The Umgebinde Variations
A case-based study of formal typologies and systematic compositional variety
Jack BREEN
Form & Media Studies department, Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology
THE NETHERLANDS, [email protected]
Abstract: In architectural research there is a pronounced tendency towards the use of building types to emphasise
similarities, rather than to recognise variation and invention within recognised building conventions. Aspects of
variety, by which individual artefacts are actually identified and appreciated, are often considered irrelevant, or
simply overlooked… This practice does not do justice to the perceptual complexity and compositional diversity of
built objects and environments. It is not necessarily to consider designerly variation as unsystematic by nature (and
hence unworthy of consideration). On the contrary, design decision-making is relatively methodical and it is
therefore worthwhile to seek out recognisable themes of formal composition and to identify structure within
complexity. This contribution documents a case-based, explorative study, aimed at recognising levels of
‘orchestration’ in design and perception. Central to this project is the analysis of a building type known as
Umgebinde. A form which originated when two historic types of building conventions – the Slavic ‘block hut’ type
and the Germanic ‘wood frame’ type – met in the relatively sheltered and self-contained borderland of the
Oberlausitz. What is interesting is that these two ‘networks’ led to a fusion of approaches, resulting in a unique
building type, which gradually developed into a distinct local style. Precisely because these historic houses
(accommodating farming and weaving enterprises as well as serving as dwellings) share an easily recognisable
volumetric set-up, the subtle variations become apparent. This Casus clearly demonstrates the effects of systematic
variety, involving the interaction of identifiable, structural patterns on the one hand and forms of project specific
articulation on the other. The Umgebinde Variations gave an important impulse to the development of a concise
framework of design conceptions, which is presented as the outcome of this study.
Keywords: Typology and Variety; Case Study; Explorative Research; Kansei.
1. Introduction
Judgements involving issues and artefacts of design tend to be guided by ‘feelings’ which are not easily
rationalised. Although we are constantly confronted with the physical products of design initiatives, there often
appears to be relatively little ‘objective’ justification for individual assessments. Our appraisals concerning the
aesthetic qualities of particular built environments tend to be quick and our opinions outspoken. However, if one
tries to get ‘behind’ what constitutes an individual’s appreciation, things tend to become murky, even amongst
professionals, such as designers, who may be expected to agree about specific design ‘merits’. This study is
concerned with the identification of compositional themes in the domains of architectural design. The aim of this
exploration was the furthering of design knowledge and designerly insights. An attempt was made to unravel the
intertwining ‘threads’ [1] within the experience and appreciation of design artefacts. In order to identify
characteristic aspects of design, studies have been carried out to identify determining factors of composition. This
exercise took the form of a case based study, focusing on the historic Umgebinde building type.
1.1 Design Perceptions
In their work, designers (either consciously or subconsciously) address a variety of formal themes, such as:
order and contrast; size and proportion; rhythm and (inter)space; symmetry and asymmetry; symbol and
ornamentation; exploiting the expressive qualities of materials and the effects of light and colour.
Designers take a view forward, towards an ‘end’ product. They apply their knowledge and insight in a
pragmatic way, but also intuitively, inclined to ‘bend the rules’ for aesthetic effect whenever they consider it
necessary. Such ‘poetic licence’ may be at the root of persistent objections to design from conventionally inclined
academics. However, it is precisely this tension between logical and aesthetic considerations that makes
architectural compositions so complex - and therefore so challenging. At the heart of design creativity there is an
attitude of inquisitive, associative alertness. A ‘frame of mind’ in which logical and creative considerations are
fused, an intellectual and sensory state which may be considered as “Kansei” [2].
Designing is clearly not a ‘scientific’ activity, although it is ‘empirical’ in the sense that it follows a path of
‘trial and error’. An iterative development process [3] which is both rational and creative, drawing from
knowledge and experience, concerning technical, practical and cultural aspects. The apparent lack of rigorously
applied ‘method’ has contributed to the persistent mystification of design, which is all too often presented as an
illusive, impenetrable ‘black box’, defying any form of elucidation.
Designerly enquiry [4] relies on imaginative insights, but at the same it should be recognised that the working
processes of design are relatively methodical. In the words of Herman Hertzberger: “Designing is a complex
thinking process with its own possibilities and limitations, within which ideas are developed fairly systematically”
[5]. On a ‘creative’ level, a design process requires both artistic and logical consideration, involving what David
Bohm would regard as imaginative and rational insight and fancy [6].
