CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Online-Publikationssystem der Bauhaus-Universität Weimar Architectures of the ve of reality. A pictorial turn, according to Mitchell, is not to be confused with: “A return to naïve Digital Realm: mimesis, copy or correspondence theories of repre- sentation, or a renewed metaphysics of pictorial Experimentations by ‘presence’: It is rather a post linguistic, post semio- tic rediscovery of the picture as a complex interplay Peter Eisenman | between visuality, apparatus, institutions, discourse, bodies and figurality.”6 Frank O. Gehry Obviously, new forms of visual simulations and illusions based on computational calculating powers are predominantly held responsible for the pictorial turn. Vision—as much as the imaginary or the real Ingeborg M. Rocker —became hereby suddenly understood as a histori- cal construct inseparable from shifting representa- tional practices and the media from which they derive. Taking Mitchell’s argument a step further, we can already witness that with the introduction of the digital medium into architecture a significant “’If you please, draw me a sheep,’1 said the little shift in the means and modes of representation has Prince, thinking not about a real sheep, but a virtual occurred and thus has begun to alter how we theo- one.”2 rize and practice. This book is one of the symp- toms. Nevertheless—is the change we are witnessing In the past and the present we witness confusion in our profession a change caused by the proliferati- regarding the real and the imaginary, the real and on of digital images? Or is the change caused by the virtual, as well as confusion regarding the archi- the fact that the architect has begun to seize the tecture of the digital with those architectures the reins of power, which are located behind the ima- digital medium is capable of generating.3 It is in ges themselves, in the representation of the data this context that my paper attempts to situate the and the translation process (that is, the algorithms) architecture of the digital realm. as they convert this data into vectors and surfaces? Two questions come to mind: First, what role is More recently architects are taking advantage of played by the real and the imaginary, and how do the new ability which the digital medium offers of both, in close cooperation, constitute contemporary redefining the customs and mechanisms that dicta- architectural theory and practice? te their craft—that is, they can retool the tools that Next, in what sense can and should we speak of work on their thoughts. a pictorial turn—and could a too-intensive focus on digital imagery perhaps obscure rather than illumi- Media: informing agencies nate our view of the role of digital media in archi- tecture? Nietzsche had argued, sitting half-blind in front of his Hansen typewriter, that his new writing tool was A Pictorial turn? “working on his thoughts.”7 Today, sitting in front of a computer, one may have similar suspicions— In 1994 the art historian W. J. Thomas Mitchell coi- how is this new tool working on one’s thoughts, ned the term pictorial turn,4 suggesting that images and thus on one’s architectures? What are, in other largely dominate our culture. The pictorial turn thus words, the media-specific processes: Are they the refers to and replaces a conditional change in so- “picture technologies” of the software, or are they ciety that Richard Rorty had called the linguistic the algorithms of the “computer” which lie be- turn in 1967,5 a moment when reality seemed only neath? to exist within and through the use of language. It seems all too easy to equate the proliferation Rorty argued that any analysis of reality is linguisti- of digital images with the proliferation of the digital cally determined, and even further, that reality is medium—since the digital medium’s genuine mode simply structured like language, that—in short— of operation can be based on the presence or ab- reality is nothing other than a system of signs. In sence of a single sign as Shannon showed, in referen- this vein of thinking, language no longer was con- ce to Turing’s Universal Machine.8 ceived as a depiction or representation of reality, Even though it is common to speak about 0s but seemed rather to be constitutive thereof. and 1s, these symbols nevertheless obscure that on 30 years later, Mitchell’s phrase suggests that an operational level the machine’s state is simply images rather than language seem to be constituti- either activated: ‘on’ or inactivated: ‘off’, a conditi- 249 on which is anything but pictorial. And yet, the overcoming of nature, it now has to cope with the presence of the digital image depends on the pre- increasing complexities of knowledge-based com- sence or absence of discrete states. putational systems.”14 Even though Shannon ascribes the universal For the formalist Eisenman, the consequences machine computer to nothing but the presence or become apparent in increasingly complex forms absence of a state, it is precisely for this reason that with n-number geometries. It is thus for him that the computer is the first medium capable of imita- the Boolean cube is the perfect structural model ting all other media, as the media theoretician depicting this condition: “The Boolean cube is a Friedrich Kittler has pointed out: “There are no new complex structure which lies between purity of a media, but one new medium, named the computer, platonic form and the infinite and unlimited form of the newness of which […] is that it can be all ma- non-Euclidean structure. Because the form is based chines, and thus all media.”9 on the infinite doubling and reconnection of itself it If media constitute the real, then the digital is an unstable and infinite N-geometric figure, yet medium—as it emulates all other media—constitu- frozen singularly these forms exhibit the properties tes not one but a multitude of realities!10 of platonic forms.”15 Anything—regardless of whether it is text or It seems more than symptomatic for Eisenman image—only ‘exists’ in the digital realm in terms of the architect that he can only begin to cope with numerical operations. Here the image—no longer abstract non-formal computational processes bound to the visible—‘exists’ only numerically en- through a geometric structure. Despite the disputa- coded rather than substantially inscribed—as was ble relevance of Eisenman’s model of computation previously the case with the analog technologies of in the form of an n-dimensional cube, it never- photography, cinematography and radiography. The theless exhibits an early attempt to conceptualize numerically coded image becomes visible only after the computer’s genuine operations (fig. 1, 2). it has been translated and displayed on our dis- Studying the implications of computation from plays. Pictures as they evolve and dissolve on our another vantage point Eisenman wonders how the iconic ‘desktops’ are visualizations—at best, repre- digital medium has affected our perception and sentations—of numerically encoded information, consequently our realizations of architecture: “The obstructing rather than enabling a view into the electronic paradigm directs a powerful challenge to medium’s essential operations, which have long architecture because it defines reality in terms of since withdrawn into the black box.11 Consequently media and simulation, it values appearance over the perception of the computer’s operation relies existence, what can be seen over what is. Not the on a multitude of different representations: 1’s and seen as we formerly knew it, but rather a seeing 0’s are just as “arbitrary” as the image. In fact, that can no longer interpreted. Media introduce nothing a computer produces is meaningful unless fundamental ambiguities into how and what we it is interpreted in some way—even when data is see. Architecture has resisted this question because, viewed numerically, there is always a level of inter- since the importation and absorption of perspective pretation. by architectural space in the 15th century, architec- Most discussions regarding the pictorial turn are ture has been dominated by the mechanics of visi- at best only linked to the digital medium’s desktop on. Thus architecture assumes sight as being pree- effects. Certainly they have nothing to do with the minent and also in some way natural to its own digital medium’s genuine operations. Conceptua- process. lizing the latter and its consequences for architectu- It is precisely this traditional concept of sight re remains a challenging task. that electronic architecture questions. The tradition of planimetric projection in architecture persisted Digital techniques: constituting worlds unchallenged because it allowed the projection and hence, the understanding of a three-dimensional In this moment, when digital techniques constitute space in two dimensions.“16 worlds according to their measure, one may won- Eisenman, who had already earlier in his career der about the consequences for architecture tradi- toyed with the confusion of the real and its repre- tionally considered—as Peter Eisenman puts it, “the sentations—buildings looked like models, axono- epitome of material reality.”12 metric models functioned like drawings17—expec- Along these lines Eisenman—himself a compu- ted in the late 1980s the digital medium to even ter illiterate—began to develop in 1988 a design more radically challenge traditional forms of repre- for Carnegie Mellon University13 critiquing the sentation and comprehension in architecture. omnipresent systems of knowledge such as compu- Consequently, in 1989 Eisenman’s office began ters, robots and other technologies. These know- to explore the precursors of the 3d modeling soft- ledge-based systems required, according to Eisen- ware Form*Z18 and their potential to challenge the man, a re-conceptualization of architecture: “While status quo in architecture—a project that was architecture was previously preoccupied with the perhaps ill-fated from the beginning, given that this 250 Fig.