In 'A Thousand Plateaus' Deleuze and Guttari discuss the idea of the 'Rhizome', It is something i am becoming more and more interested in, and i wondered if there were any architects or architectures which explicitly deal with the rhizome. Any suggestions?
i've always found the problem with the rhizome...and really any nature analogy... is that at the end of the day the rhizome is able to do what it can do because it is alive and is self replicating and self repairing... currently architecture cannot do that...
the rhizome offers some very interesting dynamics and energies that just don't seem to be able to be embodied in a static construction...
some of the things that i think are probably most analogous to the rhizome would be the non-architecture architecture such as shanty towns and refugee camps and the such... things that truly do grow and decay and spread in a very organic manner because they are driven by necessity and are not planned events
"rhizomatic represents a kind of economic warfare that pits the guerillas of flexible capitalism against the rigidity of the existing city and the intensive accumulation of huge commercial “containers”. Self-perpetuation, a system of market feedback"
i think it certainly has more to do with relationships and transactions than plants and organic analogies.
"rhizomatic represents a kind of economic warfare that pits the guerillas of flexible capitalism against the rigidity of the existing city and the intensive accumulation of huge commercial “containers”. Self-perpetuation, a system of market feedback"
this is not the first time an architect use the term say "potato" and claim that its concept has nothing to do with starch, nature nor plantation...
the problem with architectural term, unlike math/medicine or science, every architect has their own definition regardless the rest of the world disagree...
"every architect has their own definition regardless the rest of the world disagree..."
i.e. semantics...architects don't tend to consider context and instead choose what they think sounds more interesting to them in regards to their own writing or thoughts...so it leaves it as semantic chattering.
you can't have a concept that is called 'rhizome' based somewhat on the properties of a 'rhizome' and then divorce it entirely from the fact that there is a natural entity that is also called 'rhizome'.
what ever BS they want to throw at it about capitalism and economics it still all has to come back to cat tails or whatever...
I think the closest thing to rhizome construction that exists today is the infrastructure of major cities. While it's not usually conceptualized this way, it's the part that actually is growing, repairing, adjusting to the changes/growth of the city. Samford Kwinter has done some writing about this as well.
Current trends in the architectural discourse are starting to move away from a strictly analogical approach to nature and biological influences. Instead of trying to recreate a static form of a rhizome or let’s say bone structure, a push in looking at the relationships and processes of these elements that would be able to re-inform architecture. Example, there is a lot of projects that use bone structures as an analogy; however, this new push would look at it from the relationships of the growth of bone to create surface, structure, and skin not just to copy the form but re-inform the ideas of the conventional understanding of the relationships of them. The relationship of how three separate things can merge to become one system like the bone, not just a straight scalar copy of the form of bone.
becker, it's from an article by abalos and herreros - "evolution of topological planning in the high rise bulding" from "modernist theory to contemporary practice."
aspect and architorture, keep in mind that this is a philosophical term, not an architectural term. it was invented by a philosopher. it's not intended for architects to draw a plan that looks like a root and call it rhizomatic, or the same with the idea of the "fold", it has a lot more meaning than folding a surface in section. my point is these philosophical terms when applied to architecture become simulacra, and miss the understanding of what the word means, albeit i have a shallow grasp of what rhizomatic means as well.
it is people, their interactions, and you the architect that is rhizomatic, not the buildings you design. that's why i say any building that has to do with rhizomes has little to do with rhizomes.
That brings back a memory from grad school (circa 1996) of the first-years playing "buzzword bingo" in their crits, where they'd put a trendy word on a placard on the back of each critic's chair (unbeknownst to the critic of course), and bet on which critic would say the word assigned to him first or the most times. "Rhizomatic" was usually one of those words .
At the time it seemed that every third project in our studio crits was declard "rhizomatic" by its creator and/or the critics, and a lot of PhD and MED students at various schools were writing their dissertations on "a rhizomatic architecture" - so I'd imagine you could probably dig up some of those, if you do some library research.
Some other suggestions: Helen Hills' "Architecture and Indeterminacy", and writings of Roland Sussex (not strictly related to architecture).
you know what mdler...I have had more than one of my studio mates say they don't need to learn that...that someone else will figure out how everything works and goes together...they are sure they will be the next Zaha...
You can complain that it's not fair for D+G to use the term 'rhizome' and not mean plants, but that's what they do.
this is not the first time an architect use the term say "potato" and claim that its concept has nothing to do with starch, nature nor plantation...