1.2 Designerly Orchestration
Architecture as Music is a metaphor which surfaces frequently. This is not surprising, as there are distinct
parallels between the kinds of compositional arranging, characteristic of architectural designing on the one hand
and the art of musical orchestration on the other [7]. Just as in music, architectural designers rely on design
precedents and recognized conventions, as well striving for originality: the spirit of invention [8].
When considering the working methods of design, a useful application of the metaphor of music may be that
of the designer as the orchestrator and conductor of a ‘piece’ with many ‘parts’. Just as the musical composer,
working on an orchestral work, can only play parts of the composition at a time – a general theme or a separate
instrumental motif – and has to imagine the piece as a whole, so the architectural designer dwells in the realm of
the mind experiment until the building is ‘realised’. In order to give shape to ideas, notions concerning the work in
progress are laid down as notations: drawings, models, schemes and sketches. Various options are developed,
tested, jettisoned or refined, in relation to the overall composition, in what is essentially an imaging process.
Intermediate and definitive choices are made to bring the design onto a level of ‘definiteness’.
One could argue that the ‘true’ devices of design are the building materials from which the end product is to be
constructed. The realm of design activity as a ‘virtual building site’; composition as a form of mental
construction.
In such a way one might also be able to ‘deconstruct’ the designer’s composition for the benefit of objective
appreciation. Just as with (repeated) listening to music one is able to identify different aspects of the piece by a
kind of mental ‘decomposition’, without losing track of the whole, so it should be possible to deconstruct (and
consequently: reconstruct) architectural objects of design. This study aimed to identify relevant design
conceptions and levels of composition for the benefit of comprehension and aesthetic judgement.
2. Method
This explorative study was primarily aimed towards structuring relevant conceptions and developing a
framework of specific formal characteristics. For this purpose a relatively concise and consistent group of artefacts
was sought, which could be studied in sufficient depth. The discovery of the relatively unknown – and unspoilt –
vernacular Umgebinde type gave the impulse to this case based study.
2.1 Comparative Design Based Research
Prior to carrying out this particular piece of research, the author developed a typological framework for
different design driven methods of research. Four ‘designerly’ strategies were identified as potential ‘instruments’
for the benefit of design studies: Reference; Visualisation; Decomposition and Variation. Furthermore eight types
of approaches were recognised, divided into two main clusters:
–
Design Activity Driven Research;
–
Design Artefact Driven Research.
Each cluster was divided further into two sub-clusters, each in turn with two related methods of study [9]. The
method applied in this project can be identified in Sub-cluster 2A – Design Result Driven Research – as Type VI:
Comparative Design Based Research (see scheme).
D
R
D
VI
D
A/E
Legend: D = Design product; A / E = Analysis / Enquiry; R = Research Project
Figure 1: Design driven research Type VI – Comparative design based research
In this approach, grouped artefacts are juxtaposed in such a way that they may offer insights concerning
characteristic analogies, as well as the crucial differences between the individual objects of study. Comparability
is an essential condition, so that relevant variation levels may become apparent. The Umgebinde buildings share
an elementary level of ‘matching’, which makes them a suitable subject for investigation.
The working methods of this kind of research may involve familiar descriptive methods, but generally more
designerly approaches may be employed: such as making new drawings, schemes and models on the basis of
existing artefacts. These active imaging approaches are not only instrumental in communicating results to others,
but frequently also contribute to the making of discoveries in the context of the research process itself [10].
2.2 Documentation and Analysis
The method followed in this particular undertaking involved combinations of field study, reference study and
interpretative analysis. The initial chance-confrontation with the Umgebinde phenomenon led to a number of
successive visits to the region, whereby buildings were sought out and photographed. In addition, a survey was
made of literature concerning wood frame constructions, unearthing a limited, but significant, amount of
information on the type itself.
On the basis of comparative analyses – involving image manipulation in the computer and physically drawing
identifiable variants – an attempt was made to characterise recurring themes and type specific variations. A kind
of ‘detective’ approach, requiring logical thought and systematic analysis, as well as less ‘stable’ forms of designerly - enquiry. A kind of (re)search by design which might be dubbed Dietrologica [11].
