{"id":41250,"date":"2016-02-20T19:15:23","date_gmt":"2016-02-20T18:15:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/monasandnomos.org\/?p=2138"},"modified":"2016-02-20T19:15:23","modified_gmt":"2016-02-20T18:15:23","slug":"architectonic-disposition-ichnography-scenography-orthography","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/meta.copyriot.com\/2016\/02\/architectonic-disposition-ichnography-scenography-orthography\/","title":{"rendered":"Architectonic disposition: ichnography, scenography, orthography"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/em>by Vera B\u00fchlmann<\/em><\/p>\n

author\u2019s manuscript.<\/p>\n

In his Ten Books on Architecture<\/em>, the Roman architect Vitruvius gathered all the existent knowledge on architecture in one comprehensive treaty including the building of temples, of course, but also the construction of clocks (gnomon, sun-dials) and the fabrication of machinery. The dedicated aim of gathering all the distributed knowledge in architecture has been to generalize from local customs and the ethical\/religious meanings attributed to the built works, and to propose rules and conceptual distinctions for addressing and critically evaluating \u201ethe establishment of public order\u201c[1]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> in a manner that can preserve the built environment\u2019s \u201eworth\u201c. Vitruv proposed three categories \u2013 utilitas<\/em>, firmitas<\/em>, and venustas<\/em> \u2013, and introduced six elementary concepts by which an architectural object can be qualified according to these categories.[2]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> None of these concepts is self-standing, like a separate metrics, but rather must be brought to work together by the architect in singular manners; the planning of this interplay \u2013 this is the work in which an architect can be more or less professed. Vitruvius\u2019 conceptual apparatus is to provide critical assessment of such professionalism, such that the \u201eworth\u201c of architecture can be preserved over generations and regions. It includes practical aspects as well as theoretical ones, which he distinguished as fabrica<\/em> and ratiocination<\/em>. The six elementary concepts are (1) ordinatio: <\/em>centering in selecting one module from which the metrical unit for the overall taxation is to be derived in order to the establish a singular work\u2019s \u201eordination\u201c by articulating and proportioning the members of the work; this idea of ordination is analogous to Vitruv\u2019s suggestion that rather than ideas of the magnitudes and scales impersonated by a particular God, the human body can be referent to proportionate metrics in architecture;, (2) dispositio: <\/em>regarding the conception and disposition of all the work\u2019s elements in plans, (3) eurythmia: <\/em>the well-proportioned overall appearance of the work, (4) symmetria: <\/em>for the harmony of the order with regard to the module from which its metrics is derived, (5) decor<\/em> or propriety<\/em>: for customization of the work according to established customs, and (6) distributio<\/em> (in Greek oikonomia<\/em>): for a distribution of building materials and expenses adequate to the wealth and status of the customer.<\/p>\n

The generalization from local customs and the ethical\/religious meanings attempted by Vitruv is so interesting because it proceeds in a manner of which I claim here that it parallels <\/em>rather than imitates or reproduces philosophical methods of generalization and classification. Against this postulate of parallelism (\u2014> equation<\/em>), there is a long tradition of Vitruv\u2019s reception; according to this reception, architecture, especially the public order it articulates in cities, was thought of as realizing an ideal of a cosmic order in the here and now of the world. The predominant critique on Vitruv since the Renaissance is that his proposed methods operate with proportion, without ever specifying the attributes of the proportions with precise ratios.[3]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> If, however, we return to his interest in the preservation of architecture\u2019s worth not through the discourse of aesthetics, regarding architecture as an art, but through an approach informed by physical conservation, Vitruv\u2019s apparent failure reveals itself as its very mark of distinction and excellence: whatever the value this worth preserves may be \u2013 beauty, harmony, the good, etc \u2013 such an approach at systematization lives from not<\/em> specifying the nature of this value in any determinate manner (\u2014> negentropy, \u2014> invariance). The preservation of this value would be achievable only as a state of entropy, in which all of its articulations would be equally \u201elikely\u201c \u2013 meaning in the architectonic context which is concerned with criteria of adequacy rather than of happening \u2013 equally \u201eadequatable\u201c. Such an entropic state provides an atomism of value like the thermodynamic state of entropy (of the universe) provides an axiomatism of forces. We can think of the disposition of a work, its plan-ability, as such an entropic state, and we can call this \u2018architectonic disposition\u2019, picking up on Alberti and Serlio, an architectonic model. According to Vitruv, the elements of this disposition \u2013 quasi its vertices \u2013 must comprehend the full combinatorial space of the totality of possibilities the six elementary concepts are capable of determining. \u201cPlanning\u201d or \u201cdesign\u201d \u2013 to use todays concepts \u2013 can be read as a reduction of the combinatorial potentiabilities, by configuring the potential elements in an objective way.[4]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Vitruv foresees three dimensions of conception which we know today as ground plan, elevation and perspective. He calls these three dimensions of conception orthographia<\/em> (the natural, potential elements, in renaissance: elevation), ichnographia<\/em> (the contraction of the potentiabilities of these elements, in renaissance: floorplan) and scenographia<\/em> (the operation of contracting, in renaissance: perspective or 3 dimensional plan).<\/p>\n