D+G are not architects. It is much more irresponsible and invalid for architects to go around adopting philosophical concepts without bothering to understand them properly.
semantics
Obviously. It is a complex concept, and words need to be chosen carefully.
becker: give gary paige a call (instructor at sciarc in L.A.). i *guarantee* he will talk at you for at least an hour on this subject. everything you ever wanted (and didn't want) to know about rhizomes and architecture.
have a tape recorder handy. (so that later you can ff through the boring/repetitive bits)
not to sound like an ass, but all of these words have nothing to do with buildings. If we only spent 1/10 the amount of time worring about how to actually make decent buildings instead of trying to bullshit our way around the fact that we dont know shit about building, we would have good buildings
Becker, If you really want to know, I believe that Raoul Bunschoten/CHORA are/were working with the rhizome and architecture in a way, check their heavy coffeetable book URBAN FLOTSAM
why is it wrong per se when designers draw inspiration from a field that is not their own, just to get things started, I mean so what that you design a building that looks like a potato or whatever if that makes you happy. Corbu was inspired by machines and boats etcetera as well and monk outfits for that matter (just like FOG), so what's wrong with botany and philosophy. Just as long people realize there is such a thing as gravity and we are not avatars it is fine by me.
i'm not so concerned with D+Gs thoughts on the rhizome as a philosophical vehicle as i am with what happens when those ideas are applied to architecture- the ultimate form of which is a built structure that must conform to particular rules of physics, time and space.
and again i would say that i think the best example of a rhizomatic? architecture would be the things that are built out of pure necessity and are not planned in any overall way... such as shanty towns and the like... which i would dare to say also carry a bit of the more socio-political ideas of D+G's rhizome as well
For me the Rhizome is more about a multiplicity of interactions which might be made possible through architecture. I am designing a new City Hall, and as such i want to avoid the 'tree' heirarchy usually associated with politics. I have not even started designing yet, and 'bones', or crazy forms are not my thing. I am thinking more of a porous architecture, one which doesn't resort to symbolism (Foster's Reichstadt).
a city hall is a very important building and belongs to more than just one generation or population... there are particular elements of public buildings- especially those that house the leaders of the people...
also i would never say that the reichstag isn't symbolic... part of the thought on it was to introduce 'transparency' to government...so the dome is glass...pretty symbolic i would say... not to mention the form of a dome which is also quite symbolic of public government buildings...
Architorture - I was trying to say that the Reichstadt IS symbolic.
The city which i am studying is considering restructuring its governance system by merging its 7 councils into one council creating a 'super city' (perhaps similar to mega-regions). How does a City Hall exist at this scale? Is it enough for it to be symbolic?
the power of buildings is that they are real and there and present and don't need to be explained. words are flitting through the univerese, sometimes catching on the tip of someones brain and causing terrible havock as the semanticides jump on it...
rhizome interested me once, in the 90's. it doesn't so much anymore, because i find it too confining, like wearing blinders. it is much more interesting to wander outside the philosophers head and use my own for a while.
on other hand i don't think it is not useful, and i don't give a shit about details. i can do them, so can anyone. who cares. you can't build a career on details, only a craft. so for the moment i say fuck details and vive la philosophe!
yeh but chupacabra do you wanna be a craftsman or an architect?
an architect can do craft but it doesn't work the other way. learning to build is necessary but the fetishisation of buildability is not a good way to make a career. i know there are examples that don't go that way, but i think they are the exceptions that prove the rule. usually the craftsmen end up at gensler-ish places doing sash details. which is cool. but is it architecture?
If Wharton Esherick's or George Nakashima's houses are architecture, then you're wrong, I guess -- but it's an open question. Any non-architect's attempts at architecture (including mine) are suspect, I readily acknowledge. . .
I know that architecture students who aren't interested in building generally aren't interested in the math either, but for those who care, you do the math.
Jun 7, 08 1:24 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Rhizome and Architecture
In 'A Thousand Plateaus' Deleuze and Guttari discuss the idea of the 'Rhizome', It is something i am becoming more and more interested in, and i wondered if there were any architects or architectures which explicitly deal with the rhizome. Any suggestions?
i've always found the problem with the rhizome...and really any nature analogy... is that at the end of the day the rhizome is able to do what it can do because it is alive and is self replicating and self repairing... currently architecture cannot do that...
the rhizome offers some very interesting dynamics and energies that just don't seem to be able to be embodied in a static construction...
some of the things that i think are probably most analogous to the rhizome would be the non-architecture architecture such as shanty towns and refugee camps and the such... things that truly do grow and decay and spread in a very organic manner because they are driven by necessity and are not planned events
You might be interested in an article by Eyal Weizman called Lethal Theory.
i planted some iris in my parents' front yard
i think an ant farm is a good analogy of rhizome architecture... no masterplan, decision made at immediate encounter with nature.
the rhizome is not a natural analogy. as d+g use the term, a rhizomatic plant is an example of a rhizome, but their concept is broader than that.
