Chapter 1

ARCHITECTURE AS SYSTEM

 

Chapter I: ARCHITECTURE AS SYSTEM

1.      Singulars and Plurals

Architectures have their limits in space and time. Movements and styles rise and fall, endlessly replaced by others equally powerful and significant in their ability to represent the experience of the societies in which they exist. And yet in this ceaseless process of historical change one can still refer to the singular concept of architecture. Architectures and architecture. Apparently just the singular and plural of the same term. Perhaps not, for while the terms are the same, the concepts they represent can be shown to be different. While one refers to a continually changing reality of successive architectures the other, the singular concept of architecture, refers to an invariant process which underlies that changing reality. While one points to the diversity of architectures and to their different characteristics, the other points to their similarities. While one points to the material world and the concrete reality of buildings, the other points to the process and organization which informs these real buildings and which gives them their specific character. In this relation between singular and plural, between architectures and architecture and between diversity and unity there is a key to understanding the real history of architecture. Not simply as a description of different architectures lined up in time, nor as a matter of individual preferences of style or taste, but as a matter of process and organization and ultimately as a matter of System

Architecture is in this view an historical system which forms and transforms itself over time. On this basis it is possible to seek to establish the organizational principles which underlie this system which, like other coherent and dynamic systems such as cultures, civilizations, institutions and corporations change over time while at a more general level, staying the same. To even begin to analyse architecture along these lines one has firstly to define the terms of the enquiry and give limits to the concepts of architecture and of architectures. In other words to offer definitions of architecture which will allow it to be understood and dealt with not simply as a chronological list of changes of style but  as an historical and dynamic system.

In this respect it is worth noting that many histories of architecture are simply written as a catalogue of significant buildings, dates and their architects as if this offered an adequate explanation for their changing characteristics. While one can almost go along with the modest intentions of such works, descriptions however are not explanations. Nor can one put forward as explanation, the heroic activities of a few architectural pioneers as the driving force which changes architecture. Other more naive histories propose that change in architecture arises when at a certain point in time many architects simultaneously grow bored with the prevailing style and change to another. The rise of a new style is termed a 'reaction' to some apparent inadequacy of the former style. Postmodern architecture is, for instance often referred to as a reaction against the overpowering 'hegemony' of Modern Architecture, its functionalism, its rejection of tradition and its oversimplification of the complex social, formal and representational/semiotic issues involved in the design of buildings. This apparently sudden realization amongst architects and theorists has produced, so we are told, a change of direction in architecture which has now moved to embrace both history in the form of classical allusions and the plurality of expression justified by current demographic and sociological trends. This, at least is the argument put forward in recent historical studies for what appears to be a sea-change in the recent history of architecture. In other words, a conscious realization, decision and consequent action on the part of architects as a whole (in fact, 'the avant garde') has produced historical change. So it is said.   

Another and more metaphysical approach to history is to propose the influence of some zeitgeist or other which (again simultaneously) alters the perception of architects and requires them to perceive architecture quite differently, rejecting past or current practices as irrelevant or not 'expressive' of their time. This zeitgeist theory had a considerable influence on the historiography of the Modern Movement where the new style was seen as a general expression of a new 'space-time' or democratic conceptions which had arisen at the turn of the century and which therefore had to be a determinant of the new architecture. Needless to say this fundamentally ideological approach to history was written after the fact of the Modern synthesis and so selective in its representative examples that it required the virtual exclusion, one might almost say censorship of most of the architecture which had been produced in the previous fifty years in order to justify this perception of the origins of the new architecture. In new and different guises this kind of highly-selective ideological historical method remains the dominant approach to the writing of history. Whether in the cause of the great project of Modernism or the supposed sociological and therefore architectural plurality of Postmodernism, the vast majority of work produced by architects is rendered invisible or insignificant. This is not simply a matter of economy of description or the careful selection of the most representative of examples of each category. It is quite simply the revision of history to match the ideological position of the architectural critic. Underneath this apparent search for new directions in architecture - new waves of perception each more 'relevant' than the last - there is still the age-old resort to the individual hero who 'senses' the mood of the times and single-handedly creates its representative architecture. There will of course be more than one such hero, but it is significant that the same names keep cropping up time after time as the 'architects' and creators of the new architectures  - the avant garde. Even with the Postmodernist rejection of the meta-narrative and equally the role of individual heroes, the same focus on a particular zeitgeist (in this case, 'plurality') and the essential function of the hero re-emerges (in admittedly coded language of course), but nevertheless the fundamental elements of the myth are still there. Other, more deterministic histories which seek to ground their theories of architecture in some concrete social fact involve the imposition of 'causes' drawn from other forms of discourse to explain changes in architectural style. For example, change is sometimes said to be 'caused' by new sociological, technological or ideological factors. In these analyses architecture apparently has no function other than that of a physical metaphor of such changes. Architecture in all of these cases is reduced to a reflection or an effect of the activities of another form of discourse. The actual continuity of architectural themes through and beyond many different social, technological and ideological periods is, from this determinist point of view quite incomprehensible. For architecture in order to respond to such a set of externally imposed conditions, it must continually change its forms to suit each different set of social and technological relations. From this point of view the history of architecture should appear to be one of infinite plasticity and convulsive change. Needless to say, history shows this not to be the case.