Inspired by the findings from this study, as well from parallel explorative studies involving other groups of
architectural artefacts, a beginning was made with the construction of a formal conceptions framework, presented
in the form of a concise overview in the Conclusions section of this paper.
3. The Umgebinde Casus
The so-called Umgebindehaus is a unique, historical building type which is primarily to be found in the
relatively isolated and self-contained region of the Oberlausitz (Upper Lusatia), situated in the south-eastern
corner of Saxony in eastern Germany. The area is located to the east of Dresden and is bordered by Poland and the
Czech Republic. The building type is also to be found in the boundary areas of these adjoining states and
northwards along the German / Polish boundary. However, it is along the rivers which spring upon the undulating
Oberlausitz plateau that the Umgebinde type came to flourish and is still clearly in evidence today.
Possibly due to its relatively isolated setting, this building category has survived surprisingly well, although in
the last century many artefacts have been lost due to demolition, neglect or remodelling. More recently the
Umgebinde ‘collection’ is beginning to be recognised as a worthwhile (and endangered) European Heritage
category.
The Umgebinde type is an expression of ‘Vernacular Architecture’, which came to full flowering within its
specific ‘Genius Loci’. As a refinement of primal building traditions it is comparable to other regional wood
construction highlights, such as the wood frame buildings of Western Germany, neighbouring Bohemia and
Scandinavia, but also the Japanese Minka farmhouses and Malaccan rice farmers’ homes. Gunnar Asplund’s
woodland cemetery burial chapel is reminiscent of the type in its expression of primal sentiments.
In the combination of logic and modest elegance, there are also parallels with early modern architectural
prototypes. The ‘modern’ distinction between a buildings construction and its ‘skin’ – more appropriately
‘Verkleidung’ – was introduced by Gottfried Semper, after he had been struck by a ‘primitive’ Polynesian hut at
the 1851 Great Exhibition in the Crystal Palace [12]. Semper worked extensively in Dresden but, as far as we
know, never made any reference to the Umgebinde type which was, as it were, to be found in his own ‘back
garden’.
3.1 Origins
The term Umgebinde is derived from the German word Gebinde, used to denote a variety of structured forms,
relying on the connections between constituting parts for a measure of rigidity; such as in the common meaning of
roof truss. The word Umgebinde indicates a structure around something: Um-gebinde. As such this building
format’s main characteristic is its ‘enveloping’ construction – essentially a timber frame encapsulating a ‘block
hut’ (sub)volume.
The consensus is that this form originated when two types of building conventions – the Slavic ‘block hut’ type
and the Germanic ‘wood frame’ type – came together in the Lausitz regions. What is remarkable is that the
confrontation of these two ‘networks’ led to a fusion of approaches, resulting in a unique building type,
accommodating farming and weaving enterprises as well as serving as dwellings, which gradually developed into
a distinctive local mode.
In popular culture the aspect of weaving, using handlooms, is considered to be a determining factor. The
original Slavic block-constructions were not only used as houses, but traditionally also as workshops for
manufacturing cloth. When Germanic colonists settled in the area, clearing openings in the forests for farming,
they brought with them their timber frame technology. Apparently they respected the original building type to
such an extent that it became incorporated, leading to the early Umgebinde form. The areas of Upper- and Lower
Lusatia even spawned their own cross-cultural language, a combination of the original Slavic speech and German:
Sorbic (or: Wendisch) [13]. The cottage weaving industry remained of eminent importance, in combination with
farming. According to folklore the block ‘hut’ part of the building was reserved for the noisy handlooms, which
were thus kept (acoustically) separate from the load-bearing structure supporting the wood frame dwelling, taking
up the first floor. Whether this is true – or merely a romantic notion – is uncertain, however it is clear that this
local combination and adaptation of existing building conventions led to a distinctive and elegant regional style,
which continued to flourish over a number of centuries.
3.2 Sources
Relatively little has been published about this particular building type, which in studies of Germanic farm
types and wood frame houses tends to be neglected, or at best given a subordinate role. This may be due to its
peripheral, ambivalent position in the ‘in-between realm’ of German and Bohemian cultures. A noteworthy,
comprehensive survey, assembled by Karl Bernert, was published in the DDR era [14]. Bernert indicates that the
Slavic and Germanic building traditions met around 1100 AD, probably developing into a distinctive building
method between 1300 and 1400. From approximately 1600 up to the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the
Umgebinde form experienced a period of vigorous growth, after which it became diminished.
