Anda di halaman 1dari 25

Architectural Theory Review

ISSN: 1326-4826 (Print) 1755-0475 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ratr20

Techniques of Form Finding: Genetic Architecture


from David Yannay’s Structuralism to
Morphogenesis

Eran Neuman

To cite this article: Eran Neuman (2016) Techniques of Form Finding: Genetic Architecture from
David Yannay’s Structuralism to Morphogenesis, Architectural Theory Review, 21:2, 237-260, DOI:
10.1080/13264826.2017.1326513

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2017.1326513

Published online: 13 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 215

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ratr20
Article

TECHNIQUES OF FORM FINDING: GENETIC ARCHITECTURE


FROM DAVID YANNAY’S STRUCTURALISM TO
MORPHOGENESIS

Eran Neuman
Azrieli School of Architecture, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Email: eneuman@post.tau.ac.il

The essay examines the influence of genetic models on architectural design. It distinguishes between two main
models: one, that which prevailed in the 1970s and 1980s, was based on structuralism and was developed by
the Israeli architect, David Yannay, and the other, from the last decade, a model which was based on ideas
of generative design. This essay mainly theorises Yannay’s ideas, yet it also discusses the new model for the
application of ideas from genetics in architecture. It concludes by critically addressing the two models in the
light of the connection between architecture, science, and technology.

Keywords: cell architecture; David Yannay; genetic architecture; morphogenesis; structuralism


Article History: Received 26 August 2016; accepted 1 May 2017

PART A: DAVID YANNAY’S GENETIC ARCHITECTURE


In 2002, the Israeli architect, David Yannay, unveiled what could be considered a synthesis of his
life’s work, The Presentation, a digital compilation of his theory and design work.1 The impressive
Presentation was developed over the course of several years with the help of his firm’s employees,
particularly the architect, Gadi Politi. The Presentation comprises two main parts: the first lays
out the methodological principles of Yannay’s architectural theory of genetic architecture; the
second section is a categorisation of nearly all his work from the start of his career in the early
1960s until his untimely death in 2006, classified according to models he devised from genet-
ics. Together, the two parts present Yannay’s ideas about the relationship between genetics and
architecture, theory and practice, that he developed from the early 1980s onward (Figure 1). In
his Presentation, he explored one of the fundamental questions of architecture: the shaping of
form. How should architecture be formed? What is the morphology of architecture? Why does
it call for one particular form and not another? Yannay addressed these questions and others in
what he referred to as the “formal content of architecture”.2 He believed that architectural form

Architectural Theory Review, 2017, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 237–260


https://doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2017.1326513
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
238  
Eran Neuman

Figure 1. Proposal for a sea town in Haifa by David Yannay, 1998.

should result from a clear method of spatial organisation: It must not be a whimsical reflection
of the architect’s desires and preferences, nor should it be random, without a reason or purpose.
Recognised as a dominant figure on the Israeli architectural scene from the 1970s through
the 1990s, Yannay taught for more than 30 years at the Technion—Israel Institute of Technology,
where he was a sought-after mentor. He was less well known globally, although he participated
in several exhibitions outside of Israel, in particular in Russia.3 Nonetheless, Yannay was one of
the first architectural thinkers to develop a theory regarding the relation between architecture
and genetics. He started developing his ideas concurrently to other thinkers who sought ways to
integrate models from the live sciences and architecture using and developing new computational
tools, among them Chuck Hoberman,4 John Frazer,5 William J. Mitchell,6 and George Stiny.7
Yet, whereas these thinkers were mostly occupied with architectural syntax (Stiny), structure
(Hoberman), new media (Mitchell), and form evolution (Frazer), Yannay was seeking ways to
develop design methodologies based on cell agglomeration and devising new ways for spatial
organisations. A consideration of Yannay’s work therefore constitutes an alternate history in
the evolution of the integration of architecture with genetics.
The analogical use of evolutionary and genetic concepts in architecture has a long prehis-
tory. In the eighteenth century, architects such as Marc-Antoine Laugier created taxonomies
that attempted to show the origin of architecture.8 Even before Gregor Johann Mendel, who is
Techniques of Form Finding   239

considered the father of genetics, published his theory on heredity, and before Charles Darwin
published his theory of evolution in his book, On the Origin of Species,9 Laugier and his peers
devised a developmental theory for architecture based on a linear evolution of structure from
the primitive hut to the most exquisite edifices. The manner in which Laugier charted the ways
in which architecture developed anticipated other disciplines, such as social Darwinism. As
Peter Collins has showed, biological theories, mainly Darwinian evolution and natural selection,
persisted in nineteenth-century architectural discourse; nevertheless, these theories functioned
merely as analogies for the theorisation and creation of architecture.10 Genetic architecture today
challenges the historical relations between architecture, nature, and biology. Unlike contem-
porary explorations of genetic architecture, eighteenth-century architects used biology as an
intellectual guide, but they did not attempt to design in a way that closely imitated biological
processes. They did not delve into the processes of genetics while trying to simulate them, nor
did they use the structure of genetic procedures to create architecture.
Influenced by the intellectual discourses of his own time, Yannay’s genetic architecture was
based on structuralism, and his reference to genetics was a means of seeking structures by
which architecture could and should develop. We know from Yannay’s personal library, housed
at the Azrieli Architectural Archive, that Yannay devised his ideas about structuralism from
French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss’ work on structural anthropology and homology.11
For Yannay, sameness and differences were values that must be explored in the creation of struc-
tures. Furthermore, his papers show that he was also influenced by the American philosopher,
Charles Sanders Peirce, who sought a pragmatic approach for the philosophy of language.12
Yannay was primarily interested in Peirce’s mathematical inductions. From the ideas of Levi-
Strauss and Peirce, Yannay devised methods to establish stable structures that could reappear
endlessly and he developed the idea of repetition and reappearance in several projects. In that
respect, Yannay was no different to other architects who referred to ideas stemming from struc-
turalism. His unique contribution lies in the association of architectural ideas stemming from
structuralism to biology, live science, and, specifically, genetics.
Yannay used genetics in two main ways: first, like many of his contemporaries, he was search-
ing for a system to create architecture. Thus, he referred to the logic of genetics to learn the ways
in which form is created in nature. Genetics provided Yannay with systematic models to define
how architectural form, as the end manifestation of architecture, evolves.13 Second, genetics
provided him with a system of logic to examine the architectural form and the ways in which it
functions. The form, according to Yannay, should not purely follow function. Instead, it should
be the result of a specific use that combines both the utilitarian and symbolic functions of
architecture. Thus, form was not supposed to be autonomous (as, for instance, Peter Eisenman
professed at the time), based solely on formal and visual properties; in Yannay’s thinking, form
also needed to address its own complexity.
Yannay developed systems that would assist in the evolution of form based on the agglom-
eration of basic units (cells), according to their potential performance (Figure 2). Genetics thus
provided the mechanisms for creating structures that would be the guidelines for the growth of
architecture and would, at the same time, dictate how they should be used. In this respect, the
240  
Eran Neuman

