Data & Field: Volatility Symposium

Please post your two questions in response to the “Formatting Contingency” reading as comments to this post. The reading can be found on the Bibliography page.


10 thoughts on “Data & Field: Volatility Symposium

  1. Is it possible for architecture in physical for to respond in “real time”? Like that of contingency organization. Does response place everyone out side of “real time”?

  2. At the core are these two statements contradictory to one another?

    “As with living organisms, the performance of any organization depends on the alignment and adaptability between the system and its environment”

    “Contingency, as with design, is an anticipatory act”

  3. (1) How do container formats mediate between the biological and the infrastructural? How does it perform both roles?

    (2) The article proposes how infrastructures may respond to volatile environments (noting climate change, sustenance inequality, and environmental degradation), but how could contingent architecture respond to volatile economic situations, for example depression?

  4. 1) The article calls for architecture to perform at a regional and/or global scale. How does one define the limits of the building footprint when dealing with such large spans?

    2) What defines the success of a coupling strategy? What takes more precedence, infrastructural performance or symbolic/cultural meaning?

  5. 1. Is the solution to incorporate contingent architecture to physically interact with the complexities of the wider environment? If so, can architects (architecture) alone tackle this problem?

    2. How could this impact of contingent architecture vary at scales? What could be altered to potentially (variety) of outcomes?

  6. Like volatility, the counterpart of contingency is uncertainty. How does the strategy of coupling correlate to the uncertain futures they presuppose? How does the formatting of contingency incorporate the passing of time? How does it differ from 1960’s notion of contingency planning?

    Infrastructural opportunism elicits a position that architects should exploit the circumstances of infrastructure in order to capitalize on the mediums of conduits, containers and surfaces rather than be guided by consistent principles or plans. Do you agree that opportunism is the right approach for architectural interventions?

  7. Looking at Negroponte’s Architecture Machine Group, how could the ‘machine’ begin to predict possible volatile events and have the capability to create change before hand?

    How will architecture’s process need to shift before bundling (coupling) with other processes to create adaptive and responsive infrastructures?

  8. Does De Landa’s typification of command organizations in “War in the Age of Intelligent Machines” encompass the contingent organizational paradigm discussed in this article, or is this a new structure beyond the scope of his promulgated machinic phylum?

    If we take Situationist International’s dérive (Guy Debord, 1958) as an early problematization of architectural autonomy and the first step towards its understanding as part of a larger “environmental condition,” can we identify any aspects of distributed network culture which similarly question architectural as a coupled act on the scale of territory?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s