Date post: | 20-Mar-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | robert-grover |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 0 times |
A prompt, a comparison Richard Serra is referring to the ethical intent of his work, what is gleaned from a critical process, however he could just as easily be referring to an architectural condition or possibly even an approach to making architecture, something implicitly fragmentary. I would argue this architecture like Serra’s work is not gestural, not absolutist, not prescriptive of a ‘modus operandi’, not nostalgic, and not adding to a syntax that already exists. This architecture is ‘not looking for affirmation’ or complicity, the emergence of this architectural work as with Serra’s sculpture ‘relies on the process of its making’, not the augmentation of an existing language. A fragment.
Cutting Device: Base Plate-MeasureThe integrity of Serra’s work is concomitant with its process. In ‘Cutting Device: Base Plate-Measure’ a number of diverse elements are juxtaposed to separate and divide the piece. The activity of cutting restructures the field, informing the relationship between disparate parts in a way other than the literal juxtaposition of individual elements. What is poignant is that it takes into account the simultaneity and contradictory nature of the elements present and sorts them into a discernible historical continuum. The significance of it lies in its ethic not its intentions, Serra sets out to constrain the work in a qualified way, or in his own words ‘it’s how we do what we do that conjures a meaning of what we have done’. Serra establishes his own a priori in the way each architectural context presents its own frame and ideological overtones. Serra’s approach and ethic would suggest it’s a matter of the degree to which we choose to interpret them.
The Fragment as a means of understanding an a priori condition
‘I never begin to construct with a specific intention; I don’t work from a priori ideas and theoretical propositions. The structures are the result of experimentation and invention. In every search there is a degree of unforseeability, a sort of troubling feeling, a wonder after the work is complete, after the conclusion. The part of the work that surprises me invariably leads to new works. Call it a glimpse; often this glimpse occurs because of an obscurity which arises from a precise resolution.’ Richard Serra
‘In th
e gift
of w
ater,
in th
e gift
of w
ine,
sky a
nd ea
rth
dwell
. But
the g
ift o
f the
out
pour
ing
is w
hat
mak
es th
e jug
a ju
g. In
the j
ugne
ss of
the j
ug, s
ky a
nd ea
rth
dwell
.’M
arti
n H
eide
gger
Front PageFragment of the Forma Urbis of Rome
Piranesi, 1756PROMPTING A QUESTION OF ARCHITECTURAL INTENTJoshua Waterstone
A ch
ance
disc
over
y of
a fr
agm
ent f
rom
a c
eram
ic
jug
reve
als
mor
e to
us
than
jus
t th
e fra
gmen
t its
elf.
Our
und
ersta
ndin
g of
its m
ater
ial q
ualit
y, its
wei
ght,
thic
knes
s, ag
e an
d co
lour
ins
tant
ly
give
us a
n id
ea o
f wha
t the
who
le ju
g m
ay h
ave
been
like
. Its
curv
atur
e an
d su
rface
tex
ture
giv
e us
an
impr
essio
n of
the
size
of
the
orig
inal
jug
and
how
it w
as m
ade.
An
imag
e fo
rms
in o
ne’s
min
d of
how
the v
esse
l may
hav
e loo
ked
and
felt.
At t
his
poin
t a
leap
is
mad
e be
twee
n ph
ysic
al
artif
act
and
imag
ined
obj
ect,
in w
hich
one
’s m
ind
begi
ns t
o tu
rn t
he p
otte
r’s w
heel
and
co
mpl
ete
the
piec
e to
one
’s ow
n sp
ecifi
catio
ns;
the
leng
th a
nd s
hape
of t
he s
pout
, the
wid
th o
f th
e ha
ndle
. Our
ow
n th
ough
ts an
d ju
dgem
ents
form
the
rem
aini
ng fr
agm
ents
of th
e pi
ece,
such
th
at i
f an
othe
r pe
rson
wer
e to
stu
dy t
he s
ame
fragm
ent a
diff
eren
t im
agin
ing
may
be a
rriv
ed at
.
In d
oing
so
ther
e is
a ris
k th
at w
e im
agin
e th
e ju
g as
an
obje
ct w
ith s
cien
tifica
lly q
uant
ifiab
le
prop
ertie
s ra
ther
tha
n a
thin
g w
hich
is
part
of
and
defin
ed b
y na
ture
; th
at i
t ha
s a
cultu
ral
auth
entic
ity th
at g
oes b
eyon
d be
ing
a ut
ility
for
man
.
The
read
ing
of a
bui
ldin
g, st
reet
or c
ity si
mila
rly
info
rms
us o
f a
mul
tiplic
ity o
f di
ffere
nt p
iece
s of
info
rmat
ion
mor
e la
yere
d an
d co
mpl
ex t
han
thos
e of
the
jug
fra
gmen
t th
at w
e ca
n ho
ld
betw
een
two
finge
rs.
‘Rat
iona
l’ ju
dgem
ents
are
diffi
cult
to a
rriv
e at
: th
e w
eath
er o
r th
e tim
e of
day
can
cha
nge
the
feel
ing
of a
plac
e. Th
e site
that
the a
rchi
tect
seek
s to
und
ersta
nd a
nd in
som
e w
ay to
add
to is
not
a
fixed
obj
ect
but
rath
er a
shi
fting
, ch
angi
ng,
deca
ying
pl
ace
inha
bite
d by
liv
ing
peop
le.
The
fragm
ents
adde
d or
rem
oved
are
not
of
a di
scer
nibl
e who
le th
at ca
n ev
er b
e com
plet
ed -
to
try
to d
o so
is fu
tile.
Rat
her,
the
arch
itect
ca
n tr
y to
im
bue
the
fragm
ents
whi
ch t
hey
add,
be
they
as
smal
l as
a
door
han
dle
or a
s la
rge
as a
city
blo
ck,
with
qu
aliti
es th
at a
re fe
lt in
the
neig
hbou
ring
piec
es
and
that
conn
ect o
ne w
ith an
idea
of a
n im
agin
ed
who
le.
The
best
outc
ome
is th
at t
he m
ater
ial
piec
es
they
ha
ve
adde
d ea
ch
belo
ng
and
have
an
in
terc
onne
cted
ness
tha
t al
low
s th
em t
o off
er
them
selv
es fo
rth
not j
ust a
s ob
ject
s qu
antifi
able
by
the
ir w
eigh
t or
vol
ume
but
as
thin
gs w
ith
a ne
arne
ss a
nd s
peci
ficity
tha
t is
able
to
gath
er
toge
ther
man
, cul
ture
and
pla
ce.
A F
RA
GM
EN
TE
D W
HO
LEM
atth
ew W
ickha
m
Issue #01
Fragment
foldthinking about architecture
Contributors:
Robert Grover
Philip ShelleyM
atthew W
ickhamAlastair C
rockettM
arcus RothnieJoshua W
aterstone
To contribute please contact foldmagazine.m
ail@gm
ail.com
ww
w.foldmagazine.w
ordpress.com robertjgrover@gm
ail.comphilip.shelley@
gmail.com
wickham
.matthew
@googlem
ail.comacinusa@
hotmail.com
marcus@
rothnie.orgjoshuaw
aterstone@gm
ail.com
Decem
ber 2012
If dust is the destiny of all objects, then fragmentation is the medium-term plan. The fragment is such a ubiquitous figure, we are likely to forget its presence. The very concept is part of a common European cultural inheritance, even the word is shared by most European languages, passed down, mostly in tact, from the Latin fragmentum. It’s telling that more equivalent vernacular words have not performed so well. German, for instance, has Bruchstück (‘broken piece’), but Das Fragment refuses to step aside. Etymological depth grants words a kind of power that they might otherwise lack; a license to signify more than the literal.
In this sense, fragment also implies value. Accordingly, we rarely speak of worthless fragments, but rather bits and pieces. The value of a fragment often depends of what it can tell us about itself and what it can, by implication, tell us more about the things of which it was once part, as well as how it was made. As such, fragments are a form of physical memory; a matrix from which reconstruction can be attempted. This capacity for implication is often enhanced by another property of fragments: that their edges are irregular, uneven, often implying the larger programme of which it was part; of pattern, for instance, or, where location is
preserved, of the arrangement of entire building complexes over time. Even small fragments thus possess an implicate order, which can only be recreated by the efforts of people: by the application of scientific techniques together with the cultural acts of interpretation, discussion, and communication of such insights. As for architecture, might the idea of the fragment go beyond that of physical substance (of, say, building conservation) to be extended to the immaterial, acknowledging its role in the subject and character of our thinking? Might there not be value in embracing the fragmentary quality of knowledge in architecture, rather than pretending it is some organic whole, or ignoring the problem entirely?
Fragmentation can of course also be destructive. It could be argued that the point at which fragmentation becomes undesirable is where the different branches of knowledge and practice can no longer be understood in relation to one another, when the outline of the whole schema is no longer discernible; where fragmentation is disguised as pluralism, when artificial boundaries between disciplines harden, as their common understanding and purposes wither away. Our knowledge is necessarily incomplete, but our thought and actions should, in some sense,
always take account of the larger picture, and the full purposes and potentials of how we shape the world around us. One precarious consequence of this over-fragmentation is the present schism between designers and society, in which the social dimension of architecture in particular is either mistrusted, forgotten, or marginalised, both within and outside of the discipline.
The corrective shift towards a more complete architecture is underway, with thinking and teaching increasingly taking place close to practice. Accepting the fragmentary quality of knowledge, our task is to make it and its overall shape more coherent. This task involves a kind of curation – interpretation, ordering, narrating, setting in place. Indeed, the whole question of how architectural knowledge is to be held and perpetuated in the digital age should also be contended. Sites such as art.sy, an attempt to create a structured public repository of art, promise future revolutions in how we might share and order architectural knowledge in the near future.
In the meantime, an increased openness would be welcome, creating a kind of practice more interested in incorporating valuable precedents and existing structures, with architecture as a social art and cultural practice.
EMBRACING THE FRAGMENTPhilip Shelley
A ST
UD
Y OF FR
AG
ME
NT
Marcus Rothnie
On the western side of the PlaÇa de Carles Buïgas stands a low horizontal building. Its form is unclear; a white horizontal roof to the north appears to float above a reflective void offset, by a solid plane of pale stone to the south. It is an object of illusion; reflections and transparencies distorting the perception of a physical reality.
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona pavilion is a place of ambiguity; it is simultaneously knowable and incomprehensible, rational and chaotic, simple and complicated. Solid walls appear to dissolve whilst transparent planes become voids of infinite reflection. It is clearly a building of heavy stone yet floats as though its mass is inconsequential. Inhabiting this structure is like being the edge of Nirvana, yet never being able to achieve enlightenment.
Mies walks a precarious tightrope, traversing a fine line between tantalising ambiguity and meaningless incoherence. Despite its careful detailing and fine craftsmanship The Barcelona Pavilion appears to us incomplete; a piece of reality that alludes to a larger whole beyond the physical limitations of its walls. The building is a fragment of an elusive whole, an allusion to a higher reality slightly beyond reach.
This fragmentary architecture runs counter the Quixotic pursuit of an architectural ideal. A reductionalist world view lends itself to the belief that buildings can become the physical manifestation of rationalist thought. The results are invariably disappointing as they never achieve the ideal they seek to pertain, serving as monuments to the fallibility of man.
The mystical world of the Barcelona Pavilion is a place for dreaming. It is not a failed attempt to achieve a Platonic ideal but a fragment which stimulates personal transendence to an elusive higher reality.
AN ELUSIVE REALITYRobert Grover
We
live
in
an
envi
ronm
ent
whe
re
muc
h ar
chite
ctur
al c
omm
unic
atio
n an
d ed
ucat
ion
is th
roug
h pu
blic
atio
n an
d th
e lim
ited
pers
pect
ive
prov
ided
by
im
ager
y. O
ur
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
ar
chite
ctur
e is
war
ped
by u
se o
f th
is sin
gle
form
of
med
ium
, red
ucin
g a
build
ing
to a
sing
le se
t of
phot
ogra
phs a
nd fo
rmal
dra
win
gs. I
wou
ld a
rgue
th
at re
lianc
e on
a se
t of p
rints
for a
n ap
prec
iatio
n of
the
bui
lt fo
rm l
eads
to
misc
omm
unic
atio
n fro
m t
hese
fra
gmen
ts. Th
is m
iscom
mun
icat
ion
allo
ws
for
both
int
ende
d an
d ac
cide
ntal
mis-
repr
esen
tatio
n of
a b
uild
ing
by it
s aut
hor.
For
a w
eak
proj
ect,
this
fragm
enta
tion
can
be
bene
ficia
l, hi
ghlig
htin
g po
sitiv
e as
pect
s, an
d fa
iling
to
com
men
t up
on t
hose
les
s su
cces
sful.
For
an e
xcel
lent
wor
k, t
his
fragm
enta
tion
can
be d
etrim
enta
l, as
the
lim
ited
capa
city
of
such
pu
blic
atio
n m
etho
ds l
eave
s th
e re
ader
with
out
the
true
leve
l of u
nder
stand
ing
that
a v
isit w
ould
pr
ovid
e.
It co
uld
be c
onsid
ered
tha
t th
e aw
aren
ess
that
a
proj
ect
will
be
prim
arily
exp
erie
nced
thr
ough
a
num
ber
of p
hoto
grap
hs m
ay l
ead
to a
des
igne
r cr
eatin
g m
erel
y a
build
ing
suffi
cien
t to
pro
vide
th
ese
phot
ogra
ph
oppo
rtun
ities
an
d no
thin
g fu
rthe
r. An
exa
mpl
e of
thi
s co
uld
be a
priv
ate
dwel
ling.
The
arch
itect
wish
es t
o us
e th
e pr
ojec
t fo
r pu
blic
ity a
nd g
ener
atin
g fu
rthe
r w
ork
once
co
mpl
eted
. By
pro
vidi
ng a
bui
ldin
g th
at w
ill
satis
fy fi
ve o
r six
cam
era
snap
shot
s m
ay a
chie
ve
this
publ
icity
br
ief,
whi
lst
not
nece
ssar
ily
prod
ucin
g a
grea
t wor
k th
at b
est s
erve
s the
nee
ds
and
aspi
ratio
ns o
f the
clie
nt.
In c
ontr
ast,
ther
e ar
e th
ose
proj
ects
to w
hich
ph
otog
raph
s w
ill n
ot d
o ju
stice
. I r
efer
to
thos
e th
at p
lay
to a
ll th
e se
nses
of
touc
h, s
mel
l an
d so
und
as w
ell
as s
ight
, or
are
jus
t in
capa
ble
of
true
enj
oym
ent
with
out
a vi
sit.
It is
for
such
bu
ildin
gs t
hat
the
fragm
enta
tion
of a
rchi
tect
ure
thro
ugh
imag
ery
is m
ost f
rustr
atin
g, d
imin
ishin
g a
care
fully
con
sider
ed c
reat
ion
of s
pace
int
o a
repr
esen
tatio
n th
at c
an n
ever
ful
ly r
ecre
ate
the
orig
inal
.
Dur
ing
our
educ
atio
n, w
e ar
e ta
ught
of
the
signi
fican
t m
ovem
ents
and
figur
es o
f th
e pa
st th
roug
h ke
y bu
ildin
gs.