Figure 2. Morphologic analysis, assemblage of units, 1966.

work of Yannay presented ideas that were also addressed in the 1960s and 1970s by Herman
Hertzberger in the Netherlands and Al Mansfeld in Israel,14 all of which can be ultimately traced
to the work of the French architect, Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand, on the agglomeration of units
into a defined whole.15 Durand’s cell architecture, derived in the wake of the French revolution,
during a period of proto-industrialisation, was based on the organisation of cells according to
mathematical and geometrical modules, which he devised as a means to achieve a systematised
production of architecture. For Yannay, however, the reference to cells as the basic unit of archi-
tecture stemmed from his attempt to understand the relation between form and growth. Yannay
thus believed that architectural entities should evolve according to evolutionary procedures.
The formal organisation of architecture must be based on processes that would perfect it and
render it most suitable to its functions. Evolution, with its elements of repetition and selection,
provided such a mechanism. Therefore, according to Yannay, each of the architectural models
he developed was meant to be the result of numerous iterations that optimised the model and
perfected the relationship between the formal appearance of architecture and its utilitarian
and symbolic functions. Once the optimisation process was completed, the model could serve
architecture and be applied in different projects. As a structuralist, he believed that a finite model
is ahistorical and can be applied repeatedly.16
Techniques of Form Finding   241

The evolutionary process that results in the formal organisation of architecture is based on
two mechanisms from genetics: phenotypic and genotypic. The interconnection of the genotypic
and phenotypic modes that Yannay outlined reflects in many ways the theory that Eva Jablonka
and Marion J. Lamb discussed in their book, Evolution in Four Dimensions, published in 2005.17
Jablonka and Lamb discussed four inheritance systems that together compose evolutionary
processes: genetic, epigenetics, behavioural, and symbolic. Addressing the symbolic aspect of
evolution, they showed how cultural and social products, such as language, are a result of a
genetic condition of human beings at any given time. Not only are they a result of the human
ability to produce social and cultural products, but they are also a means of advancing the evo-
lution of humankind (much like the artificial evolutionary processes). For them, transmission
through language and other forms of symbolic communication affect the evolutionary processes
no less than genetic, epigenetic, and behavioural processes. As such, the evolutionary processes
are reciprocal, located between the natural and the artificial, the genotypic and the phenotypic.
The phenotypic mode is an attribute-preserving process. In this respect, Yannay’s ideas fol-
lowed eighteenth-century French naturalist and biologist Jean Baptiste Lamarck’s theory that
inheritance can be influenced by both internal (genes) and external (environment) conditions
when passing traits from an entity to its offspring.18 This was why Yannay thought that the
phenotypic mode could also be an attribute-preserving process, acquiring some attributes that
were passed from one generation to the next, at least partially if not fully. It represents external
conditions that influence architectural form generation and, according to Yannay, it can be met-
aphorical or symbolic. For him, the phenotypic mode was not universal, but local and, as such, it
could be associative. In fact, in the phenotypic mode, Yannay saw and acknowledged the impact
on architecture of what he considered to be processes external to the architectural discipline,
such as cultural, social, and political factors. In his theory, he treated these aspects as being
manifested and articulated by human behaviour; thus, they could be modified and changed.19
The genotypic mode is also attribute-preserving, yet, unlike its phenotypic counterpart, it
represents internal properties of the final architectural form, which are based on the transfer
of data from one generation to the next, while preserving this data. Yannay defined the geno-
typic mode as “compris[ing] the primary database in the process of transfer, which transforms
pre-physical data (abstract formulation) into physical design products”.20 Thus, according to
Yannay, the genotypic mode represented properties that are internal to the architectural dis-
cipline, such as program, function, circulation, and so on. However, the transfer from one
architectural generation to its successor did not occur in a heredity process similar to those in
nature. Instead, it was human agency that moved the information from one iteration to another.
In that respect, as with his understanding of the relations between natural and artificial evo-
lutionary processes (nature and technology), Yannay saw the genotypic and phenotypic aspects
of architectural form generation as interrelated and intertwined processes. Both of them were
part of evolutionary processes and both impacted the formation of architecture. Cybernetics
provided Yannay with a mechanism for the transfer of information from one field to another,
thus creating the skeletal matrixes. That is because cybernetics proposed both to serve as a
242  
Eran Neuman

