Consubstantial Synergies: Complexity in Representation

SUMMARY

The structure is divided into three chapters:

• The first, the “theoretical framework”, is divided into three sections:
  • The first establishes the definition of “representation
    “architectural” and question whether the advantages of
    standardize a single system are sufficient
    benefactors to assume the limitations that come with it.

• • An investigation continues in different branches of knowledge
    that have come close to a definition of “complex system”:
    from the most direct resource, the dictionary, to theory
    of Edgar Morin’s “complex thought.”

• • The last section exposes the architectural movement called
    “paper architecture”, which according to the definition of “system
    “complex” from the previous section, includes documentation
    project with great richness and complexity in all the
    levels.
• The second chapter, “hierarchies”, has been written after
  to formalize the third chapter, which has involved a
  scanning the architectural landscape for examples
  that met the definition of “complex system.”
  It still has a theoretical character, although more practical.
  It is focused on describing mechanisms identified in
  that process, which allows establishing relationships between
  different elements of the system, and thus generate complexity
  in the representation.
• The last chapter is a selection from the compilation of
  documents definable as “complex” according to the bases
  of this work. Includes a sheet that details, apart from
  Basic information, complexity broken down terms
  defined in chapters 1 and 2.

MOTIVATION AND RELEVANCE

Telling an architectural project can be done in many ways. The most direct and easiest is through the use of a “descriptive memory” that often goes hand in hand with each project presentation, and this is because a system (that can be considered) universal is used, the language, a language, that many people can understand, and also understand what you are trying to tell.
Drawing is another form of communication that allows you to express an idea, a project, under individual terms. However, there is a disadvantage with this, and that is that, since the system used is not universal, it may not be understood by as many people as a written description, a memoir, could be.
Thinking about standardizing a system to represent architecture, therefore, seems like a logical decision a priori. This is why the representation of architecture was established in three documents that were to be universally understood among the architectural community: plan, elevation and section.
However, the standardization of a system strips the drawing of any freedom of individual expression that it may have had before when it was an individual system, leaving little or nothing related to the project it represents, simply because it has to follow some rules and speak in a language that it is imposed on him; and that, the project, being a formal expression of the individual creativity of the designer, does not speak.
It seems pertinent to me, therefore, to look for alternative ways of representing architectural projects in order to be more faithful to the formal language of the design and the nature of the project.

METHODOLOGY AND OBJECTIVES

To analyze the complexity in architectural representation, we start from an axiomatic decision to analyze documents as “complex systems”. This allows us to identify comparable characteristics between graphic documents that, if not, would be impossible to compare.
The aim is not to find a holistic definition of complexity within the framework of architecture. The work is an investigation into various definitions, theories and debates that already exist of this term, applied in different branches of knowledge that have, and do not, have to do with architecture; to later extrapolate a collection of concepts that allow an approximation to be made to a criterion that distinguishes what makes a representation have complexity and how to achieve it.
After defining the criteria and contrasting with architectural currents that have spoken about this topic, the line of work turns to practice. First looking for references that verify the proposed theory, and then defining the mechanisms that force relationships between the elements of the system and give it complexity.
Finally, a model of characteristics to be defined is prepared and a selection of graphic documents is compiled to be able to contrast with a more objective view and analyze the complexity of each one.
The dialogue is not closed. It would be interesting to continue looking for references that may fit the definition of complexity. The files could become a sufficient database so that new fragments of information can be condensed into graphs that provide a new perspective. Can the complexities be cataloged? Is there any era with more architects producing this type of documentation that stands out?