The future needs to be back-ported.

Quiet Babylon


Mobile Structures – Cyborgs & Architects 4

Tuesday July 14, 2009 by Tim Maly

Part of a series: Cyborgs & Architects

Close Encounters of the Bombay Beach Kind
Creative Commons License photo credit: slworking2

Impromptu guest post! I’m taking the liberty of reposting this comment about 3 by Jonah from still crapulent.

This cyborg-architecture tension relies on defining architecture as a discipline dealing only with static structures, however. I’m (clearly) not up on my architectural theory, speculative or otherwise, so I don’t know to what extent this definition has been problematized, but it seems to me to be deceptive.

Why must we restrict “architecture” only to stationary built environments? Why do we think of the camper van primarily as a vehicle, as opposed to a building? Are there other productive ways of thinking about architecture and mobility? It is certainly relevant to thinking about the architecture of temporary structures, or does it somehow cease to be a matter of architectural consideration when it becomes a collapsable, portable building?

On the flip side, walking houses, floating castles, fortresses on wheels (baba yaga’s chickenleg house, the castle in the sky, howl’s moving castle, etc.) abound in myth, fantasy and sci-fi, but what about modern cruise ships, themselves larger in size and occupancy than the majority of stationary buildings one encounters? Or a space station, which is necessarily mobile, or for that matter, any large (existing or projected) space cruiser? Vessel v. domicile? The Nostromo? The Death Star?

Obviously in -many- of these cases there is still the an imbalance in the issue of investment of effort/resources/capital at work, but it hardly applies across the board, or at least applies variably enough as to complicate the dichotomy being set up.

On a non-terrestrial, or further a non-resource-providing plane, need the homesteader not be nomadic?

Originally posted as a comment by stillcrapulent on Quiet Babylon using Disqus.

Quite right.

I still think there is still some room for me to make a parallel between the self-reliant cyborg and nomad v. the infrastructure reliant building-dweller and farmer. After all, most of Jonah’s examples are pretty fantastical. Sort of edge cases for the blurry line between self and environmental intervention.

But I can’t really have it both ways, can I? Not given that I spent 2 calling the extremely nomadic Apollo program an example of architectural thinking.

All of: Cyborgs & Architects


 
  • Nonymous 4
    Well the important thing is the reliance on the structure. A mobile homesteader is still quite dependent on external domicile technology while the nomad internalizes tech. Architecture separates the external world from its end-user and creates an artificial other (environment ecology whatev). The nomad engages with foreign territories and adapts to them.

    Obviously no real world example has lines so clear, but considering them as opposing forces, pervasive trends , that conflict on a basic premise of organization clears that up. It also makes the theory more extensible.
  • Nonymous 4
    Edit: It also reminds me of open vs closed networks. nomads thrive on an open network, they can skim of the top with out incurring a large data/infrastructure debt and move on. the cyborg, a good one anyway, is inherently decentralized. S/he is modifiable, and interacts with other systems taking in small improvements overtime, relying on long tail economics. The homesteader/architect is invested in the centrality of the project, the promise of a certain amount of stability. The cyborg is inherently transitory for it involves giving up a certain amount of humanity. Its a transformational attitude.

    Of course I could be totally missing your point. I started reading your blog tonight, but i really like it and love that you reference Bruce Sterling, Shaping Things is a brilliant little book.
blog comments powered by Disqus