation criteria and the primitive notions of performance in the aim of
challenging man-made surroundings. Hamadallah, B. (2018).

Resulted performative models are measured representations of Bloom's taxonomy, which is

considered as a checklist that ensures fulfillment of design's aims by frequently analyzing and
evaluating concepts, processes, procedures and principles. According to Rivka Oxman (2007),
processes influenced by environmental necessities through digital strategies promote
performative design as an addition of performance-based design. Also, Jan Smitheram (2011)
emphasized on that, performative as an instrument, parts processes from sequential traditions and
re-describe how users experience spaces in order to reach productive architecture. As a
conclusion, the variety of simulation programs and the ways of utilizing them are considered as
the major differences across designers and users.

Performative design Performance based

model Construction model
(During design process) (After construction)

Uses simulation as a Applying Uses simulation as an

shaping force digital tools evaluation tool

Performance-based design and the use of digital tools

Reference to the previously mentioned topic, generative systems aim is to shift designers'
emphasis from "making the form" to "finding the form" by exploring and introducing new
opportunities as well as controlling the variables and outcomes' behaviors over time.

Unlike the numerous endeavors at the early 1970s, PACE (Package for Architectural and
Computer Evaluation), which was developed at ABACUS was one of the first digital tools to
have a man/machine interaction to produce a comprehensive set of evaluation methods and
procedures. For more optimal design solutions and adequate environmental conditions, the tool
was utilized to measure the performance of spatial and environmental activities, by measuring
site utilization, plan and mass compactness and heat and gain loss. Later and after the graphical
and visualization techniques have improved, time as a dimension was introduced for tools not to
only quantitatively evaluate proposed designed but also to assess them qualitatively. These
improvements allowed engineers and architects to extract feedbacks and compare alternatives
relatively in the aim of reaching effective designs.

Throughout these developments, the design approach started to move out from only being
concerned with large-scaled design systems to performance-based design approaches.
Performance-based design as a "guiding design principle" brings the practical and theoretical
part together using the most informative digital tools and methods to directly generate and
modify outcomes instead of evaluating the performance of a design and modify it accordingly.
It also allows designers to predict future challenges and overcome them by the use of creative
problem-solving strategies and effective non-linear feedback loops.

As a conclusion and according to Thomas Maver, the performative design processes consist of
four main procedures:

1. Representation: Variables and assumptions are generated by designers and inputted into the
computers.
2. Measurements: Extracting outputs by modeling behaviors and measuring performance
according to a set of agreed on criteria.
3. Evaluation: Judging outputs by designers or perhaps stakeholders.
4. Modification: Deciding on the most fitting and the most needed design variations.

Evaluation Criteria
For more productive processes, evaluation and modification procedures do not have to be the end
stages of the performative models. Results are to always be investigated by designers to insure
compatibility with needs and contextual issues. If designers are not satisfied with results,
immediate adjustment of rules, inputs, variables and parameters to be made during this
interactive process and prior proceeding. The general evaluation criteria of building performance
is derived from the Vitruvius triad and classified as follows:

Firmites: Achieving safety by applying buildings' codes and standards.

Utilitas: Evaluating the state of art of building types and systems by functional and efficient
performance criteria.
Venutas: Measuring psychological, social, cultural and esthetic performances.

In addition, BPE -Building Performance Evaluation– agreed on a set of basic criteria consisting
of visual, tangible, thermal, acoustic, gravitational and others to be used as a general evaluation
rule. It is important to mansion that, evaluating performative architecture prevents clashes from
happening between economic performance, environmental performance, social performance and
others, through organizational relationships and regularly using sufficient geometrical linkages.

Challenges
By reaching generative and evaluative performance processes that can qualitatively and
quantitatively assess feedbacks, architects and designers can come up with projects and buildings
that simultaneously perform economically, socially and technically.

