In Praise of the Fragment

Marco Brizzi

Certain lines of research in contemporary architecture point to a process of transformation that actually entails the entire discipline by its direct action on instruments and technologies, which accordingly makes the discipline temporarily unstable. It is still not possible to draw up a classification of the effects of the digital revolution, insofar as their development process is still under way, and the definition of new technological paradigms is still, it would seem, a long way off. Yet it is precisely a knowledge of the methodologies of dissemination and the critical application of the available instruments which may play a decisive role in the development of these technologies, by veering towards some of the possible avenues of study. In the contemporary world, there is a tendency to acknowledge a fragmented and discontinuous materiality within which the digital takes on an ever more conspicuous consistency. There is not really anything surprising about this, because it is precisely the digital, whose appearance has largely contributed to the apparent, present-day break-up of knowledge, which represents the major means at our disposal for working on the "confetti" of a new poetry.

It is from this angle that we must look at the latest conceptual experiences, especially those of a mainly experimental nature, as attempts to establish new links with constructed matter. There are times when research to do with the applications of digital technologies corresponds not only to a phase of individual enthusiasm but also to a work tending to look for an integrity, a connectivity, and the reinstatement of a dialogue. The major development of architecture in the wake of the arrival of industrialization involved a considerable and positive upheaval, in the early 20th century, within the architectural profession, which we definitely find again today in contemporary architecture. The introduction of new technologies and now production processes has offered architecture the chance to rethink the project, over a period culminating in the phase of the historical avant-gardes. It is precisely during this period, which in some respects resembles the present-day period, that we saw the emergence of the conditions for a widespread application of technologies through a process of complex transformation within which the contribution of designers and the industry play an quintessential role.

During the presentation of a recent Greg Lynn work, Herbert Muschamp wrote that the pastmasters of digital architecture use software the way the modernists used structure. Actually, during the last century, the development of technologies was such that it culminated in complex scenarios that were not easy to solve in terms of conception. It is worth remembering the degree to which the fact of possessing technical knowledge has given rise to obvious disparities. Suffice it to take an evident example like that of the calculation of structures to see how much technical and formal distance separated whole generations of architects belonging to the Modern Age. But over and above virtuosity there is praxis, for which, in the course of history, there have been holistic, simplistic and trivializing choices, for reasons to do with convenience and distribution capacity.

If we take a look at the present-day situation, we find ourselves face to face with a diagram that is busily developing, and rich in extremely interesting elements within which software packages–to mention the instruments that most hold our attention–seem to represent one of the crucial elements of the development and monitoring of the architectural project. The software issue deserves a study all of its own. In the case in point, I would simply like to emphasize how much the process of formulating and introducing digital instruments in the world of architecture has been, and still is problematic. As well as the intrinsic problems to do with the way software are developed, and their specific purpose, a lot of architects currently exercising their profession show a certain condescension towards new technologies–the process of technological development is regarded like a system that is subject to an unconditional and beneficial growth, even without having access to objective means of assessment and critical instruments capable of challenging the processes of transforming technologies and media. In a general way, the world of architectural praxis has negotiated a phase of uncompromising scepticism towards digital instruments, this phase having given way to a phase of blind positivism. It is important to have opportunities for further in-depth development, discussion and monitoring. Architecture must learn how to dialogue with the media, establish confidential links with technologies make the best possible use of software potential, and challenge limits.

Within the current fragmentary situation, the activity of designers serves likewise and above all to develop new configurations, architectural arrangements and diversified instruments. Digital methods imply the possibility of incorporating the world of the project in the database. In this sense, any conceptual contribution, any detail, and any architectural fragment, whatever its diversity in terms of origin and form, has a hope of solid and inalienable completion. This tension is one of the driving forces of the digital condition, something akin to a system of connections in which each neuron occasionally develops or inhibits synapses, based on specific needs. The Internet system is in some ways the representation of this characteristic. In this sense, and in particular because of its digital essence, the fragment contains a conceptual potential that is much greater than any kind of planning conducted through a general systemization of knowledge and instruments. On the other hand, even as global models are proclaiming their allpowerfullness, they are above all speaking out against an intolerable approximation.

Contemporary experimental architecture is a little bit like Borges' narratives. The split fragments trace a loosened itinerary which, in reality, is being constantly put back together again, because it brings together and combines lines of research following in the footsteps of what runs through the fragments y