by Arvin Garay-Cruz, Malini Kochupillai, Giorgos Mitroulias, Nicola Mongelli, Brian Ripel, Mike Szivos and Nader Vossoughian"
continued:
Naturally, there is a problem here: to assume that everything is information (as Neurath or even Karl Chu suggest) is to leave out material reality. Neurath relied on strategies of seriality and quantification in coming up with his graphics (the ISOTYPEs). But at the same time, he was reductive and could hardly give any sense about how to deal with the artifact in any factual way. Afraid that any formal approach would be considered metaphysical, Neurath mistook simplicity for factuality, ignoring the fact that whatever he did, in the end he would have to face the problem of the artifact, that is to say, the aesthetics of the information being presented.
Brian: Giorgos, you actually made an interesting point in class about "types" as a means of mediating between artifactual facts and factual artifacts. You suggested that the architectural “type” resides precisely on the edge between the fact and the artifact. I think this is true not only in architectural typology, but very much the agenda of Neurath's "ISOTYPEs". It is interesting to think about the relationship between typography, “[t]he act or art of expressing by means of types or symbols,” typology. To what extent was the Siedlung planning a typographic process? Looked at in this context, the difference between the flat-roof and the vernacular gable becomes a decision of font (sans-serif versus serif). I was recently reading about Herbert Beyer's design of the universal font, which in a way seems related to the scientific world conception both in name and agenda (Figure 38). The idea of typeface might also be an interesting angle on Arvin's question about the "clear, simple architectural form" that he raised in class. A technological solution like Loos' one-wall house is completely independent of stylistic articulation (medieval cottage vs. modernist box). By analogy, one could say that the content or technology of this sentence is identical whether I use Arial or Times New Roman. In either case, the "fact" remains intact, though the artifact is perhaps articulated differently (is there a relationship between the words “articulate” and “artifact”?). It is only the modernist goal of "truth" that demands expression of technology in a new "clear, simple architectural form," though we have all seen that this true expression of fact is by and large stylistic (i.e. Mies' use of the I-beam at the Seagram building) (Figure 39). David Turnbull recently described Bruce Mau's work as creating a "typographic urbanism". Mau’s willingness to push the conventions of graphic design, and to look at the page as a site in the architectural sense, are characteristic of this mentality. The various collaborations between Mau and Koolhaas (both in typography and urbanism) are perhaps the clearest examples of the urbanism Turnbull alludes to. To what extent could the various studies in Seidlung plan configurations, and disagreements about stylistic expression, fall under the same heading?
Nader: I'm very intrigued by Nicola's most recent email, which in many respects is an elaboration of the position he took in class last week. Characterizing Schinkel's Altes Museum as an agent of the "curiosity" - this seems like a rather curious position to take, especially in the light of the remarks you made a couple of months ago. Wasn't it you, Nicola, who had been arguing that works of art like those by Raphael were steadfastly NOT curiosities? Doesn't the stance you've taken vis-à-vis the Altes Museum suggest that you've retreated from your previous statements, that you now "buy into" Neurath's remarks about the history of the museum? How tenable is Neurath's historicization of the museum?I agree with Giorgos' comments that "to assume that everything is information leaves out material reality." But I would qualify Giorgos' comments about the Museum of Society and Economy and how it resembles, conceptually speaking, a “white box.” Indeed, I would argue that the for him the museum represented something quite the opposite: what was important for Neurath was the fabrication of the "black box;" not the black boxes you find in airplane flight recorders, though that would also be an interesting analogy. But the black box of the cinema - the black box of the "mass transport" exhibition space, as Brian might characterize it. Neurath, in other words, wasn't so much interested in making geometry real - merging Platonic forms with material reality - but in rendering the physical totally unreal, that is to say, as a pure medium, a vehicle for transmitting information.
Mike: Obviously, Neurath's work seeks to reduce complex information and associations into a simple form, but he also reduces it to a two-dimensional plane. The ISOTYPEs usually don't even have shading to produce a perspectival image. Even in Neurath's diagrams of the museum, the images on the wall are described as posters or charts. They lend themselves to the "offsite" interfaces (computer screens) we use today.