bridge between human beings (organic orders) and technology, and to allow the formulation
of complex yet clear problems in architecture and elsewhere. Yannay took advantage of the new
discipline and used it to explore data that shifted between two modes of articulation (organic
and technological). Yannay used this model primarily to explain the ways in which architecture
should be created; nevertheless, it also provided him with a mechanism to analyse existing
structures. That is because he believed that any architectural project could be analysed based
on his theory of space as a cell system. All architecture could be seen as a compilation of small
units that were agglomerated to create a unified whole.
The architectural entities themselves, those that were influenced by genotypic and pheno-
typic attributes and were developed evolutionarily, were composed of individual cells that were
assembled into one whole. In his theory, like many of his contemporaries, Yannay divided
architecture and space into the tiniest possible units, which he termed cells. Each cell defined
the smallest possible architectural spatial entity, whether it was inside a building or outside
it. Yannay thus distinguished between intro-cellular space, extra-cellular space, and extra-
dimensional space.21 Each of these spaces could be dynamic or static, changeable or fixed. And
each of these spaces was influenced by both genotypic conditions (internal data that defines their
purpose) and phenotypic conditions (the context in which they were created). Thus, for Yannay,
the cellular metaphor was a means to adapt the logic of genetic structure into architecture and
make analogies between architecture and organic tissues.
The assembly of the cells should be conducted according to specific skeletal matrixes that
provide systems by which the cells can be organised, Yannay claimed. For him, they “define
the boundaries of intercellular space within the overall composition, enabling circulation
and access to particular cellular spaces”.22 Focusing on the structure and how it is meant to
provide systems for spatial organisation, the skeletal matrixes were supposed to relate to and
influence: (1) the building envelope’s continuity (what Yannay called the building’s topology);
(2) the possible attraction and repulsion among the different cells (which was often reflected by
the architectural program); and (3) the degree of resolution of the grid that would determine
the skeleton’s final positioning.
The outcome of Yannay’s theory was the development of seven morphological models
for the architectural organisation of the basic unit cell. He envisioned these organisational
models—Moebius, Spider, Spiral, Koch curve, Carpet, Apollonius circles, and Spline—as finite.
They were optimised manifestations of the genetic processes that brought them about and that
could now be applied to different uses. (For more on the models, see Part B).

THE DIFFERING USES OF GENETIC ARCHITECTURE BY YANNAY AND BY


CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTS
Contemporary architects such as Karl Chu, Michael Weinstock, Michael Hensel, and Achim
Menges23 also investigated the web of connections between genetic and evolutionary design. Chu
has capitalised on computational procedures that simulate genetic processes in order to create
Techniques of Form Finding   243

unexpected architectural results. For Chu, references to genetic processes have allowed him to
develop non-rational yet rigorous designs that did not emerge from an architectural program.
Weinstock, Hensel, and Menges also used computational tools for the generation of form, yet
in their case, forms have been predetermined in a more interventionist way.
It might be that Chu and Weinstock, Hensel, and Menges did not know of Yannay’s work. As
a matter of fact, none of them referred to his work in their writing or their design work. In most
cases, today’s genetic architecture is generative: it attempts to simulate genetic procedures using
digital tools, whereas Yannay’s application of genetics is more indirect, even analogical. Whether
trying to resolve issues concerning housing typologies or those related to public, educational,
and governmental buildings, Yannay used genetics mainly as a means to understand and then
apply the organisation of architecture derived from a basic unit that could agglomerate and
create a systematic whole.
The organisational systems that Yannay devised were not based on specific architectural
typologies. He did not come up with a separate model for housing units, for example, and
another one for public buildings. Nor did his specifications for the various basic units differ-
entiate them according to the building typologies. The only difference he specified in relation
to the units concerned their location as external or internal elements in a building and their
morphological organisation. So, for Yannay, the models he created were universal and could be
applied to various architectural tasks. All that remained was to adapt them in accordance with
the different prevailing conditions in order to generate economical and functional architecture.
Thus, Yannay was mainly occupied with the morphological aspects of the models and their
evolution. Nevertheless, he did observe that certain organisations were fit only for specific func-
tions. Although the morphological models were supposed to be independent of function, they
eventually adhered to possible ways of using the models. Here, Yannay’s approach reflected what
was considered years later as the performative potential of architectural organisation.24 Each and
every architectural organisation has a range of possibilities for its utilisation. The specific use
gives architecture its particular characteristics. While Yannay did not specifically address this
issue in his theory, it is nonetheless embedded in his discussion of morphology and typology.
The reference to genetics, in that respect, was a means of thinking about the efficiency of
architecture. Yannay saw in natural processes of evolution and natural selection mechanisms
to optimise performance.25 He used this logic in the creation of his architectural models. This
does not mean, however, that he viewed the optimisation of architecture solely as a matter of
functional performance; he believed the performance must also address cultural, social, and
personal issues. For him, the distinction between nature and culture was artificial; therefore,
architecture, and primarily his models, had to bring about their integration.
Yet, unlike natural processes based on genetics, Yannay did not address the possibility of
random emergences of forms and architectural organisations. For him, a random emergence
of architectural form was a waste of resources. Thus, he did not accept the idea that mutation
could create an innovative organisation of a new entity. While, in nature, processes of mutation
adapt forms of life into new conditions, Yannay did not address these processes in his theory.
244  
Eran Neuman

The units he developed were adaptable to various conditions, yet, in principle, they maintained
their intrinsic properties.
In this way, Yannay’s approach differed from that of several experimental architects who
started exploring the relationship between architecture and genetics in the past two decades.
Architects such as Michael Weinstock, Michael Hensel, Achim Menges,26 Neri Oxman,27 Jenny
Sabin,28 Open Source Architecture (OSA),29 and others took full advantage of the advent of
digital media in architecture, which enabled them to simulate genetic procedures in the virtual
realm and examine the evolution of architecture in what could be seen as natural processes.
These architects referred to genetics primarily to devise form-finding procedures based on
nature. They did not attempt to find models for the creation of entire buildings, as Yannay did.
Instead, they focused on the simulation of genetic procedures in architecture that would result
in the creation of architectural components, mostly addressing morphogenesis as one of the
main procedures to assist in simulating nature-based form-finding mechanisms.
Morphogenesis—literally, the creation (genesis) of shape (morpho)—is a process described in
developmental biology that outlines the ways in which cells are organised and create a specific
form. It studies how cells distribute, divide, and organise themselves in the creation of an organ-
ism’s formal appearance. Architects were fascinated by morphogenesis because, in many ways,
it could provide a model for fundamental questions in architecture. For instance, Weinstock,
Menges, and Hensel, who came out of the Architectural Association School of Architecture
(AA) and its Emergent Technologies and Design program, capitalised on morphogenesis in
their attempts to create complex surfaces.30 Jenny Sabin of Cornell University referred to mor-
phogenesis to create multiple variants of designed components.31 Neri Oxman of MIT’s Media
Lab used morphogenesis to advance fabrication techniques.32 OSA simulated morphogenetic
procedures to optimise designs.33 For these architects and others, morphogenesis provided ways
of rethinking architectural function, material, and fabrication.34
Weinstock, Menges, and Hensel, like Yannay, sought to develop an understanding of the
architectural form beyond its function. Yet, unlike Yannay, they focused on the process of form
evolution and used morphogenesis and two complementary processes in developmental biol-
ogy—cell growth and cell differentiation—to learn about the free-form generation processes
that do not depend solely on function.
In his book, The Architecture of Emergence: The Evolution of Form in Nature and Civilisation,
Weinstock outlined the ways in which he, Menges, and Hensel perceived nature.35 For them,
nature has history, which could be traced from the Earth’s very beginnings. During this long
history, species emerged and changed their forms in evolutionary processes. Some disappeared
and others optimised their form. Weinstock, Menges, and Hensel referred to natural history and
made use of dynamic natural processes of form changing. Morphogenesis, cell growth, and cell
differentiation—all processes in which cells are constantly changing and being specified as types
as an organism emerges—provided effective models for dynamic form-changing. In nature, the
specification of cells may change radically during the process of differentiation, often causing
them to adapt their type several times. Nevertheless, at the end of the process, the cells obtain
Techniques of Form Finding   245

their type and maintain it. Weinstock, Menges, and Hensel were fascinated by cell differenti-
ation because of the cells’ ability to adapt to changing conditions and because of the network
conditions that they generate during the process of differentiation.36
In relation to materiality, morphogenesis, which controls the distribution of cells during an
organism’s embryonic development, was used in a broader fashion, in what Menges and Hensel
called Morpho-Ecologies (ME).37 For Weinstock, Menges, and Hensel, ME was an approach that
“takes up the concept of morphogenesis relating to the way the development of material system is
informed by inquiries into scale and size, specific behaviour and relation performance capacities”.
Menges and Hensel tried to relate to the polymorphic system of the cells in a non-hierarchical
way to create a material system. In many ways, they followed Gilles Deleuze’s ontology, which
refuted the reference to materials’ supposed essence and celebrated the process of its becoming,
its evolution, and emergence. The focus on the process of material formation gave them the
freedom to use materials in multiple ways.
Morphogenesis also provided an opportunity to explore form, free of direct function and
program. In their research, sometimes conducted together with students, Weinstock, Menges,
and Hensel, jointly or separately, would let the form emerge freely without a specific program.
The program, or the use of the emerged form, was tested and rationalised after the form had
evolved and was finalised. Each form was used in a natural way according to its shape. This,
however, does not mean that the architectural form could evolve without control. On the con-
trary: on one hand, Weinstock, Menges, and Hensel defined at the outset of an algorithmic
procedure several parameters that the form had to follow, and on the other, they searched for
systems that would create a framework for organising the emerging form.
Creating a framework in conjunction with the definition of the component itself helped to
harness morphogenesis to another aspect of genetic architecture: its realisation in fabrication
processes. Much like Weinstock, Menges, and Hensel, American architect Jenny Sabin referred
to morphogenesis to devise her designs. She also tried exploring program-free design and sought
ways to integrate the logic of fabrication within the design process itself.38 In her designs, Sabin,
together with biologist Peter Lloyd Jones, sought non-linear processes that would allow the
emergence of the components, which then would be assembled synergistically. That is because
Sabin noticed that “we frequently find form that globally is extremely strong, yet is locally
fragile”. Each of the parts she generated embedded the fabrication logic (in some of her work,
the fabrication techniques came from ceramics) and each one, even if fragile as a component,
contributed to a robust whole. Neri Oxman, who runs the Mediated Matter research group at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT’s) Media Lab, also referred to form evolution,
addressing it in relation to rapid prototyping processes. Critical of the detachment of virtual
form evolution from physical fabrication, she looked for ways to integrate the two processes.39
Beyond the emphasis on the process that makes form emerge and the fabrication of the
design, the use of morphogenesis in architecture has focused on two main issues: 1) the crea-
tion of variation; and 2) the organisation and connections among the variants. The search for
variations of the architectural component followed genetics in the sense that it used specific
246  
Eran Neuman

data to create endless variants in a way similar to what happens in nature. In nature, the same
genetic code (for example, the human genetic code) creates endless variants that are different
yet similar—they are all part of the same family as they share one code, yet each one of them is
singular. In architecture, architects used algorithmic procedures to simulate these same natural
processes. Basing their idea on the philosophy of singularity, they celebrated the difference
created through repeated articulation of the same code.
The next step for these architects (Weinstock, Menges, and Hensel, Sabin, Oxman, OSA, and
others) was to devise a mechanism that would allow the assemblage of the various parts so they
would create a unified whole. In many cases, this mechanism was based on irregular grids that
could accommodate the formally different variants generated in the morphogenetic process.
The possible ways of organising the variants were already a criterion in the design process and
helped to determine the end result of the designed components. The grid became an external
factor that influences the shape of the end result, in conjunction with the internal parameters
that influenced its emergence from the inside out.
Setting this logic for architectural design enabled architects to create an iterative process that
would optimise the design from various aspects. As Menges claimed, “the development of ver-
satile analysis tools for structure, thermodynamics, light and acoustics provides for integrating
feedback loops of evaluating the system’s behaviour in interaction with a simulated environment
as generative drivers in the design process”.40 Here, evolutionary processes were expedited by
the use of computational tools, allowing architects to optimise the performance of form.

CONCLUSION: GENETIC ARCHITECTURE—METAPHOR OR LITERAL?


In the book, Architecture and the Sciences: Exchanging Metaphors, the editors, Antoine Picon
and Alessandra Ponte, present a collection of essays that illustrates the ways in which ideas from
the sciences migrated to architecture.41 The essays show that architects mainly used the sciences
as inspiration for their design work, in large part because they did not fully understand scien-
tific procedures and thus applied them in a convoluted manner. Indeed, some architects and
architectural theoreticians (such as Christopher Alexander and his team), who used positivistic
approaches to architectural creation and an empiric research method to study the built environ-
ment, believed they were doing science; nevertheless, even within this group, the scientification
of architecture and the architectural act was limited.42
Yannay, like his contemporaries (Alexander, for instance), believed he could approach archi-
tecture in a scientific way and create fully science-based design procedures. The younger gen-
eration (including Weinstock, Menges, and Hensel, Oxman, Sabin, and OSA) has been more
cautious about proclaiming the affinities between the design process and the sciences. For them,
the reference to science takes place more on the inspirational level. Yet it seems that in relation
to genetic procedures, digital media that allow the simulation of these procedures, and not just
the manual construction of design processes, is closing the gap a bit. It makes the reference
more literal.
Techniques of Form Finding   247

Today, the reference to genetic procedures provides architecture with one major
mechanism—the creation of variants through evolutionary processes. Architects who simu-
late genetic procedures of morphogenesis could benefit from these processes as they produce
unexpected variants and forms.43 Yet, unlike in nature, these processes are finite. In nature,
genetics keeps on working even after the organism emerges and lives. Throughout the lifespan
of an organism, some genes are being activated as others stop operating. In architecture, the
transformation from virtual simulation of the evolutionary processes to physical fabrication
concludes the processes of morphogenesis. In that respect, architecture is not tied to the organic
in its actuality and materiality, but mostly remains a static object.
Nevertheless, it is clear that architects who used genetics in their work in recent years tried
to move out of a representational paradigm and into an operational one. As Karl Chu claimed
in his essay, Metaphysics of Genetic Architecture and Computation, “Even though genetic is a
term derived from biology, it is used here as a generic concept based on the interconnected
logic of recursion and self-replication whose philosophical underpinnings go far beyond the
confines of molecular biology. It should therefore be noted that genetic architecture is neither
a representation of biology nor a form of biomimesis”.44 Instead, genetics was perceived as a
generative tool that can provide new ways of architectural creation.
To return to Yannay’s work, he provides an approach that was somewhat neglected by contem-
porary architects dealing with generative models stemming from genetics. Indeed, Yannay was
interested in the generation of novel forms that emerged from biology; nevertheless, these forms
were not dissociated from their function as types and programs. In this respect, Yannay posited a
paradigm that is not addressed in contemporary generative genetic architecture, which is mostly
occupied with aleatory form generation. Yannay’s ties of the genetic form to type and program
reflect a belief that form has to have a communal purpose, and provide social orientation.

PART B: THE MORPHOLOGIES


Yannay’s Models for Genetic Architecture
Using the complex mechanism for genetic architecture he had devised, Yannay developed sev-
eral prominent matrixes for architecture, each one of which was developed into a full model,
throughout his career and until his death in 2006. Genetics with its processes of evolution and
natural selection provided mechanisms to attain what Yannay perceived as accurate and efficient
architecture. To that end, like many of his contemporary structuralist architects, Yannay based
the matrixes on generic units—cells—that could endlessly grow and develop, agglomerate, and
connect with other cells to create comprehensive and finite systems. Similar to nature, the cells,
in his theory, could not grow freely and randomly. They had to follow predetermined patterns
based on the matrixes he defined. Each matrix had its own specific data, which Yannay saw as
the DNA of the model that would determine its final organisation and appearance. For him, the
models were finite and analogous to the ways in which an entity in nature grows and develops
according to the characteristics of its species. Nevertheless, even though Yannay claimed that
248  
Eran Neuman

Figure 3. Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research Institute, 1977, axonometric view.