It is argued that, in order for that to happen, such processes require the variables and inputs to
interact and work together during conceptions as one integrated unit by the use of simulation
tools. However, these tools are rarely used in conceptual phases of projects as they require high-
resolution and detailed models. Another commonly stumbled upon problem is that some
performance aspects are required to be analyzed using one instrument while others are required
to be analyzed using some other evaluative software, which often results with redundant
modeling. Therefore, Thomas Maver urged to come up with "low-resolution" simulation tools
that can be integrated during conceptual phases in order to find the form and not only make the
form. Therefore, and as a conclusion, designer and engineers are now responsible to come up
with efficient and innovative solutions for more evaluative and not only generative tools.
Conclusion
Performative as an ideology is still considered new. There is no set and agreed on definition for
it, but it can be described as a combination of two major fragments, theoretical, which expresses
performativity's origin and empirical which expresses its' processes. Both fragments allow the
different inputs and variables such as needs, contexts, structures, techniques, materials as well as
social and economic behaviors to interact and act as a whole integrated unit.
In architecture, performance as a term is the synonym of efficiency, when integrated with
technologies' abilities performative architecture arises and the totality of each describes
performativity. Performance studies have been simultaneously developing with the development
of humanity and started representing Maslow's Hierarchy when first the human started looking
for a shelter as one of his basic needs, later, it continued and intersected with its' topmost when
the intellectual needs arose.
To sum up, having the ability to quantitatively and qualitatively assess feedback loops of
performative architecture processes by the use of "low-resolution" simulation tools during
conceptions, has to be the future of performance studies in order to start proposing infinite
numbers of performative design solutions.

References
Albayrak, C. (2011). Performative architecture as a guide line for transformation of the defence line of Amsterdam.

Alexander, J. C., Giesen, B., & Mast, J. L. (Eds.). (2006). Social performance: Symbolic action, cultural pragmatics,
and ritual. Cambridge University Press.

Araya, S (2011), Performative Architecture, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Masschusetts Institute of

Technology.

Cooren, F., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2004). Speech timing and spacing: The phenomenon of organizational
closure. Organization, 11(6), 793-824.

Fleischmann, M., Knippers, J., Lienhard, J., Menges, A., & Schleicher, S. (2012). Material behaviour: embedding
physical properties in computational design processes. Architectural Design, 82(2), 44-51.

Gond, J. P., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2016). What do we mean by performativity in
organizational and management theory? The uses and abuses of performativity. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 18(4), 440-463.

Hamadallah, B. (2018). Architectural performativity and user perception as a model in evaluating primary schools in
Amman. The University of Jordan (Thesis)

Hensel, M., & Menges, A. (2008). Inclusive Performance: Efficiency Versus Effectiveness Towards a Morpho‐
Ecological Approach for Design. Architectural Design, 78(2), 54-63.

Hensel, M. (2013). Performance-oriented architecture: rethinking architectural design and the built environment.
John Wiley & Sons.

Kolarevic, B. (2004). Back to the future: performative architecture. International Journal of Architectural
Computing, 2(1), 43-50.

Kolarevic, B., & Malkawi, A. (2005). Peformative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality. Routledge.
Kretzer, M. (2017). The Ever-Changing Nature of Materiality and the Meaning of Materials in Architecture and
Construction. In Information Materials (pp. 25-65). Springer, Cham.

Leach, N. (2009). Digital morphogenesis. Architectural Design, 79(1), 32-37.

McKenzie, J. (2002). Perform or else: From discipline to performance. Routledge.

Oxman, R. (2006). Theory and design in the first digital age. Design studies, 27(3), 229-265.

Oxman, R. (2007). A Performance-based Model in Digital Design: PER-FORMATIVE—Design Beyond

Aesthetic. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 3(3), 169-180.

Parker, A., & Sedgwick, E. K. (2013). Performativity and performance. Routledge.

Preiser, W. F., Vischer J. C. (2005). “Assessing Building Performance”, Elsevier.

Rendell, J. (2002). The pursuit of pleasure: gender, space & architecture in Regency London. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Smitheram, J. (2011). Spatial performativity/spatial performance. Architectural Theory Review, 16(1), 55-69.
Zarei, Y. (2012). The Challenges of Paramteric Design in Architecture Today: Mapping the Design
Practice (Doctoral dissertation, Thesis-MPhil).