In order to break out of these various mythical approaches to the history of architecture, one can propose more realistically that the character of buildings -their similarity or difference from previous buildings over long periods of time -is determined by processes internal to architecture itself and which trigger the much larger scale activity of the emergence, development and eventual decline of architectural styles - the activity and history of architecture itself. It is the systemic processes involved in these great stylistic shifts which require explanation. Another aspect of this systemic approach is that it will involve the production of a history without heroes and thus defining architecture for what it really is, namely a vast collective enterprise.

The issue therefore is to find and explain the systemic mechanisms within architecture which produce development and change of architectural style throughout time and in a sense to explain both the multiplicity of architectures as one historical manifestation of architecture as a system and  equally, the occasional unification of architecture around a single predominant style. The first thing however is to produce definitions of architecture and its processes which will provide the conceptual framework for such an endeavour.

2.      Architecture and style

A preliminary and very basic definition would suggest that architecture is a recognizable similarity of form between many different buildings regardless of their purpose and context.

This initial definition helps to clarify the age-old confusion of the relationship between buildings and architecture. That is, to clearly distinguish architecture as such from the concrete reality of buildings. One can say quite simply that the only way one can recognize that an architecture exists at all in the midst of a vast number of buildings is if in some way those buildings are similar to each other. Architecture in this definition is not a 'thing', but a relation of similarity between things, namely buildings. The form of buildings in this sense is not simply constrained by their function, circumstances, patronage, fashion, ideologies or by the available technology. It is not just an expression of these interacting forces. The similarities of form which we can see across a wide range of buildings at any point in the history of architecture arise from the fact that architectural forms are selected from a pre-existing vocabulary. A vocabulary which is a product of previous historical activity. The similarity between buildings is directly a result of the selection and combination of pre-determined stylistic elements. Elements which can be used in many different kinds of buildings irrespective of their function or location. It is the existance of these recognizable characteristics throughout a large number of buildings which produces the similarity of form which in architectural terms is called 'style'. The term itself has suffered a change in its meaning over the last few decades, shifting from an essentially organizational emphasis such as form, method, technique or manner of presentation  to more transient and superficial categories such as fashion, trend or elegance. However, in architecture  the term can still be used in the organizational sense of a particular and recognizable set of formal characteristics which are consistently applied across a large number of buildings. Style, in this sense of similarity is the means by which one can recognize the existence of an architecture and it can be considered to be the operative aspect of architecture. By using a communicational perspective, one can eliminate the old problem of the difference between architecture and building by defining the latter as a simple physical reality and former as information imposed on that reality. The clear distinction can therefore be made between buildings - the material environment, and architecture, the characteristic form of that environment, its visible and uniform identity. So too, one can differentiate between the physical infrastructure and the information which in-forms that material structure and gives it a particular character. This is just as much the case in architecture as it is in painting, sculpture, music or literature. In all of them there is a material base which is organized and manipulated to achieve a particular image and thus represent some social context or other. The source of that information, the recognizable pattern which is imposed on the material at its disposal (and which gives architecture a highly visible uniformity) is drawn from the collective experience of previous acts of in-forming the material world. There is in other words a continuous manipulation and recombination of elements derived from  the past in order to represent the present. From this point of view there is no need to search for definite origins or spontaneous acts of creation in order to explain the character of a particular style or, indeed its very existence. Combination and recombination of existing architectural material will produce new formulations of architectural form, new styles and new characteristics. 

Another definition of the term, 'style', would be to say that it is a statistical concept which refers to the recurrent use of certain forms or combinations of forms in a number of buildings. The concept is 'statistical' in the sense that the stylistic elements are scattered throughout a large number of buildings and are not present in all of the buildings all of the time but in all of the buildings some of the time.

Of course styles vary in character and there may be several in existence at one time, but by definition they all involve the use of a set of typical forms which define the identity of each particular style. These may include the use of characteristic geometries, symmetries, axes, disposition of volumes, surface treatments, materials, colours & textures, decorative details, vertebrate or invertebrate emphases, solid to void ratios, proportional schemes, preferred spatial sequences and so on. It is the constant or recurrent use of sets of elements such as these which unifies the built environment around a limited number of visible characteristics. That is, which produces the necessary uniformity of character by which one can recognize a visible order - an architecture, as against the random characteristics which would be the result of each building responding only to its own very particular circumstances or the imposed necessities of numerous other forms of discourse.

