Parallaxis

[The Super Surface]

In the late 60’s the already provocative studio of Superstudio presented and shocked the architecture and art world with a conceptual study under the name of The Continuous Movement. The goal of the project was to start a debate on the modernist exaggerations on the potentially utopian future of architecture.

The exhibit consisted of a single structure of ridiculous proportions that engulfed the extents of our planet. The structure was a single surfaced gridiron that was situated unaltered in every environment and condition on earth. This idea came as an emblematic contradiction to the contemporary norm of the time that spoke about monolithic ideas turning into the ultimate solutions for the future.

The grid is, above all, a conceptual speculation…in its indifference to topography, to what exists, it claims the superiority of mental construction over reality” - Rem Koolhaas, Delirious New York

In their own words: “(A)ll architecture will be created with a single act, from a single design capable of clarifying once and for all the motives which have induced man to build dolmens, menhirs, pyramids and lastly to trace a white line in the desert”. It is easy to feel the underlying sarcasm of the architects in this statement. In the same context Charles Jencks added that the project “was a mixture of ‘fascist’ total urbanization and absolute egalitarianism.”

Jencks remark is really a significant one although it seems to contradict itself. The absolute urbanization realized with the infinite expansion of the grid, was the agent that provided the nominal inhabitant with the absolute freedom not only to be able to live nomadically wherever he desired but also due to the functions of the grid he could also be sustained by it.

This extreme depiction of human control over not only the elements of nature but also man himself, wanted to act as a parody of the modernist to tamper with space. Ultimately this gesture also stood ground against the capitalist fetishism of objects, when we witness the family of people living in a bare tent and the grid providing all of the rest necessary supplies. In its extreme striation the grid provides all of the appropriate elements for the creation of smooth space, as Deleuze taught us.

Following this idea we would like to add the famous Ode of Horace, exegi monumentum aere perennius, (I built a monument more lasting than bronze). Although Horace stated the above to prove the superiority of the soul against materiality, it is suitable to note that in the same way this project, in its own way, found a way to buy in this drama of monumentality.

But that was then, in the late 60’s. More than 50 years have passed and the introduction of the World Wide Web, has given a reasonable amount of approval to their point. It might not be able to supply humanity with housing, but it sure can provide everything else. Despite this, the words of C. Jencks about egalitarianism and freedom continue to buzz in our ears.

So we would like to have another go into the implications of this particular project in our contemporary world. In order to do this more efficiently we would like to connect the notion of the grid, with that of the Surface, and in the same way that of the Void to that of the Solid. Also we are not willing to investigate the implications of whole range of newer and older propositions but just to come up with a result that would give us an idea of a contemporary rival of the Supersurface.

[Acting]

One of the most obvious but also important differences between the two elements of our contradiction (surface and solid) is that the former is mostly bonded with the idea of open space as simultaneously the latter is with the idea of the underground. When we think about what defines a surface what comes into mind is most often the idea of a plane, distorted or not. On the other hand the idea of the solid is tied with the notion of any shape in the three dimensional environment.

[Construction vs. Excavation]

In our debate on a surface somebody constructs or erects a component, whereas in a solid we can merely excavate or dig into. This is a fundamental difference in this contradiction.

When we think about construction, especially in a surface, the conceptual idea is only the first step in this process. The lack of materials and the necessary hunt for them is a major disturbance in the actualizing process. If it was possible to have the materials in situ, then it would be much easier for us to formulate and again reformulate the concept.

That is exactly what the presence of the soil signifies. The infinite possibilities of conceptual aggregation of space, when the material is already present. Of course this doesn’t mean that there is no further material necessary for the stabilization of this perpetual space. We could look into this supplementary material as the type of elements coming off a mining facility. It is only there to keep space from collapsing, not to define it…

In another level it is really easy to understand how this stabilizing factor can be managed in terms of parametric formations. Undoubtedly, the functions that necessitate the full extent of given elements that cannot be omnipresent will not be included in the interior of the condenser, but in the exterior of it. Examples of these functions are the gardens (crops etc), the open space, education (part of it) and sport activities (again only part of it).

[Create vs. Demolish]

Creation is mostly linked with the merging and erection of materials, whereas demolition is its counterpart. If we take the two definitions literally then we could also argue that creating means bonding as demolishing means dissolving. Having in mind this feature, it will be really interesting to investigate the appearance of space as the result of the demolition of the solid. Again it is not a profound neologism as the creation of space in the underground (solid) is something long materialized by the miners of the world.

[Add vs. Subtract]

This contradictory pair needs not much of an explanation. As we have further noted the act on the surface always has been that of adding elements to create space, where in the solid realm this creation can only be achieved by subtracting. Provoked from this nihilistic negligence, the negative action of dis creating the space is in reality what might as well provide us with part of the answer …

[Material vs. Debris]

We have involved ourselves so far in the investigation of the actions that constitute the contradiction between surface and solid. If we look a little bit later in the same process there are more interesting facts popping out. One of these is the remains of the actions once those have finished. On the one hand we have the part of the materials that went unused and can be either reused or recycled and on the other hand we have the plain debris as a result of the excavation. There two major differences here.