How
ever
, ve
ry
rare
ly
do w
e re
ceiv
e th
is tu
ition
thr
ough
visi
ts to
suc
h im
port
ant
proj
ects,
ra
ther
vi
a pr
esen
tatio
ns
cons
istin
g of
a
brie
f ph
otog
raph
ic
over
view
s an
d gl
imps
es o
f for
mal
pla
ns. Th
is do
es n
ot le
ad
to a
pos
ition
whe
re w
e tr
uly
unde
rsta
nd t
he
signi
fican
ce o
f su
ch w
orks
, but
rat
her
deve
lop
a su
perfi
cial
vie
w o
f ho
w w
e co
nsid
er t
he p
hysic
al
form
dep
icte
d in
the
imag
ery.
Poss
ibly
this
is ju
st th
e res
ult o
f a w
orld
whe
re th
ere i
s so
muc
h to
see,
an
d a
limite
d tim
e in
whi
ch to
exp
erie
nce
it. W
e ar
e re
quire
d to
res
ort
to f
ragm
ents,
as
anyt
hing
la
rger
wou
ld li
mit
the n
umbe
r of p
roje
cts i
t wou
ld
be p
ossib
le to
disc
over
.
May
be
this
fragm
enta
tion
is w
hy
mod
ern
build
ings
of
ten
feel
so
ov
erdo
ne,
exce
ssiv
ely
borr
owin
g fe
atur
es
from
m
any
prec
eden
ts th
at l
ead
to a
cob
bled
tog
ethe
r co
mpo
sitio
n w
ith n
o ov
er r
idin
g ae
sthet
ic o
r ch
arac
ter.
The
wea
lth o
f fra
gmen
ted
influ
ence
s th
at w
e ha
ve
at o
ur fi
nger
tips
lead
s to
a c
lutte
red
min
d an
d su
bseq
uent
ly o
ver-
busy
arc
hite
ctur
e. If
we w
ere t
o re
duce
the
quan
tity
of a
rchi
tect
ural
snip
pets
that
w
e vie
w, an
d ra
ther
conc
entr
ate o
n th
e qua
lity
and
dept
h of
arc
hite
ctur
e th
at w
e ex
perie
nce
perh
aps
we,
as
the
next
gen
erat
ion,
can
ful
ly u
nder
stand
th
e bu
ildin
gs th
at w
e w
ant t
o cr
eate
and
form
an
era
of a
rchi
tect
ure
that
can
not b
e su
mm
ed u
p by
fra
gmen
ted
imag
es.
MIS
CO
MM
UN
ICAT
ION
TH
RO
UG
H F
RA
GM
EN
TAT
ION
Alas
tair
Cro
cket
t
A prompt, a comparison Richard Serra is referring to the ethical intent of his work, what is gleaned from a critical process, however he could just as easily be referring to an architectural condition or possibly even an approach to making architecture, something implicitly fragmentary. I would argue this architecture like Serra’s work is not gestural, not absolutist, not prescriptive of a ‘modus operandi’, not nostalgic, and not adding to a syntax that already exists. This architecture is ‘not looking for affirmation’ or complicity, the emergence of this architectural work as with Serra’s sculpture ‘relies on the process of its making’, not the augmentation of an existing language. A fragment.
Cutting Device: Base Plate-MeasureThe integrity of Serra’s work is concomitant with its process. In ‘Cutting Device: Base Plate-Measure’ a number of diverse elements are juxtaposed to separate and divide the piece. The activity of cutting restructures the field, informing the relationship between disparate parts in a way other than the literal juxtaposition of individual elements. What is poignant is that it takes into account the simultaneity and contradictory nature of the elements present and sorts them into a discernible historical continuum. The significance of it lies in its ethic not its intentions, Serra sets out to constrain the work in a qualified way, or in his own words ‘it’s how we do what we do that conjures a meaning of what we have done’. Serra establishes his own a priori in the way each architectural context presents its own frame and ideological overtones. Serra’s approach and ethic would suggest it’s a matter of the degree to which we choose to interpret them.
The Fragment as a means of understanding an a priori condition
‘I never begin to construct with a specific intention; I don’t work from a priori ideas and theoretical propositions. The structures are the result of experimentation and invention. In every search there is a degree of unforseeability, a sort of troubling feeling, a wonder after the work is complete, after the conclusion. The part of the work that surprises me invariably leads to new works. Call it a glimpse; often this glimpse occurs because of an obscurity which arises from a precise resolution.’ Richard Serra
‘In the gift of water, in the gift of w
ine, sky and earth dwell. But the gift of the outpouring is w
hat m
akes the jug a jug. In the jugness of the jug, sky and earth dwell.’
Martin H
eidegger
Front PageFragment of the Forma Urbis of Rome
Piranesi, 1756
PROMPTING A QUESTION OF ARCHITECTURAL INTENTJoshua Waterstone
A chance discovery of a fragment from
a ceramic
jug reveals more to us than just the fragm
ent itself. O
ur understanding of its material quality,
its weight, thickness, age and colour instantly
give us an idea of what the w
hole jug may have
been like. Its curvature and surface texture give us an im
pression of the size of the original jug and how
it was m
ade. An image form
s in one’s m
ind of how the vessel m
ay have looked and felt.
At this point a leap is made betw
een physical artifact and im
agined object, in which one’s
mind begins to turn the potter’s w
heel and com
plete the piece to one’s own specifications;
the length and shape of the spout, the width of
the handle. Our ow
n thoughts and judgements
form the rem
aining fragments of the piece, such
that if another person were to study the sam
e fragm
ent a different imagining m
ay be arrived at.
In doing so there is a risk that we im
agine the jug as an object w
ith scientifically quantifiable
properties rather than a thing which is part of
and defined by nature; that it has a cultural authenticity that goes beyond being a utility for m
an.
The reading of a building, street or city sim
ilarly inform
s us of a multiplicity of different pieces
of information m
ore layered and complex than
those of the jug fragment that w
e can hold betw
een two fingers.
‘Rational’ judgem
ents are difficult to arrive at:
the weather or the tim
e of day can change the feeling of a place. Th
e site that the architect seeks to understand and in som
e way to add to is not
a fixed object but rather a shifting, changing, decaying
place inhabited
by living
people. Th
e fragments added or rem
oved are not of a discernible w
hole that can ever be completed - to
try to do so is futile.
Rather,
the architect
can try
to im
bue the
fragments w
hich they add, be they as small as
a door handle or as large as a city block, with
qualities that are felt in the neighbouring pieces and that connect one w
ith an idea of an imagined
whole.
The best outcom
e is that the material pieces
they have
added each
belong and
have an
interconnectedness that allows them
to offer them
selves forth not just as objects quantifiable by their w
eight or volume but as things w
ith a nearness and specificity that is able to gather together m
an, culture and place.
A FR
AG
ME
NT
ED
WH
OLE
Matthew
Wickham
Issue #01
Fragment
fold thinking about architecture
Con
trib
utor
s:Ro
bert
Gro
ver
Phili
p Sh
elle
yM
atth
ew W
ickh
amAl
asta
ir C
rock
ett
Mar
cus R
othn
ieJo
shua
Wat
ersto
ne
To c
ontr
ibut
e pl
ease
con
tact
fold
mag
azin
e.mai
l@gm
ail.c
om
ww
w.fo
ldm
agaz
ine.w
ordp
ress.
comrobe
rtjg
rove
r@gm
ail.c
omph
ilip.
shell
ey@
gmai
l.com
wick
ham
.mat
thew
@go
oglem
ail.c
omac
inus
a@ho
tmai
l.com
mar
cus@
roth
nie.o
rgjo
shua
wat
ersto
ne@
gmai
l.com
Dec
embe
r 201
2
A pr
ompt
, a co
mpa
riso
n R
icha
rd S
erra
is r
efer
ring
to t
he e
thic
al in
tent
of
his
wor
k, w
hat i
s gl
eane
d fro
m a
crit
ical
pro
cess
, ho
wev
er h
e co
uld
just
as e
asily
be
refe
rrin
g to
an
arc
hite
ctur
al c
ondi
tion
or p
ossib
ly e
ven
an
appr
oach
to
m
akin
g ar
chite
ctur
e,
som
ethi
ng
impl
icitl
y fra
gmen
tary
. I
wou
ld
argu
e th
is ar
chite
ctur
e lik
e Se
rra’s
wor
k is
not
gestu
ral,
not
abso
lutis
t, no
t pre
scrip
tive
of a
‘mod
us o
pera
ndi’,
no
t no
stalg
ic,
and
not
addi
ng t
o a
synt
ax t
hat
alre
ady
exist
s. Th
is ar
chite
ctur
e is
‘not
loo
king
fo
r affi
rmat
ion’
or
com
plic
ity,
the
emer
genc
e of
th
is ar
chite
ctur
al w
ork
as w
ith S
erra
’s sc
ulpt
ure
‘relie
s on
the
pro
cess
of
its m
akin
g’,
not
the
augm
enta
tion
of an
exist
ing
lang
uage
. A fr
agm
ent.