The Umgebinde type is also identified as a central European building phenomenon in Ludwig Loewe’s
intriguing documentation of wooden constructions in neighbouring Silesia; a collection of drawings pieced
together on the basis of field notations and photographs made in the 1930’s, after the second world war [15]. An
illustration from this book figures prominently in a treatise on Customs by Christian Norberg-Schulz. In his view
“the strange Umgebindehaus (…) offers clear testimony of an encounter between Slavic and Germanic characters”
[16].
Figure 2: Umgebinde variations – five buildings from the Oberlausitz plus one Bohemian wood-frame house (Czech republic)
As reference material is limited, the major source of information remains the collection of existing buildings.
Although the conditions for the survival of this ‘species’ have been far from ideal, a considerable number of
Umgebinde houses remains, particularly in the Oberlausitz village communities. As such the main source of
information is the present-day ‘population’ of Umgebinde buildings, which still greet observant visitors and
travellers who chance upon the region.
4. Results and Discussion
In architectural research there is tendency towards using building types to identify domains of design.
Generally this involves emphasising similarities, rather than recognising variation and invention within
identifiable building conventions. Aspects of variety, by which individual artefacts are actually recognised and
appreciated, are all too frequently considered irrelevant, or simply overlooked… This practice does not do justice
to the perceptual complexity and compositional diversity of built objects and environments.
The ambition of this exploration was to see if the familiar typological conventions could be extended: leading
to a typology of variety. This may seem like a contradiction in terms, but might become a powerful intellectual
approach towards bringing more objectivity into the – notoriously woolly – domain of (architectural) design
discourse. In the following paragraphs the Umgebinde type is scrutinised on the level typological convention as
well as from the perspective of structural and stylistic invention, whereby an attempt is made to identify margins
of variation which are characteristic for this building type.
Figure 3: Elementary decomposition and structuring studies on the basis of a characteristic Umgebinde farmhouse building
4.1 Primary and Secondary Attributes
Which kinds of formal aspects may be recognised? First of all let us consider the basic – volumetric –
composition, the building as an object.
Most of the Umgebinde edifices share a relatively simple primary form. Nearly all of the existing farmhouses
belonging to this type can be broken down to the following elementary, volumetric set-up: a rectangular volume,
topped by a pitched roof. In some cases there are extra wings, which often appear to have been added later on. On
this elementary level, variation is manifest in the sizes and proportions of these coupled volumes – width, length
and height. Some buildings are modest – consisting of a relatively small ground floor, topped directly by a roof.
However, most of the buildings have a separate ground flour and first floor (plus roof). The overall form may
vary from a humble homestead to an imposing, prototypical ‘factory’.
Figure 4: Indication of basic volumetric set-up and variations in size, proportion and number of Umgebinde arcade elements
What decisively distinguishes these buildings from other types are two (combined) characteristics:
-
part of the ground floor is ‘set back’ and is articulated by horizontal, painted wooden beams or planks;
-
the volume above is supported by posts, placed in front of this ‘wooden box’; these columns are most
commonly joined by rounded wooden arches.
It is these formal aspects which clearly set the Umgebinde type apart. They also afford opportunities for
secondary levels of differentiation, contributing to an individual building’s ‘character’. The columns and the
(pseudo)arches offer opportunities for skilful articulation and ornamentation.
In most cases this ‘semi-colonnade’ does not surround the whole building, but extends along (part of) three
sides. Generally speaking more than half of the building’s ground floor is constructed in stone, which in almost all
cases is plastered and (white)washed. This part of the building traditionally houses spaces connected with farming,
such as the stables, as well as a centrally positioned entrance ensemble, which is frequently generously decorated.
By contrast, the first floor is expressed as one continuous volume, with a more or less regular façade
surrounding the building. This storey, together with the roof trusses, consists of a wood frame (or as NorbergSchulz calls it: lattice) construction, with rhythmically placed posts, infill constructions and windows. In some
cases this Fachwerk is fully visible, but frequently (parts of) the outer surfaces are covered with cladding.
The roofs play a prominent role in the perception of the composition as a whole, whereby different roof forms
are applied. The choice of a roof’s ‘endings’ is of consequence for the shape of the upper parts of the end facades
– the gables. These may be worked out as extensions of the first floor latticework or given a distinct ‘shield’
treatment.