If Vitruv\u2019s triad of architectonic disposition could be demonstrated in a generalized form, then his architectural theory might lend itself for developing an information architectonics. It might provide orientation in how to generalize again from the numerous spreading out of disciplines that fall victim to increasing local seclusion, hermeticism, and what could be called a certain banality of highly technical specialization without systemic overview. Might the conceptual apparatus that constitutes architecture as a profession<\/em> (rather than as an art or as a science) provide a model of how to preserve the \u201eworth\u201c of the public order that is embodied in knowledge? This, of course, is but a biased and speculative outlook. But here are some indexes of how such a re-interpretation of architectonic disposition could be started.<\/p>\n

The notion of architectonic disposition has recently been picked up by Michel Serres, who argues exactly along these lines. Ichnography, scaenography, orthography are terms that allow him to theorize a notion of system which contracts the first and the second laws of thermodynamics: its invariant conservation (1st Law) and<\/em> its drift towards dissolution (2nd law). \u201ePhysics describes a system,\u201c he argues, \u201ebut not one that is hierarchic, deductive, or tightly ordered, as in the series of the Stoics: it is a set, a general equilibrium, a balance sheet that takes account of the stochastic\u201c[5]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>, as he puts it in The Birth of Physics <\/em>(1977), where he develops his notion of the foedera naturae<\/em>, the natural contract, in distinction to what he calls the foedera fati<\/em>, the contract of destiny. Serres interest in the contract, here and in other texts, must be understood as translating the dimension of architectonic \u201eorthography.\u201c Like this, one can decipher the same notion of system, always contracted to mathematical models and never self-evident, which he explored perhaps most prominently in his book Le Syst\u00e8me de Leibniz et ses Mod\u00e8les Math\u00e9matiques<\/em> (1968). The introduction here is entitled \u201eEnsembles th\u00e9orique\u201c and Serres begins with the subchapter \u201eSc\u00e9nographie, Ichnographie.\u201c Scholars interested in Leibniz share a kind of embarassment, he begins. It concerns the irreconcilability of Leibniz\u2019s rigorously systematic thought, while this very systematicity doesn\u2019t cease to refuse itself to rigorous understanding. Leibniz presents his reader, as Serres puts it,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201ea potential ordonnance which lets itself be divined and which refuses itself ceaselessly, a vague idea of a perceived coherence seen a thousand times in the mode of cavalier, and which hides its g\u00e9ometral, the sense of progressing in a labyrinth of which one holds the thread but has no map. Offered perspectives, multiplied points of view, infinitely iterated possibilities: it never seems that one could actually arrive at the exhaustive limits of a synoptic, spread out, complete and actual plan\u201c.[6]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Serres here argues for a notion of the system which comprehends and organizes all that obeys the principle of identity, yet as an invariant of which he assumes nothing else except that it be capable of absorbing and integrating all the variations that can actually be attributed to it; one can refer to such a notion of system only via mathematical models, he maintains. Such models are not addressed as representing a reality (or ideality), they must be fashioned in profile to each other rather than to a frame of reference. Their profiles are to be worked out under the criteria of isomorphism (equality with regard to their formality) between all of them, rather than correlation (linear hierarchies of consequentiality) or representation between model and modeled reality. In Serres\u2019 notion of a mathematical system \u201ethere is a plurality of possible paths of deduction;\u201c[7]<\/a> it is thus a notion of system which is \u201ean irreversible order,\u201c which \u201elike a ladder\u201c is made up of a plurality of \u201eorders, derived from an infinitely replicated infinity of infinities (par \u201einfinit\u00e9 d\u2019 infinit\u00e9s infiniment r\u00e9pliqu\u00e9e\u2019)\u201c.[8]<\/a> Within such a sheaf of orders, \u201emy enunciations are universal and they conserve the analogy [a \u201ediscrete multiplicity\u201c, which Serres contrasts with a function as \u201ea continued variation\u201c]\u201c[9]<\/a>. This is why mathematical modeling of the system, conceived as a ladder where different orders, each infinite, are leading from one to the other, progresses indefinitely. Its steps are governed by \u201elaws of binding one\u2013multiple, finite\u2013 infinite, which are of value in multivalent manner for perception, liberty, knowing, creativity, remembering etc, which all are at work also in the mathematical model.\u201c Hence, to Serres it is not mathematics which governs all these aspects of reality (perception, liberty, consciousness, creation, remembering etc) rather, he assumes, \u201ethere is no relation of cause and effect here, there is a parallelism of structure\u201c. Serres\u2019 notion of a system which contracts the invariant conservation (1st law, orthographia) and<\/em> its drift towards dissolution (2nd law, ichnographia) is alway integrated, bound together (scenographia) mathematically, in models. The system, thereby, is never represented by its models. The relation between them is a contract that formulates their mutually implicative cordiality, the orthographic politeness that makes up the foedera naturae<\/em>, the Natural Contract: \u201ethe model of the system, this is the system of the model\u201c.<\/p>\n

************************************<\/p>\n

[1]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> cf. the preface by Vitruv, dedicated to his Ceasar.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> I understand these concepts as elementary in a quasi-material, quasi-pre-socratic sense: all of them factor in all of the architectonic work, like the material elements in the Timeaus factor in all of the sensible bodies (all things are made up fire, water, earth and air, and between them we can assume the lawfulness of a proportionality: fire is to earth as air is to water).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> G\u00fcnther Fischer, Vitruv NEU, oder was ist Architektur?<\/em> Birkh\u00e4user, Basel 2009.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> One can say that Vitruvius introduced models in \u201espace\u201c, the renaissance, with Alberti, introduced the models we are used to today (lineamenta), as models of motion in \u201etime\u201c, and that in today\u2019s discrete (digital) geometric paradigm we are discovering models in \u201elife\u201c (\u2014> invariance<\/em>)<\/p>\n

[5]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Michel Serres, The Birth of Physics<\/em>, Clinamen Press, Manchester 2000, p. 128.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Michel Serres, Le Syst\u00e8me de Leibniz et ses Mod\u00e8<\/em>les Math<\/em>\u00e9<\/em>matiques<\/em> (1968), here cited from the kindle edition, position 162. My own translation, from French: \u201e[\u2026] une ordonnance potentielle qui se laisse toujours entrevoir et qui sans cesse se refuse, l\u2019 id\u00e9e vague d\u2019 une coh\u00e9rence per\u00e7u mille fois en vue cavali\u00e8re et qui d\u00e9robe son g\u00e9ometral, la sensation de progresser dans un labyrinthe dont il tiendrait le fil sans en avoir la carte. Perspectives offertes, points the vue multipli\u00e9s, possibiliti\u00e9es infiniment it\u00e9r\u00e9es: il ne parait jamais qu\u2019on puisse parvenir aux limites exhaustives d\u2019un plan synoptique, \u00e9tal\u00e9, complet, actuel.\u201c<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> ibid., position 190.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> ibid., position 487.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> ibid., position 492.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

 by Vera Bühlmann author’s manuscript. In his Ten Books on Architecture, the Roman architect Vitruvius gathered all the existent knowledge on architecture in one comprehensive treaty including the building of temples, of course, but also the construction of clocks (gnomon, sun-dials) and the fabrication of machinery. The dedicated aim of gathering all the distributed knowledge … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/span>\"\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":883,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1159,1740,1838,1839,1840,1780,1841,1137,1842,1126,1843],"class_list":["post-41250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-syndicated","tag-algebraic-concepts-characterized","tag-architectonic-articulations","tag-ichnography","tag-le-geometral","tag-leibniz","tag-michel-serres","tag-orthography","tag-projective-theory-of-technology","tag-scenography","tag-thinking-as-an-algebraic-mechanist","tag-vitruv"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/meta.copyriot.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41250","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/meta.copyriot.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/meta.copyriot.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/meta.copyriot.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/883"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/meta.copyriot.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41250"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/meta.copyriot.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41250\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55009,"href":"https:\/\/meta.copyriot.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41250\/revisions\/55009"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/meta.copyriot.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/meta.copyriot.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/meta.copyriot.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}