Cut
ting
Dev
ice:
Bas
e Pla
te-M
easu
reTh
e in
tegr
ity
of
Serr
a’s
wor
k is
conc
omita
nt
with
its
proc
ess.
In ‘C
uttin
g D
evic
e: B
ase
Plat
e-M
easu
re’
a nu
mbe
r of
di
vers
e el
emen
ts ar
e ju
xtap
osed
to
sepa
rate
and
div
ide
the
piec
e. Th
e ac
tivity
of c
uttin
g re
struc
ture
s the
fiel
d, in
form
ing
the
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
disp
arat
e pa
rts
in a
way
ot
her
than
the
lite
ral j
uxta
posit
ion
of in
divi
dual
el
emen
ts. W
hat
is po
igna
nt i
s th
at i
t ta
kes
into
ac
coun
t the
sim
ulta
neity
and
cont
radi
ctor
y na
ture
of
the
ele
men
ts pr
esen
t an
d so
rts
them
int
o a
disc
erni
ble
histo
rical
con
tinuu
m. Th
e sig
nific
ance
of
it li
es in
its
ethi
c no
t its
inte
ntio
ns, S
erra
set
s ou
t to
con
strai
n th
e w
ork
in a
qua
lified
way
, or
in h
is ow
n w
ords
‘it’
s ho
w w
e do
wha
t w
e do
th
at c
onju
res
a m
eani
ng o
f w
hat
we
have
don
e’.
Serr
a es
tabl
ishes
his
own
a pr
iori
in th
e w
ay e
ach
arch
itect
ural
con
text
pre
sent
s its
ow
n fra
me
and
ideo
logi
cal o
vert
ones
. Ser
ra’s
appr
oach
and
eth
ic
wou
ld su
gges
t it’s
a m
atte
r of t
he d
egre
e to
whi
ch
we
choo
se to
inte
rpre
t the
m.
The F
ragm
ent a
s a m
eans
of u
nder
stand
ing
an a
prio
ri co
nditi
on
‘I ne
ver b
egin
to co
nstr
uct w
ith a
spec
ific i
nten
tion;
I do
n’t w
ork
from
a p
riori
idea
s and
theo
retic
al
prop
ositi
ons.
The s
truc
ture
s are
the r
esult
of ex
perim
enta
tion
and
inve
ntio
n. In
ever
y sea
rch
ther
e is a
deg
ree
of u
nfor
seeab
ility,
a so
rt o
f tro
ublin
g fee
ling,
a w
onde
r afte
r the
wor
k is
com
plet
e, af
ter t
he co
nclu
sion.
The
part
of t
he w
ork
that
surp
rises
me i
nvar
iabl
y lea
ds to
new
wor
ks. C
all i
t a g
limps
e; of
ten
this
glim
pse o
ccur
s be
caus
e of a
n ob
scurit
y whi
ch a
rises
from
a p
recis
e reso
lutio
n.’
R
icha
rd S
erra
‘In the gift of water, in the gift of wine, sky and earth dwell. But the gift of the outpouring is what makes the jug a jug. In the jugness of the jug, sky and earth dwell.’Martin Heidegger
Front PageFragm
ent of the Forma U
rbis of Rome
Piranesi, 1756 PR
OM
PT
ING
A Q
UE
STIO
N O
F A
RC
HIT
EC
TU
RA
L IN
TE
NT
Josh
ua W
ater
stone
A chance discovery of a fragment from a ceramic jug reveals more to us than just the fragment itself. Our understanding of its material quality, its weight, thickness, age and colour instantly give us an idea of what the whole jug may have been like. Its curvature and surface texture give us an impression of the size of the original jug and how it was made. An image forms in one’s mind of how the vessel may have looked and felt.
At this point a leap is made between physical artifact and imagined object, in which one’s mind begins to turn the potter’s wheel and complete the piece to one’s own specifications; the length and shape of the spout, the width of the handle. Our own thoughts and judgements form the remaining fragments of the piece, such that if another person were to study the same fragment a different imagining may be arrived at.
In doing so there is a risk that we imagine the jug as an object with scientifically quantifiable
properties rather than a thing which is part of and defined by nature; that it has a cultural authenticity that goes beyond being a utility for man.
The reading of a building, street or city similarly informs us of a multiplicity of different pieces of information more layered and complex than those of the jug fragment that we can hold between two fingers.
‘Rational’ judgements are difficult to arrive at: the weather or the time of day can change the feeling of a place. The site that the architect seeks to understand and in some way to add to is not a fixed object but rather a shifting, changing, decaying place inhabited by living people. The fragments added or removed are not of a discernible whole that can ever be completed - to try to do so is futile.
Rather, the architect can try to imbue the
fragments which they add, be they as small as a door handle or as large as a city block, with qualities that are felt in the neighbouring pieces and that connect one with an idea of an imagined whole.
The best outcome is that the material pieces they have added each belong and have an interconnectedness that allows them to offer themselves forth not just as objects quantifiable by their weight or volume but as things with a nearness and specificity that is able to gather together man, culture and place.
A FRAGMENTED WHOLEMatthew Wickham
Issue #01
Fragment
foldthinking about architecture
Contributors:Robert GroverPhilip ShelleyMatthew WickhamAlastair CrockettMarcus RothnieJoshua Waterstone
To contribute please contact [email protected] www.foldmagazine.wordpress.com
[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@gmail.com
December 2012
If dust
is the
destiny of
all objects,
then fragm
entation is the medium
-term plan. Th
e fragm
ent is such a ubiquitous figure, we are likely
to forget its presence. The very concept is part of
a comm
on European cultural inheritance, even the w
ord is shared by most European languages,
passed down, m
ostly in tact, from the Latin
fragmentum
. It’s telling that more equivalent
vernacular words have not perform
ed so well.
Germ
an, for instance, has Bruchstück (‘broken piece’), but D
as Fragment refuses to step aside.
Etymological depth grants w
ords a kind of pow
er that they might otherw
ise lack; a license to signify m
ore than the literal.
In this
sense, fragm
ent also
implies
value. Accordingly,
we
rarely speak
of w
orthless fragm
ents, but rather bits and pieces. The value
of a fragment often depends of w
hat it can tell us about itself and w
hat it can, by implication, tell us
more about the things of w
hich it was once part,
as well as how
it was m
ade. As such, fragments
are a form of physical m
emory; a m
atrix from
which reconstruction can be attem
pted. Th
is capacity for implication is often enhanced
by another property of fragments: that their
edges are
irregular, uneven,
often im
plying the larger program
me of w
hich it was part;
of pattern, for instance, or, where location is
preserved, of the arrangement of entire building
complexes
over tim
e. Even
small
fragments
thus possess an implicate order, w
hich can only be recreated by the efforts of people: by the application of scientific techniques together w
ith the cultural acts of interpretation, discussion, and com
munication of such insights.