To summarise, the following six items should be considered as essential Umgebinde ‘design variant levels’:
-
the ‘block hut’ volume;
-
the articulated column structure supporting first storey (or roof);
-
the massive ground floor ‘stables’ section, including the entrance;
-
the first floor wood frame structure, either visible or (partly) covered;
-
the (apex of the) gables and
-
the roof form and surfaces (see schemes).
Figure 5: Overview of essential Umgebinde characteristics considered as typological domains for compositional variation
(All illustrations by the author)
4.2 Structure and Articulation
Two concepts which, in this context, are worthy of consideration are Structure and Articulation. Most
frequently, the concept of Structure is used in the meaning of load bearing structure or: Construction. However, it
is worthwhile to consider the ‘structure’ of a building as more than just its construction: as a device for the
creation and maintenance of Order within a composition.
As such a structural system might be considered as a kind of set of ‘rules’ governing a specific project. In this
sense ‘structure’ is a level of design consideration which as it were mediates between other levels, such as the
building’s volumetric composition, the spaces it harbours, the conditions of openness and closedness and the
arrangement of the facades. Structure clearly includes the system of construction, but goes further, specifying
conditions for elementary and intermediate measurements, determining issues such as (inter)spacing and rhythm.
As with a good game, such ‘rules’ should not be constraining, but rather should offer guidelines for the orderliness
of the whole, while offering margins for variation and even deviation.
The structural system of a building is largely dependent on aspects of materialisation. Different materials have
particular possibilities and limitations. Materialisation is governed by availability and by characteristic dimensions
and shapes, such as profiles. Whereas in the past material components were worked on the building site and
assembled as elements of the overall construction; contemporary building production has to do with building
products, which tend to be made to measure beforehand and assembled in situ. The connections of different
components have always required extra attention and skill, giving rise to structural ornamentation. The combined
opportunities of such ‘material’ consequences can be considered as belonging to the realm of compositional
Articulation.
4.3 Development of stylistic characteristics
If we consider the Umgebinde format, the (differences in) appearance within the ‘mature’ style are largely the
result of structural developments and opportunities for formal articulation which were brought forth by these
developments. A ‘reconstruction’ of the of the architectonic evolvement the characteristic architectural aspect of
the ‘colonnade’…
Originally, the load bearing columns appear to have consisted of poles reaching from the ground up to the roof
construction, with diagonal trusses for stability. Gradually, parts of these intertwining systems became more
autonomous, whereby eventually the first floor wood frame construction (with the roof construction) became a
more or less separate framework, with the posts around the block construction taking the role of supports, like the
legs of a table construction. This gave rise to the skilful articulation and decoration of the supports themselves, but
also the formal integration and shaping of the connecting top beams, which came to acquire a distinct rounding. A
result of this structural evolvement is the visual integration and refinement of the posts and beams of the
supporting structure. This ‘unified’ entity thereby came to be an emphatic (sometimes even dominant) attribute. It
is through this prominent formal device that the Umgebinde type manifests itself as a distinguished, articulate
vernacular Style (see schemes).
Figure 6: Structural variations – schematic representation of four steps of development of the Umgebinde construction form
4.3 Levels of Variation
As may have become apparent in the previous paragraphs, the combination of encapsulated block-hut volume
and entwining wood frame structure may be considered as most specific ingredient of the Umgebinde typology.
However, it is the total ‘package’ of formal characteristics which makes each particular artefact unique. When
comparing buildings sharing the same basic characteristics, it is the variations that become apparent.
In the following thematic overview an attempt is made to identify levels of variation which may be considered
typical for the Umgebinde collection.
Table 1: Overview of formal aspects of the Umgebinde type per building part.
Context
Region, Climate, Situation, Orientation, Availability of materials, Local culture, History,
Type, Style.
Volume
Ground form, Measurements, Plan proportions, Structure, Primary symmetry, Secondary
asymmetry, Extensions.
‘Stable’
Massive stone construction, Plastering, Perforation, Frame, Repetition, Arrangement,
Juxtaposition, Stable doors.
Entrance
Massive stone construction, Centrepiece, Monumentality, Ensemble, Symmetry, Frame,
Colour, Ornamentation and Decoration, Symbol.