So too in order to describe (and circumscribe) architecture as a system one would have to say that it is a dynamic, self-contained and autonomous form of activity which has its own subject matter and rules of formation. That is, it is a clearly identifiable form of activity which produces change in the material upon which it works - namely buildings. These changes however are not random, but as one can see from the history of architecture, are sequential or developmental in nature. No matter how revolutionary, each step in a series of changes over time can be  linked in character to that of the previous state of the architecture in question. In other words one can still see the similarities of form between one stage of an architecture's history and the next even although a significant difference has occurred. Historical change is continuous: buildings look different from period to period, styles arise to influence the form of buildings and fade away to be replaced by other styles. But the nature of these changes is to some extent limited and determined both by the presence of the past, the visible record of things already said and thus the available vocabulary from which new statements can be formulated and by the fixed rules of formation which allows these new statements to be realized. These are, however rules which arise within the system, in the very act of manipulating, adapting and re-forming existing architectural material. Change in this sense, even in its most revolutionary state can be viewed as a continuous process of development and elaboration of existing material which at certain points in time can and does involve the formation or  disintegration of architectural styles

Again, in terms of its nature as a system, one can say that architecture is a collective endeavour involving communication and exchange between a large number of people over long periods of time. It is not the creation of a few heroic figures, nor a matter of individual taste, but rather the cumulative result of many individual decisions each one of which is based not only on the particular circumstances in which the design takes place but equally on the current repertoire of forms available for solving particular design problems. That is, for the representation of the particular set of circumstances which call a building into existence. Here again we have the issue of similarity and difference written out at the individual level. Each particular design problem is different, yet the means of solving it (and thus of representing a particular social experience in built form) is limited to selecting from sets of forms which will be used in different combinations by many other architects. Similarity of architectural form - style in other words - is thus a function of many individuals selecting from a limited range of forms or related sets of forms. The cumulative result of this collective activity is to produce change in architecture while maintaining to some degree or other an overall uniformity of style.

3.      Human Agency and the System

Any discussion such as this which involves the concept of a dynamic 'system' inevitably comes up against the issue of human agency and its function within what appears to be a self-propelling machine. The contention in this human agency versus system argument is in many cases portrayed on one side as the idea of human control over their own destiny or, on the other side the amoral and self-propelling forces of history (read ‘system’) which is deemed to be outside human control. In more cynical terms one could pose this issue as the sentimentalists versus the rationalists perhaps. In fact the problem is more logical and linguistic than this.

Systems, which are inevitably historical entities, whether corporations, governments, institutions or architectures are indeed self-propelling organizations and have their own dynamic which is outside any individual or group control and which to some extent or other determine the limits to human actions. That is, the system through its institutional practices or codes constrains or directs the actions of the individuals who are its practitioners or agents. But, given this apparently dictatorial role of the system in human affairs, one must be quite clear about what the system actually is: it is the cumulative and collective result of the myriad human decisions made by those practitioners. That result, the unfolding form of the system over time and its operation is not predictable nor controllable by any human (ie. individual or group) agency. The conspiratorial view which assumes that such an historically-derived system must have an ideological goal or intention whether for good or ill or a hegemonic 'thirst for power' is to completely misunderstand what the thing is. It is an entirely collective level of human activity and thus, there is no conscious entity at that level of activity to make decisions or change the course of events. One can in this way legitimately discuss systems quite independently of human agency in much the same way that one can use statistics in the analyses of economic, sociological and even psychological human group behaviour. No single person or group - no matter how powerful or highly motivated can be said to have produced ‘history’. At this level, the analysis must be of processes, the formation of typical behaviours, environment-system relations and so on. In purely pragmatic terms, the level (the scale) of analysis used depends on what subject the historian wants to investigate.  We can write biographies of individuals, studies of movements or systemic analyses of whole societies if we wish but at the most general level of analysis human beings are invisible nor can their individual contributions to the collective be identified. It doesn’t mean that humans are ‘not there’. It just means that they cannot be seen any more than a single building can be seen from the moon. In one sense of course this does mean that to some extent humans are controlled by events - the operations of the system, but these events are not extraneous to human activity but are, rather, the collective name for that human activity and at the level of the collective there are no individuals - therefore no motivations. To assume there are motivated actors at all levels of analysis is a teleological and ‘world spirit’ projection on to history and suggests the need for a conscious and distinctly human intention to be manifest even in the most large scale events of history. However, neither change or evolution at the overall level of system is directed or created by individuals or motivated groups. The proposal put forward here is that it is the dynamics of the system as a whole - the innumerable decisions and actions of human agents and their cumulative result which produce systematic change.

However, the fact that this issue is continually raised in many different areas of discussion suggests not only a linguistic problem, namely how to talk about individuals in the collective and vice versa but also an ideological or philosophical problem. The dominance of Western conceptions of individualism and the role of the human agent creates a difficulty in conceptualising a system which operates without individual control or PRESENCE. This is what one might call, (in a version of the Derridean sense) the ‘metaphysics of presence' where understanding and ultimately the simple functioning of the system requires human intervention at all levels and scales of activity. The other effect of this ideology is that it is essentially entity-bound. That is, it has difficulty conceiving of ‘things’ like history or architecture as process, dynamics or continuous events which cannot therefore be simply understood or quantified. In architecture, the repertoire of forms left by the past and the multiple exchange of these forms between practitioners which results in the creation of the new architecture is not subject to individual or group control. Its form is ultimately incalculable.

