The Cybernetic Relevance of Architecture: An Essay on Gordon Pask’s Evolving Discourse on Architecture Ensar Temizel1 1Middle East Technical University [email protected] Gordon Pask, as one of the leading figures in the field of cybernetics, had an extensive impact on architecture through his lifelong connections with architectural circles in the UK and the USA from the early 1960s until his death in 1996. He is mostly known to architects by his collaboration with Cedric Price on a number of occasions; however, his affiliation with architecture include several other instances that involved designing architectural projects, teaching in architectural schools, writing on architectural issues and more. This paper aims to review these instances to scrutinize how his discourse on architecture unfolded in time by addressing his evolving understanding concerning the relationship between architecture and cybernetics. In doing so, the paper examines key aspects of his own work in relation to key instances of his relationship with architecture. Keywords: Cybernetics, Architecture, Design, Gordon Pask, Conversation Theory, Human-Machine Interaction Introduction traordinary” and argued that he was probably “more In two special double issues of Kybernetes journal architect” than architects. Royston Landau (2001, in 2001, which comprised a memorial collection in p.752), who was the guest editor of two Architectural honor of Gordon Pask (1928-1996), including those Design (AD) issues which he contributed to, wrote of Heinz von Foerster’s and Stafford Beer’s, a num- he was “always wishing to expand new architectural ber of architects who had the chance to collaborate questions in which he played an important part with with him in various forms during his lifetime con- innovative projects”. John Frazer (2001, p.641), who templated on his impact regarding both their own collaborated with him in his last years, argued that work and architecture in general. Cedric Price (2001, his contribution was crucial in the development of p.820), who directly cooperated with him on Fun “an increasingly environmentally responsive archi- Palace and JapNet projects, considered “his presence tectural theory”. and inventions within life of the Architectural Associ- Pask has acted as a source of inspiration for many ation (AA)” as “both legendary and of day to day rel- in architecture and he left a still evolving complex evance”. Peter Cook (2001, p.571), at whose architec- web of relations concerning architects mentioned tural juries he was a frequent critic, called him “ex- above, along with several others including those who D1.T5.S1. EDUCATION AND DIGITAL THEORY – ETHICS, CYBERNETICS, FEEDBACK, THEORY - Volume 1 - eCAADe 38 | 471 are still promoting his ideas in architecture today. His ronment capable of adapting to meet the possibly legacy is still alive by virtue of this strong connec- changeful needs of a human population and capable tion, which is due to a combination of his interest and also of encouraging human participation in various involvement in architecture; and the openness of a activities” (Mathews 2006, p.44). With the contribu- few but devoted architects willing to incorporate his tion of the committee in line with these goals, the fo- ideas into architecture. cus of the project changed from “a barrier-free venue This vast influence is beyond the scope of this for experimental theater” to “a more ephemeral mo- paper. Rather, I aim to provide here an account on bility offered by new information media and mass Pask’s discourse on architecture. In doing so, I will communications” (Lobsinger 2000, p.123). In Price’s try to decode his evolving understanding concern- words, Pask gradually shifted the focus of the Fun ing the relationship between architecture and cyber- Palace “from Brechtian theatre towards cybernetics, netics by focusing on two of his texts; the earlier, fre- interactivity and social control” (Mathews 2005, p.83). quently cited “The Architectural Relevance of Cyber- netics” (Pask 1969) and the later, unpublished “An Figure 1 Initial Essay: Towards a Unification of Architectural Interior Perspective Theories” (Pask no date). I organized the paper in of the Fun Palace, three main parts: In the first part, I will focus on his Source: Cedric Price early encounters with architecture starting from the Fonds, Canadian early 1960s until the early 1970s. In the second part, I Centre for will provide a brief overview of his own work, partic- Architecture ularly his magnum opus, Conversation Theory (Pask 1975a;1976), its background and significance in the second-order cybernetics. In the final part, I will con- centrate on his encounters with architecture in the later period starting from the early 1970s until his The Fun Palace project