Professional Documents
Culture Documents
There was a recent article in the Harvard Review on Hyper‐specialization2 ‐ very intriguing in light of the flux that
building and therefore architecture and design is enduring at the moment. Simply stated, a hyper‐specialized
project would be one in which all the necessary components were divvied up, put out into the world for experts to
compete for and then gathered and assembled into an optimized result. The advantages of this way of working
are obvious and cannot be overstated. To be able to hyper‐optimize all the numerous components of project
delivery – incredible. But of course, when we start talking components, we start talking about machines.
After reading that article, I began to think back on Negroponte’s The Architecture Machine, published by the MIT
press in 19733. That visionary book has certainly changed the way we think about architecture. Despite the vast
technological chasm between 1973 and today, where technology has largely caught up to the theory,
Negroponte’s ideas (nearly forty years later) may provide us with a construct to contextualize the state of
contemporary design practice. If it is going to take an army of hyper‐specialists to get our work done, we’re going
to need to figure out how to coordinate such a thing. To begin, we’ll need a place from which to re‐evaluate,
perhaps even reconstruct the way in which we realize architecture.
In order to venture down this road of re‐evaluation, we must shed what Tschumi called the “habits of mind”4 and
start questioning our foundations.
1. What is the machine of architecture?
2. What has changed so much that we need hyper‐specialists?
3. What could implementing hyper‐specialists mean to project development?
4. What does this change mean for the individual amongst so many specialists?
5. Will a new architecture emerge in the face of new demands and methods of realization?
Real life scenario #1 – a simple example:
Most of us have experienced attending a lecture or performance by some brilliant person, only to be shocked at
the weakness of the presentation…which unfortunately then degraded the entire concept. Where was the hyper‐
specialist to do the presentation? I’ll call it the “couldn’t that guy get someone to do his PowerPoint” syndrome:
or the ‘ctggstdhp’, for short. It’s hard to say how many great ideas have been lost due to ctggstdhp. When every
moment of our contemporary condition is defined by the optimized and immediate exchange of ideas, those who
can’t communicate or are just simply too slow, go by the wayside ‐ regardless of merit: ctggstdhp.
So, hyper‐specialization it is! Just how do we go about it? In order to benefit from the efficiencies of hyper‐
specialization, architecture must first be broken down into its components. The components of this machine are
more like nodes in a network of processes than simple objects performing simple functions. So what kind of
machine is this network‐based, structurally determinate architecture machine?
The machine of architecture
The architecture machine remains decidedly human. The technology tools we use to realize our projects are
ubiquitous and indispensable. But there is nothing even close to a technology to replace the human mind when it
comes to solving complex problems in a context where the rules and priorities are in constant flux. The process of
realizing architecture is recursive, the system informs the system. An architecture machine is a living machine:
reacting to stimuli, adapting to its surroundings/impacting its surroundings. It grows; it reproduces,
communicates, engenders tertiary growth, and regulates its environment.
Thus, I like to think of the modern architecture practice as autopoietic5 . An autopoietic machine is a machine
organized as a network of processes of production in which a fundamental dialectic between structure and
function exists6 ...and it is inherently ‘living’. These processes of production can be carried out by hyper‐specialists.
To create architecture today, we call upon the Autopoietic Architecture Machine.
Now, you may have noticed, there is something missing from our machine – the divinity. Well, if it were a natural
system we’d call it divinity or natural selection or spontaneous order or whatever it is that manages the way all
these processes function in order to be a cell or an ant colony or an ecosystem. Now we start to see a paradox.
Who is managing it all, taking a project from the chaos of thousands of independent hyper‐specialists to the
spontaneous order of a machine? Some kind of divinity needs to manage the chaos into an order. The autopoietic
architecture machine; at its inception just a network of hyper‐specialists, needs a hierarchy of order and someone
needs to be the boss – the big boss.
What has changed?
The complexity of realizing projects is enormous and demands a hierarchy (a liability hierarchy if nothing else). The
flux that we experience in architecture is a result of contemporary practice breaking down the very hierarchies
essential to the practice. All the hyper‐specialists and their hyper‐specialized expertise and the networks essential
for sharing critical information are calling for a non‐hierarchical, open collaborative. Perhaps one of the causes of
the dire state of contemporary architecture is the fact that no one takes ownership anymore. Everyone feels like a
contributor, not a creator.
Real life scenario #2 – a more complex example:
A new hospital is to be built to replace an existing, outdated hospital. The parking lot adjacent to the existing
hospital is to be the new site. The existing hospital must be demolished due to asbestos contamination and the
inflexibility of the previous structure. Services may not be interrupted. In a second phase, the new expanded
hospital is to also occupy the site of the demolished building while responding to strict environmental
requirements throughout construction and performance. The local community is to be included in the design
process and their concerns regarding traffic and noise are to be addressed through specific mitigating actions.
Additional funding must be raised for a children’s wing and an interactive forum must be maintained to address
questions from the community, media and politicians.
Hundreds of hyper‐specialists will be necessary to realize this project. It’s mind‐boggling if you think about it. And
it’s pretty much par for the course in architecture today.
2
Seeking Direction
Design influences can be political, social, psychological, cultural, come out of movements in art or academia, or
even the current environmental movement. Many aspects of design are driven by social consciousness and
respond directly to the contemporary condition. There have always been trends and styles, too many to name. The
current LEED mania has millions marching off to get certified by a for profit organization telling us the rules for
platinum, gold and silver in ecological design. The LEED system, although certainly a move in the right direction,
has many flaws and would require an amazing agility and adaptability to overcome them. LEED is the leader but
there are many very valid competitors with different approaches. Let’s face it, the intentions are good but we must
ask ourselves if it is just another grasping for direction, orientation, validation and meaning. So many trends exist
only on the surface: trees without roots. They can’t hold their ground for long.
Where can we get help, where can we find structure? The AIA documents can’t keep up with the pace of changes
in the practice and more and more architects are developing their own documents to be more compatible with
project demands. The AIA has done great things for the practice and acted with the noblest of intentions to
‘protect’ the architect from liability. History though, has demonstrated that those with the most liability tend to
command the most power ‐ be it monarchs or the heads of industry (with exceptions of course). They also tend to
be most likely to undergo symbolic execution – the very thing the AIA has been trying to protect architects from.
The unintended result has been a weakening of the architect and the profession – in some cases to the point of
being seen as decadent, a luxury, useless, a waste (perhaps like the monarchs or the heads of industry).
Education and Licensing – time for a radical overhaul
The architect…weakened and degraded – just another hyper‐specialist amongst hyper‐specialists. Well, maybe
that’s not such a bad thing…or maybe it is such a bad thing…a very bad thing. When problems arise, the chain of
blame begins and the hyper‐specialists are not going to be held liable. The schools of architecture have a role to
play in this degeneration as well. They are often out of touch with the practice yet strive to have as many of their
graduates as possible become licensed. Not doing so means to risk being relegated to second tier status; which in
turn has a severe economic impact. The licensing agencies (which can’t keep up with the pace of changes in the
practice either) are under pressure to license as many practicing architects as possible or face losing validation and
their existence.
Reflecting on our hyper‐specialized model, perhaps all those architects working on projects do not need to be
architects at all….or all architects do not need to be licensed. Or perhaps we need more nuanced definitions of
‘architect’: ‘managing architect,’ design architect’, ‘structural architect’, ‘interior architect’, ‘conceptual architect’,
etc. All these examples are professionals with a highly specialized knowledge base. It is certainly fair to say that not
every architect is cut out to be the one taking responsibility for an entire project, or managing the many hyper‐
specialized component architects involved in realizing a project. It is also safe to say that those able to manage
architecture, are not always the most qualified to be doing the design work, considering the nuances of space and
material, and the psychological, environmental, and political impacts of a project.
Perhaps it’s time for a radical change in the education and licensing of architects: For example, you could get a
Bachelor of Science in Architecture, a Master of Architecture in Architectural Management and licenses in
Environmental Architecture, Project Management and Architectural Psychology and Communication. This is
lifelong learning, lifelong specialization. All these specialists are necessary to any given project. A flattening of the
hierarchy ensues. With all these hyper‐specialists upon hyper‐specialists, you get a kind of super‐
3
specialization….which ironically begins to look less like a specialist and more like a generalist – or a super‐
generalist.
What does it mean?
One common species of generalist is the marketing animal. Those in marketing tend to communicate well and
have an ephemeral knowledge of many things, an amazing network and good contacts to the media. And it’s
becoming ever more common to have marketing people driving major developments; taking on the managing role
and relegating the architects and builders to component hyper‐specialists within the machine. It would be
important for investors to ask themselves if they are really getting the most qualified people driving their projects
and for the architects to ask themselves why they don’t have the marketing and communication skills to be the
unequivocal leader in the development of major projects. The hyper‐specialized will always be subordinate to the
super‐generalized in the realization of complex projects.
