Subject: Discussion/Debate: Architecture, technology & the Infoban

From: [email-masked] (Philip Plowright)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 22:07:19 GMT

“House of Microsoft mogul Bill Gates, Seattle. The interior wall
panels are not what they seem. They turn out to be huge, flat video
screens. In repose they simulate the surfaces of standard
architectural materials, but activated they become electronic windows
opening onto anything at all. Architectural solids and voids become
fluidly interchangeable, and the usual relationship of interior to
exterior space is twisted into jaw-dropping paradox."(William Mitchell
"City of Bits" 1996, P. 33     (Mitchell is Dean of MIT School of
Architecture)

This paragraph can stand in as a symbol for William Mitchell’s
attitude, and many other’s,  on technology, the Infoban and
architecture. (These are presented in his musings on our immediate
future in a collection of binary oppositions titled City of Bits). The
overall language is current, textual representation to the data
society we exist within. Short sentences. Articles are missing. The
‘The’ of the first sentence is removed, extraneous to the information
provided, therefore inefficient and unnecessary. The first sentence is
like an E-mail address. Rewritten it would be [email-masked],
not [email-masked] for internet addresses are like any other
sentence in English grammer, with the subject (focus of attention)
preceeding the verb (in this case @) and then the object (location).
Place and location are pinpointed for your information, but this is
also extraneous. It is not connected to the subject of walls and fluid
reversal of spacial orientation. The actually physical location of
these walls is ultimately irrelevent, but now the paragraph is
grounded in physical space, and has authority. Of course somebody like
Bill Gates, a modern day sorcerer and almost mythical power, could
design and pay for walls of such realism that they could mimic
reality. These walls no longer exist in the mind of a dreamer but are
in the house of the head of Microsoft in the city of Seattle, in the
State of Washington, United States of America.

So now walls are not made of drywall or wood panel, but become glass -
“huge, flat video screens”. The actual connections that operate and
feed these screens are hidden, encased between the exterior surfaces
of the wall. In repose (off) they look like any other wall. But how
can this be? The language is inferring something that our bodies know
to be false. Glass video screens can not simulate the surfaces of
standard materials, if even only due to the reflection of the glass.
Our eyes are more intelligent than that. Without power, they would
have the same reflective quality as a televison screen. In order to
simulate architectural finishes the screens need to be fed power
constantly, and linked to a computer program which accesses a
directory of bitmap tiles which can cause the wall to look like paint,
or fabric, seemless and matte. Still there is a layer of material
between the eye and the simulation of materiality. Here is an example
of the virtual entering the world of the real, the simulation of
materiality. However, the ultimate flatness of the wall will betray
the suspension of disbelief, and the lack of tactile sensation will
betray the limits of the virtual.

When activated the screen can open onto anything at all, according to
Mitchell. He is using the limitless possibility of scenes to show the
inherent programability of these new wall surfaces. It leads to a
larger misinterpretation of the limits of modern technology.
Technology is the answer to everything, and will solve all the world’s
problems. This is depicted time and time again in popular ficton and
entainment media, from the matter compliers of Neal Stephenson to Star
Trek. Material needs will be eliminated by cheap, abundant energy, and
nanotechnology, which will construct matter electron by proton,
continuously deconstructing and reconstructing the world on a
subatomic level. In our reality, the screens can only access what has
been preprogramed. The possiblities are endless, but within the
ability to store that information and the manpower to actually enter
the  scenes into the system.

The language we use to discribe technology and technological advances
is always more incredulous than the reality of it. Can you image this
fantasic wall described by Mitchell? With a thought, a word, a click,
it dissolves into a portal, or a labrynth. The reality of it is such
that one is taken back, stunned by the eye-twisting, “jaw-dropping
paradox”. What was once interior is now exterior. A wall which
protects and shelters, also reveals a street scene in Cairo,
stretching out into distant vanishing points. This twisting
relationship seemingly does not deny the movement of the human body
into it, for that is what makes it architectural space. Without the
relationship between the solid, the void and the human body, that
space does not exist. A mirror reverses the usual nature of the wall,
creating a visual void in a solid. It also changes as one moves around
it, rotating with viewpoint but it is never mistaken for a physical
aperture. Bill Gates’ wall screens won’t even do that. The edges are
well defined, and viewpoint determined by the orginal device used to
capture the image. Until the next several generations of holographic
projection will this relationship change.

What, ultimately, is never really addressed, is the affect that this
new understanding of the space, by way of virtual reality and the
Internet, will have on the design of physical space and architecture.

---

From: Roving Reporter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:54:23 -0400

How interesting! I wonder if he bothers to use solar energy to save on
electrical consumption? However, my thought about all this is that in a
world of increasing population, this is one way to make a small room seem
larger and perhaps more comfortable than it might otherwise be. A house
full of this stuff sounds just a wee bit overdoing it however... (-:

>screens. In repose they simulate the surfaces of standard
<snip>
>Internet, will have on the design of physical space and architecture.

***************************************************
* Therese Shellabarger  -  [email-masked] *
* http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/             *
***************************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Philip Plowright)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 07:16:28 GMT

I think you missed the point. It is not in the gadgetry and one liners
of the technology. It is the fundimental way that we percieve space.
What else is Architecture (which is art), as opposed to architecture
(which is building science). It is irrelevant that this house belongs
to Bill Gates, he was just the authority used to make it believable.
It is about how we structure our physical space, the misrepresentation
of the fantasy of technology, placelessness, and decentralization of
our cities due to advances in mechanics. What is this going to do to
Architecture, besides turn it into a series of transparent one liners?