was never built, but acted as death in 1996. the foundation for a lifelong friendship between Pask and Price and became a stepping stone for Pask to Early Encounters: Architecture as a Field to engage in other activities within the AA circle. He Apply Cybernetics was invited to several architectural juries by Peter Pask’s first encounter with architecture was through Cook, Royston Landau, Alvin Boyarsky and George Cedric Price. When Price was appointed the archi- Balcombe throughout the 1960s and lectured in var- tect of the Fun Palace (Figure 1), he and Joan Little- ious occasions at the AA (Furtado 2007, pp.94-98). wood invited him for an unpaid “cybernetician” posi- His lectures were so influential that several students, tion. He immediately accepted the post and formed some of which turned out to be his own students a cybernetic working party (Price 2001, p.819), which in cybernetics in the later years, including Nicholas was called “The Fun Palace Cybernetics Committee”. Grimshaw, Stephen Gage, Ranulph Glanville, Chris He acted as the head of the committee which was the Abel, Isaac Haissman were visiting him in his office most powerful of the consultant groups in the project seeking advice for their projects (ibid, p.98). (Mathews 2006, p.44). The committee was very active Pask’s promotion of cybernetic ideas in architec- and a document were produced in the form of a book ture culminated, when the guest editor Royston Lan- after every meeting (Price 2001, p.819). The general dau invited him, along with several other famous goals of the cybernetics committee were established figures such as Imre Lakatos, Karl Popper, Stanford by Pask as the development of “new forms of envi- Anderson, Nicholas Negroponte and Cedric Price, to 472 | eCAADe 38 - D1.T5.S1. EDUCATION AND DIGITAL THEORY – ETHICS, CYBERNETICS, FEEDBACK, THEORY - Volume 1 write an essay at the Architectural Design (AD) jour- in the behavior of both the environment and the nal in 1969. Pask used this opportunity to propose inhabitants, in contrast to pure architecture which ”architectural cybernetics” as a unifying theory for ar- was ”descriptive (a taxonomy of buildings and meth- chitecture (Pask 1969). He argued that, architecture, ods) and prescriptive (as in the preparation of plans)” the way it was practiced ”in or before the early 1800s” (ibid). And, if the cybernetic theory of architecture were dominated by ”pure architecture rules”, which was adopted, ”the concept of a house as a ’machine were sort of canons according to which the buildings for living in’” would be ”refined into the concept of an were designed and evaluated by architects. Accord- environment with which the inhabitant cooperates ing to him, architects’ brief was quite narrow and all and in which he can externalize his mental processes” problems could be solved by the application of these (ibid, p.496). rules which were largely determined by the ”quite This essay represents a significant point in Pask’s rigid codes of architecture” and by the ”conventions relationship with architecture, as it clearly demon- of society or the individual practitioner” (ibid, p.494). strates Pask’s understanding of architecture as of As a result of this understanding, ”architects did not 1969. In this particular and rather provoking under- need to see themselves as system designers, even standing, Pask pictures architecture as being gov- though they designed systems” (ibid). However, in erned by essentially cybernetic sub-theories since the course of the 1800s, new techniques were assim- the second industrial revolution, but urges for cyber- ilated and new problems like designing a railway sta- netics as a general unifying theory. With an under- tion or a great exhibition were posed which could tone that places cybernetics in a superior position to not be solved by applying the pure architecture rules. architecture, he ascribes cybernetics the power to act As a result, architects were forced ”to take an in- as the theory of architecture and regards architecture creasing interest in the organizational system prop- as a field to apply cybernetics. A slightly different erties of development, communication and control” view was also adopted by Glanville (1997, 2007, 2009) (ibid). But, throughout this process, architecture did regarding the relationship between cybernetics and not have a general theory as to represent this un- design. derstanding, instead there were ”essentially cyber- In the late 1960s and the early 1970s, another netic sub-theories” which were ”dealing with isolated of Pask’s strong connections to architecture was facets of the field” (ibid). Thus, he proposed to collect through his doctoral students in cybernetics at the ”the isolated sub-theories together by forming a gen- Brunel University,