As we begin finally to understand Neurath and the projects like the Museum of Society and Economy, it would be interesting to see what projects like that are happening today, even if they are not necessarily by architects or designers. There are a lot of interesting projects that may deal with these issues: the virtual Guggenheim by Asymptote, which was commissioned by the Guggenheim enterprise to establish a museum on the internet (Figures 40); Superstudio's “Supersurface,” which attempted to package all infrastructure into a monolithic surface that provides equal access of resources to everyone (Figures 41). The Museum of Society and Economy could also be compared to Neal Stephenson's Metaverse in Snow Crash, a virtual world that only correlates with the real world through users interaction and perception of virtual space. People may have many avatars (or personalities), and you may have a valuable Internet address, but in the real world you live in a cargo container. The internet is equivalent to the “Supersurface,” but rather than housing all infrastructure, it houses information.Brian: Clearly, it is not white walls (Giorgos’ point), but mirrors that Neurath envisions enclosing his museum. The mirror has a few properties which might aid in Neurath's endeavors: first it dematerializes the wall - whether it is the Altes Museum or the Biennial Exhibition Hall matters not. Secondly, in it's ultimate state the only content would be the museum-goer him or herself; third, the actual space of the museum becomes infinite through reflection of reflection ad infinitum. At the current Whitney Biennial, Yayoi Kusama has an installation that actually creates this condition of visual infinity within the museum (Figure 42). Interestingly, due to the multiplication of visual space and the absence of boundaries, the end result is that of disorientation, not clarity.
For Neurath, it was information that acted as a mirror. The question then becomes one of optics - how clear is the reflective surface? Wittgenstein's statement, “something that can be said can be said clearly," echoes this sentiment. Paradoxically, the clarity of reflection (as in the case of Kusama's installation) leads not to clarity of reception, but instead to disorientation. Neurath's desire to reduce information is perhaps his attempt to avoid disorientation (fact overload), but in essence he is reducing one form of clarity to provide another. One is unable to see the whole picture (with all of its vagueness), but the portion that one sees is undeniably clear. Neurath's criticism of the museum that shows hundreds of species of birds is symptomatic of his mindset. The ultimate question is, which model is more clear?
Just to be of the moment (the UES strike has forced the seminar to meet not on campus, but at St. John the Divine), I am wondering if a Columbia seminar held in a cathedral is different than a Columbia seminar held in 412 Avery (at Columbia). It almost seems like something that should have been tried during Bernard's tenure (if you can't ice skate in the cathedral, maybe you can hold Vienna Circle seminar there). I am curious if our discussion will tend towards the metaphysical. :)
VIII.
Empire and e-publication. Work has begun compiling the semester’s newsgroup postings: editing, referencing, and illustrating. Readings, completed in the spare moments between design studio renderings, were from Michael Hardt and Anthony Negri’s Empire (2000). Due to the Teaching Assistant Strike, class is held off-campus in Cathedral Hall, a neo-Gothic side building to St. John the Divine. Brian: The information revolution described by Hardt and Negri (Hardt and Negri, 2000) reminds me of our discussion of Diderot and D'Alembert's Encyclopedie. The proliferation of encyclopedias in the 18th century corresponded to a historical moment where knowledge itself proliferated to the point where one could no longer grasp the world around them, thus generating the need for a container of knowledge—a way to quantify and possess it. The rise of the information economy in this century can be seen as a direct development of this same desire; the encyclopedia was perhaps the first commodification of information. Within this commodity mindset, the use-value of knowledge becomes dominant. In an odd way, one could argue that the Vienna Circle fed directly into this system; metaphysical thinking is perhaps the type of knowledge that is least justifiable in terms of use-value. By purging metaphysics, one assures the marketability of information.
