In my short essay I would like to discuss
possible ways of treatment with informality itself. I'd like to define the essence of relationships
between formal and informal. All my suppositions are based on a simple
contradistinction that informality is absence of formality and vice versa. There
is no third option, either informal
or formal, irregular or regular, natural or artificial, free or bound, chaos
and order, yin and yang. These
two notions completely fulfill our
material world and our behavior, easy to say, everything that surrounds us.
At first glance it seems that
informal is a subsequence of formal. The prefix "in" hints us a
secondary character of notion, that "formal" allegedly was firstborn.
It is true only in terms of the morphology
of the language.
But in fact in space and in every field of activity informality prevails in the
beginning. And only then informal permanent space starts to be divided, separated
and regulated by humans. The act of any regulation of original informal space
is the a process of creation of something formal. And in my opinion the only being
that can produce formality are humans. Without humans there is no discussion of
that matter. So, what is definition of formality then? Continuing the theme one
could say that formality is systematization of informality done by humans. It
is an attempt of regulation. We divide physical space by walls, slabs, other
volumes to create a form. We create restrictions known as laws and rules to
regulate the human behavior. So, let's say this man-made frontiers that
interrupts continuous world is the essence of formality. Everywhere people come
formal realty arises.
Another aspect is that this two notions don't substitute
each other. Formality done by humans isn't alternative to informality. It only
partitions space and establishes frames where the informal processes still
working within but with less freedom. It makes things more understandable and
controllable for people. Of course, informality has it's own natural rules that
have really complex structure with thousands of parameters. People historically
haven't had intellectual and computational resources to cover it. Therefore, partitioning
of one high grade complex informal process is appropriate demand to deduct it
in several simple actions which everybody can deal with. It's important to find
balance between amount of ruling boundaries and enough flexibility within the
domain. Either one may intensify density of formality and control every little
thing or do less of it to preserve more freedom of spontaneous life and
evolving potential to some extend. The more formal the less adaptable but clear.
The less formal the more flexible but also corrupt. Every option has his pros
and contras.
Formal world is imperfect because of imperfect nature of
humans. Rules and restrictions sometimes are strong enough and sometimes week
and can't cover the entire flow of informality. Quite frequently one can find
loopholes in the boundaries allowing the informality to avoid it. Formality is
like a dam surrounding liquid substance that pushes every minute on it. A lot
of scenarios can occur that crashes the system. Dam could break under the
pressure, reservoir may overflow or dry out at all. So it's a continuous fight
between formal and informal.
I would like to illustrate this (in)formal relationships
by some examples. They are all basically about architecture and cities.
First one is about Michel Foucault, good known French
philosopher who addresses the
subject of framing informality in his
writings. Foucault
sees architecture as “a diagram of a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal
form.[1]” In other words, Foucault reads this architecture through a
two-dimensional form of representation, which expresses the various informal forces
created by its lines. Gilles Deleuze was particularly attached to this excerpt
of Discipline and Punish as, according to him, that is the first and
only time that Foucault uses the notion of diagram that is fundamental to
understand the mechanisms of power he meticulously describes. In his book
dedicated to the work of Foucault[2], he attributes to him the function of
cartographer. Cartography is precisely the activity that considers a given
situation within reality and elaborates a diagrammatic representation of it:
The diagram is no longer an auditory or visual archive
but a map, a cartography that is coextensive with the whole social field. It is
an abstract machine. It is defined by its informal functions and matter and in
terms of form makes no distinction between content and expression, a discursive
formation and a non-discursive formation. It is a machine that is almost blind
and mute, even though it makes others see and speak.[2]
Foucault is interested in a building rather as a
combination of lines of visibility that forms relations of power between the
individuals affected by those lines which act as boundaries I described before.
Another example by Foucault was described in the same book
"Discipline and punish"[1] that illustrates appearing of formality in
the cities. He is telling about the measures to be taken against the plague in
the seventeenth century: partitioning of space and closing off houses, constant
inspection and registration. Processes of quarantine and purification operate.
The plague is met by order. Lepers were also separated from society, but the
aim behind this was to create a pure community. The plague stands as an image
against which the idea of discipline was created. The existence of a whole set
of techniques and institutions for measuring and supervising abnormal beings
brings into play the disciplinary mechanisms created by the fear of the plague.
All modern mechanisms for controlling abnormal individuals as well as modern
urban planning approaches derive from these.
Let's
move gradually nowadays. There are a lot of vivid and good examples that are
representing the idea of cooperation between formal and informal. As the most
eloquent example I would like to take works of Chilean architect - Alejandro
Aravena. Especially regarding last news of his win of the Pritzker
prize I have just no right not to mention him in this topic.
Indeed,
Aravena felt the approach than nobody used before intentionally. Let's take in
consideration his social housing projects such as Quinta Monroy in Chile , Elemental Monterrey and Villa Verde
Housing in Mexico
When you create an open system, it customizes itself, it corrects itself, it's more adapted to the reality – not just to the family but also for cultural diversity. So it is not only a response to scarcity of means. Even if we had a lot of money it would have been an appropriate solution.
...
Of course this is not chaos, just do whatever. There are very specific design things – the size of the void for example, or that we built with walls and not just with frames. It's a very delicate balance between being restricted but enabling self-operation without going into a chaotic environment. It's a very precise design operation what you build, and also what you don't build[3].
Aravena has no fear not to control the final aesthetics. He is more interested in the position of the void than in what is built by him, observing the work of many future co-authors. I see something fresh in it. We have enough knowledge about how to profit prom informal processes. Up to date architect and not only architect should be beyond the static formal solutions. He should be the one who can and must use the power of informality to make all the aspects of our life more convenient and efficient.
Bibliography:
[1] Foucault Michel, Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison, trans:
Alan Sherida, New York
[2] Deleuze Gilles, Foucault, trans: Sean Hand, Minneapolis :
University of Minnesota Press
Web links:
Interview
with Alejandro Aravena
published
at www.dezeen.com 13. January 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment