Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society Architecture and Evolution Author(s): Robert Mark Reviewed work(s): Source: American Scientist, Vol. 84, No. 4 (JULY-AUGUST 1996), pp. 383-389 Published by: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29775710 . Accessed: 01/05/2012 16:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Scientist. http://www.jstor.org Architecture and Evolution In over thedebate adaptation,which view is best served by themetaphors of the "spandrels" of SanMarco and thebosses ofKing's College? Robert Mark their criticism of the evo? dral de San in support (Basilica Marco) Venice, primary documents and from archaeo? of has come to To lutionary precept adaptationism, pervade evolutionary dis? logical examination, have greatly en? Gould and course. For in texton biologists Stephen Jay example, his 1992 hanced our understanding of architec? Richard Lewontin in 1979 devised an evolution Williams George categorical? tural innovation. They have also helped rooted in historical architec? states "New structures arise in analogy ly evolu? iUuminate themethods used by presci ture. a In paper that soon became fa? tion in one of two ultimate ways, as re? entific builders to achieve remarkable mous, asserted that in a dundancies or Gould success in struc? they designing spandrels/' himself erecting large-scale it is absurd to decora? recounted how a building, accept colleague asserted "We tures. Although primary geometric tion to the interioras the deter have all applied been spandrelized." This mind? forms?particularly those that could be minant of the form of its structural ele? not set, however, is shared by every simply laid out using common instru? ments. Gould and Lewontin commentator on ments as a a By analogy, evolutionary theory. such straight edge and criticized about evolution The came under firedur? in arguments analogy heavy compass?were extensively used that immediate the emphasize biological ing past year from philosopher conceptual design, theywere modified and little attention to other Daniel C. as a as utility pay Dennett, part of general needed to assure structural stability. attributes of form. for ex? assessment of They decry, Gould's beliefs. Gould, he Realizing that confidence in a new the various "untestable notes in his ample, specula? book Darwins Dangerous building's ability to resist collapse could tions based on of? "needs tohave a term never secondary utility" Idea, for the (pre? have been gained merely from fered to the stunted front explain legs sumably many) biological features that applying simple geometric rules, I have of a itmakes farmore are not Tyrannosaurus; adaptations." Yet, according to sought to identify other sources of the sense, to its ab? there are they contend, accept Dennett, problems with the early builders' structural knowledge. normal form as "the reduced product analogous architectural elements chosen Chief among these is the fact that of functional homo Gould and as as conventionally by Lewontin, well with building technology itself follows an in ancestors/' In other Gould's logues words, biological speculations. evolutionary pattern. Practical experi? so much faith in I leave it to others to the evo? ence adaptationsim places pursue with earlier buildings once fur? natural as an selection optimizing agent lutionary side of the argument; the nished much of the information about that an "is broken into function of the organism unitary historical architectural building performance that today comes 'traits' and an for each is can adaptive story elements, however, be clarified. By from engineering modeling. In effect,an In some a proposed separately." cases, considering the structuralmechanics of earlier building served as a "model" for viable based on ancient and a new explanation adaptation buildings by following the design. The technological ele? cannot be devised and should not historical be, path of development that led gance of many early structural solu? Gould and Lewontin wrote. to the of me adoption architectural ele? tions led also to discern thatduring Gould and Lewontin's principal ments in the buildings cited by Gould construction themaster builder used a based on the so-called deco? and we can metaphor, Lewontin, analyze the suit? technique that, although available to rated of Saint Mark's Cathe of the spandrels ability architectural metaphors today's designers, is rarely employed, used. they because of the usual separation of the modern design office from the construc? Robert Mark, civil and ar? professor of engineering The Evolution of Building Technology tion site (and sometimes, too, because of chitecture at Princeton University, has pioneered A of the struc? confidence inmodern the thorough understanding misplaced analy? application ofmodern engineering modeling tural mechanics of ancient buildings has sis methods). During construction the for the of historical Several study buildings. of become in recent builder made detailed observations of these studies, which have new to ar? possible only decades, brought focus with chitectural as well as to the of undesirable history the conservation of development experimental any behavior?particularly historic and numerical ca? in the fabric. tak? buildings, have been reported on previous? modeling techniques cracking building Steps inAmerican of his? en to these then ly Scientist (Winter 1968, Septem? pable reliably analyzing complex remedy shortcomings ber-October 1978 and torical architectural forms. to March-April 1987). Ad? These tech? led refinements in the design. dress: School ofArchitecture, Princeton niques, particularly when applied in the None of the results of these new ar? 08544-5264. University, Princeton, NJ context of information available from chitectural studies has informed any of 1996 July-August 383 Figure 1. Domes of Saint Mark's Cathedral inVenice, painted by Canaletto in the early 18th century, have become the unlikely subjects of a continuing debate concerning the role of adaptation in evolutionary theory. Evolutionists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin proposed in 1979 an architec? tural metaphor to elucidate their view that not all aspects of form have immediate biological utility. They cited the decoration of the "spandrels"?the areas as triangular between Saint Mark's arches and the domes?as well the embellished bosses in the vaults of King's College Chapel in Cambridge, as nose architectural by-products, analogous to the furnishing support to spectacles. Critics, most notably philosopher Daniel Dennett, have taken Gould and Lewontin to task for both the architectural elements chosen and their biological speculations. Meanwhile, experimental and numerical modeling techniques have recently made it possible to structurally analyze the complex elements of historical architecture. The author applies such knowledge to the function of spandrels, bosses and similar architectural elements, judging theirmetaphoric suitability to the evolutionary debate. the arguments for or against the evolu? as part of a more general discussion of ing more on architectural matters, tionarymetaphor. Considering how re? evolution, one could have expected at opens himself up to stronger criticism cently these resultswere published, it is least a passing reference to the evolu? on this score. But before I go further into not surprising thatGould and Lewontin tionary aspect of architectural design. all of this,we should examine the archi? made no reference to them?although, Dennett, writing much later and focus tectural issues raised by both sides. 384 American Scientist, Volume 84 The Birth of aMetaphor The design is so elaborate, harmo? Cambridge, for example, the spaces we Gould and Lewontin begin theirpaper nious, and purposeful that are contain bosses alternately embell? rose with the observation that: tempted to view it as the starting ished with the Tudor and a point of any analysis, as the cause in portcullis [seeFigure 2]. In sense, this ar? an The great dome of St.Mark's Cathe? some sense of the surrounding design represents "adaptation," dral inVenice [see Figure 1] presents chitecture. But thiswould invert the but the architectural constraint is as a in its mosaic design a detailed analysis. The system begins with the clearly primary. The spaces arise neces? iconography expressing the main? architectural constraint: the necessary by-product of fan vaulting; use a stays of Christian faith.Three circles sary four spandrels and their taper? their appropriate is secondary a a tried to that of figures radiate out from central ing triangular form. They provide effect.Anyone who argue the structure exists because the alter? image of Christ: angels, disciples space inwhich themosaicists worked; rose so and virtues. Each circle is divided they set the quadripartite symmetry ation of and portcullis makes sense in a would into quadrants, even though the of the dome above. much Tudor chapel same