The proliferation of facts brings about the increased need for the editorial. It is not enough to have an encyclopedia that contains knowledge; one needs a means through which to filter that knowledge. In the absence of a singular truth, editorializing (bringing opinion to fact) is perhaps the only way to begin to handle multiple, conflicting facts. The rise of internet blogs is symptomatic of this. As Steven Johnson writes in his article “Blog Space: Public Storage for Wisdom, Ignorance and Everything in Between” (Johnson, 2003), “Networks based on trust become an essential tool. You start evaluating the relevance of data not on search query results but on personal testimonies. (‘This page is useful because six minds I admire have found it useful’)”. The merging of fact and editorial (factorial) is perhaps the only response to the endless proliferation of fact.
Is an artifact a factorial? I would argue yes, and in fact yes in two ways. First, the artifact as a constructed thing represents an editorial process: decisions were made, information was edited, and facts no longer exist in their atomic state but are merged with the intention of the maker. Secondly, an artifact has the potential to be factorial in the mathematical sense, meaning the product of all integers contained within it. The artifact has the promise of multiplying the meanings of the facts contained.
Perhaps more than a traditional research paper, the newsgroup format we have all been utilizing for our writing process lends itself to the creation of a factorial project. Each fact presented is editorialized from seven viewpoints. Research is offset by conversation that elucidates rather than presents a singular argument. Connections (products) are made which exceed the individual contributions. In a way the newsgroup was the extension of the seminar beyond the classroom walls, allowing for discussion to continue in another media. The newsgroup succeeded in archiving (making artifacts of) our thought process.Giorgos: The artifact as factorial, or else as a product of editing: this is something we never doubted. The production of artifacts is the result of an intuitive or rational decision-making process. What we have taken for granted, however, is the almost subliminal objectivity of the fact. By that I mean that acting like “Neurathian” prophets, we have been seduced by reason and have promoted the fact as something with a given value. In contrast to this is the artifact, which to our eyes lacks coherence and inherent meaning. Thus, I am glad that Brian drew our attention to the editorial identity of the fact, which somehow reverses the previous position: the fact as factorial is not that different from the artifact. One could even say, that the fluid, immaterial state of the fact makes it more susceptible to editing. On the other hand, the artifact lends itself less to the powers of subjective editing, because it is constrained by its inherent materiality.
So, which is the fact (=given) and which is the artifact (=created) today? In a world dominated by facts and continually producing even more facts, information becomes metaphysical. It is deprived of its ability to provide true meaning. Maybe today we depend more on the artifacts (even curiosities) to speak about the world than we do on pure information. This tendency has even surfaced in architectural discourse. I will cite here a short quote from the 2002 Venice Architectural Biennale, that I believe shows such a move towards the artifact:
“Architecture recently has often been presented as if it were a form of installation art, or dominated by cyber space or video. This biennale will concentrate instead on the physical, the material and the tactile. Architects have been invited to submit large-scale models, and where appropriate full size material prototypes. Toyo Ito's work with aluminum and with glass-reinforced cement for example will be represented not only by drawings, but by actual materials. Future System’s innovative department store for Selfridges in Birmingham will be shown in model form, but also feature a full size representation of its strikingly inventive cladding.” (Sudjic, Deyan)
In other words, after architecture had been exhausted on a diagrammatic, informational level, the Venice Biennale of 2002 attempted to return our attention to the physical, the material and the tactile in architecture: to the artifacts themselves.
In this light, what is the role of theory in a school of architecture? What is the relevance of a seminar, and this seminar in particular to the production of architectural or other artifacts? We have to admit that this was a “Neurathian” seminar, one that was preoccupied with facts and their associations or their editing. The role of the artifact during the course was reduced to a collection of black and white reproductions of writings and images. Should I add to the list of artifacts the screen/computer/keyboard combination that served as a dominant interface between us and the newsgroup? And what about the final e-publication? Regardless of how much we trust in the fact (that is, the content of the e-text), in the end we are producing an artifact. The “e-“ in the front does not spare us from our obligation to deal with its “artifactness”. Indeed, the ease with which it can be printed means that we are most of all disseminating artifacts and secondly facts (=knowledge), if the content is ever read (hopefully it will be!!). I am afraid our artifact will be similar to the ones Neurath came up with; it will be a service platform for the disseminated facts and therefore wasting its “artifactual” privilege in a world of facts. Regardless of this, however, I believe that the problem of the fact and the artifact could only have been brought about by a ”paperless” seminar on the Vienna Circle!
