Architectural Design V-IX: Borderline(s) Investigation #7 Multiplicity (Theriot)

Abstract

Architecture that allows for multiplicity would be one that allows for economy and optimality, while also opposing the quest for the univocal standard, the isomorphic module and strict repetition. Otherwise, we fall into the trap of reproducibility: each copy is less sharp than the last. Avoiding this means defining places, spaces, constructive systems, assemblies that are as sharp as each other.

Objective

We aim to seize economic requirements to transform constraints into levers, producers of qualities. These may well be tangible or intangible, prosaic or poetic, constant or unstable, general or occasional... As long as they are initiated by the economy and located far from any rationality. Creating generosity, “excesses” that make the strength and uniqueness of a place.

Content

At the bottom of our pockets, we (almost) all have a small technological plate, which, in addition to its telephone function, also serves as a camera, typewriter, calculator, dictaphone, hi-fi system, video monitor, etc. We don't need to be asked to draw this object. Many of us have become addicted to them. But addicted to what, exactly? To technology? Of course. But above all, addicted to multiplicity. Just think of the mass and price of the equivalent equipment you would have had to carry with you 25 years ago. Who would have risked becoming a multi-media man-orchestrator, listening to a recording of his favourite radio programme or the latest episode of a fashionable series on the move, and showing his curiosity by taking photos of himself during these interactions? This would have required a technicality that, in retrospect, makes one dizzy. The activation gestures of a hi-fi system or an SLR camera have nothing to do with it, but for their 'smartphone' versions, it is enough to press the same buttons. Thus, the multiplicity of the smartphone is accompanied by a deliberate simplification. While the range of functions is wide, the range of controls remains deliberately intuitive. The smartphone is the digital version of the Swiss Army knife. Hikers are no longer surprised to find a magnifying glass, a pair of pliers, a can opener, a screwdriver, even a sundial and a decimeter, all assembled and compacted in their pockets. When camping or hiking, it is above all a question of saving one's gestures, and above all of not getting bogged down. The user accepts a simplified version of the various functions, but the mechanics remain visible. Unlike the smartphone, which makes the objects it is inspired by invisible, the Swiss Army Knife miniaturises them and combines them into an object with many folds and folds. It is therefore literally an object that 'multiplies' itself. Its appearance is simple. Its grip is efficient. Its configurations are multiple. This is where we have to agree on the meaning we would like to give to this idea of multiplicity. The term itself has several meanings. The one that interests us is not synonymous with abundance or proliferation. The one we are interested in is that of multi-faceted tools. This multiplicity is paradoxically born of compactness. It is the joining of opposites that allows for surprises. Avoiding this pitfall means defining places, spaces, constructive systems, and assemblies that are just as sharp as each other. But precisely, how can we define their "sharpness"? How do we know the optimality of an element? Precisely, when we can justify its presence for at least two reasons. Precisely, when it is opposed to mono-functionality. Precisely, when, even compact, even minimal, it is already a multiple object. Thus, an object can be unitary without being condemned to uniformity. Uniqueness is not synonymous with uniformity. To give value to an element is to endow it with several facets. Multiplicity then becomes an oxymoron: polymorphic uniqueness. A single piece, but with multiple uses. Our practice as architects consists of producing prototypes. At all scales. Constructive detail or building, everything is a prototype. An assembly of two standards should not be based on the lowest common denominator between these two elements but, on the contrary, should stimulate a new mix. How will these elements react? Like a chemical alloy (fusion or transubstantiation)? Or a multiplication (the potentialities of each of the elements stimulate new and unexpected ones)? The uncertainty of the result is counterbalanced by another certainty: precisely that of having experimented with composite operations, to generate, beyond an object, a dynamic of multiplicity that is only waiting to unfold.

Resources