the models that he developed were based in genetics and its procedures, a close examination
reveals that some of the models could have been devised without the logic of genetics.
Throughout his career and life, Yannay was able to define seven different matrixes/models
that he thought were based in genetics. All of these matrixes were connected to each other, so
that it seems as if they grew out of one another. In the Presentation, Yannay outlined them in a
specific order that reflected the order of their development.
(1) Moebius ring
The first matrix in the Presentation is based on the Moebius ring. Yannay referred to the ring
that was named after the nineteenth-century German mathematician and agronomist, August
Ferdinand Moebius, in order to develop a topological form based on an annular infinite surface.
He used the principles of the infinite surface created by the ring to challenge the programmatic
organisation of a building. Yannay’s reference to the Moebius ring was not literal. He did not
expect the creation of a continuous surface that would require human beings to walk upside
Techniques of Form Finding   249

Figure 4. Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research Institute, 1985.

down with their heads directed toward the ground. The Moebius ring was used as a mechanism
to create endless continuity in program and circulation. Years after Yannay came up with his
idea, the Dutch architectural office, UN Studio, applied it in their 1998 project, the Moebius
House, probably without knowing about Yannay’s ideas on the subject.
Yannay applied the idea in several projects. For example, in one of his most important
buildings, the Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research Institute (1976) located in the
Shikmona Marine Center at the southern entrance to Haifa, Yannay referred to the Moebius
ring as a means of connecting the four parts of the building in a Moebius-like circulation. Each
part of the building housed a different function (Figures 3 and 4). Yannay organised the parts in
half-level shifts from one another. The staircase that connected the different parts also reflected
a Moebius-like organisation. Since the building was a research facility that had to accommo-
date many systems, Yannay made use of the half-level shift between the building parts for the
location of the building systems.
For Yannay, the Moebius ring was a way to decode the properties and elements of a three-­
dimensional agglomeration of small units in a rational way and arrive at a physical architectural
design that resembled the ways in which entities organise themselves in nature. The use of the
Moebius ring made possible a continuous and endless way of assembling the generic cell units.
250  
Eran Neuman

Figure 5. Holon Mediatheque, 2000, plan grid.

It also helped to challenge the relationships between inside and outside through the creation
of continuous surfaces.
(2) Koch Curve
Yannay’s reference to the Koch curve, which was based on the concept defined by the Swedish
mathematician, Niels Helge von Koch, was meant to assist in establishing a pattern that com-
bines two separate cell systems synergistically. Each system was based on cell agglomeration and
stood on its own autonomously. The connection between the two systems, however, yielded a
third system, without the necessity of adding cell units and without interfering with the main
role of the two primary systems. In other words, Yannay used this idea to create architecture
based on two programmatic systems, which together yielded a third programmatic condition.
In nature, the Koch curve is often related to the fractal set. Yannay addressed these sets as means
for organisation of the cells in a systematic and efficient way that results in synergetic structures.
Yannay first tested the Koch curve organisational idea in 1965 in a proposal for a competi-
tion for the Lady Davis High School in Tel Aviv. At that time, Yannay was not occupied with
genetic architecture consciously. It was only years later, while conceptualising his theory, that
he included work he devised in the 1960s and 1970s. Working together with his colleagues,
Techniques of Form Finding   251

Figure 6. Holon Mediatheque, 2000, digital model.

Avraham Wachman and Eli Attia, Yannay addressed the school’s two programs: the academic
and the vocational. Each part was articulated separately in the building, creating, in effect,
an independent entity. The integration of the two systems created a third condition, which is
clearly apparent in the main section of the building. This condition functioned as a means of
connecting the two systems, while at the same time functioning as the school’s public sphere.
To that end, the Koch curve was a productive means of developing an entire building by
starting with a single unit which, through iterations that followed the same principles as the
initial unit, generated a whole system. Yannay considered this ability analogous to the ways in
which an entity emerges in nature. In nature, an entity takes shape through the agglomeration
of units that share the same code. Similarly, in the evolution of the Koch curve matrix, the units
had to share the same code and emerge into a predefined and specific system.
252  
Eran Neuman

Figure 7. Mount Eitan Memorial, 1993, site plan.

Figure 8. Mount Eitan Memorial, 1993, aerial view.


Techniques of Form Finding   253

Figure 9. Proposal for the Federal Government Complex, Berlin, 1992.

(3) Apollonian Circles
Yannay also referred to the Apollonian circles, named after the third century BC Greek mathe-
matician, Apollonius of Perga, who discovered them. The circle is a geometric form in which all
points on a specific circle and the distances between two random points outside the circle always
maintain the same ratio. Yannay used this model to arrange generic cells in a way that would
organise various building functions more effectively and achieve higher clarity of the circulation
between the building’s parts. To that end, even though Yannay included the Apollonian circles
model within his genetic architecture theory, the evolution of the model did not stem from a
direct reference to genetics.
Nonetheless, he used this scheme to design several buildings throughout his career; the most
prominent example is the competition for the Mediatheque Building in Holon in central Israel in
2000. In this building, the main functions—library, museum, reading rooms, and classrooms—
were structured in a conic form that allowed for the creation of a diverse organisational system
(Figures 5 and 6). For instance, the conic forms made it possible to locate the bookshelves on
one side of the surface that created the cone, while the reading rooms were situated on the other
side. The circular section of the cone was treated according to the Apollonian circles principle,
with the circulation running through them on a tangent. In this way, the physical connection
between the different functions was shorter and more efficient.
254  
Eran Neuman

Figure 10. Proposal for a conceptual housing project for a French construction company, 1993.