The first one is that in the first case the materials that remained unused can be salvaged in order to be once more active ingredients to another structure whereas in the latter case the remains cannot constitute any activity in the future. That comes as a result of the fact that the space in the void is consisted of anti volume, so the volume of the debris is no longer desired in this situation and under any form and condition.

The second major difference has to do with the inherent quality of the remains. The surface structure will give us a multiplicity of different materials like the ones that we have to use in order to build a sustainable construction. The solid will only give us part of its self that we no longer desire. So the immediate result is the uniformity of the extracted material as a (w)hole.

[Combination vs. Fragmentation]

As we previously demonstrated a key element of differentiation between our main participants is the way they interact with materials around them. In the same perspective we would like to add that although in the case of the surface the (various) materials have to be combined in order to create a uniformity, in the latter case the uniformity of the sole material has to be fragmented in order to create the spatial quality.

[Height vs. Depth]

When a construction is situated on the surface one of its main indicators is that of the height of the construction. Even today in the middle of the 21^st century depression buildings are still trying to surpass each other in terms of height. Contrary to that the space engulfed in a solid does not count height as its primer characteristic but depth. Again the visual example to be stated here is again the mine.

[Build vs. Shape]

So far we have investigated the results and the excuses behind our two elements. Now it is time to think about the actions that create them.

When we imagine a structure on the surface the most logical term that could follow this activity is building. Everything that we have previously stated regarding the erection of structures on a surface can be incorporated into this term. On the other hand, the same term fails to apply to the soil condition. Despite of the close resemblance of the two actions, the most appropriate term for the inter soil activity would be shaping.

So shaping and building are the two different sides of the same coin in this situation. The operational difference between them is something that will also help us define the way that this newborn functional “device” will be able to operate.

[Hut vs. Cave]

The last but not least comparison for our two basic elements, the surface and the soil is historical. We do not argue that this is an absolute composition but at least a relative one that will be able to help with the advancing of our study.

In the most accurate anthropocentric history, our earliest ancestors took refuge to the caves. Physical structures created as cavities in the same soil that surrounded them, they were the ideal housing locations for our not so sophisticated ancestors. On the other hand, with the advancement of our mental capabilities and the acquisition of the most delicate techniques, human beings became the builders of their own habitat, the hut.

So we can safely argue that there was a shift from the soil formations to the ones of surface. Maybe this would be the ideal moment to re propose a return to basics, a return to the soil. Now that we mastered the surface, we can try our very best into taming the soil itself…

[What is next?]

Maybe it would constitute the upmost detrimental cliché, but the whole meaning of the present article was to make an excuse for our introduction of the Soil (Void) element. Although an initial proposition of this thesis was aiming towards introducing a more approximated approach, one that would also include a transitional background, this has changed. For it is more important to be able to make direct and as detailed as possible bold propositions for the future, than simple predictions that fluctuate like the wind.

Karel Teige argued in his 1950’s article that the contemporary metropolis was a city of “spatial proximity but social distance”. The truth is that his argument is still very well alive and kicking nowadays. All of the institutions forged since then, even if they have had some limited success never were successful enough to close an already chaotic gap. That is true for either side of the Cold war. “The human being is above all a social product” Marx always has reminded us, so the failure of our societies to impose and stabilize social peace and justice, is always intravenously fed to the newborn members.

What we lack is neither communication nor information, we already have more than can handle of both of them. In fact I.Buchanan stated that we suffer from having much of both. As he adds what we lack is “creation and will to experiment. ‘To be able to resist the present’. The creation of concepts in itself calls for a future form, for a new earth and people that do not yet exist…”

The story of all our institutions is one of historical process and not of stabilized objects. But we have not witnessed much of a change in our institutional formation in the past century, or at least not as much as in the other sectors of life. Even now with the incorporation of new forms of communications and cyber relations, the institutions are trying to adapt merely their façade to match the changes. Nothing has changed. Our political regimes seem more resilient than ever, even nowadays when the economic structure of their own liking and choice fails to provide us with answers.

We are sure now, that reproducing ghosts of the past can give us no answers. As S.Kwinter argued “What is certain is that in the coming age we have lost the option of standing still”.

[Return or Enter]

Returning or entering the spatial design field with our results is on its own a challenge. What we have learned is not to fold on the powers of the past because they have failed miserably. On the other hand “the kingdom of freedom can only be situated on the kingdom of necessity” stated Marx and we have no reason to contradict him.

The formations of the “old” society must be understood and fought from within, not from the interventionist god, a role frequently played by the architects but by the society itself. What we concretely understood is that our role is to provide them with the tools that would facilitate an experimental dialogue between what is necessary and what is not, between what is being imposed and what debated, between what is surplus and what essential, what is now and what is tomorrow…