Real life scenario #3 – a very concrete example of flux:
An entrepreneur has hired a marketing consultant living in the Caribbean with specialized culinary and cultural
knowledge develop a restaurant concept with the first location to be in Europe. Once in Europe, he approaches
local architects specialized in restaurant design in the desired market to execute the project. The cultural chasm is
too great and the local architects don’t “get” the Caribbean aspect and are relieved of their commission (after
collecting a fee). The client approaches an architect working locally who possesses knowledge of the Caribbean as
well as interiors and management experience more compatible to the restaurant concept. In the schematic design
phase, the concept developed by the (now) remote marketing consultant reveals itself to be too superficial and
contextually incompatible – and is abandoned. The new architect takes the lead on the project, selects the
marketing firm, graphic designers, kitchen‐consultants, develops a new concept, designs the interiors, hires a local
architect as a technical consultant, supervises the construction, and executes the entire project. The client has his
restaurant…after paying his initial consultants enormous fees and a premium for an accelerated schedule due to
time and resources lost up front – a mighty price to pay for not having your hyper‐specialists in order.
Fear & the Individual
At this point, it must be said that this discussion of hyper‐specialization seems perhaps disproportionately
appealing to Americans and cultures that place a high value on the individual and self‐determination. For some,
what seems like a utopia of individualists working at their optimum level on their own schedules, generating as
much (or as little) income as their skill level, productivity, networking prowess and dedication allow; is a nightmare
for others in cultures that value teamwork, solidarity, clear hierarchical structures and security.
At the turn of the 21st century, in academic circles, we were enthusiastically touting the age of customization. The
promise of the availability of rapid prototyping in industry had us all convinced that it was inevitable that these
technologies would become so efficient that mass production and massive warehouses stocked with cookie‐cutter
products would become obsolete. Customization is happening, but not as fast as we thought it would and well,
apparently no one told IKEA.
Enamored with this idea, we see the ambition for more customization and even more individualization in all
aspects of society: perfect for future generations of hyper‐specialists. You see Bill Gates plugging and investing in
Salman Kahn’s individualized learning endeavor7 : customized education. In this hyper‐specialized world, you
become valuable when ‘no one can do what you can do’ and indispensable when ‘no one can manage what you
can manage’. That’s where competition amongst specialists comes into play.
4
A new kind of architecture?
One of the most exciting questions coming out of this discussion is: will a new architecture emerge out of the
hyper‐specialized processes within the Autopoietic Architecture Machine? Let’s say we have hyper‐specialized
experts working in a performative and optimized system, hierarchically flat and divinely managed by highly
experienced super‐generalists in a time of highly complex demands on the field. Whew. It seems something
amazing must come of it…. right?
Since the early twentieth century, there have been calls for a weakening of boundaries between artist, engineer
and audience; admittedly, mostly by performance artists wanting to draw on the opportunities of technology and
interactivity in their work. But these ideas are also to be found in the work of sociologists and linguists, among
others, and the breaking‐down of those boundaries is necessary for most projects today. I like to think of these
ideas in terms of architecture (because it’s big and complex and provides for a plethora of examples), but these
concepts are scalable and apply to designers, artists, and performers as well as planners, ecologists and
developers).
Authoring
Another example of life imitates art: John Cage’s breakdown of traditional boundaries between artistic disciplines
in his collaborative performances makes ‘his’ work so distinct, surprising, amazing. That very same kind of inter‐
determinacy is being thrust on us by the state of the practice and the fact that no one can do it alone… anymore.
The less desirable result of this new inter‐determinacy, where the solution is a product of the structure at any
given moment, is the lack of ownership or responsibility, or (if you will) – the lack of authoring.
As desirable as the inter‐determinacy has been for Cage and even the literary critics Jacques Derrida and Roland
Barthes; in architecture, contrary to design, art, or literature, the realization of a building calls for someone to be
held responsible. What we are seeing is the architect shifting from being the author of a work, to a component in a
complex process, to (perhaps) the manager of the realization. Here we see the architect in flux, simultaneously
more and less significant to the work itself. It is not an architecture without architects, but an architecture with
many, many architects.
Interactivity
Allan Kaprow8 in his Assemblage, Environments and Happenings from 1967: posed that the ultimate integrated art
would have no audience because every participant should be committed participants in the work; the thought of
which opens up nearly unimaginable possibilities for architecture. No project could ever be repeated; for every
situation there would be a customized solution. Very exciting business indeed: The John Cage model of Architect –
setting up the parameters and letting the execution or experience change with the users/contributors. An
architecture where every user creates the architectural experience where everyone takes
responsibility/ownership.
There have been many who have proposed ideas of an interactive or immersive architecture – it has been difficult
to realize such projects on much more than a superficial level (the artists have certainly been leading the
movement). It would be nice to see projects move beyond the novelty factor and become systemically interactive.
There are some interesting micro‐projects that may have macro‐applications. There are mechanisms for those who
occupy a building to generate the energy necessary for the current use pattern or for buildings to become active or
passive based on specific temporal needs or for users to control lighting and air quality as their needs change.
Perhaps a ‘building’ that manifests when and as needed and then diminishes when it is not – perhaps with
optimized seasonal characteristics. How’s that for ecology?
5
Radical (less) Radical Change
So how do we change? What’s missing? I hate to bring up this ‘meaning’ topic; it has certainly been hashed and
rehashed and is currently rather out of fashion. It seems though, that society wants architecture to have meaning.
Or, some may say, architecture inevitably has meaning, so you’d better get a grip on it. We’re getting back into
meaning because the significance of architecture and its impact on our environment is at the forefront of social
consciousness. No, architecture is not fashion, it’s not whimsy: it’s expensive and resource intensive, and if done
incorrectly, (which it usually is) can screw up the whole planet. Nature is starting to gain ground again and the
rules and systems of nature are gaining validity in this context.
Roy Ascott wrote, “…meaning is not something created by the artist, distributed through the network, and
received by the observer. Meaning is the product of interaction between the observer and the system, the content
of which is in a state of flux, of endless change and transformation.”9 Now that was in the 80’s and he was talking
about his ‘dataspace’, the www, and collective intelligence but I believe the application to contemporary building
is poignant and obvious.
We are starting to see architecture as an organism (ladies and gentlemen, that does not mean it must look like an
organism). We are looking at an opportunity to create a systemic architecture: optimized in its components,
hierarchically flattened, self‐similar, where a fundamental dialectic between structure and function exists. It is time
for an architecture reacting to stimuli, adapting to its surroundings/impacting its surroundings, growing;
reproducing, communicating, engendering tertiary growth, and regulating and contributing to its environment. A
methodology similar to the structure of the practice, where each project is approached without form and grows as
an innate behavioral response: Amorpho‐taxis. An amorphotaktik architecture. Perhaps we can look forward to
architecture cultivated with attention to its intrinsic manner and mechanism of growth: interactive and
performance engineered, managed by generalists and optimized for a hyper‐specialized world.
REFERENCES
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine ‐ Aug., 2011
2
http://hbr.org/2011/07/the‐big‐idea‐the‐age‐of‐hyperspecialization/ar/1 ‐ Aug., 2011
3
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2163252/negroponte‐architecturemachine.pdf Aug., 2011
4
http://famusoa.net/achin/courses/tschumi/6concepts.pdf Aug., 2011
5
Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht, Holland:
D. Reidel Pub., 1980. Print.
6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis Aug., 2011
7
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/ff_khan/all/1 Aug., 2011
8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Kaprow
9
Ascott, Roy; Shanken, Edward A., Telematic embrace: visionary theories of art, technology, and consciousness; University of
California Press, 2007 p. 233
Heather Renée Barker M.Arch, B.Arch, director of roam.studio, is Assistant Professor of Design at California State
University, Long Beach, Adjunct Professor of Architecture and Media Theory at the Los Angeles Institute of
Architecture and Design (LAIAD), and a regular lecturer at the University of Applied Sciences in Munich, Germany.
Through roam.studio, with locations in Los Angeles and Munich, Ms. Barker offers design and consulting services
6
and provides an experimental forum for conceptual and theoretical work. Ms. Barker has realized a broad range of
projects including educational, institutional, residential, commercial interiors and mobile event design. She has had
research and projects published in Europe and the US. Throughout her practice and academic work Ms. Barker
explores issues of ecology, complexity, media, urbanism and strategy.