(4) Spiral Optimization
Yannay referred to spiral geometry in order to integrate several architectural elements and thus
to optimise their use, similar to the ways in which nature attempts to be economical and max-
imise its resources. To that end, Yannay tried to integrate the various architectural systems in a
fashion that would lead to the use of each individual element in several ways. Using this method,
several building parts were organised to integrate the architectural support systems, bringing
together the physical and the programmatic. This organisation, which is made possible by the
Techniques of Form Finding   255

Figure 11. Beit Halochem (Fighters’ House), Haifa, 1970–1985, geometrical concept.

physical proximity between the units (cells), improves the system and reduces the resources
required to realise a structure.
Yannay rarely used the spiral scheme for spatial organisation. The reason for this is not
clear. One of the instances in which he did apply this concept was a proposal for a 1993 com-
petition for the Israeli national war memorial centre on Mount Eitan, near Jerusalem. For this
project, Yannay proposed a building burrowed into the ground with arms arranged in a spiral
form (Figures 7 and 8). The arms were supposed to house the various functions—galleries,
classes, meeting rooms, library, and administrative offices—and at the same time to facilitate
the entrance to the entire complex and to create courtyards for the various functions. In effect,
the spiral system also generated the building’s grid and dictated the articulation of its structure,
construction, and circulation.
To achieve this, the spiral organisation scheme attributed several tasks to each element. The
building’s mass functioned as a means to indicate the circulation; beyond its structural role,
the construction had a symbolic role meant to convey the overall organisational scheme; and
the open spaces were not only the in-between space, but also served to integrate the various
functions. Yannay used this scheme in large-scale buildings as it could optimise the use of each
individual element.
256  
Eran Neuman

Figure 12. The Israel Shipyard Building, Haifa, 1977, model.

(5) Spider Organisation
The spider organisation scheme that Yannay developed corresponded in many ways to the spiral
organisational scheme. In the spider scheme, Yannay proposed to organise generic cell units in
a spider-arms configuration (similar to the spiral arms described above). The cells in a sequence
were twisted in relation to one another, creating a fan-like organisation of the overall building.
Yannay saw a big advantage in this configuration because it allowed maximising the exposure
of each unit to external space using minimal resources and without sacrificing the role of the
supporting systems, such as circulation and structure. Yannay’s reference to genetics was here
mainly in relation to the capacity of optimisation display by biological organisms.
Yannay applied this scheme in several projects; one of the most prominent examples was
his proposal for the 1992 design competition for the new federal government complex to be
built in Berlin (Figure 9). In this project, Yannay designed branches positioned at an angle to
one another, whose degree of shift was determined by a vanishing point toward which they
extended. The building morphology created by this scheme maximised the connection between
the building’s interiority and exteriority. The by-product of this composition was the creation
of walls around the adjoining squares.
Techniques of Form Finding   257

(6) Spline
The spline building organisation also referred to the spiral organisation and spider arms schemes;
like them, it was based on the agglomeration of various cells in a fan-like organisation. Yannay
used this organisation when buildings were located on a steep slope or in places where he
wished to create connections between the various parts that generate the internal and external
spaces of a building.
In a competition proposal for a conceptual project for a French construction company, Yannay
used shipping containers as the basic units for the agglomeration of the various building cells
(Figure 10). The interior space of each unit was large enough to accommodate a single domestic
function. When linked together, several units could serve the full needs of a residential building.
The arrangement of the units curving down a mountain slope necessitated the use of the spline
strategy. This arrangement had two advantages: It allowed for the creation of a continuous structure
that lowered the building’s construction costs and it also facilitated the creation of internal spaces
resulting from the curvature of the spline. Yannay’s design captured first prize in the competition.
(7) Carpet
Probably the model with the weakest reference to genetics was Yannay’s development of the
carpet. This model was based on the combining of an array of similar units horizontally. Unlike
other patterns, which were organised from varied cells and produced various shapes, Yannay’s
carpet model requires similarity and repetition of cells. Thus, the carpet is an open-ended form
that allows for infinite growth of the architectural space (Figure 11). To that end, this model
could have stemmed from structuralist ideas that were not based in genetics. In his theory,
Yannay does not explain the logic behind this model. He only indicates possible ways to apply it.
Yannay applied this scheme in several projects, some of which were realised. Probably the
most prominent of these was the Israel Shipyards building in Haifa, which was inaugurated in
1977 (Figure 12). Here, Yannay used the carpet scheme to allow for a flexible modulation of
the different functions meant to occupy the building. The office size of the different functions
decreased and increased according to changing needs. Yannay’s approach was based on vari-
ous combinatorics theories that created a large number of options for arranging the shipyard’s
offices. Based on such theories, the building’s carpet-like grid allowed for future modulation
and development.

About the Author: Eran Neuman is an architect and Head of the Azrieli School of Architecture,
Tel Aviv University. Eran has published many essays in leading architectural journals. His book,
Performalism: Form and Performance in Digital Architecture (co-edited with Yasha Grobman),
was published by Routledge in 2012. Another book, Shoah Presence: Architectural Representations
of the Holocaust, was published by Ashgate in May 2014, and a third, David Yannay: Architecture
and Genetics, was published by the Tel Aviv Museum of Arts in October 2014.
258  
Eran Neuman

Disclosure Statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding:  This work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation under [grant number
1337/09].