4.      The Typological Process

The fundamental activity, the basic work, involved in all of this is, of course the collective selection and combination of forms from an available repertoire to produce new buildings. The repertoire itself is the result of a multitude of previous acts of selection and combination of existing material. While architecture is the relation of similarity between buildings, the repertoire is the collective name for the buildings themselves and acts as a vast resource of formal possibilities. Its physical manifestation is the ‘City’ which acts as the collective memory for architecture and where the results of previous waves of selection and combination of form converge.

The act of selection and combination is the basic algorithm of the system which when repeated over and over again in the course of history produces and reproduces architectures. For this reason it can be defined as the typological process since it condenses typical sets of forms out of a vast number of individual actions. There is no extra 'ingredient' in the typological process which allows it to do this. The selection-combination algorithm limits what the system can do since selection takes place entirely within existing and familiar sets of forms. While this ensures a degree of similarity is maintained, the combination of these forms in each and every architectural work will produce differences. The selected forms will need to be adjusted and adapted to suit the particular circumstances in which they are used. The cumulative and collective result of this is that gradual changes will occur in the character of styles over time.  Architecture will change as these sometimes minute, sometimes radical variations themselves are subject to the selection-combination algorithm. This is the visible dynamic of the system.

It can only be understood as a collective operation since it requires a continual process of communication and exchange of experience between many architects over time. If we take a synchronic 'cut' through the architectural discourse at any given point in time, we can see that  in the very nature of architectural work there is this continual interchange and permutation of conventional elements by architects right across the whole field of architectural activity. The typological process and its operative factor, the selection-combination algorithm is the name for the assimilation of many different experiences, practices, forms and values into institutionalized routines or codes. The most recurrent aspects of the collective experience are codified into standard practices  - styles - which are applied in many different design circumstances. They offer general solutions to particular design problems. One can say right now that it is not the supposedly inherent value of any particular form which ensures its significance in the canons of current styles but simply whether it is recurrent, familiar and statistically prevalent. The issue of the significance (or presence) of particular forms in a style or even particular styles cannot be understood as one of  'right or wrong', 'bad or good' or 'beautiful or ugly' or even 'useful' or 'not useful'. It is, rather one of statistical recurrence, familiarity or, ultimately history. Architects, even in their most radical moments are simply re-formulating existing material which is already programmed by history into groups of similarities and differences. Even the most unique variation of form is set within and interchanged with a vast number of other variations on a theme determined by previous architectural activity. This is clearly not the work of a few creative individuals or the work of a highly-motivated avant garde although they do have a particular role which will be discussed later. It is the continuous work of all practitioners in the field of architecture. It is the result of what they do.

From this constant collective activity one can suggest that historical change- the production and reproduction of architectures, arises out of the impartial and automatic operations of the system itself - the typological process and its fundamental algorithm, the act of selection  and combination of pre-existing forms.

An understandable, if inaccurate argument against such a  view, one which might be called the 'common sense' position is that given the enormous complexity of architecture throughout its history, it would be impossible for these events to be generated by the 'simple' rule-based or algorithmic processes proposed above. The evidence for this position, so the argument goes, is the seemingly infinite variations of style, the factor of individual creativity, the sometimes revolutionary changes that have taken place in history, the incorporation of radical social and technological developments and the emergence of the great classical architectures with their complex systems of details and decorative devices.

In order to deal with this argument one should look firstly at what the algorithm actually represents and that is the most basic operation of the architectural process: selection and combination of pre-existing forms. In the most pragmatic sense this is what architects actually do. It is not in any sense an abstract concept and while each individual act may take time and intellectual effort to carry out given the complexities of design and the need to match general forms with particular circumstances, it is quite literally the fundamental routine of practice. From a systems point of view, it is the iterative rule which generates change, pattern or order in the material base of the system: architectural form. If this individual act - this algorithm - is then scaled up or multiplied  by the large number of architects in practice at any one time and further multiplied by the long periods of time during which architecture can be said to have existed, one can quite clearly see the  basis of the complexity that could - and has - arisen in architecture. Even more so when the communicational and interactive dimension of architectural practice is built into the equation. Namely that architects select and combine forms drawn from each others work and the collective repertoire of past works. The whole field of architectural activity at any one time is a vast interactive system of exchange and permutation of form. Given the recursive nature of this activity, as the typological process - the collective algorithm - continually works and  re-works  architectural form in an infinite number of 'passes' over the same material base, changing the state of that material with each 'pass' so to speak, complexity would be the inevitable result. Constrained to work on architectural material which already exists, the complexity which results is non-random. At any given time it is patterned and ordered into organized architectural units called styles.

However, further levels of complexity can occur in the kind of open, adaptive and self-regulating systems typical of human social organization, of which architecture is but one example. This new level of complexity can be defined as the formation of meta-rules within the system which further constrain the operation of the algorithm. The visible result of this is what one might call the revolutionary event, where an unforseen and radical change takes place in architecture such as the emergence of a new architectural paradigm (from, say, Gothic to Renaissance or from Romantic Classicism to Modern or, equally significant, the collapse or disintegration of Modernism itself). Excluding romantic explanations for such events, one can say that in such situations, the invariant activity of the typological process produces radically different results. In other words it is subject to a new set of constraints which shift it from the developmental trajectory along which it was travelling and within which it reproduced certain sequentially-related sets of architectural forms and styles which were more or less predictable in terms of previous sets of forms. The systemic nature of these historical events, which will be dealt with in some detail later on, allows one to include the unforseen and random event within the boundaries and characteristic activities of the system. There is, in other words, no need to assume that these events in the history of the system are the conscious constructions of human agents re-directing architecture towards new, desired goals. In the kind of organized systems being discussed here one can quite simply say that complexity will generate further complexity and that the results of this will be the occasional emergence of the new and unforeseen. There is nothing particularly new in this theory and computer simulations of organized systems have shown that relatively simple recursive and rule-based operations can generate remarkably complex patterns of behaviour in a system. There is, in such systems a process of self-organization and the emergence of order the results of which cannot always be predicted. In this sense the visible complexity of architectural history put forward by what has been referred to above as the 'common sense position' is more than matched by the organizational complexity which can be generated by the systemic model proposed here.

5.      Meaning and Representation in Architecture

The economy of the selection - combination algorithm is clear. There is no need for every architect to start from scratch on every design problem. There are general forms available which can be customized to suit the particular circumstances of each design. But apart from the economy of action which can be achieved by choosing the  loosely - determined forms of particular styles, the other major advantage lies in the fact that these standardized forms have a significance which goes beyond their particular characteristics. They have in other words, a socially-recognized meaning which is transferred to the particular buildings in which they are used. But how would one define the concept of meaning in architectural terms in the first place?

In the first instance one can say that it is a concept which assesses the significance of a form in terms of its probability relative to other forms. 'Meaning' in this sense is not inherent to the object itself  (in its particular characteristics), but to the characteristics of the network of forms which surround it. It is this similarity or difference from other objects which determines the meaning of an architectural element. This operational definition of meaning may be phrased in the form of the following question: is the form of this object predictable in terms of other objects of the same kind? Or, is the object familiar in terms of other objects? Here, the apparently trivial attribute of familiarity has a value in itself. Namely that it allows one to integrate diverse forms into a coherent overall experience. It establishes a semantic order through which diverse experience becomes comprehensible to some degree or other.

But one must go further. A simple visual comparison between one form and a surrounding set of forms will certainly provide its basic semantic value. Yet the fact that architectural form is created for use in specific circumstances provides another dimension of meaning, namely that of context. Here it is not only the relation of the object to other objects in an assumed set, but also the relation of the object to the wide range of contexts in which it is used and with which it is associated. This is the social or contextual dimension where the meaning of a form is constructed by its expected  presence and continuous association with particular contexts.

In both cases a cognitive order is established in the quite literal sense that it allows one to predict not only the form of objects in a set, but, by association, the characteristics of other phenomena linked to them. The simplest example of the associative function is that on being shown part of one object, one can predict the rest of it. On being shown a whole object, one can predict what other objects or events it would be associated with. In other words a familiar object will trigger a whole series of associations which lock it into a clear family of relationships. Conversely, if a form is totally unique in its characteristics it will have little or no meaning since it will not provoke a range of associated ideas or images.

Here we have two dimensions of meaning in architecture. The first - the denotative aspect - refers to the relation between the forms themselves, in the sense that the character of one form allows one to predict the character of others in the same stylistic set. This is the 'horizontal' dimension which semantically links the different typical elements of a style and gives it a coherent identity in the sense of a language. The other, 'vertical' dimension - the connotative - acts as a cognitive bridge between the self-referential meaning of architectural forms themselves - the relation between the elements of the set - and the social world within which these elements understood to represent certain aspects of that social world.

In moving into this public realm of meaning one is immediately faced therefore with the issue of representation and of what this means in architectural terms. By extension, one is also required to consider the function of architecture in the social environment. We have already defined what architecture is: a virtual set of forms (called a style) which constrains the character of actual buildings, by making them more or less similar to each other. The question now is, what architecture actually does. That is, what purpose does it serve in a society?

A useful and simple definition is that architecture represents sets of social relations in built form.  In order to communicate between these entirely different forms of discourse and to represent the state of one in the language of the other, the exchange between them is necessarily empty of content though full of form. That is, a form which transcribes the relations between the elements of one institution into a corresponding set of relations in the language or medium of the other. In this sense representation is the making of metaphors or structural similarities between architecture and the various social institutions which it represents. These sets of relations provide a diagrammatic description of the form of the institution and act as the necessarily neutral information which is concretized in architectural form. The organizational hierarchies, and functional groups within the institution are translated into spatial and iconic hierarchies which are the medium of architectural form.  One must again clearly distinguish between architecture and buildings in this context. What buildings provide is physical shelter. What architecture provides (in terms of its social purpose) is a recognizable identity for the institutions which it represents. In communicational terms, one can say that representation involves the production of a commentary in a meta-language about some event or structure in a referent system. In the case of architecture the referent language is the institutions which collectively make up the social environment and which architecture is called upon to represent in its own terms.

Again, in the most pragmatic sense the activity of translating the structure of a referent system into an architectural metaphor corresponds exactly with what architects actually do. Namely, there is an analysis of the referent organization to decipher its component parts and the relations between those parts. For instance the identification of the functional and symbolic hierachies, sequential, divisional, ancillary or core functions, dependent or autonomous functions, and so on. These are then mapped out in spatial terms thereby achieving the first stage of translation of the forms of one institution into the forms of architecture. However it is not this abstract diagram which is literally transposed into the form of a building. Rather it is the multiple constraints inherent in the design process which when imposed on this abstraction define the eventual form of the building. These are constraints which arise both from the historically-defined nature of the architectural forms used and the particular circumstances of the buildings themselves: their location and the economic and technological constraints operating at the time. The diagram - the organizational template for the eventual building - will, so to speak be adapted and adjusted, stretched, folded, compressed or otherwise manipulated to match the spatial exigencies of the particular location. Of equal significance this template will be articulated and spatially adjusted to suit the ‘grammatical logic’ (permissible or meaningful relations) and the geometries of the stylistic elements which are selected and combined to achieve the final form of the building. Conversely, those stylistic elements and relations will themselves be customized to match the particular programmatic circumstances in which they are used. While the typical forms of a style are the product of previous acts of representation and are determined within the history of architecture, their use in a particular time and place results in unpredictable variations in their character.

The effect of this over long periods of time is to produce a shifting balance within architecture between the familiar and the strange, between the typical elements of the language and their modification in unique circumstances. Architecture gives a clear and familiar public identity to social institutions by the use of its typical forms and the connotative associations which have become attached to them over time.  However, the act of representation simultaneously generates some degree or other of ambiguity of meaning since typical forms are continually reinterpreted and renewed with each new work of architecture.

6.      The Emergence of Style

While change is an inherent aspect of any dynamic system, the architectural repertoire always shows some degree or other of uniformity of style. There may be one dominant style or there may be several styles coexisting. The question is: how can this more or less uniform environment arise out of the multitude of individual actions that make up architectural activity? The answer to this lies in the nature of the architectural process itself described above which involves selection from an existing repertoire and recombination of forms in a new context. If the process of selection were completely random it would preclude the formation of any styles. In fact the key aspect of the algorithm is that it is directed towards identifying and assimilating the most recurrent (i.e. probable) forms. These are relatively risk-free, in the sense of having been used and reused, more easily classified, applicable across a number of situations and, by their greater familiarity, more `meaningful'. It is important to realize however that there is no conscious intent involved in this collective activity.

At a more general and theoretical level of this issue one can pose the following question: If  architectural style is the establishment of a relation of similarity between different buildings  how could such a relation come into existence in the first place? How can System arise out of  a multitude of different experiences? To answer this we must  imagine of course a diversity of buildings existing before the rise of an architecture - a purely theoretical proposition, of course. What would provoke this event - the emergence of an architecture - out of a number of randomly characterized buildings? What is the mechanism for this? Are there any limits to the extent of the similarity  which ensues and to how far it can envelope and unify its constituent characteristics?  How do we generate such similarity out of pre-existing differences? The answer to these questions lies of course in the dynamics and mechanisms at work within architecture itself in the sense that they transform differences into similarities. An operational definition of these mechanisms is that of a matrix of communication and exchange processes taking place within a defined (and initially at least) geographic area. In organizational terms the result is a process of integration (and differentiation) of the diverse practices and characteristic forms which exist within that defined area such that there is a progressive classification of form into groups of similarities and differences.  In order to produce a convergence of architectural characteristics and thus the emergence of a style out of a group of diverse practices one can suggest three constraints on the communication and exchange processes within architecture. The first is the definition of a clear and stable boundary within which these processes may take place. (This may take the form of a geographic, cultural, national or discursive grouping of practitioners). Without this constrained communicational space, continual random intrusions from an infinite number of different sources would make it impossible to synthesize a stable stylistic paradigm. Secondly, within that boundary there must be a high degree of connectivity. That is, there must be the opportunity to freely exchange experiences between the agents of the system in order to create a network of communication and exchange. Thirdly, there must be enough time available to the network for the synthesizing process to take place. In other words, the external environment whether political, economic or cultural must be stable. Over time and within this confined space, continuous exchanges will result in the gradual integration of different practices. Similarities between diverse forms are merged into single classifications (integration) and the circumstantial  differences between forms are stripped away and reclassified as separate or distinct forms (differentiation). This process is continuous until there is a clearly-defined set of typical forms, routines or practices which can be used across a range of more or less similar situations.  However, there is no way whatsoever that a particular institution such as architecture can assimilate every experience within its conventional codes. There is always an unclassifiable or marginal area which remains unassimilated and therefore outside the codes. That is the area of pure difference which is a function of the inherent diversity of experience. In effect these unclassifiable forms are marginalized or displaced from the now canonical  categories or general routines which the institution continually constructs and reconstructs out of the collective experience of its practitioners. Nevertheless it exists as a secondary classification of form and as we shall see later continues to operate within the system as a regulatory device. In other words it continues to have a semantic value for the system as a whole. It is worth noting that the degree of marginalization or displacement which prevails in a given architecture - as secondary or non-canonical forms - after the establishment of its typical codes varies throughout its history. This residual diversity which exists in parallel with a coherent stylistic paradigm can be seen as a measure of its developmental state and locates the architecture at characteristic point in its history.