"rhizomatic represents a kind of economic warfare that pits the guerillas of flexible capitalism against the rigidity of the existing city and the intensive accumulation of huge commercial “containers”. Self-perpetuation, a system of market feedback"
i think it certainly has more to do with relationships and transactions than plants and organic analogies.
...and any architects or architectures which explicitly deals with the rhizomes probably has nothing to do with rhizomes.
semantics
dot, where did this come from?
"rhizomatic represents a kind of economic warfare that pits the guerillas of flexible capitalism against the rigidity of the existing city and the intensive accumulation of huge commercial “containers”. Self-perpetuation, a system of market feedback"
this is not the first time an architect use the term say "potato" and claim that its concept has nothing to do with starch, nature nor plantation...
the problem with architectural term, unlike math/medicine or science, every architect has their own definition regardless the rest of the world disagree...
"every architect has their own definition regardless the rest of the world disagree..."
i.e. semantics...architects don't tend to consider context and instead choose what they think sounds more interesting to them in regards to their own writing or thoughts...so it leaves it as semantic chattering.
build more, make more...say less...praxis is now.
economic warfare/flexible capitalism, self perpetuation systems that can easily be found in an ant farm or any natural analogy...
you can't have a concept that is called 'rhizome' based somewhat on the properties of a 'rhizome' and then divorce it entirely from the fact that there is a natural entity that is also called 'rhizome'.
what ever BS they want to throw at it about capitalism and economics it still all has to come back to cat tails or whatever...
I think the closest thing to rhizome construction that exists today is the infrastructure of major cities. While it's not usually conceptualized this way, it's the part that actually is growing, repairing, adjusting to the changes/growth of the city. Samford Kwinter has done some writing about this as well.
Current trends in the architectural discourse are starting to move away from a strictly analogical approach to nature and biological influences. Instead of trying to recreate a static form of a rhizome or let’s say bone structure, a push in looking at the relationships and processes of these elements that would be able to re-inform architecture. Example, there is a lot of projects that use bone structures as an analogy; however, this new push would look at it from the relationships of the growth of bone to create surface, structure, and skin not just to copy the form but re-inform the ideas of the conventional understanding of the relationships of them. The relationship of how three separate things can merge to become one system like the bone, not just a straight scalar copy of the form of bone.
becker, it's from an article by abalos and herreros - "evolution of topological planning in the high rise bulding" from "modernist theory to contemporary practice."
aspect and architorture, keep in mind that this is a philosophical term, not an architectural term. it was invented by a philosopher. it's not intended for architects to draw a plan that looks like a root and call it rhizomatic, or the same with the idea of the "fold", it has a lot more meaning than folding a surface in section. my point is these philosophical terms when applied to architecture become simulacra, and miss the understanding of what the word means, albeit i have a shallow grasp of what rhizomatic means as well.
it is people, their interactions, and you the architect that is rhizomatic, not the buildings you design. that's why i say any building that has to do with rhizomes has little to do with rhizomes.
The rhizome is sooo 1997...
That brings back a memory from grad school (circa 1996) of the first-years playing "buzzword bingo" in their crits, where they'd put a trendy word on a placard on the back of each critic's chair (unbeknownst to the critic of course), and bet on which critic would say the word assigned to him first or the most times. "Rhizomatic" was usually one of those words .
At the time it seemed that every third project in our studio crits was declard "rhizomatic" by its creator and/or the critics, and a lot of PhD and MED students at various schools were writing their dissertations on "a rhizomatic architecture" - so I'd imagine you could probably dig up some of those, if you do some library research.
Some other suggestions: Helen Hills' "Architecture and Indeterminacy", and writings of Roland Sussex (not strictly related to architecture).
formerly...that's awesome
just learn how to fucking detail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you know what mdler...I have had more than one of my studio mates say they don't need to learn that...that someone else will figure out how everything works and goes together...they are sure they will be the next Zaha...
I get a chuckle out if it all, really.
You can complain that it's not fair for D+G to use the term 'rhizome' and not mean plants, but that's what they do.
this is not the first time an architect use the term say "potato" and claim that its concept has nothing to do with starch, nature nor plantation...
D+G are not architects. It is much more irresponsible and invalid for architects to go around adopting philosophical concepts without bothering to understand them properly.
semantics
Obviously. It is a complex concept, and words need to be chosen carefully.
becker: give gary paige a call (instructor at sciarc in L.A.). i *guarantee* he will talk at you for at least an hour on this subject. everything you ever wanted (and didn't want) to know about rhizomes and architecture.
have a tape recorder handy. (so that later you can ff through the boring/repetitive bits)
problem solved.
not to sound like an ass, but all of these words have nothing to do with buildings. If we only spent 1/10 the amount of time worring about how to actually make decent buildings instead of trying to bullshit our way around the fact that we dont know shit about building, we would have good buildings
oh yea, Greg Lynn sucks as well
agreed mdler...agreed.
Becker, If you really want to know, I believe that Raoul Bunschoten/CHORA are/were working with the rhizome and architecture in a way, check their heavy coffeetable book URBAN FLOTSAM
why is it wrong per se when designers draw inspiration from a field that is not their own, just to get things started, I mean so what that you design a building that looks like a potato or whatever if that makes you happy. Corbu was inspired by machines and boats etcetera as well and monk outfits for that matter (just like FOG), so what's wrong with botany and philosophy. Just as long people realize there is such a thing as gravity and we are not avatars it is fine by me.
i'm not so concerned with D+Gs thoughts on the rhizome as a philosophical vehicle as i am with what happens when those ideas are applied to architecture- the ultimate form of which is a built structure that must conform to particular rules of physics, time and space.
and again i would say that i think the best example of a rhizomatic? architecture would be the things that are built out of pure necessity and are not planned in any overall way... such as shanty towns and the like... which i would dare to say also carry a bit of the more socio-political ideas of D+G's rhizome as well
Wow, glad the post caused such cynical debate.
For me the Rhizome is more about a multiplicity of interactions which might be made possible through architecture. I am designing a new City Hall, and as such i want to avoid the 'tree' heirarchy usually associated with politics. I have not even started designing yet, and 'bones', or crazy forms are not my thing. I am thinking more of a porous architecture, one which doesn't resort to symbolism (Foster's Reichstadt).
Thanks for the insight guys.
why shouldn't it resort to symbolism?
a city hall is a very important building and belongs to more than just one generation or population... there are particular elements of public buildings- especially those that house the leaders of the people...
also i would never say that the reichstag isn't symbolic... part of the thought on it was to introduce 'transparency' to government...so the dome is glass...pretty symbolic i would say... not to mention the form of a dome which is also quite symbolic of public government buildings...
Architorture - I was trying to say that the Reichstadt IS symbolic.
The city which i am studying is considering restructuring its governance system by merging its 7 councils into one council creating a 'super city' (perhaps similar to mega-regions). How does a City Hall exist at this scale? Is it enough for it to be symbolic?
everything and nothing is enough.
the power of buildings is that they are real and there and present and don't need to be explained. words are flitting through the univerese, sometimes catching on the tip of someones brain and causing terrible havock as the semanticides jump on it...
rhizome interested me once, in the 90's. it doesn't so much anymore, because i find it too confining, like wearing blinders. it is much more interesting to wander outside the philosophers head and use my own for a while.
on other hand i don't think it is not useful, and i don't give a shit about details. i can do them, so can anyone. who cares. you can't build a career on details, only a craft. so for the moment i say fuck details and vive la philosophe!
"it is much more interesting to wander outside the philosophers head and use my own"
agreed...or use any other avenue of influence...no need to wade blindly through the verbose.
"and i don't give a shit about details. i can do them, so can anyone."
not true...and you can't have the whole, without the parts.
"you can't build a career on details, only a craft. "
and you don't have craft without understanding the details.
Both/and rather than either/or
always
Certain fungal wood-eating species extend their rhizomes as much as thirty feet, horizontally or vertcially, to supply water to the "work site."
how about that one in michigan that covers half the state or something? its like the largest living organism on the planet...
Yeah -- I'd forgotten about that !
yeh but chupacabra do you wanna be a craftsman or an architect?
an architect can do craft but it doesn't work the other way. learning to build is necessary but the fetishisation of buildability is not a good way to make a career. i know there are examples that don't go that way, but i think they are the exceptions that prove the rule. usually the craftsmen end up at gensler-ish places doing sash details. which is cool. but is it architecture?
If Wharton Esherick's or George Nakashima's houses are architecture, then you're wrong, I guess -- but it's an open question. Any non-architect's attempts at architecture (including mine) are suspect, I readily acknowledge. . .
back when I was just a theory student, we called "Deleuze and Guttari" Gauloise.
[url=http://houel.club.fr/pages/pict/3_gauloise_capol.jpg]link[/img]
I know that architecture students who aren't interested in building generally aren't interested in the math either, but for those who care, you do the math.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.