Mike: The newsgroup format utilized this semester has extended the structure of the class beyond the three-hour time slot. The attitude of the conversation is obviously less formal and I would say less restricted by dead structures (institutionalized structures which have been produced for previous forms of research). On the other hand, the newsgroup is not the same as a conversation. Response is never immediate and you have more time to think about what one say when you write. The newsgroup moves toward a new direction, which is to say away from a formal (and ultimately limiting) way of producing research.
The logic of the factorial mentioned earlier is completely appropriate. Similar to the newsgroup, I think the factorial is a move toward the appropriate direction. That direction may in fact be the same as Neurath’s. The factorial is a description of the amount of combinations that can be attained through a given set. The ideal version of this way of working would be a factorial of an infinite set. Much like the internet, it would resemble a network structure (Figure 43).
I understand everyone's concern about too much information, but the editor or curator may not necessarily be someone who converts opinion into facts, but instead someone who sets up a structure. I think this is what Neurath was trying to do. He was showing trends. It wasn't necessarily the specifics of an individual ISOTYPE, but the way it was combined with other such ISOTYPEs. This is why numbers were not important, but rather the ratios of size representing information. In this way, Neurath became a partial editor, or perhaps one of many editors. He definitely forced the public to view certain information in a certain way, but unfortunately he did this like someone guiding a herd of animals or an assembled mob. You can coerce them in a certain direction, but the edge is always unclear. Each member affects the others and in turn they all become partial editors as well, interpreting the information, communicating among one another and even back to the main editor (there is no question Neurath’s approach to the ISOTYPE changed during his career). Through the ISOTYPE, Neurath tried to produce a finite set of symbols that could proliferate in new combinations much like the idea of a factorial. The seminar itself does this by eliminating all superfluous structures of organizing material, and utilizing only those which serve the information/research. The promise of this strategy is to allow everyone, even the public (through the posting of the work), to act as editor.
Nader: Giorgos, your point about the "factualization" of knowledge is very much on point. In seminar, we've mostly looked at reproductions - and in many cases, reproductions of reproductions: photocopies of photographs; digital projections of photographs of drawings; citations of transcriptions of archival manuscripts; so on and so forth. In a way, we have yet to encounter anything "auratic" or authentic. The fact that we spent our time outside seminar writing and thinking (as opposed to traveling) only further underscores this point: we are archaeologists of facts, not artifacts, which is not to say, however, that we renounce truth and objectivity. On the contrary, the "artifactuality" of the fact constitutes the very core of what we've been seeking to uncover. Indeed, we've been "showing and telling" a great deal these last months, only not in the sense with which one might ordinarily be familiar: as Brian points out, producing "factorials" doesn't just give us knowledge and information; it also provides us with a means of reconfiguring and rethinking the physical.
Arvin: I disagree with the notion that Neurath acted as a “partial editor,” as Brian says. I think he is better described as the Editor-in-Chief of the Vienna Circle (with capital letters). This leads me to my evaluation of the newsgroup format of the seminar and its effectiveness. Although my participation was reduced (due to both editing and my own laxity,) I must say it was a good and effective way of disseminating and debating ideas. I liked the writing more in its "pure" edition, in the newsgroup itself rather than in the e-book formatted edition. As Giorgos mentioned on his posting, the "e" on it doesn't spare us from responsibility. In a way, the newsgroup version of the seminar, with the changing dynamics of each posting, the title of each posting, its chronology, history of the discussion and even all its mistakes, is still the primary source and the end in and of itself. The crystallized version of it (in the e-book), with all its merits and pros, becomes somehow an artifact, unidirectional, command line-based and "routinized" by the conventions of language.