However, in this process of 'purification' of experience described above the overall integrative effect is one of economy of effort. Variations of practice are reduced by making 'almost similar' (and therefore more probable) characteristics or practices exactly similar, thus producing a synthesis or assimilation of the most recurrent forms. The visible result of this activity is that over time there occurs a growing uniformity of character in the architecture. In social and political terms this integration would result in the formation of a hegemonic civilization out of a group of diverse constituent cultures linked by increasing trade and cultural exchange and sometimes war. In architectural terms it results in the formation of a style out of group of diverse building forms and practices gradually linked by communication and exchange (interchange) between architects. What is it that is being exchanged between them? The answer is, information, derived from their common experience and transmitted in the form of groups of particular architectural characteristics.

The continual selection of the most probable forms automatically limits the potential diversity of the repertoire and the collapse of meaning which would result from the generation of random characteristics. So too does the fact that the repertoire itself - the source of such selections - is the product of past typological action. The integrity of the system, its recognizable coherence, is maintained while allowing for continual evolutionary change. Change occurs because of the many modifications required to combine typical forms in different contexts - to collectively customize them for a large number of projects. While the typical forms of a style are never `pure' or stereotyped in character but rather define a range of probabilities within which they can maintain their identity, constant adaptation to `fit' new circumstances produces gradual distortions in their character. (Beyond certain adaptive limits, however they would cease to be part of any definite style and their characteristics would become random and unclassifiable). Over time therefore, there is a shift in the character of the typical forms - the style itself, which architects collectively select from the repertoire and combine in new work.

One must be clear, that these typical forms, the elements of a style do not reside somewhere in space or time, but are virtual forms whose only reality lies in the actual material circumstances of their use in buildings. It has no 'platonic' existence outside the world of material things but is immanent in those things. Just as the presence of a style can only be recognized by an actual similarity between buildings, so the  informative power that a style brings to architecture can only be seen in a comparison of the actual characteristics of different buildings. Style is information, whereas buildings are the material which carries that information and are characterized by it and give it a public meaning and social presence.  

Ultimately individual choices made by architects, whether consistent or rigorous in terms of selection or combination of forms are absorbed and interchanged (by recombination) with a great mass of other individual choices to produce the uniformity of the repertoire at any given time and the evolution of the style or styles within it. Equally, while individuals or groups of architects may have particular formal goals which they attempt to achieve in their work, the system itself - the cumulative result of many architects work - does not. It is a non-teleological, neutral and impartial `machine'. It (the collective activity of many agents) simply does what it does which is to assimilate the most recurrent aspects of all work produced.

It must be emphasized that this change of state from chaos to the emergence of a recognizable order is a purely unintentional effect of communicational processes taking place within a confined environment. Similarly, one need not assume some notional drive towards change from within the system.  Organizations including architecture exist to conserve their characteristics, not to change them. Indeed much of their effort is geared to limiting change, to reducing risk and to maintaining the value of their existing routines and standard sets of behaviour. The fact that change takes place is a result of their adaptation to variations taking place in their environment. We cannot confuse this kind of behavioural adjustment with an intention to change. It is an adaptation to circumstances in order to stay the same. The actual goals of the system remain conservation of acquired routines. The process of cultural change through collective activity is one of increasing integration of learned behaviours in order to conserve them and maintain their effectiveness.

Architecture in this sense is not a choice, but the cumulative and unforeseen result of many individual choices.

7.      Periods and Styles the Environment

Historical time can only be conceptualized or measured by concrete, material differences in the state of things. If there are no such changes, then 'real' time does not exist. Using digital and simple chronological measures one can of course clock the fact that nothing is happening in the  material world, but time in its real sense is derived from and purely an expression of the dynamics of events and of observable change.  Over time the gradual change in the character of a style becomes noticable. It is clearly different in character to what it was before. History is the recognition of this difference taking place over time although not in the sense of an abstract calendar time, but  what one can call the developmental time of a particular style for we cannot assume that architecture is directly synchronized to the total social, economic and ideological circumstances of any historical period. That is, to some notional total environment within which it exists and to the necessarily abstract timescale of that system. Like the time issue, the environment is not a separate, homogeneous 'thing'. The structural reality of this environment is that of a constellation of  separate discourses, orbiting around one another each with its own history, material, formative rules and developmental time. For instance, the lead or developmental time for technological change is probably longer than that for particular fashions or art movements but shorter than that for socioeconomic change (the reorganization of economic power) or the lifespan of ideologies or religions. Architectures can outlast the civilization in which they originate, becoming the motifs for subsequent civilizations. Or, a particular style may vaporize in decades. Societies or cultures are not, in other words, monolithic entities but complex interactions of events and varying timescales. Our occasional need to speak of the whole system all at once requires us to give it a single name. We call it the 'environment', but it is not a real entity, it is simply a label, a term of convenience which does not refer to a singular reality. In general histories, which are inevitably oversimplifications, it is political change which is taken to represent the historical evolution of a society and part of this oversimplification is to suggest that all parts of a society are synchronized and travelling at the same developmental speed as the political system. They are neither synchronized to the political system nor to each other.