‘Block hut’
Solid wood construction, Horizontality, Dimension, Materiality, Joint, Corner, Connection,
Opening, Window, Frame, Repetition, Partial symmetry, Accentuation, Tone, Colour.
‘Colonnade’
Post and lintel construction, Column, Pilaster, Foundation, Connection, Arched beam,
Partial symmetry, Repetition, Corner, Ornamentation, Decoration, Colour, Emphasis, Style,
Identity.
‘Storey’
Wood frame construction, Latticework, Verticality, Diagonal, Corner, Repetition,
Continuity, Construction rhythm, Sub symmetry, Sub rhythm, (Inter)Spacing, Opening,
Window, Form and Counter-form Subdivision, Frame, Connection, Decoration, Contrast,
Colour.
Cladding
Verkleidung, Continuity, Variation, Slate shingles, Repetition, Pattern, Graphic decoration,
Opening, Edge, Corner, Seam, Woodwork, Horizontal and Vertical, Rhythm, Connection,
Detail articulation, Stylistic decoration, Texture, Treatment, Tone, Colour.
Gable
Shape, Symmetry, Shield, Apex, Wood frame or Cladding, Slate shingles, Repetition,
Pattern, Graphic decoration, Opening, Edge, Seam, Woodwork, Horizontal and Vertical,
Rhythm, Connection, Detail articulation, Stylistic decoration, Texture, Treatment, Tone,
Colour.
Roofing
Construction and Covering, Saddle form, Mansard form, Hipped roof and gable, Ridge,
Symmetry, Asymmetrical extensions, Ceramic tiles or Slate shingles, Dormer window,
Chimney, Repetition, Tone.
Information
Decoration, Symbol, Dating, Restoration, Patina, Deterioration, Destruction.
Figure 7: Overview with some characteristic formal combinations on the basis of the typological Umgebinde aspects
5. Conclusions
If we were to consider these ‘Umgebine Variationen’ in terms of musical composition, one might argue that
this is not ‘high art’. The stylistic conventions are neither Classical nor Contemporary, but rather might be
considered to belong to a ‘Folk’ idiom. Nonetheless, manifestations of the mature Umgebinde ‘style’ show all the
characteristics of consciously conceived – designed – constructions, adhering to established, regional conventions
on the one hand, but with extraordinary individual expression and identity on the other.
What might be said concerning the style’s aesthetic success? The Umgebinde compositions are oversee-able
and orderly, however never straightforward. As has been demonstrated, relatively systematic variation is possible
on distinguishable, but interrelated levels. This means that many potential harmonic combinations are possible.
Importantly, the compositional possibilities are extensive, but not infinite…
There is such compositional variety that we do not easily grasp all the connotations, yet we are simultaneously
aware of a reassuring, underlying order. This awareness may be at the core of the Kansai experience. In the words
of environmental psychologist P.F. Smith: “Aesthetic success demands that orderliness wins, but not too easily.
There has to be sufficient complexity to make the perception of unity a worthwhile mental achievement” [17].
This combination of order and adventure may be precisely what appeals on Kansei levels of perception:
artefacts which are recognisable yet varied, clearly structured and balanced in their proportions and rhythms as
well as being skilfully executed on the levels of detailing and modest but articulate ornamentation…
5.1 Structuring Conceptions
The categories and conceptions which have been identified can be regarded as levels of design decision
making - in an Umgebinde ‘context’. Clearly, the previous framework is specific to the Umgebinde type and it
would therefore be worthwhile to look towards finding a systematic organisation for the differentiation of more
general design based conceptions.
On the basis of the insights gained in this study and the other designerly exercises an attempt has been made to
construct a ‘model’ for the classification design(erly) conceptions.
In this proposed structure the following categories of compositional levels are distinguished:
-
three ‘major’ levels: Form; Surface and Detail;
-
two ‘determining’ factors, as it were be positioned between these: Structure and Articulation;
-
two specific factors as the ‘setting’ for a specific design ensemble: Context and Information.
The following framework gives a concise overview – with an indicative selection of formal aspects – of these
interrelated levels of design perceptions:
Table 2: Elementary framework proposal concerning design levels and formal conceptions
Context
Place, Location, Situation, Orientation, Programme.
Form
Object, Volume, Shape, Combination, Plasticity, Border.
> Structure
Organisation, System, Measure, Construction, Framework, Wall.
Surface
Arrangement, Façade, Opening, Motif, Pattern, Rhythm, Balance.
> Articulation
Materialisation, Product, Dimension, Profile, Bond, Treatment.
Detail
Feature, Component, Connection, Joint, Ornament, Colour.
Information
Symbol, Sign, Decoration, Alteration, Patina.
5.2 Synthesis and Symbiosis
Designerly enquiry has to do with the taming of complexity and the creation of transparency, for the benefit of
insight. Design driven study approaches involve recognising patterns and identifying opportunities and effects of
variation within order.
In design it is seldom a question of making ‘hard’ choices, but rather of determining the right combination of
aspects. These can take the form of ‘twin phenomena’ [18] which exist by the grace of their thematic counterpart.
Designing involves finding ‘fitting’ balances between openness and closedness, lightness and darkness, mass and
space, inside and outside, etc… Similarly, there are aesthetic considerations at play which require determining the
interplay between less ‘concrete’ compositional aspects. These are not necessarily ‘opposites that attract’, but can
often also be considered as coupled conceptions. Some examples of such ‘linked’ conditions: unity and variety;
truth and character; structure and materialisation; convention and invention; coherence and contrast; totality and
detail; reduction and complexity; expression and suggestion.
These factors are not only of significance for the designer, but also figure prominently in the perception of
architectural design artefacts. Clearly, the appreciation of a design product is influenced by the interactive
perception of it as a totality, as well as a configuration of constituting parts, which – as details – can be considered
as ‘compositions within the composition’. As such, a successful composition is not simply a ‘sum of parts’, but a
synthesis of spatial and material forms.
How to approach an artefact which is in principle intended as an indivisible synthesis? One way may be to
virtually deconstruct the design, to thereby study certain parts of the composition in relation to each other and to
subsequently re-construct these, to get an impression of how they interact, within the composition as a whole.
In this context it may be worthwhile to think in terms of symbiosis, a concept introduced by Japanese architect
and design theorist Kisho Kurokawa [19]. The idea of ‘co-existence’ of compositional entities in a state of mutual
benefit allows for ways to study combinations of distinguishable parts and to see how they enhance each other
within the composition as a unity.
Synthesis and Symbiosis…
References
1
Steven Holl: “We must consider space, light, colour, geometry, detail, and material in an intertwining continuum.
Though we can disassemble these elements and study them individually during the design process, finally they merge.
Ultimately we cannot separate perception into geometries, activities and sensations. Compressed, or sometimes
expanded, the interlocking of light, material, and detail creates over time a “whole” cinema of merging and yielding
enmeshed experience.” In: Intertwining, Steven Holl, Selected Projects 1989-1995, S. Holl, Princeton Architectural
Press, 1995.
2
Kansei: a term particular to Japan, meaning the ‘high order function of the brain as a source of pleasure/displeasure,
taste, curiosity, aesthetics and creation’, source: Tsukuba ADC conference introduction, Tsukuba Science City, Japan,
2003.
3
The significance of the iterative development of designs and the importance of the ‘decision to build’, as a milestone
in the design process, is indicated by John Zeissel in: John Zeissel, Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment Behavior Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984.
4
Bruce Archer: “The idea of Design as a broad area of man’s concerns, comparable with Science and Humanities,
seems to be defensible in pedagogic terms. The idea that there exists a designerly mode of enquiry, comparable with
but distinct from, the scientific and scholarly modes of enquiry seems to be defensible by the design methods
literature”1. Bruce Archer: A View of the Nature of Design Research, in: Design : Science : Method, Proceedings of
the 1980 Design Research Society Conference, IPC Science and Technology Press, 1981.
5
Herman Hertzberger in: De ruimte van de architect, lessen in architectuur 2, pg. 28, Uitgeverij 010, Rotterdam, 1999
(translation by the author).
6
David Bohm (Lee Nichol ed.): On Creativity, Routlidge, London, 1998.
7
Geoff Matthews: “ Design is not only a great orchestrator of knowledges, it constructs its own peculiarly polyvalent
knowledge which makes visible and realizable the possibility of change.” Geoff Matthews: Doctorates in Design?
Why we need a research culture in design, in: Doctorates in Design and Architecture, Proceedings Volume 2 (Results
and Reflections), Department of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, 1996.
8
Jack Breen, Convention and Invention, in: Four Faces – The Dynamics of Architectural Knowledge, Book of
Proceedings, The 20th EAAE Conference, Stockholm – Helsinki, May 2003.
9
Jack Breen: Design Driven Research, in: Ways to Study and Research Urban, Architectural and Technical Design,
T.M. de Jong and D.J.M. van der Voordt (eds.), DUP Science, Delft, 2002.
10
An eminent example of the active integration of modelling and interpretative drawing techniques is a comparative
study of the villas of Adolf Loos and Le Corbusier, carried out at the TU Delft: Raumplan Versus Plan Libre, Max
Risselada (ed.), Delft University Press, Delft, 1987.
11
The term ‘Dietrologica’ was introduced by the author in the context of a web based ‘conversation’ on new media
entitled: ‘Project α2Ω, A Dialogue on New Media Perspectives’, Breen, J, Nottrot, R.J., published in the Proceedings
eCAADe 2000 conference, Bauhaus Universität, Weimar, 2000. The term is an adaptation of the Italian word
Dietrologia, introduced in the novel Underworld. Don De Lillo: Underworld, Scribner,1997. Excerpt: “There is a
word in Italian. Dietrologia. It means the science of what is behind something. A suspicious event, the science of what
is behind an event”.
12
Hans Kollhoff on Gottfried Semper: “In the words of Semper: ‘The German language knows a word for the visible
part of the boundary of space, die Wand, a word of the same stem an virtually the same meaning as das Gewand,
which is an expression for a woven fabric. The constructive part of the structure has another name, Mauer’. In other
words, for Semper de external characteristics are determining factors for the essence of architecture.” Furthermore:
“In Der Stil Gottfried Semper has described tectonics as ‘the art of bringing together rigid linear elements into an in
itself stable ensemble’. Thus, in the concept of tectonics the seemingly opposed pairs of appearance and construction,
art and technology are joined. The architectonic construction is therefore inseparably linked with the actions of the
creative architect and cannot be detached from the artistic mastery of building.” From: Hans Kollhoff: De mythe van
de constructie en het architectonische, in: ‘Dat is Architectuur’, Hilde Heynen et al (red.), 010 Publishers, Rotterdam,
2001 (translation by the author).
13
Origin: the Altas of European languages: Words, Victor Stephenson (ed.), Macdonalds and Co. publishing, London,
1983.
14
Karl Bernert: Umgebindehäuser, VEB Verlag für Bauwesen, Berlin, 1988.
15
Ludwig Loewe: Schlesische Holzbauten, Werner-Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1969.
16
Christian Norberg-Schulz: “Of particular interest is the strange Umgebindehaus of Saxony and Lower Silesia, whose
ground floor plan is configured with horizontal logs, like the Russian isba, while the upper floor, in latticework, is
supported by independent posts. Of course, this type of dwelling offers clear testimony of an encounter between
Slavic and Germanic characters.” Norberg-Schulz, Architecture: Presence, Language, Place, Skira Editore, Milan,
2000. The illustration, by Loewe, is included in mirrored form and without a reference to the original source.
17
P.F. Smith in: Etnoscapes: Volume 1; Environmental Perspectives, D. Canter (ed.), Avebury, Aldershot, 1988.
18
Aldo van Eyck: “I will mention the problem of the in-between realm. The in-between realm constitutes that place
where false alternatives are no longer false, but become twin-phenomena. My idea of twin phenomena sort of loops
through my thinking and anything I try to build. That is the absolute refusal to …(accept the splitting of) … twin
phenomena into incompatible halves of which each half has no meaning. There are hundreds of twin phenomena
which all belong together as brothers and sisters – one / family; inside / outside; closed / open; motion / rest; change /
constancy; small / large; many / few; mass / space etc. – you can just carry on. So what I think we should do first of
all, is to persuade these hard, narrow borderlines between one world and the next, between this place and the next
place, between this moment and the next moment, between this person and another person, to persuade this narrow
borderline, to loop generously into an in-between realm.” Aldo van Eyck: The Child, The City, The Artist, in:
Byggekunst, nr. 1, 1969.
19
Kisho Kurokawa: Intercultural Architecture, the Philosophy of Symbiosis, Academy, London, 1991.