As for
architecture, m
ight the
idea of
the fragm
ent go beyond that of physical substance (of, say, building conservation) to be extended to the im
material, acknow
ledging its role in the subject and character of our thinking? M
ight there not be value in em
bracing the fragmentary
quality of knowledge in architecture, rather than
pretending it is some organic w
hole, or ignoring the problem
entirely?
Fragmentation can of course also be destructive.
It could be argued that the point at which
fragmentation becom
es undesirable is where the
different branches of knowledge and practice
can no longer be understood in relation to one another, w
hen the outline of the whole schem
a is no longer discernible; w
here fragmentation is
disguised as pluralism, w
hen artificial boundaries betw
een disciplines harden, as their comm
on understanding and purposes w
ither away. O
ur know
ledge is necessarily incomplete, but our
thought and actions should, in some sense,
always take account of the larger picture, and the
full purposes and potentials of how w
e shape the w
orld around us. One precarious consequence
of this over-fragmentation is the present schism
betw
een designers and society, in which the
social dimension of architecture in particular is
either mistrusted, forgotten, or m
arginalised, both w
ithin and outside of the discipline.
The corrective shift tow
ards a more com
plete architecture is underw
ay, with thinking and
teaching increasingly
taking place
close to
practice. Accepting the fragmentary quality of
knowledge, our task is to m
ake it and its overall shape m
ore coherent. This task involves a kind
of curation – interpretation, ordering, narrating, setting in place. Indeed, the w
hole question of how
architectural knowledge is to be held and
perpetuated in the digital age should also be contended. Sites such as art.sy, an attem
pt to create a structured public repository of art, prom
ise future revolutions in how w
e might
share and order architectural knowledge in the
near future.
In the meantim
e, an increased openness would
be welcom
e, creating a kind of practice more
interested in incorporating valuable precedents and existing structures, w
ith architecture as a social art and cultural practice.
EM
BR
AC
ING
TH
E FRA
GM
EN
TPhilip Shelley
A STUDY OF FRAGMENTMarcus Rothnie
On
the
wes
tern
side
of t
he P
laÇa
de
Car
les B
uïga
s sta
nds a
low
hor
izont
al
build
ing.
Its
form
is u
ncle
ar; a
whi
te h
orizo
ntal
roof
to th
e no
rth
appe
ars
to fl
oat a
bove
a r
eflec
tive
void
offs
et, b
y a
solid
pla
ne o
f pal
e sto
ne to
the
sout
h.
It is
an o
bjec
t of i
llusio
n; r
eflec
tions
and
tran
spar
enci
es d
istor
ting
the
perc
eptio
n of
a p
hysic
al re
ality
.
Ludw
ig M
ies
van
der
Rohe
’s Ba
rcel
ona
pavi
lion
is a
plac
e of
am
bigu
ity;
it is
simul
tane
ously
kno
wab
le a
nd in
com
preh
ensib
le, r
atio
nal a
nd c
haot
ic,
simpl
e an
d co
mpl
icat
ed.
Solid
wal
ls ap
pear
to d
issol
ve w
hilst
tran
spar
ent
plan
es b
ecom
e vo
ids o
f infi
nite
refle
ctio
n. I
t is c
lear
ly a
bui
ldin
g of
hea
vy
stone
yet
floa
ts as
tho
ugh
its m
ass
is in
cons
eque
ntia
l. I
nhab
iting
thi
s str
uctu
re is
like
bei
ng th
e ed
ge o
f Nirv
ana,
yet
nev
er b
eing
abl
e to
ach
ieve
en
light
enm
ent.
Mie
s wal
ks a
pre
cario
us ti
ghtro
pe, t
rave
rsin
g a
fine
line
betw
een
tant
alisi
ng
ambi
guity
and
mea
ning
less
inco
here
nce.
Des
pite
its
care
ful d
etai
ling
and
fine c
rafts
man
ship
The B
arce
lona
Pav
ilion
appe
ars t
o us
inco
mpl
ete;
a pi
ece
of re
ality
that
allu
des t
o a l
arge
r who
le b
eyon
d th
e phy
sical
lim
itatio
ns o
f its
wal
ls. Th
e bui
ldin
g is
a fra
gmen
t of a
n el
usiv
e who
le, a
n al
lusio
n to
a hi
gher
re
ality
slig
htly
bey
ond
reac
h.
This
fragm
enta
ry a
rchi
tect
ure
runs
cou
nter
the
Qui
xotic
pur
suit
of a
n ar
chite
ctur
al id
eal.
A re
duct
iona
list w
orld
vie
w le
nds i
tself
to th
e bel
ief t
hat
build
ings
can
beco
me t
he p
hysic
al m
anife
statio
n of
ratio
nalis
t tho
ught
. Th
e re
sults
are
inva
riabl
y di
sapp
oint
ing
as th
ey n
ever
ach
ieve
the
idea
l the
y se
ek
to p
erta
in, s
ervi
ng a
s mon
umen
ts to
the
falli
bilit
y of
man
.
The
mys
tical
wor
ld o
f th
e Ba
rcel
ona
Pavi
lion
is a
plac
e fo
r dr
eam
ing.
It
is no
t a
faile
d at
tem
pt t
o ac
hiev
e a
Plat
onic
idea
l but
a f
ragm
ent
whi
ch
stim
ulat
es p
erso
nal t
rans
ende
nce
to a
n el
usiv
e hi
gher
real
ity.
AN
ELU
SIV
E R
EA
LIT
YRo
bert
Gro
ver
We live in an environment where much architectural communication and education is through publication and the limited perspective provided by imagery. Our understanding of architecture is warped by use of this single form of medium, reducing a building to a single set of photographs and formal drawings. I would argue that reliance on a set of prints for an appreciation of the built form leads to miscommunication from these fragments. This miscommunication allows for both intended and accidental mis-representation of a building by its author.
For a weak project, this fragmentation can be beneficial, highlighting positive aspects, and failing to comment upon those less successful. For an excellent work, this fragmentation can be detrimental, as the limited capacity of such publication methods leaves the reader without the true level of understanding that a visit would provide.
It could be considered that the awareness that a project will be primarily experienced through a number of photographs may lead to a designer creating merely a building sufficient to provide these photograph opportunities and nothing further. An example of this could be a private dwelling. The architect wishes to use the project for publicity and generating further work once completed. By providing a building that will satisfy five or six camera snapshots may achieve this publicity brief, whilst not necessarily producing a great work that best serves the needs and aspirations of the client.
In contrast, there are those projects to which photographs will not do justice. I refer to those that play to all the senses of touch, smell and sound as well as sight, or are just incapable of true enjoyment without a visit. It is for such buildings that the fragmentation of architecture through imagery is most frustrating, diminishing a carefully considered creation of space into a representation that can never fully recreate the original.
During our education, we are taught of the significant movements and figures of the past through key buildings. However, very rarely do we receive this tuition through visits to such important projects, rather via presentations consisting of a brief photographic overviews and glimpses of formal plans. This does not lead to a position where we truly understand the significance of such works, but rather develop a superficial view of how we consider the physical form depicted in the imagery. Possibly this is just the result of a world where there is so much to see, and a limited time in which to experience it. We are required to resort to fragments, as anything larger would limit the number of projects it would be possible to discover.
Maybe this fragmentation is why modern buildings often feel so overdone, excessively borrowing features from many precedents that lead to a cobbled together composition with no over riding aesthetic or character. The wealth of fragmented influences that we have at our fingertips leads to a cluttered mind and subsequently over-busy architecture. If we were to reduce the quantity of architectural snippets that we view, and rather concentrate on the quality and depth of architecture that we experience perhaps we, as the next generation, can fully understand the buildings that we want to create and form an era of architecture that cannot be summed up by fragmented images.
MISCOMMUNICATION THROUGH FRAGMENTATIONAlastair Crockett
If dust is the destiny of all objects, then fragmentation is the medium-term plan. The fragment is such a ubiquitous figure, we are likely to forget its presence. The very concept is part of a common European cultural inheritance, even the word is shared by most European languages, passed down, mostly in tact, from the Latin fragmentum. It’s telling that more equivalent vernacular words have not performed so well. German, for instance, has Bruchstück (‘broken piece’), but Das Fragment refuses to step aside. Etymological depth grants words a kind of power that they might otherwise lack; a license to signify more than the literal.
In this sense, fragment also implies value. Accordingly, we rarely speak of worthless fragments, but rather bits and pieces. The value of a fragment often depends of what it can tell us about itself and what it can, by implication, tell us more about the things of which it was once part, as well as how it was made. As such, fragments are a form of physical memory; a matrix from which reconstruction can be attempted. This capacity for implication is often enhanced by another property of fragments: that their edges are irregular, uneven, often implying the larger programme of which it was part; of pattern, for instance, or, where location is
preserved, of the arrangement of entire building complexes over time. Even small fragments thus possess an implicate order, which can only be recreated by the efforts of people: by the application of scientific techniques together with the cultural acts of interpretation, discussion, and communication of such insights. As for architecture, might the idea of the fragment go beyond that of physical substance (of, say, building conservation) to be extended to the immaterial, acknowledging its role in the subject and character of our thinking? Might there not be value in embracing the fragmentary quality of knowledge in architecture, rather than pretending it is some organic whole, or ignoring the problem entirely?
Fragmentation can of course also be destructive. It could be argued that the point at which fragmentation becomes undesirable is where the different branches of knowledge and practice can no longer be understood in relation to one another, when the outline of the whole schema is no longer discernible; where fragmentation is disguised as pluralism, when artificial boundaries between disciplines harden, as their common understanding and purposes wither away. Our knowledge is necessarily incomplete, but our thought and actions should, in some sense,
always take account of the larger picture, and the full purposes and potentials of how we shape the world around us. One precarious consequence of this over-fragmentation is the present schism between designers and society, in which the social dimension of architecture in particular is either mistrusted, forgotten, or marginalised, both within and outside of the discipline.
The corrective shift towards a more complete architecture is underway, with thinking and teaching increasingly taking place close to practice. Accepting the fragmentary quality of knowledge, our task is to make it and its overall shape more coherent. This task involves a kind of curation – interpretation, ordering, narrating, setting in place. Indeed, the whole question of how architectural knowledge is to be held and perpetuated in the digital age should also be contended. Sites such as art.sy, an attempt to create a structured public repository of art, promise future revolutions in how we might share and order architectural knowledge in the near future.
In the meantime, an increased openness would be welcome, creating a kind of practice more interested in incorporating valuable precedents and existing structures, with architecture as a social art and cultural practice.
EMBRACING THE FRAGMENTPhilip Shelley
A S
TU
DY
OF
FRA
GM
EN
TM
arcu
s Rot
hnie
On the western side of the PlaÇa de Carles Buïgas stands a low horizontal building. Its form is unclear; a white horizontal roof to the north appears to float above a reflective void offset, by a solid plane of pale stone to the south. It is an object of illusion; reflections and transparencies distorting the perception of a physical reality.
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona pavilion is a place of ambiguity; it is simultaneously knowable and incomprehensible, rational and chaotic, simple and complicated. Solid walls appear to dissolve whilst transparent planes become voids of infinite reflection. It is clearly a building of heavy stone yet floats as though its mass is inconsequential. Inhabiting this structure is like being the edge of Nirvana, yet never being able to achieve enlightenment.
Mies walks a precarious tightrope, traversing a fine line between tantalising ambiguity and meaningless incoherence. Despite its careful detailing and fine craftsmanship The Barcelona Pavilion appears to us incomplete; a piece of reality that alludes to a larger whole beyond the physical limitations of its walls. The building is a fragment of an elusive whole, an allusion to a higher reality slightly beyond reach.
This fragmentary architecture runs counter the Quixotic pursuit of an architectural ideal. A reductionalist world view lends itself to the belief that buildings can become the physical manifestation of rationalist thought. The results are invariably disappointing as they never achieve the ideal they seek to pertain, serving as monuments to the fallibility of man.
The mystical world of the Barcelona Pavilion is a place for dreaming. It is not a failed attempt to achieve a Platonic ideal but a fragment which stimulates personal transendence to an elusive higher reality.
AN ELUSIVE REALITYRobert Grover
We
live in
an environm
ent w
here m
uch architectural com
munication and education is
through publication and the limited perspective
provided by
imagery.
Our
understanding of
architecture is warped by use of this single form
of m
edium, reducing a building to a single set of
photographs and formal draw
ings. I would argue
that reliance on a set of prints for an appreciation of the built form
leads to miscom
munication
from these fragm
ents. This m
iscomm
unication allow
s for both intended and accidental mis-
representation of a building by its author.
For a weak project, this fragm
entation can be beneficial,
highlighting positive
aspects, and
failing to comm
ent upon those less successful. For an excellent w
ork, this fragmentation can
be detrimental, as the lim
ited capacity of such publication m
ethods leaves the reader without
the true level of understanding that a visit would
provide.
It could be considered that the awareness that a
project will be prim
arily experienced through a num
ber of photographs may lead to a designer
creating merely a building suffi
cient to provide these
photograph opportunities
and nothing
further. An example of this could be a private
dwelling. Th
e architect wishes to use the project
for publicity and generating further work once
completed. By providing a building that w
ill satisfy five or six cam
era snapshots may achieve
this publicity
brief, w
hilst not
necessarily producing a great w
ork that best serves the needs and aspirations of the client.
In contrast, there are those projects to which
photographs will not do justice. I refer to those
that play to all the senses of touch, smell and
sound as well as sight, or are just incapable of
true enjoyment w
ithout a visit. It is for such buildings that the fragm
entation of architecture through im
agery is most frustrating, dim
inishing a carefully considered creation of space into a representation that can never fully recreate the original.
During our education, w
e are taught of the significant m
ovements and figures of the past
through key
buildings. H
owever,
very rarely
do we receive this tuition through visits to such
important
projects, rather
via presentations
consisting of
a brief
photographic overview
s and glim
pses of formal plans. Th
is does not lead to a position w
here we truly understand the
significance of such works, but rather develop a
superficial view of how
we consider the physical
form depicted in the im
agery. Possibly this is just the result of a w
orld where there is so m
uch to see, and a lim
ited time in w
hich to experience it. We
are required to resort to fragments, as anything
larger would lim
it the number of projects it w
ould be possible to discover.
Maybe
this fragm
entation is
why
modern
buildings often
feel so
overdone, excessively
borrowing
features from
m
any precedents
that lead to a cobbled together composition
with no over riding aesthetic or character. Th
e w
ealth of fragmented influences that w
e have at our fingertips leads to a cluttered m
ind and subsequently over-busy architecture. If w
e were to
reduce the quantity of architectural snippets that w
e view, and rather concentrate on the quality and depth of architecture that w
e experience perhaps w
e, as the next generation, can fully understand the buildings that w
e want to create and form
an era of architecture that cannot be sum
med up by
fragmented im
ages.
MISC
OM
MU
NIC
ATIO
N T
HR
OU
GH
FRA
GM
EN
TATIO
NAlastair C
rockett
If du
st is
the
desti
ny
of
all
obje
cts,
then
fra
gmen
tatio
n is
the
med
ium
-term
pla
n. Th
e fra
gmen
t is s
uch
a ubi
quito
us fi
gure
, we a
re li
kely
to
forg
et it
s pre
senc
e. Th
e ve
ry c
once
pt is
par
t of
a co
mm
on E
urop
ean
cultu
ral i
nher
itanc
e, e
ven
the
wor
d is
shar
ed b
y m
ost E
urop
ean
lang
uage
s, pa
ssed
dow
n, m
ostly
in
tact
, fro
m t
he L
atin
fra
gmen
tum
. It’
s te
lling
tha
t m
ore
equi
vale
nt
vern
acul
ar w
ords
hav
e no
t pe
rform
ed s
o w
ell.
Ger
man
, for
insta
nce,
has
Bru
chstü
ck (
‘bro
ken
piec
e’), b
ut D
as F
ragm
ent
refu
ses
to s
tep
asid
e.
Etym
olog
ical
dep
th g
rant
s w
ords
a k
ind
of
pow
er t
hat
they
mig
ht o
ther
wise
lack
; a li
cens
e to
sign
ify m
ore
than
the
liter
al.
In
this
sens
e,
fragm
ent
also
im
plie
s va
lue.
Ac
cord
ingl
y, w
e ra
rely
sp
eak
of
wor
thle
ss
fragm
ents,
but
rat
her
bits
and
piec
es. Th
e va
lue
of a
fragm
ent o
ften
depe
nds o
f wha
t it c
an te
ll us
ab
out i
tself
and
wha
t it c
an, b
y im
plic
atio
n, te
ll us
m
ore
abou
t the
thin
gs o
f whi
ch it
was
onc
e pa
rt,
as w
ell a
s how
it w
as m
ade.
As s
uch,
frag
men
ts ar
e a
form
of
phys
ical
mem
ory;
a m
atrix
fro
m
whi
ch re
cons
truc
tion
can
be a
ttem
pted
. Th
is ca
paci
ty f
or im
plic
atio
n is
ofte
n en
hanc
ed
by a
noth
er p
rope
rty
of f
ragm
ents:
tha
t th
eir
edge
s ar
e irr
egul
ar,
unev
en,
ofte
n im
plyi
ng
the
larg
er p
rogr
amm
e of
whi
ch i
t w
as p
art;
of p
atte
rn,
for
insta
nce,
or,
whe
re l
ocat
ion
is
pres
erve
d, o
f the
arr
ange
men
t of e
ntire
bui
ldin
g co
mpl
exes
ov
er
time.
Ev
en
smal
l fra
gmen
ts th
us p
osse
ss a
n im
plic
ate
orde
r, w
hich
can
onl
y be
rec
reat
ed b
y th
e eff
orts
of p
eopl
e: b
y th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
scie
ntifi
c tec
hniq
ues t
oget
her w
ith
the
cultu
ral
acts
of i
nter
pret
atio
n, d
iscus
sion,
an
d co
mm
unic
atio
n of
such
insig
hts.
As
for
arch
itect
ure,
m
ight
th
e id
ea
of
the
fragm
ent
go b
eyon
d th
at o
f ph
ysic
al s
ubsta
nce
(of,
say,
build
ing
cons
erva
tion)
to
be e
xten
ded
to th
e im
mat
eria
l, ac
know
ledg
ing
its ro
le in
the
subj
ect
and
char
acte
r of
our
thi
nkin
g? M
ight
th
ere
not b
e va
lue
in e
mbr
acin
g th
e fra
gmen
tary
qu
ality
of k
now
ledg
e in
arc
hite
ctur
e, ra
ther
than
pr
eten
ding
it is
som
e or
gani
c w
hole
, or i
gnor
ing
the
prob
lem
ent
irely
?
Frag
men
tatio
n ca
n of
cou
rse
also
be
destr
uctiv
e.
It co
uld
be a
rgue
d th
at t
he p
oint
at
whi
ch
fragm
enta
tion
beco
mes
und
esira
ble
is w
here
the
diffe
rent
bra
nche
s of
kno
wle
dge
and
prac
tice
can
no lo
nger
be
unde
rsto
od in
rel
atio
n to
one
an
othe
r, w
hen
the
outli
ne o
f the
who
le s
chem
a is
no lo
nger
disc
erni
ble;
whe
re fr
agm
enta
tion
is di
sgui
sed
as p
lura
lism
, whe
n ar
tifici
al b
ound
arie
s be
twee
n di
scip
lines
har
den,
as
thei
r co
mm
on
unde
rsta
ndin
g an
d pu
rpos
es w
ither
aw
ay.
Our
kn
owle
dge
is ne
cess
arily
inc
ompl
ete,
but
our
th
ough
t an
d ac
tions
sho
uld,
in
som
e se
nse,
alw
ays t
ake a
ccou
nt o
f the
larg
er p
ictu
re, a
nd th
e fu
ll pu
rpos
es a
nd p
oten
tials
of h
ow w
e sh
ape
the
wor
ld a
roun
d us
. O
ne p
reca
rious
con
sequ
ence
of
this
over
-frag
men
tatio
n is
the
pres
ent s
chism
be
twee
n de
signe
rs a
nd s
ocie
ty,
in w
hich
the
so
cial
dim
ensio
n of
arc
hite
ctur
e in
par
ticul
ar is
ei
ther
mist
ruste
d, f
orgo
tten,
or
mar
gina
lised
, bo
th w
ithin
and
out
side
of th
e di
scip
line.
The
corr
ectiv
e sh
ift t
owar
ds a
mor
e co
mpl
ete
arch
itect
ure
is un
derw
ay,
with
thi
nkin
g an
d te
achi
ng
incr
easin
gly
taki
ng
plac
e cl
ose
to
prac
tice.
Ac
cept
ing
the
fragm
enta
ry q
ualit
y of
kn
owle
dge,
our
task
is to
mak
e it
and
its o
vera
ll sh
ape
mor
e co
here
nt. Th
is ta
sk in
volv
es a
kin
d of
cur
atio
n –
inte
rpre
tatio
n, o
rder
ing,
nar
ratin
g,
setti
ng in
pla
ce. I
ndee
d, t
he w
hole
que
stion
of
how
arc
hite
ctur
al k
now
ledg
e is
to b
e he
ld a
nd
perp
etua
ted
in t
he d
igita
l ag
e sh
ould
also
be
cont
ende
d. S
ites
such
as
art.s
y, an
atte
mpt
to
crea
te a
str
uctu
red
publ
ic r
epos
itory
of
art,
prom
ise f
utur
e re
volu
tions
in
how
we
mig
ht
shar
e an
d or
der
arch
itect
ural
kno
wle
dge
in t
he
near
futu
re.
In t
he m
eant
ime,
an
incr
ease
d op
enne
ss w
ould
be
wel
com
e, c
reat
ing
a ki
nd o
f pr
actic
e m
ore
inte
reste
d in
inc
orpo
ratin
g va
luab
le p
rece
dent
s an
d ex
istin
g str
uctu
res,
with
arc
hite
ctur
e as
a
soci
al a
rt a
nd c
ultu
ral p
ract
ice.
EM
BR
AC
ING
TH
E FR
AG
ME
NT
Phili
p Sh
elley
A STUDY OF FRAGMENTMarcus Rothnie
On the w
estern side of the PlaÇa de Carles Buïgas stands a low
horizontal building. Its form
is unclear; a white horizontal roof to the north appears
to float above a reflective void offset, by a solid plane of pale stone to the south. It is an object of illusion; reflections and transparencies distorting the perception of a physical reality.
Ludwig M
ies van der Rohe’s Barcelona pavilion is a place of ambiguity;
it is simultaneously know
able and incomprehensible, rational and chaotic,
simple and com
plicated. Solid walls appear to dissolve w
hilst transparent planes becom
e voids of infinite reflection. It is clearly a building of heavy stone yet floats as though its m
ass is inconsequential. Inhabiting this structure is like being the edge of N
irvana, yet never being able to achieve enlightenm
ent.
Mies w
alks a precarious tightrope, traversing a fine line between tantalising
ambiguity and m
eaningless incoherence. Despite its careful detailing and
fine craftsmanship Th
e Barcelona Pavilion appears to us incomplete; a piece
of reality that alludes to a larger whole beyond the physical lim
itations of its w
alls. The building is a fragm
ent of an elusive whole, an allusion to a higher
reality slightly beyond reach.
This fragm
entary architecture runs counter the Quixotic pursuit of an
architectural ideal. A reductionalist world view
lends itself to the belief that buildings can becom
e the physical manifestation of rationalist thought. Th
e results are invariably disappointing as they never achieve the ideal they seek to pertain, serving as m
onuments to the fallibility of m
an.
The m
ystical world of the Barcelona Pavilion is a place for dream
ing. It is not a failed attem
pt to achieve a Platonic ideal but a fragment w
hich stim
ulates personal transendence to an elusive higher reality.
AN
ELU
SIVE R
EA
LITY
Robert Grover
We live in an environment where much architectural communication and education is through publication and the limited perspective provided by imagery. Our understanding of architecture is warped by use of this single form of medium, reducing a building to a single set of photographs and formal drawings. I would argue that reliance on a set of prints for an appreciation of the built form leads to miscommunication from these fragments. This miscommunication allows for both intended and accidental mis-representation of a building by its author.
For a weak project, this fragmentation can be beneficial, highlighting positive aspects, and failing to comment upon those less successful. For an excellent work, this fragmentation can be detrimental, as the limited capacity of such publication methods leaves the reader without the true level of understanding that a visit would provide.
It could be considered that the awareness that a project will be primarily experienced through a number of photographs may lead to a designer creating merely a building sufficient to provide these photograph opportunities and nothing further. An example of this could be a private dwelling. The architect wishes to use the project for publicity and generating further work once completed. By providing a building that will satisfy five or six camera snapshots may achieve this publicity brief, whilst not necessarily producing a great work that best serves the needs and aspirations of the client.
In contrast, there are those projects to which photographs will not do justice. I refer to those that play to all the senses of touch, smell and sound as well as sight, or are just incapable of true enjoyment without a visit. It is for such buildings that the fragmentation of architecture through imagery is most frustrating, diminishing a carefully considered creation of space into a representation that can never fully recreate the original.
During our education, we are taught of the significant movements and figures of the past through key buildings. However, very rarely do we receive this tuition through visits to such important projects, rather via presentations consisting of a brief photographic overviews and glimpses of formal plans. This does not lead to a position where we truly understand the significance of such works, but rather develop a superficial view of how we consider the physical form depicted in the imagery. Possibly this is just the result of a world where there is so much to see, and a limited time in which to experience it. We are required to resort to fragments, as anything larger would limit the number of projects it would be possible to discover.
Maybe this fragmentation is why modern buildings often feel so overdone, excessively borrowing features from many precedents that lead to a cobbled together composition with no over riding aesthetic or character. The wealth of fragmented influences that we have at our fingertips leads to a cluttered mind and subsequently over-busy architecture. If we were to reduce the quantity of architectural snippets that we view, and rather concentrate on the quality and depth of architecture that we experience perhaps we, as the next generation, can fully understand the buildings that we want to create and form an era of architecture that cannot be summed up by fragmented images.
MISCOMMUNICATION THROUGH FRAGMENTATIONAlastair Crockett
A prompt, a com
parison R
ichard Serra is referring to the ethical intent of his w
ork, what is gleaned from
a critical process, how
ever he could just as easily be referring to an architectural condition or possibly even an approach
to m
aking architecture,
something
implicitly
fragmentary.
I w
ould argue
this architecture like Serra’s w
ork is not gestural, not absolutist, not prescriptive of a ‘m
odus operandi’, not nostalgic, and not adding to a syntax that already exists. Th
is architecture is ‘not looking for affi
rmation’ or com
plicity, the emergence of
this architectural work as w
ith Serra’s sculpture ‘relies on the process of its m
aking’, not the augm
entation of an existing language. A fragment.
Cutting D
evice: Base Plate-Measure
The
integrity of
Serra’s w
ork is
concomitant
with its process. In ‘C
utting Device: Base Plate-
Measure’
a num
ber of
diverse elem
ents are
juxtaposed to separate and divide the piece. The
activity of cutting restructures the field, informing
the relationship between disparate parts in a w
ay other than the literal juxtaposition of individual elem
ents. What is poignant is that it takes into
account the simultaneity and contradictory nature
of the elements present and sorts them
into a discernible historical continuum
. The significance
of it lies in its ethic not its intentions, Serra sets out to constrain the w
ork in a qualified way, or
in his own w
ords ‘it’s how w
e do what w
e do that conjures a m
eaning of what w
e have done’. Serra establishes his ow
n a priori in the way each
architectural context presents its own fram
e and ideological overtones. Serra’s approach and ethic w
ould suggest it’s a matter of the degree to w
hich w
e choose to interpret them.
The Fragm
ent as a means of understanding an a priori condition
‘I never begin to construct with a specific intention; I don’t w
ork from a priori ideas and theoretical
propositions. The structures are the result of experim
entation and invention. In every search there is a degree of unforseeability, a sort of troubling feeling, a w
onder after the work is com
plete, after the conclusion. The
part of the work that surprises m
e invariably leads to new w
orks. Call it a glim
pse; often this glimpse occurs
because of an obscurity which arises from
a precise resolution.’
Richard Serra
‘In the gift of water, in the gift of wine, sky and earth dwell. But the gift of the outpouring is what makes the jug a jug. In the jugness of the jug, sky and earth dwell.’Martin Heidegger
Fron
t Pag
eFr
agm
ent o
f the
For
ma
Urb
is of
Rom
ePi
rane
si, 1
756P
RO
MP
TIN
G A
QU
EST
ION
OF A
RC
HIT
EC
TU
RA
L INT
EN
TJoshua W
aterstone
A chance discovery of a fragment from a ceramic jug reveals more to us than just the fragment itself. Our understanding of its material quality, its weight, thickness, age and colour instantly give us an idea of what the whole jug may have been like. Its curvature and surface texture give us an impression of the size of the original jug and how it was made. An image forms in one’s mind of how the vessel may have looked and felt.
At this point a leap is made between physical artifact and imagined object, in which one’s mind begins to turn the potter’s wheel and complete the piece to one’s own specifications; the length and shape of the spout, the width of the handle. Our own thoughts and judgements form the remaining fragments of the piece, such that if another person were to study the same fragment a different imagining may be arrived at.
In doing so there is a risk that we imagine the jug as an object with scientifically quantifiable
properties rather than a thing which is part of and defined by nature; that it has a cultural authenticity that goes beyond being a utility for man.
The reading of a building, street or city similarly informs us of a multiplicity of different pieces of information more layered and complex than those of the jug fragment that we can hold between two fingers.
‘Rational’ judgements are difficult to arrive at: the weather or the time of day can change the feeling of a place. The site that the architect seeks to understand and in some way to add to is not a fixed object but rather a shifting, changing, decaying place inhabited by living people. The fragments added or removed are not of a discernible whole that can ever be completed - to try to do so is futile.
Rather, the architect can try to imbue the
fragments which they add, be they as small as a door handle or as large as a city block, with qualities that are felt in the neighbouring pieces and that connect one with an idea of an imagined whole.
The best outcome is that the material pieces they have added each belong and have an interconnectedness that allows them to offer themselves forth not just as objects quantifiable by their weight or volume but as things with a nearness and specificity that is able to gather together man, culture and place.
A FRAGMENTED WHOLEMatthew Wickham
Issu
e #0
1
Frag
men
t
fold
thin
king
abo
ut a
rchi
tect
ure
Contributors:Robert GroverPhilip ShelleyMatthew WickhamAlastair CrockettMarcus RothnieJoshua Waterstone
To contribute please contact [email protected] www.foldmagazine.wordpress.com
[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@gmail.com
December 2012