Such simplifications affect the history of architecture too when the particular style of a period is said to be perfectly understandable and coordinate with the political, social and cultural state of the society at the time. It would be convenient if this were the case. Unfortunately it is not. The state of architecture at any point in time is a direct function of its own previous states, its formative processes and its own developmental timescale. The form of architecture is certainly constrained by the actual diverse state of its environment, (a point to which we shall return later), but this multitude of other discourses which together make up the environment at a given point in time, do not determined the character or form of architecture. Even the idea of constraints does not suggest that orders are given and ideas are imposed. Constraints are simply limits to the development of a system. They do not dictate what the system can do, only what it cannot do. They are negative injunctions (the 'negative feedback' of cybernetics) which prevent (or, in the case of 'positive feedback', allow) the system to develop along certain paths. Nor for that matter are the forms and practices of the other discourses in a society such as technology, ideology, music or science coordinate with one another. They are equally the product of their own past activities and the formative rules or algorithms which they apply to the material derived from those past activities. All that one can really say is that these diverse activities with their own unique character and state of development co-exist at the same (calendar) point in time.

The same kind of problem can be seen in the general historical notion of periodization. That is the definition of particular historical periods or epochs and the architectures which exist during those periods. There is a quite natural tendency when discussing a particular historical period to arbitrarily synchronize the histories of different parts of the same system: Eg.  technology, political organization, economic relations, the arts and so on. That is, to forcibly yoke them together and assume that at a given point in time they are in some definite and decidedly CAUSAL RELATION to one another and that the developmental state of each is inevitably related to the state of the others at the time; all marching together to the same chronological drumbeat, so to speak.

While this is a convenient method of cutting up the historical cake into understandable bits, it may not offer the most authentic explanation of any given period. While periodization as a methodology may allow us to focus on a given part of a stream of events, it may be that  in order to provide a more comprehensive picture, one must refuse to accept the simple chronological slice and instead articulate the period as a series of layers each with its own developmental state at any given point in time. This, of course, involves the possibility of distinctly random relationships between different parts of the system. In this model they are always out of phase with one another at any given point in time. Indeed, one could suggest that it is this very ‘out‑of‑phaseness’ between the different discourses which triggers change in the system. It becomes impossible in this sense to write neat, well‑rounded and total narratives about any period as a whole. It can be done of course, but then it might be closer to literature in intent.

A simple analogy exists here with the ‘slot machine’. At the pull of a handle three or four independently mounted cylinders each with the same set of pictures rotate independently of one another. When the spin stops (the historical snapshot), the horizontal relation between the pictures as seen in the viewing window is random (say, two cherries, one orange and an apple). We cannot as historians assume a definite and causal relationship between these pictures. One might do that an assume all sorts of relationships between them because they are framed together at the same arbitrary point in time. The slot machine, however, which knows nothing of causality would signal otherwise by not paying out. Synchronization between the many different parts of a system may happen occasionally (the jackpot), but not very often and at random points in calendar time. Pragmatism should caution us not to force an elegant (and essentially convenient) gestalt on to a complex series of events nor assume a fundamental coordination between the multiple strands of a society at a given point in time. Hidden in there, in the literature of history and the complexity of the subject lurks the teleological trap.

What this model means is that we cannot automatically associate the architecture of a period with its contemporary social or political situation. One does not generate the other in a direct, functionalist and deterministic way. For instance, while we might well associate the splendour of Baroque architecture with the prevailing political and religious organization of 17th century Europe such as the Counter-Reformation or French imperial aspirations, we cannot in any sense assume that the architecture of the period is produced by that political and religious situation. It is certainly assumed to represent the political realities of the time, but the relation between these two spheres is entirely coincidental. If we eliminate the convenience of causal explanations, it is quite clear that there is nothing inherent in the forms of what we call Baroque architecture (or Baroque music for that matter) which represents the political and religious complexities of the period. They do not arise from an area outside the history of architecture itself or, more specifically outside the continuity of the Graeco-Roman style. So too with the forms of Modern Architecture. These were not, as we we have often been informed by historians the product of mass production techniques in industry, new and revolutionary social and political structures arising after the First World War, nor the three-dimensional manifestation of the geometries and abstractions of Modern Art, nor a result of a post Einsteinian space-time ideology percolating into architectural thought and articulated by a few brilliant architects. Even in their complexity and brilliant originality these forms were derived from a continuous process of formation and re-formation of previous stylistic elements. To suggest, as many historians do that this Modern architecture 'expressed its times' is to oversimplify history to the point of distortion and assume again a deterministic relation between the character of the social fact and the characteristics of the prevailing architecture. From a systems point of view we can more modestly suggest that the Modern Movement only expressed its own time.

These different forms of discourse, which collectively make up the whole society, in their quite distinct ways and each with its own timescale of development will indeed affect the rate of change of architecture but they certainly do not 'cause' architecture to change. They do not make architecture work. That capacity is directly built into the system itself, in the dynamic which results from continuous production of buildings.

End of Chapter One