Knowledge for knowledge’s sake doesn't exist. We may live in an era where "informatization" is the rule, but that gives no one guarantee of being knowledgeable. At times, too much information has the opposite effect. We should see knowledge as something subject always to power. This brings me to the notions of the fact versus the artifact. Somehow we could say there is no subjective fact, and that all facts are artifacts. Have we been dealing with facts or have we created another artifact?
Nicola: It is a pity that the confrontation between Neurath and Negri/Hardt’s theory came at the very end of the seminar. It is here that the course wants to link the “informationization” aspirations of the 1920s with the one happening in our contemporary world. Unfortunately, now that we can grasp the connection we don't have time to go deeper.
But is this comparison really possible? Are we giving Neurath's effort a retroactive meaning? This doubt came to my mind apropos Josef Frank's criticism of the modern movement. In our discussion Frank was celebrated as a pre-post-modernist, before the modernism had even been properly defined. As you can see this is something that I haven't digested yet!
Though Neurath's recognized the importance of information and information dissemination, I have to disagree when Nader says that Neurath anticipated Hardt/Negri’s position. In the 20s, no country in the world had begun the transition to the third paradigm of economy (informationization). To say otherwise is to project Neurath's ideas into a future, and ultimately this is just our own speculation.
I wanted to comment further on Brian’s point regarding the connection between Diderot and D’Alembert’s encyclopedia and the contemporary “informatization” described by Hardt/Negri. I want to argue that the scientific mindset around the need/desire of the systematic handling of knowledge is pure metaphysics. The “container” (encyclopedia) as well as the “filter” (editor) are both external entities that decide what is to be included in the realm facts. The figure of the “filter” is still really generic: I enlist under this category Neurath's “agents of the museum-goers.” Filter and agent remind me of the demiurge of the gnostic, a figure almost as metaphysical as god. I like Mike’s image if the editor as “goat-herder of information” – facts are like sheep that defy both containers and filters.
Even if the demiurges were actual persons, how would Neurath be sure of their impartiality? A powerful caste (of mandarins!) and its degeneration has been the theme of several movies from the neo-post-gothic scenario, mainly Brazil and Blade Runner. A similar theme arises in the post-neo-classicism of 2001: A Space Odyssey. In Kubrick's movie information is a sleek, black monolith deployed from another world at the dawn of civilization. Information is then filtered and controlled by the self-aware computer HAL9000. Thus, as soon as facts are contained or displayed, they become metaphysical. That's my conclusion.
"Since science has begun to distrust general explanations and solutions that are not... specialized, the grand challenge for literature is to be capable of weaving together the various branches of knowledge, the various 'codes', into a manifold and multifaceted vision of the world….
What tends to emerge from the great novels of the XXth century is the idea of an open encyclopedia, an adjective that certainly contradicts the noun “encyclopedia,” which etymologically implies an attempt to exhaust knowledge of the world by enclosing it in a circle….
Medieval literature tended to produce works expressing the sum of human knowledge in an order and form of stable compactness, as in the Commedia….
In contrast the modern books are the outcome of a confluence and a clash of multiplicity of interpretative methods, modes of thought and styles of expression." (Italo Calvino on Multiplicity, 117-124)
Calvino ends this apologia for the novel affirming that each life is an encyclopedia, a library, an inventory of objects, a series of styles. The story of each life is the story of the universe (otherwise not graspable). The complexity is generated by the reordering in any possible way of the simplicity of any single event (the works of Perrec, Borges, Queneau are perfect examples of this polyphonic multiplicity).
I personally don't think that science is the means to achieve the control of knowledge. Alternatively, I think that the arts (literature, painting, architecture, sculpture, etc.) has the potentiality to conceive in non-systematic thought the whole human experience.
Neurath was wrong! But thank you to Neurath and Nader for letting me challenge my innately positivistic view of the world.
Bibliography
Alloway, Lawrence. The Venice Biennale 1895-1968: From Salon to Goldfish Bowl (New York: New York Graphic Society, 1968) 39.
Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. Edited and with an introduction by Hannah Arendt; Translated by Harry Zohn. (New York : Schocken Books, 1988).
Berger, John. et al., Ways of Seeing. The Viking Press: New York, 1973.
Blau, Eve. The Architectre of Red Vienna, 1919-1934. Boston: MIT Press, 1999. 88-97.
Chapel, Enrico. "Otto Neurath and the CIAM -- The International Pictorial Language as a Notational System for Town Planning." Encyclopedia and Utopia: The Life and Work of Otto Neurath (1882-1945), Eds., Elisabeth Nemeth and Friedrich Stadler, 167-182. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996.
Daston, Lorraine, and Katharine Park. Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150-1750. Cambridge: Zone Books, 1998. 255-301
Faludi, Andreas. "Otto Neurath and Planning Theory." Encyclopedia and Utopia: The Life and Work of Otto Neurath (1882-1945). Eds., Elisabeth Nemeth and Friedrich Stadler, 201-214. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996.
Fleck, Lola. "Otto Neurath: A Life Between Science and Politics." Otto Neurath: Philosophy Between Science and Politics. Ed., Nancy Cartwright. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1996. 7-88.
Frank, Philipp. Modern Science and its Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949. 1-52.
Hardt, Micheal and Negri, Anthony. Empire. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Heidegger, Martin. "The Age of the World Picture." The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, 115-154. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1977.
Kracauer, Siegfried. "The Mass Ornament." Tr., Ed., Intro., Thomas Y Levin. The Mass Ornament : Weimar Essays. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995.
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Matk. Mataphors We Live By. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Latour, Bruno. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard: Harvard UP, 1999. 266-292.
Long, Christopher. Josef Frank: Life and Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. 103-129.
Mitchell, W.J.T. Picture Theory. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1994. 11-34.
Mumford, Eric Paul. The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000.
Nemeth, Elisabeth. "The Unity of Planned Economy and the Unity of Science." Rediscovering the Forgotten Vienna Circle. Ed., T.E. Uebel. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991. , 275-283.
Neurath, Otto. "Visual Representation of Architectural Problems." Architectural Record (1937): 57-61.
_____. "Museums of the Future." Empiricism and Sociology, Eds., Marie Neurath and Robert Stohne Cohen, 218-223. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1973.
_____. "Museums of the Future." Empiricism and Sociology, Eds., Marie Neurath and Robert Stohne Cohen, (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1973).
_____. “Personal Life and Class Struggle (1928).” Empiricism and Sociology. Dordrecht,: Reidel, 1973
_____. “The Museum of Society and Economy in Vienna (1925)” Empiricism and Sociology. Dordrecht,: Reidel, 1973. 214-215. 2
_____. “Utopia as a Social Engineer’s Construction.” Empiricism and Sociology, xiv, 475. Dordrecht,: Reidel, 1973. 150-156.
_____. “Visual Education and the Social and Economic Museum in Vienna.” Empiricism and Sociology. Dordrecht,: Reidel, 1973. 215-218.
_____. “Encyclopedia and Unified Science.” International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Eds., Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, Charles Morris. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1955 [1938]. 1-27
_____. International Picture Language. Reading: University of Reading Department of Typography & Graphic Communication, 1980.
_____. Modern Man in the Making. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1939. 7-10, 45-90.
Neurath, Otto, Neurath, Marie and R. S. Cohen. "The Scientific World Conception: The Vienna Circle." Empiricism and Sociology, xiv, 475. Dordrecht,: Reidel, 1973. 299-318.
Ringer, Fritz K. The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890-1933. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1969. 162-180.
Rossem, Vincent van. "Amsterdam's General Extension Plan." Planning Amsterdam: Scenarios for Urban Development (1928-2003) Rotterdam: NAI Publishers, 2003. 49-57.
Schmumann, Wolfgang. "From Wolfgang Schumann." Empiricism and Sociology
No comments:
Post a Comment