NOTES
1. David Yannay, The Presentation (flash based digital file), http://www.tamuseum.org.il/yan-
nay-presentation/presentation.swf (accessed February 2017).
2. David Yannay and Gadi Politi, “The Fundamental Elements of Physical Architectural Design”,
in Eran Neuman (ed.), David Yannay: Architecture and Genetics, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Museum of
Art, 2014, 250–260.
3. In 2003, David Yannay presented the exhibition, “Genetic Form Generation”, in the Museum
of Architecture in Moscow.
4. Hoberman, “Unfolding Architecture”, Architectural Design, 102, no. 3 (1993), 56–59.
5. John Frazer, An Evolutionary Architecture, London: Architectural Association, 1995.
6. William J. Mitchell, Computer-Aided Architectural Design, New York: Mason Charter Publication,
1977.
7. George Stiny and James Gips, Algorithmic Aesthetics: Computer Models for Criticism and Design
in the Arts, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.
8. Marc Antoine Laugier, Essai sur l'architecture. Nouvelle ed., revue, corr. et augm. Paris: Duchesne,
1755 (1977).
9. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, London: Murray Google
Scholar, 1859 (1968).
10. Peter Collins, Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture, 1750–1950. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s
Press-MQUP, 1998.
11. Claude Lévi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, Vol. 1, Chicago: Basic Books, 1963.
12. Charles Sanders Peirce, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 2, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1974.
13. Yannay and Politi, “The Fundamental Elements of Physical Architectural Design”.
14. Herman Hertzberger, Lessons for Students in Architecture, Vol. 1, Rotterdam: 010 Publishers,
2005. Al Mansfeld, in Anna Teut (ed.), Al Mansfeld: Architekt in Israel—An Architect in Israel,
Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 1999.
15. Jean Nicolas Louis Durand, Précis des leçons d'architecture données à l'École polytechnique,
Vol. 1, chez l'auteur, Paris: à l'Ecole polytechnique, 1809.
16. Yannay, The Presentation.
17. Eva Jablonka and Maron Lamb, Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral,
and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.
18. Snait Gissis and Eva Jablonka, Transformations of Lamarckism: From subtle fluids to molecular
biology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.
Techniques of Form Finding   259

19. Yannay, The Presentation.


20. Yannay, The Presentation.
21. Yannay, The Presentation.
22. Yannay and Politi, “The Fundamental Elements of Physical Architectural Design”.
23. Karl Chu, “Metaphysics of Genetic Architecture and Computation”, Perspecta, 35, no. 2 (2004),
74–97. See also Michael Hensel, Achim Menges, and Michael Weinstock, Emergent Technologies
and Design: Towards a Biological Paradigm for Architecture, New York: Routledge, 2013.
24. Branko Kolarevic and Ali Malkawi (eds), Performative Architecture, New York: Routledge, 2005.
25. Yannay and Politi, “The Fundamental Elements of Physical Architectural Design”.
26. Michael Hensel, Achim Menges, and Michael Weinstock (eds),  Emergence: Morphogenetic
Design Strategies, Chichester: Wiley-Academy, 2004.
27. Neri Oxman, “Structuring Materiality: Design Fabrication of Heterogeneous Materials”, Architectural
Design, 80, no. 4 (2010), 78–85.
28. Jenny E. Sabin and Peter Lloyd Jones, “Nonlinear Systems Biology and Design: Surface
Design”, Silicon+Skin, Biological Processes and Computation, ACADIA08, Minneapolis, 54, no. 4
(2008), 65.
29. Aaron Sprecher, Chandler Ahrens, and Eran Neuman, “Critical Practice: Protocol for a Fused
Technology”, Architectural Design, 76, no. 5 (2006), 30–35.
30. Hensel, Menges, and Weinstock (eds), Emergence.
31. Sabin and Lloyd Jones, “Nonlinear Systems Biology and Design”.
32. Neri Oxman, “Variable Property Rapid Prototyping: Inspired by Nature, Where Form is
Characterized by Heterogeneous Compositions, the Paper Presents a Novel Approach to Layered
Manufacturing Entitled Variable Property Rapid Prototyping”, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 6,
no. 1 (2011), 3–31.
33. Pablo Lorenzo-Eiroa and Aaron Sprecher,  Architecture in Formation: On the Nature of
Information in Digital Architecture, New York: Routledge, 2013.
34. Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman, “New Structuralism: Design, Engineering and Architectural
Technologies”, Architectural Design, 80, no. 4 (2010), 14–23.
35. Michael Weinstock, The Architecture of Emergence: The Evolution of Form in Nature and
Civilisation, Chichester: Wiley, 2010.
36. Achim Menges, “Material Computation: Higher Integration in Morphogenetic Design”, Architectural
Design, 82, no. 2 (2012), 14–21.
37. Michael Hensel and Achim Menges (eds), Morpho-ecologies, London: Architectural Association, 2006.
38. Sabin and Lloyd Jones, “Nonlinear Systems Biology and Design”.
39. Most commonly, the virtual design emerges dynamically, while the logic of fabrication is
developed only afterward. Oxman sought to integrate these processes so the virtual and physical
parts would stem from the same logic and allow the creation of precise designs. See Neri Oxman,
Material Based Design Computation, Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA: MIT, 2010. For other examples, see also Open Source Architecture’s contribution to the Mak
Center’s Gen[h]­ome Project exhibition in Los Angeles (2006) in Judith Leuppi and Kristina Shea,
“The Hylomorphic Project”, The Arup Journal, 43, no. 1 (2008), 28.
260  
Eran Neuman

40. Michael Hensel, Achim Menges, and Michael Weinstock (eds), Techniques and Technologies
in Morphogenetic Design, London: Wiley-Academy, 2006.
41. Picon and Alessandra Ponte,  Architecture and the Sciences: Exchanging Metaphors, Vol. 4,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press, 2003.
42. Christopher Alexander et al., A Pattern Language, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.
43. See, for instance, ideas that are emerging in architectural schools that concentrate on genetic
architecture, such as the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia in Barcelona.
44. l Karl Chu, “Metaphysics of Genetic Architecture and Computation”, Architectural Design, 76,
no. 4 (2006), 38–45.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai