architecture as language

1. Introduction

It is proposed here that architecture, like natural language (written or spoken language), is simply one of
many different types of language each with its own lexicon and grammar. Others would include music,
scientific theories, art, political organization and many others. The definition of language as it is used
here is, therefore not a matter of the content or the particular kind of lexicon or the subject matter of
any given system, but of what the system does and how it does it.

2. Similarities and Differences

Architecture does not use notes or chords to produce its forms, and music does not use columns or
windows. Yet:

a) The real difference between systems whether music or architecture or science is a matter of the
medium or material which is manipulated to achieve the goals of the system.

b) The similarity between systems is a matter of the processes involved rather than components which
are manipulated.

3. Architecture as a Language

Based on the general statements about language made above we can now look at how well architectural
processes fit into that scheme of things. Thus:

a) In other words architecture is a report or representation of the functions and relationships within an
institution and the immediate context within which the institution will be materialized. That is the
concrete reality of designing buildings.

b) Any statement in a language has a referent. It is always talking about something (event or thing). The
referent in architecture is the institution, client or program which is being represented.

c) Language is digital. Architecture's discrete elements (like worsd) are architectural forms or
compositional techniques selected from the current typical set of a style (the vocabulary).

d) Architecture makes a metaphor of the institution; a metaphor in built form. That is, a form which
represents the elements and relations of the institution.

e) For language there is always a statement about something. In architectural terms, the building is
equally a statement about something: the referent institution.

f) As in language, in architecture, a set of typical or conventional architectural forms plus the

compositional rules which govern their arrangement can be termed a language.

h) In architecture, a particular or characteristic set of forms together with their conventional usage or
rules of combination is called a style.

i) The style is the code, the building is the message derived from selections of forms and syntax of the
code-style.

k) As a message, the building is a report about the state of things in the referent institution in a
particular context, namely this time and this place.

l) Architecture like written/spoken language is rule-governed.

4. The Architect as Author

If we want to think of this issue in personal terms or in terms of authorship we can usefully consider the
following:

a) Using the formal vocabulary available to him (within the repertoire of a particular style) and
constrained by the rules (of selection and combination and context), the ARCHITECT SPEAKS THE
BUILDING. HE is indeed the author of the building.

b) The building is a STATEMENT by him about some referent event and its context and derived by him
from a selection of possible (appropriate?) elements and their combinations to represent this
event/context.

5. Conclusion

And, finally, where would we find the equivalent of verbs in architecture? These would lie in the
relationships which the architect sets up between different parts of the building and which reflect or
represent the dynamics of the institution and/or its context. In other words it is the geometrical
arrangement of the building which reflects the dynamics of its referent. THE GEOMETRY IS THE VERB.
After all its only a report. Now these concrete (!) arrangements dont look like verbs, but then what does
a verb look like? It is a written or spoken WORD. A thing in other words which represents an action. So
too with the geometric composition of the building.

ARCHITECTURE AS A DYNAMIC SYSTEM

By Alex Brown
Abstract
The paper proposes a theory and model of systematic evolutionary change in architecture based on a
definition of architecture as a dynamic and self-regulating complex system. Stylistic change and
development are explained as a cumulative result of the selective forces which arise in the normal

processes of communication and exchange between architectures many practitioners. The paper offers
a radical interpretation of architectural history centred around the emergence, development and
transformation of the key unit of architectural reproduction: the Style. That is, the typical set of
elements or paradigm which acts as the template for the production of many individual works of
architecture. Style is explained as an emergent phenomenon arising out of collective selectioncombination of diverse experiences.

Key Words
Architecture; style; articulation; decoration; systems; architectural systems; Meta-style; communication
and exchange; cumulative selection combination of forms; paradigms; representation; modelling;
evolution; development; involution; plurality; organisation; emergence; semantics; syntax; context;
ambiguity; the marginal; probability.
1.

Initial Definitions

Architecture:
A recognizable similarity of form between a large number of buildings irrespective of their function.
How else would we recognize the existence of architecture other than by noting such regularities of
form? Architecture is information which characterizes the forms of buildings which are material objects.

Style:
The particular set of characteristic forms which produces a similarity between buildings based on the
use of a typical set of forms which architects select and combine into new buildings.

Meta-style:
The dominant style of a particular historical period derived from a synthesis of the characteristics of a
previous set of styles. Sometimes referred to as a classical architecture.

Typological Process:
The normal processes of communication and exchange between architects which results in the
collective production of typical sets of stylistic forms. The process involves mutual selection and
combination of forms by architects within a defined geographical or discursive environment.

Environment:
The cumulative effect of all the other cultural systems which architecture represents in built form within
a given society.
2. Architectural systems as Networks of Communication and Exchange
Communication and exchange between architects takes place through a process of mutual selection and
combination of the forms available in many individual works. This continuous sharing of experience
involves the selection of real and observable elements drawn from other peoples work and combined in
new contexts. These elements are the means of communication within the system. This network of
exchanges taking place within a defined environment leads to an increasing similarity of form within the
architectural system based on the most typical or essential aspects of the exchanged elements. This
similarity is the basis of the stylistic paradigms which emerge as representative models of collective
experience and which act as constraints on future selections.

3. The Emergence of a Meta-style in Architecture

The emergence of a dominant style within architecture may be defined as: a single stylistic set projected
out of a number of previous styles through continuous communication and exchange between
architects. That is, it is the emergence of a new level of organisation in the system the meta-style. We
may suggest the following:

a)
While each of the original styles represents the cumulative experience of many individual acts of
selection and combination of form by architects in particular localities, the meta-style represents the
cumulative experience and essential characteristics of the several such styles. In effect it becomes the
classical style for a whole society.

b)
While the number of individual works by produced by architects within a society may stay the
same or increase, they become increasingly similar to one another in the sense that their components
are now selected from a single and very specific stylistic set of forms.

c)
The original differences between the styles which merge into a meta-style are usually based on
the geographical dispersion of groups of architects who work within the system. There is in effect a

communicational barrier between these groups which leads to a variety of different ways of doing the
same thing'. That is, different forms for solving the same problems.

However, increased communication (connectivity) between these diverse groups by means of new
technologies, trade, cultural exchange, voluntary integration or imperial acquisition establish the basis
for the integration of architecture around a single style. The various elements of the original paradigms
are selected and exchanged in terms of their fundamental similarities and differences. The almost
similar becomes the similar in an essentially economic selective process where the most
representative and TYPICAL routines which underlie circumstantial differences become the single
behavioural set which one can call the Meta-style.

Note that it is the contextual or circumstantial aspects of the original forms that are eliminated or
repressed during the processes of exchange in favour of a single comprehensive model which can be
applied across a wide range of contexts within the same architectural system. If we want to 'see' a style
or meta-style, we must look at the uniformity of characteristics which increasingly link many different
individual works.

4.

The Evolution of Architecture

In order to examine the concept of evolution in this sense we may note that the state of architecture
varies considerably throughout history. For example:

a)
Stylistically the character of architecture is sometimes extremely diverse with many different
styles while at others it is almost completely unified around a particular style.

b)
The emergence of global similarities of form - the great classical styles which can dominate
architecture for long periods of time.

c)

The disintegration of classical architectures into several equally-valid styles.

d)
The sometimes considerable variation in the lifespan of styles with some lasting only a decade
while others last a millenium.

e)
The later forms of a style are more articulate, rhetorical and exaggerated than those of the
earlier phases. (The circle becomes the ellipse in Baroque terms and in Modern architecture a new
formalism of texture and shape replaces classical restraint. Even so-called Functionalism requires the
exaggerated emphasis of particular forms at the expense of others for spurious ideological reasons. The
syntactic results are the same).

f)
Details are emphasised at the expense of wholes as the character of particular elements are
ever more precisely defined to the point where the whole becomes an assemblage of parts. (In
communicational terms the flexibility and complexity of the original elements is split or punctuated into
several discrete and precise elements).

g)
There is a tendency towards decomposition of the whole building into distinct volumes or
assemblies as each part of the building becomes a self-referencing identity. In Modern architecture this
can be seen in the so-called functionalist phase.

h)
There is in some periods a greater use of decoration and proportional systems as a means of
maintaining the unity and the meaning of the forms used in a building.

i)
In the later stages of a style there is a tendency towards irony, parody, play, illusion and selfreference in post-classical architecture. At one level these may be seen as language games made
possible when the system is freed from any dependence on context. It is the architectural language itself
which becomes the subject of experiment and further coordination rather than its relation to the reality
outside the system itself.

5.

The System of Patronage

The only factor which can explain these historical variables is the effect of some constraint on the
`behaviour' of architecture as a whole which would reinforce or reduce its normal tendency towards
producing uniformity of characteristics. Such global limitations can only arise outside the architectural
system itself, in the state of its environment. The specific mechanism by which these external relations
are mapped on to architecture is the system of patronage in existence at the time which reflects the
number and relative power of the institutions within a society. This can be precisely defined as the

institutions or individuals who have the economic power to commission buildings. The motivating force
and the very existence of architecture depends entirely on the production of buildings. These are the
social and economic relationships of the time realized in built form and represent the varying degrees of
economic power of different institutions. A power which is realized in the large concentrations of capital
required to build buildings.

6. Integration and Plurality of Patronage

The variation in the number and importance of styles throughout history is an effect of changing
relationships within the economic system transmitted through to architecture by a corresponding
change in the number and commissioning power of the patrons. Like any other dynamic system, the
socioeconomic state of a society changes from time to time. For example:

a)
The total wealth of a society may be centred on a small number of large institutions. This can be
referred to as an Integrated state. In this the various institutions which make up a society are in some
sense coordinated with one another and appear to act as one single system.

b)
The total wealth of a society may be dispersed amongst a large number of small institutions. This
can be referred to as a Plural state. In this the various institutions within a society are autonomous and
have random or variable relations with one another.

c) The socioeconomic system moves unpredictably between these two poles of organization with
consequent change in the number and relative power of the patrons who will commission buildings.

7. Effects of the system of Patronage

Architectural activity, acting within one or another of these socioeconomic states - of integration or
plurality - will produce different degrees of uniformity of style in the repertoire. That is, the same
process acting within different environments will produce different end results. The mechanism for this
is as follows: In an INTEGRATED system of patronage, a few powerful institutions will each commission a
large number of buildings similar in character and requirements. In a PLURAL system of patronage a
large number of less powerful institutions will each commission a few buildings similar in character and
requirements. One system of patronage will tend to concentrate a large number of similar buildings
within a few styles, thereby increasing the relative significance of these styles in the repertoire. (In
purely numerical terms, other styles will be marginalized). The other will disperse a large number of
buildings throughout many styles.

From the above one can summarize the effects of the system of patronage on architecture as follows:

a)
Integrated systems of patronage reinforce the tendency of architectural activity to produce
uniformity of style.

b)
Plural systems of patronage retard the tendency of the architectural activity to produce
uniformity of style

c)
Architectural activity collective selection and combination of forms - is invariant no matter
what the current state of the system of patronage.

8.

Permutations

In order to produce an evolutionary model of architectural history and architecture as system one can
permutate the relations between architecture and its variable environments. The two initial
components for this model would be as follows:

a)
The constant factor - the collective algorithm of selection and recombination of architectural
form taking place through normal communication and exchange of experience between a large number
of architects.

b)
The variable factor - two possible socioeconomic states, whether Integrated or Plural and their
equivalent systems of patronage.

From the interaction of these two factors over time one can suggest three possible historical states for
architecture. These states will affect the degree of diversity or uniformity of style within architecture at
any given time and ultimately through the semiotic freedom made available to architects, the kind of
formal characteristics which will be exhibited within each period. Along these lines one can suggest the
results of various possible interactions in the following way:

9. Normal Architectural Processes in a Plural System of Patronage will Produce an Pragmatic State in
architecture. That is Continuous Undifferentiated Change. (Ref. 19th Century)

The character of architecture in a Pragmatic state may be suggested as follows:

a)
The continuous production of different behaviours, styles and sets of forms. Given the
institutional diversity of the Plural environment the number and relationships between institutions
keeps changing. The only thing that can be achieved in the exchange between architects is the creation
of temporarily stable groups of forms produced by local circumstances. The lifespan of these styles will
be limited.

b)
Several equally valid styles co-existing during the same period. This is consistent with the
diversity of the socioeconomic system at that time. Architects in this situation have a choice of styles
which they can use to represent different social institutions. There are in a sense more stylistic answers
than there are questions and always several different ways of doing the same thing - of representing the
same experience.

c)
Since the same institution can legitimately be represented by different and equally valid styles,
the prevailing trait of the Pragmatic state is ambiguity. There is a continual crisis of meaning since it is
impossible to establish and maintain a coherent and generally accepted set of typical forms for similar
situations. The key semiotic aspect of the Pragmatic state is that it cannot represent the similarities
between different experiences.

10. Normal Architectural Processes in an Integrated System of Patronage will Produce a Developmental
State in Architecture. That is, the Formation of a Single Stylistic Paradigm or Meta-style out of the Last
set of Diverse Styles. (Ref. Early Modern)

The same collective processes acting in an INTEGRATED environment will produce an increasing
convergence in the characteristics of different styles within architecture This may be called the
Developmental or Paradigmatic state where the interchange and combination of elements underlying
different styles results in the formation of a simple, global routine or predominant style. In systemic
terms there is a shift from the evolution of new forms of behaviour to the development and elaboration
of a single behavioural program. The characteristics of architecture in the Developmental state can be
outlined a s follows:

a)
Concentration of patronage derived from more integrated relations between different parts of
the socioeconomic system allows increased connectivity between architects. The normal collective
processes of communication and exchange between architects NOW results in the synthesis of the
elements and geometries which underlie different styles into a single limited set of forms.

b)
The first stage of this synthesis may be recognized as a period of eclecticism where the forms
drawn from different styles are combined while still retaining their own stylistic identities. Further
exchanges in the context of a stable environment reduces these identities to their most fundamental or
typical characteristics and these are essentially geometric, spatial or organizational in nature. For
instance, Modern architecture as a synthesis of the orthogonal grid of Classicism and the so-called free
plan of Neo-Gothic or vernacular. The Developmental state produces a set of forms which can be seen
as a single economic answer to a number of different representational problems.

c)
The ambiguities of architecture in the Pragmatic state are resolved since there is now a single
but flexible instrument of expression which can be adapted to suit different contexts and yet maintain
its stylistic identity. It is able to represent both the similarities and the differences between different
institutions with various combinations of its generic typical set. There is no further need to invent new
solutions for different problems. Buildings are now seen to be variations on a single theme, combined as
they are from a recognizable set of forms. This meta-style is eventually recognized as a classical
architecture and comes to be closely associated with a particular historical and social era.

11. Normal Architectural Activity in a Continuous Integrated System of Patronage will Produce an
Involutionary State in Architecture. That is, Over Time it will Result in the Fragmentation of the
Developmental Synthesis and its Classical Architecture. (Ref. Late 20th century, Postmodernism)

The continuity of the Integrated state leads to ultra-stable environmental conditions where the same
systemic processes produce entirely different and apparently contradictory end results, namely the
fragmentation of the Meta-style itself. During an Involutionary period the quite natural tendency of
architecture to produce uniformity (driven by communication and exchange between its agents) is
reinforced by the further integration of its socio-economic environment. In cybernetic terms this is the
equivalent of positive feedback which reinforces the tendency towards uniformity. While in the
Developmental period this process simply meant that the almost similar became the similar, in the
Involutionary period of a system the similar becomes the identical. In the Involutionary state systemic
processes trapped within a highly-integrated and seemingly 'immortal' socio-economic environment

subject the Meta-style itself and its uniformity to selective re-combination. The architectural
characteristics of the Involutionary state can be outlined as follows:

a)
There is an increasing disarticulation of architectural form. The classical set is fragmented into a
number of variations on its own theme. While the selection-combination mechanism inevitably
articulates architectural form around its most probable elements, in the Involutionary phase this results
in the disarticulation of the classical set. There is a tendency to integrate what is already integrated, to
clarify what is already clarified and to further articulate the most probable elements of the classical
(Developmental) paradigm. The result is to stereotype the elements of the classical set by identifying
and fixing their most probable and precise characteristics. In effect the set is bureaucratized and made
inflexible.

b)
Only the most probable characteristics of forms can be legitimately selected. Buildings become
increasingly similar to one another to the point where they can be termed identical. Architecture is
unable to represent the differences between different contexts. It can only speak of what is similar. This
results in an inevitable crisis of meaning. In this post-classical state there is a drastic reduction in the
semiotic freedom of the architectural language. The function of architecture requires it to represent the
full complexity of relations in the environment - it no longer has adequate means of doing so. It has
been rendered rigid and inarticulate. It now has very limited semiotic freedom to express what it must
express.

c) During this period architectural canons, compositional rules, standards and practices are precisely
formulated by finally eliminating contextual or circumstantial characteristics. All are fixed and
categorized and in social and institutional terms given the authority of law.

d)
Decoration becomes the predominant visual feature of the Involutionary architecture. It is used
as a remedial device to resolve current semantic problems by introducing an apparent diversity of form
to the primary (but inflexible) elements of the typical set. Given the rigidity of Involutionary forms they
cannot represent differences of context. Therefore decoration in the Involutionary phase must be fluid
and diverse to give a fictitious diversity of character to possibly identical buildings. Decoration acts as
fictitious context.

e)
So too during this period, proportional systems are introduced as a remedial device to ensure
the visual coherence of increasingly disarticulated forms. The stereotyping of architectural form means
that the character of the elements used in a building must be precisely defined. They will not be adapted

to suit their particular location in a building or their relationship to the buildings context. The building in
this case becomes an assemblage of self-referencing parts.

While architects will continue to select forms from the available repertoire for their individual works,
they will find that the degree of semiotic freedom they have to do so changes over time. The too-flexible
repertoire of the Pragmatic period eliminates the regularities of form which define what is probable or
what is general. The rigidity of form during an Involutionary period cannot represent anything in
particular. Apart from the Developmental period described above, in the other two phases architects
are forced to add determinative clues to their buildings to indicate the precise meaning of the forms
used. Thus decoration - a secondary formal language derived from the past is now used to maintain the
necessary quota of meaning required by architectural form. In practical terms, decoration in the
Pragmatic period provides a fictitious unity of form while in the Involutionary period it provides a
fictitious diversity of form.

12.

The Collapse of the Meta-style

In the extreme conditions of the Involutionary state it can no longer refer to particular times and
particular places. For this reason in its final stages, the Meta-style begins to display pathological
symptoms. In communicational terms, this pathological state is equivalent to schizophrenia where
diverse behavioural fragments are assembled to meet complex social situations. The inevitable
differences of form which must occur in the system over time in order to cope with complex realities are
now dealt with by the production of a secondary language of decorative `fictitious' differences.
Subject to intense selective pressure the Meta-style disintegrates into variations on variations of itself
giving rise to an allegorical or scholastic phase where a superficial plurality of behaviours is emphasised
by decoration In concrete terms, overwhelmed by the decorative elements required to maintain its
semantic credibility, the single dominant style seems to fragment into a series of different but related
sub-styles as in Postmodern architecture.

Architecture as System

By Alex Brown

A THEORY OF THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE

1.

INTRODUCTION

Theory of Architecture is not History of Architecture by another name. History deals with buildings and
the various styles of architecture which have arisen throughout time. History in this sense is a
DESCRIPTION of the architectural facts.

Theory attempts to provide an EXPLANATION for those facts. It looks at the reasons why buildings look
the way they do and why architects have chosen to design their buildings in particular ways. It also looks
at the reasons why architectural styles have changed over time and the assumptions and attitudes of
architects which influenced their thinking during particular periods and led to those changes. Equally it
looks at the sources for the ideas that architects use in the design of their buildings. Where do
architectural ideas come from? How do they get into circulation? Examples of movements, influences,
ideas and theories in architecture which changed the course of architecture over time the way it
looked and the styles that were used. That is which made buildings different to what they were before.
How theory influenced the practice of architecture by introducing new perceptions of the same events new way of looking at reality and therefore new ways of representing that reality in built form.

2.

BUILDINGS STYLE AND ARCHITECTURE

a)
Buildings are material facts. They are physical things. No matter how complicated they are,
their basic function is to provide shelter for human beings against a hostile climate. As physical
enclosures they also provide a psychological sense of security to their inhabitants.

b)
Because buildings contain different activities and are built in different locations, they are
necessarily different to one another. They respond to their particular context (time, place, technology &
programme). Individual buildings represent very particular individual circumstances.

c)
Yet there are similarities between buildings -sometimes considerable similarities even
between buildings of different size and function. A survey of the many buildings built during a period of
history will show that they can be classified into groups of similar buildings. That is, buildings which
share similar characteristics. They use the same basic set of forms to solve their very different

programmatic, climatic or locational problems. In other words they use the same language to express
their different situations.

d)
Architects in the same geographic area exchange information and experiences. They look at
each others work and select forms which they combine in their own individual projects. The forms used
in these projects are then selected by other architects. This continuous selection of forms between the
architects within the same architectural area produces an increasing similarity of form. Buildings begin
to look similar to one another because certain architectural forms are selected more often than others.
These forms become typical of an architectural group. They become its identity and define its character.

e)
This typical set of forms used by a number of different buildings is called a STYLE. Styles are
groups of similar buildings. Sometimes there are several styles existing together. Sometimes there is a
single dominant style which most architects use.
A style is a similarity between a large number of different buildings no matter what their purpose or
function. The style emerges over time and through the practice of many architects. It acts a model of
behaviour for architects and provides an economic solution to the problem of designing buildings. The
architects does not have to invent every building from nothing. The style (as model), offers a readymade set of elements which have been developed and tried by many architects over time and which are
understood or familiar to the public. These few elements can be selected and combined for new
projects.

f)
Architecture can be defined as the stylistic similarity between different buildings. Architecture in
this sense is not a physical state but rather INFORMATION. That is, information which characterizes
(gives a particular identity) to buildings which are physical objects material facts. Communication
between architects produces information styles or patterns of behaviour which influence or shape
buildings.

3.

ARCHITECTURE AS REPRESENTATION

To understand what Theory of Architecture is, we must first look at what architects DO in the design
buildings.

The basic function of architecture is to REPRESENT social institutions in built form.

To do this they TRANSLATE the complex relationships of an institution into the language of architecture.
(That is the programme of the institution). These are relationships between the various activities which
take place within the institution. Architects give each of these activities a particular physical space and
these spaces are arranged according to the functional relationships between groups of activities within
the institution. In this way a building represents the ORGANIZATION of the institution in physical form.

a)
Individual buildings represent individual programmes, circumstances and institutions. They
REPRESENT the relations between different parts of the institution. They represent those relations IN
BUILT FORM. That is, in the language of architecture.

b)
The style as a collective phenomenon REPRESENTS the relations between all of the
architectural work in a given area and the many institutions which they represent. These institutions
outside architecture act as the ENVIRONMENT of architecture. Architecture represents that
environment with built form. Not, however with any kind of forms, but with the typical set of forms
produced by the interaction between many architects over time. That is, with the current style.

c)
Theory of Architecture looks at the kind of choices architects can make in selecting forms for their
buildings. When architects select forms from the work of other architects to be combined in their own
work, they are making a choice. Eg. What is the most suitable combination of forms for this particular
circumstance or project? What is the most suitable combination of forms which can EXPRESS
(represent) the character of this particular institution? Does this building (this representation) match
the organization, the complexity, the symbolic character or expected social meaning of the institution
which is being represented.

At the level of the whole of architecture, Theory of architecture asks the same sort of questions:
does the current style match the state of the environment which it is meant to represent? Does it offer
enough choice to the architect to accurately express the character and complexity of social institutions?
The environment changes over time. Styles change too, but at a different rate. It is possible that the
style no longer adequately represents the environment. It may be that a new style is necessary a new
approach to architecture.

4.

WHAT IS THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE?

This relation between the architectural form of buildings during a particular period the historical facts and the institutions (the environment) which they represent is the area of Theory of architecture.
Theory of architecture can be understood in several ways:

a)
Theory acts as a critical function between what architects actually do and what they think
they are doing or what they should be doing. It identifies the difference between performance and
achievement. If the task of architecture is the correct or accurate representation of its environment
(social institutions), then theory assesses how well that task has been achieved.

b)
Theory identifies problems which occur when architecture fails to represent its environment
successfully. These are semantic problems. That is, problems of MEANING where the identity of the
institution (its character, purpose or organization) cannot be understood or PREDICTED by looking at its
architectural form.
Theory of architecture analyses the causes of such problems and in some cases offers solutions. When
we say that Theory is used to analyse something, we mean something quite specific. That is, HOW
SUCCESSFULLY architecture represents that particular institution.

c)
The analysis of the success or failure of a single building or the work of a small group of
architects in the task of architectural representation is called: architectural criticism. Theory applies the
same kind of critical thinking to the global level of architecture - to the whole of architectural
production. It looks at the stylistic choices currently available to architecture and asks whether they are
capable of adequately representing the current environment. This is theorys critical role.

d)
Do the current styles match the complexity of the environment? Do they allow architects the
necessary vocabulary to respond to human psychological, physical, social and symbolic needs. If they do
not, why not and what are the options open to architects to solve these problems. Architects do not
design styles. They emerge over long periods of historical time through the work of many architects.
Thus individual architects cannot invent styles on their own which work better. In order to be
understood, they MUST use the currently available styles. These are the only language available to them
even if they dont work too well. Architects cannot choose NOT to use the styles. They are trapped in
history - they have to use them. If they dont use the available styles (architectural languages), no one
will understand their buildings.

Theory of architecture analyses this condition and identifies the nature of architectural problems,
suggesting alternative approaches. That is, ways in which architects can break out of this historical trap
ways they can successfully represent social institutions with architectural form.

e)
Theory of Architecture offers critical analysis of the relation between architecture and other
institutions. It does so by:

i.
Offering architectural criticism of the design of single works or groups of works in terms of
their success or failure.

ii.
Looking at what architects WANT TO ACHIEVE against what they ACTUALLY ACHIEVE in the
act of representation

iii.
Offering possible solutions to the semantic or stylistic problems within architecture as a whole
(new stylistic approaches, images, sources of inspiration or new directions). Sometimes it imagines a
future architecture where current problems have been solved. (The Utopian solution).

iv.
Providing explanation, context and historical background to critical issues in architecture and
to current problems. It says why things are the way they are.

v.
Examining the process and techniques by which designs are created and the influence which
these have architectural form. For instance, in order to translate the form of the institution into an
equivalent architectural form, the design process may exclude complex relationships within the
institution. While this may provide a simple diagrammatic explanation, it fails to accurately represent
the complex reality of things. Here, Theory would indicate that the design process itself is inadequate
for its stated purpose of representation.

5.

ISSUES IN THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE

Theory identifies critical problems in architecture. Some examples of these kinds of problems are given
below:

a)

When buildings or styles are too similar to each other

For instance, if the buildings of a particular period are too similar to one another or its forms are too
stereotyped and rigidly fixed, the difference between different buildings cannot be expressed or
represented. If all buildings looked the same, there would be a serious semantic (meaning) problem.
One would not be able to tell the meaning, purpose or function of any of them. One would in a sense be
lost, unable to differentiate one place from another.

b)

When buildings or styles are too different from each other

For instance, as in the 19th century, where there are too many equally-valid competing styles in
architecture to give a single coherent image of the environment. In this case there are too many
differences between buildings. If everywhere is different from everywhere else there are no
similarities then one would again be psychologically lost.

c)

The Introduction of new Building Types

The sudden increase in the number of new building types which emerged during the Industrial
Revolution in the early 19th century: railway stations, large factories, mass housing, office buildings,
departmental stores, could not be adequately handled by existing architectural forms. A whole set of
new forms had to be invented to cope with these problems a whole new architecture called the
Modern Movement was born.

19th century theory concentrated on this particular issue. What would a new and Modern Architecture
look like? How would its forms be shaped to cope with these new large-scale and complex building
types?

d)

Rigid Styles which generate Hostile or Aggressive Environments

Or, in the 20th century, where the rigid and geometric forms of Modern Architecture were regarded as
hostile, abstract and meaningless having nothing to do with human sensitivities. In both these cases, it
was generally understood that there was something fundamentally wrong with the architecture of the
period. The result was a crisis of meaning in the 1970s, a rejection of Modern Architecture and the rise
of the Post-Modern Movement.

e)

The loss of Regional Character or Identity in Architecture

Theory can point to the loss of particular regional architectural types when an economically dominant
society imposes its culture on another society. For instance Modern Western architecture has replaced
regional architectures in the Middle East, Africa and Asia because of the dominance of Western
(European/American) economic power. This loss means that a single dominant architecture is imposed
everywhere. There are no other ways of representing things. The special identity of places and cultures
is wiped out in favour of a single global culture. There is a loss of cultural complexity and variety. That is
different ways of expressing things. This is like the loss of regional languages which allow peoples to
identify who they are and express their cultural differences from other societies. Theory can discuss
this problem and suggest possible solutions.

6.

DIFFERENT THEORETICAL APPROACHES

The general function of Theory of Architecture is to define the relationship between architecture (which
itself is a social institution) and the other institutions in a society. In all cases, however its primary
concern is the state of the architectural language its capacity to represent those institutions - how that
language expresses or represses the symbolic and organizational character of other institutions. It also
deals with the influence of these other areas on architecture itself. Theory of Architecture in this way is
a truly interdisciplinary subject.
For example, theory can analyse the relation between:

a)

Architecture and Sociology

Studies how architecture expresses the changing relationships within society and the emergence of new
social groups. Eg. Urbanization. The rise of an industrial working class or middle class in the 19th century
eg. mass public housing The rise of the post war consumer society. The suburban dream or minority
ghettos. Different architectural or urban building types in different societies. Theory in this case deals
usually with URBAN issues and how the City changes to meet new social and population developments.
Also looks at how architecture reflects the complexity and plurality of society in the late 20th century
its division into numerous special interest groups. Can a single architectural style really express this
plurality of interests? Post Modern architecture as a response to increasing diversity of lifestyle and
social groupings by introducing multiple styles. Other examples of this kind of theory include the study
of how architecture represents gender issues, minority groups, the disabled, etc. etc. and ultimately
how it reinforces the roles and stereotypes which prevail in a society.

b)

Architecture and Technology

Studies the influence and use of new technologies on the shape of architecture. In historical terms the
use of iron and concrete in the development of the Modern Movement in architecture. Examines the

possibilities for new architectural expression based on developing technologies. Eg. Archigram in the
1960s theorized the possibility of fluid or mobile cities. New communication or computer technologies
virtual realities - suggest the possibility of distibuted spaces rather than specific locations for buildings.

c)

Architecture and Politics, Wealth, Power or Class

Analyses how the social division of society is reflected in the architecture of a period the type of
buildings and the type of symbolic images and forms used to reflect power within a society. Eg. The
architecture of monarchies, dictatorships or democracies will be different. In what way do the
relationships of power within a society affect the architecture? Eg. The shape of Baroque architecture
and the use of the dominant axis, or the presence of Modern Corporate power in the design of office
buildings. Or, analyses the theocratic architecture of India or South East Asia in terms of the strict
organization of society and architecture laid down by rulers. Looks at revolutionary architecture as a
break with tradition and authority. Eg. Boulle and Ledoux during the French revolutionary period.
Studies the relation of Modern architecture to democratic

d)

Architecture and Art

Studies the sometimes very close relationship and influences between the art of a period and its
architecture. Eg. The invention of perspective and new drawing techniques by Renaissance artists and
the work of Neoclassical and Romantic painters decidely influenced the design of buildings during those
periods. Note also the direct relationship between Cubist painting and the development of the early
Modern Movement. So too, Modern graphic art and the movies suggest new, imaginative forms which
architects can use in the design of their buildings. Modern art, which deals with environmental design
(Installation Art) produces ideas which become influential with current architectural thought.

e)

Architecture and Philosophy

Philosophical ideas about meaning, order, ethics, the ideal, rationalism, the methods of critical thought,
deconstructivism, logic, consistency, the idea of beauty, harmony, aesthetics, theories of mind,
representation and perception, and so on all have their parallels in the Theory of Architecture. Usually
these relate to how to organize buildings according to some non-functional but controlling idea such as
symmetry, hierarchy or multiple axes and how to integrate the different parts of a building into a
coherent and understandable or meaningful whole. Theory can also take a moral or ideological position
where it demands that architecture express the shape or form of a better society a more just or moral
society. (Eg. Arts and Crafts movement). Also, the philosophical concept of functionalism or
instrumentalism has been translated into architectural terms by the expression of the internal dynamics
(spaces) of the building. Some of these ideas where incorporated into the forms and organization of the
Modern Movement in architecture. A more recent and complex philosophical analysis of architecture is

that of Deconstructivism. In this, Theory is used to compare the complexity of the programme or the
institution with the inevitably simplified version represented in the building. In Deconstructivist terms,
the order of the building pretends to represent the institution but in fact merely substitutes a set of
preconceived and simplistic forms. While the building seems to have an order, it is not in fact the order
of the institution which it is supposed to represent. In Deconstructivist terms, the building must express
the complexities and contradictions, accidental arrangements and organizational collisions which are the
real nature of all institutions. What architecture usually does is to reflect only a pure or ideal version of
the institution not the messy reality. The issue of how architectural form is actually perceived by
humans can also be found in philosophical ideas and this can be taken into account in the manipulation
of built form.

f)

Architecture and History

This looks at the uses of history in the pursuit of architectural form. Eg. The idea of historicism where
there is a deliberate use of traditional forms in modern buildings to provide continuity with the past and
increased meaning in the form of new buildings. This is either by the direct use of forms from past
architectures or as eclecticism where forms from different past and present styles are mixed together.
And, the counter-argument which rejects the use of past forms as superficial and decadent. Theory
looks at the function of history in architectural design and how previous forms are re-combined to
produce the new. Theory also looks at the idea that each architecture is a pure product of the social and
economic processes of its own time quite separate from previous architectures. This radical idea
formed the basis of the early Modern Movement which completely rejected traditional forms. Today,
however, with Post-Modern architecture traditional forms can be freely combined within a modern
building in order to give it an instant memory a set of ready made associations and a richness of
image.

g)

Architecture and Science

The various branches of science, from physics to biology to cognitive studies to systems theory and
artificial intelligence (AI), cybernetics and computer engineering offer examples and analogies to
processes operating within architecture. These are of essentially two kinds: those such as AI and
computer engineering which deal with the design process. For instance, identifying or mapping
networks of relationships and hierarchies within the institution to be represented as a building. The
theory is that these scientific techniques allow the architect to be more accurate in the design of the
organization. Sciences such as physics, biology or general systems theory provide examples of
architectures as systems or organisms in terms of system-environments, behaviour, cybernetic
feedback, field theory (space-time perception) and others. These suggest examples of how social
institutions like architecture might operate. These are necessarily abstract examples and attempt to get
a different or outside perspective of how the discipline functions without getting involved in the
languages, history or practices of architecture.

i)

Architecture and Human perception

Theory and practice both suggest that HOW human beings perceive buildings will affect how buildings
are designed. People get their experience of things through their five senses: sight, touch, taste, smell &
hearing. There are also psychological factors in how people perceive space and form issues of
familiarity, distance, colour and the shape or spatial; definition of space (narrow, enclosing, open vistas,
concentric or linear, axiality, etc.). Each of these factors sense and psychology can be used to analyse
the success or even just the character of built space. Theory looks at buildings in terms of how it they
are supposed to be seen or experienced and how it is ACTUALLY experienced. Theory compares what we
know about human perception and the experience of shape, colour and texture (decoration) of
particular buildings. Theory can also discuss architecture in terms of perceptual territory, psychological
security, defensible space, the relation between social groups and their identification with particular
urban areas. That is how people perceive their social space and how new buildings reinforce or destroy
that identification. (Eg. Living in tower blocks surrounded by open space rather than low level housing
and high densities. A factor in this kind of analysis is to match crime, social delinquency, psychological or
social alienation and community breakdown to the shape of architectural and urban space).

j)

Architecture and the Future

One of Theorys tasks is to suggest alternative architectures. There are three possible ways of doing this.
The first is to produce architectures of the future which are designed to suit new or developing
technological or social conditions. Some of these ideas can then be incorporated into present day
architecture to solve current problems or provoke a change in direction and a recognition of developing
trends that are not being expressed in architecture. The second is that these completely imaginary
architectures are used to shock or disrupt the normal processes of architectural thinking. These attempt
to break architecture out of a cultural trap where it produces inexpressive or cliched buildings or shapes
the form of architecture purely in terms of functional or instrumental goals. In such a case, an imaginary
(or Utopian) architecture might propose an architecture stripped of all references to history and to the
conventional forms of architecture. To produce a truly radical architecture by inventing or discovering
forms which had no precedent in history. The third is to produce pure works of the imagination
graphics which are in a sense artworks. They are there to provoke wonder or pleasure in the viewer an
experience in itself. In this case the architectural forms are merely the content or subject matter of a
work of art. These however can be provocative and influential, in some cases producing changes in
architecture itself.

k)

Architecture and the City

Theory of architecture deals in many cases with urban design theories. It is in the complexity of the City
that architecture finds its truest expression. That is, in the collision of many different buildings both
from the past and the present and from the many functions which the City includes. There is a direct
parallel between the theory of architecture and that of urban design. In both cases the issue is to
represent in built form and in spatial enclosure the organization of a social institution. The City is the
most complex social institution in history. It has to be given physical form inspired by or determined by
the nature or character of the many sometimes conflicting institutions which co-exist within it. Theory of
architecture as such analyses architectural interventions in the City how they either reinforce or
change its identity. The architectural basic elements of this urban analysis can be the network of streets,
routes and paths, squares, focal points, neighbourhoods, domains, symbolic centres, boundaries, public
monuments, vistas, enclosures, the presence of nature (parks, water), the continuity of street fronts, the
significance of street corners and so on. These elements are matched against the functional zoning of
the city into business, industry, housing, entertainment, government areas and in general into the
complex mix of functions which make up the city itself and its transport infrastructure. The other factor
is that the City is the product of continuous development through many historical periods and that this
constrains the present and future development of the City. The City is layers of memory slowly
transforming through time a geological - sedimentary (deep) structure as society after society writes
out its own character in physical form. Theory looks at new types of city structures which incorporate
new urban technologies superhighways, trains airports and the changing relation of the countryside to
the City.

l)

Architecture and Ecology

Ecology deals with the relationship between an organism and its environment. That is, how well the
organism responds (adapts) to changing conditions in that environment. The behaviour of the organism.
Its ability to respond to heat, cold, light, its use of energy in order to survive. Or, in the worst case its
tendency to destroy its environment and thus destroy itself. In architectural terms, these factors are
expressed in the form and materials a building uses and its ability to conserve and use energy generated
by the natural environment or its own internal processes. An ecologically sensible building will be
designed on the basis that it can deal with the local climate (sunlight or cold) without the need for
expensive importation of energy (electricity), eg. in the form of air conditioning. The form of a building is
dictated by many factors (programme, site, technology, finance, etc.), ecology is another factor which
constrains (controls) the final shape of a building. For instance the design of a building can be influenced
by the need for shading from sunlight, thermal insulation of its walls, the use of natural ventilation
techniques, natural air circulation, orientation, solar panels, re-cycling of its water, low technology
construction techniques, use of traditional or low energy building methods and materials in certain
regions, the use of internal courtyards, compact layouts or response to the existing topology and
landscape features. Theory of architecture analyses current building technology and design to see how
efficiently new buildings are designed to optimize energy resources and minimize waste.

7.

THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE AS COMMUNICATION

Architecture like any other language represents experience with a combination of particular forms.
In other words, architecture communicates experience. The elements of any communication systems
can be described as signs. That is, something which stands for (represents) something else. The study
of these sign systems, what they mean in combination with each other and the rules by which they can
be combined (the grammar or syntax) is called Semiotics. Architecture can be analysed in semiological
terms as a system of signs (architectural forms) which are drawn from a familiar and generallyunderstood vocabulary (Style) and combined to mean something in particular circumstances. Any
system of communication involves three levels of activity. Semiotics defines these as:

a) SYNTACTICS: the rules which govern the acceptable combination of signs (the syntax or grammar).
In architectural terms this would be the stylistic rules or conventions which govern the combination of a
group of architectural forms. Forms cannot be combined at random. If they are, the result is
meaningless. Syntactic rules are derived from the most recurrent or regular practices of the past. They
are familiar and they become the standard practice, the norm which guides all future acts of
communication.

b) SEMANTICS: the meaning of the signs. What they are supposed to suggest, or the associations they
produce in the observers mind. Meaning refers to how familiar or probable a particular combinations
of signs are. If the form of an object such as a building is totally unfamiliar it is meaningless. Semantics
deals with the difference between the POSSIBLE as against the PROBABLE (the familiar or
understandable). Spoken language is very similar. There are an infinite number of possible sounds or
words. However, only a few of these will have any semantic use. The others will be meaningless and
thus useless. There are an infinite number of possible architectural forms that can be imagined and
built. However, there are only a few of these which can have any meaning or significance in
architecture.

c)
PRAGMATICS: all communication has an intention, a goal or a function. Each act of
communication (such as design of a single building) is a report or a message about an event. In
architecture the building is a meaningful report IN BUILT FORM about the relations between the
different parts of an institution. (the event). In order to carry out the task of communication it is
necessary that the message be clearly understood. This is the pragmatics of communication. It defines
the communicational PURPOSE of the message the likelihood of its being understood and acted upon
in a particular context or the circumstances. In different circumstances (context) the same message (the
same building design ) will mean something completely different. Pragmatics governs the selection (of
signs) and combination of those signs in each particular case. Pragmatics compares the intended
message/meaning with the actual message/meaning.

Communication involves both codes and messages. In architectural terms, a code is a style a set of
TYPICAL ways of doing things, while the building is a message an ACTUAL way of doing things. The
code - which limits the possible arrangement of the elements of a message is not a separate thing from
the message. It is the name for the most typical or probable features present in the many messages
(buildings) which are created in the system of communication (architecture). A code or an architectural
style is a VIRTUAL entity (thing) a statistical concept scanned out of the similarities between the many
elements of the real world. Remember: a style is a similarity of form between a large number of
buildings. So too a code is a similarity of form between a large number of messages.

8.

CONCLUSION

Theory of architecture is the tool by which architects check or compare the goals of architecture with its
actual achievements. It is the critical function which regulates the practice of architecture and attempts
to bring it back into line with its function of accurately representing social experience.

In many cases Theory of Architecture is presented as a WRITTEN COMMENTARY (a text) on the physical
or visual reality of architecture its buildings. However, it can also be presented in the form of a VISUAL
COMMENTARY drawings, which propose alternative or imaginary architectures, or new directions for
existing architectures. In both cases Theory can be defined as the regulatory function of architecture, or
perhaps in a moral sense - its conscience.

The Evolution of Modern Architecture

By Alex Brown

ISSUES OF STYLE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

the shift from the stylistic chaos of 19th century architecture to the pristine uniformity of the Early
Modern Movement represents without doubt one of the most revolutionary events in the history of
architecture; at least on a par with the emergence of the Renaissance. This development continued with
the clarity of the High Modern itself disintegrating over time into a plethora of styles in the Postmodern
period strangely reminiscent of the plural state of things in the 19th century. The speed of change in the
20th century has allowed us to watch at least some of these events unfold before our eyes.

This is the story of a complete cycle of architectural history - from stylistic fragmentation to unity to
fragmentation again and is the basis of the history presented here in the form of four papers. These
papers: History of Architecture I IV present a brief and hopefully concise history of architecture of the
period from, roughly the middle of the 19th century, through Modernism to the late Postmodern period
at the end of the millennium. The intention of the papers is to provide simple but accurate explanations
for the events that took place, but also for the sometimes complex systemic forces that made them
happen. For the same reason, the format of the paper is organized so that key issues are set out in point
form for maximum clarity.

There have, of course been many other such histories usually developed along some fairly simple
chronological line of tracing connections and influences between the work of one group of architects
and another. Other such histories inform the subject with social or technological explanations for
change and development in architecture. The approach taken in these papers and which seeks to
distinguishes this history from others stems from the use of two key concepts: system and style. The
points offered below summarize the use of these concepts in this history of architecture.

a) The Systems Perspective on Architecture

The systems point of view explains the radical architectural changes that took place during this time as
a systemic effect of collective activities, namely the exchange and communication of ideas and
experience between many architects over long periods of time. Essentially a system is group of
individual agents in close and continuous communication between one another. Each one of these
agents adapts his behaviour to match the state of the others. Change and evolution is a product of
collective adaptation in response to changes in the environment.

b) The Application of Evolutionary Theory to Architecture

The approach taken here is fundamentally evolutionary and takes the following definition as its source:
Evolution is the process whereby new species emerge from existing species by a selective
recombination of the characteristics of the existing species as expressed in changing environments.
Architectural styles in this case providing a metaphor for biological species in the sense that they do not
appear spontaneously at random points in history but are continuous developments of existing styles.
The motive force for these developments is the system adapting to changing environments. Also as an
evolutionary theory, it naturally requires a form of cumulative selection or filtering of failed or
successful experiments. In biological terms this is called natural selection. The selection process
ultimately defines the kind of adaptations which can take place and the characteristics of future forms.
In architecture selection takes place in the normal communication and exchange of experience between
architects. Architects select and combine forms from other architects work. Similarly communication
and exchange between architects also acts as a mechanism for passing successful adaptations to new
generations as a typical set of forms available for combination and recombination. As in all evolutionary
systems, architectural forms are subject to cumulative selection by their practitioners producing in some
circumstances a convergence of behaviour around a preferred set of forms. a style.

c) The Significance of the Concept 'Style'

The other key conceptual element in this history is that of the architectural style. It is at this collective
level of architectural organization (as against that of the individual work of architecture ) that one can
clearly see the changes taking place from one period to another and from one architecture to another.
The style is a set of conventional elements selected out over time from a mass of individual solutions to
design problems and which act as the memory of the system and the repertoire from which future
designs can be based. The style can be seen in the similarity of forms between a large number of
buildings. In the same way a style acts as a constraint on new design work by providing the most
semantically (and technically) probable solutions derived as they are from collective experience over
time. In deviating from the norms provided by a prevailing style, architects take a risk that the resulting
building may be unintelligible in architectural terms.

d) Convergence of Behaviour - the Evolution of Styles

Through a collective exchange of experience the preferred set emerges as the prevailing architectural
style and constrains future selections. It does not however stay as a fixed set of characteristics.
Continuous communication and exchange between architects and the individual selection and
combination of forms produces a continuous but gradual change in the characteristics of the style over
time. The overall dynamic within the architectural system comes from the continuous activity required

in the building of new buildings. So too changes in the socioeconomic environment (other institutions
which architecture will represent as buildings) require adaptations in architectural form. The
introduction of new building types would be an example of the need for adaptation in architectural
form. The key point is this, that the style at any given point is simply a snapshot of a continuous
evolving process in architecture its history. The corollary to this is the recognition that there is no
original set or style from which all others have developed.

e) Stylistic Choice Between one and Many

During some periods in the history of architecture there seem to be many stylistic answers to the same
design problem or, alternately one preferred answer to many different problems. This variation in the
degree of stylistic choice available to architects in selecting appropriate forms for their buildings
produces considerable semantic problems in design. For instance, if there are many equal possibilities,
why choose one or the other? What is the stylistic means of representing the common elements of
social experience. If other architects are solving the same problems using different stylistic means, then
what is the validity of any one of them? Equally, in conditions where there is only one preferred style,
the following question is implied: how is it possible to reflect the whole of human experience with a
single formula? In this case the tendency is to try to break out of this singular trap and more freely
express the diversity of experience.

One of the functions of the architectural style is to provide a risk-free template for future action which
combines both flexibility and a coherent order. That is, a single stylistic formula which can authentically
represent many different situations. Failing this ideal condition, the problems of meaning and
expectation described above place the validity of the template at risk. Architects must resolve the
ensuing ambiguities, uncertainties or stereotyping of architectural form using secondary compositional
or decorative techniques. Decyphering these coded messages becomes one of the main functions of
architectural criticism.

These various system-evolutionary ideas are more fully developed in other theoretical articles. (See
Architecture as System, Architecture as Evolution, So too the linguistic and psychological analogies
used in the text. For the moment however these ideas merely form a conceptual background to what is
intended to be a fairly direct explanation of the history of the period. Note, the intention of this paper is
explanatory. That is, it is not just a chronological list of events and characters. The paper seeks out the
Why of these events. Why certain things happened and others didnt and the nature of the collective
forces that bring about change.

The brief history offered here is, in one sense, an experiment to test the validity of the
systems/evolutionary theory developed previously. It is a way of integrating the existing theory into an
actual historical situation the emergence of Modernism and its continuous transformation. It is also an
attempt to write a history without heroes. That is, a history of the collective actions of many architects
over long periods of time, or, to put it more succinctly an evolutionary history.

2.0 STYLE AS A DESIGN CONSTRAINT

In this paper much use is made of the word style. The concept of style in architecture is usually
treated somewhat superficially since it is now regarded as a matter of fashion, trend or the product of
some ephemeral event. Before we can look at the historical developments put forward in this paper we
must look at this key concept more thoroughly because it forms the analytical tool used for the
exploration of this history of architecture.

Generally, at the collective or historical level, conventional analysis of architectures seems to be a

matter of finding the influences of one architect on many. (Note the undertones of Renaissance magic
remain attached to the word, influences). Equally, the conventional approach to discussing individual
works of architecture usually revolves around functional or technological criteria or on the architects
skill in manipulating architectural elements. Where these elements come from, their origins or their use
in many other architects work is seldom a matter of discussion. Presumably for most architectural
explanations the answers to these questions lie in the mysterious realms of artistic genius. However, the
concept style provides us with a useful method of explaining these and many other aspects of
architecture. We may note, for instance:

a) The Similarity between A Large Number of Buildings

Why many buildings with very different functions and locations end up looking remarkably similar? This
seems to be treated as a coincidence or the product of avant-garde leaders influencing their followers.
In fact these similarities show the very visible existence of architectural styles and their constraining
effects on the production of a large number of buildings. Namely, that they share the same set of
characteristics. This is an entirely measurable effect which easily allows us to identify the common
elements, compositional rules and general characteristics which unite the form of so many buildings.

b) The Logical Status of the concept, Style

Architecture itself can only be recognized in the midst of a great number of building forms if those forms
show a high degree of similarity to one another. A definition of architecture is that of a (stylistic)
similarity between a large number of different buildings. So too, the only thing that allows us to identify,
analyse or even discuss large scale events such as Classicism, Modernism, Baroque, Neo-Gothic, Chinese
or whatever architecture is to recognize the existence of particular sets of shared characteristics - a style
in other words which united the form of many buildings. Without such a constraint, these buildings
would be infinitely diverse in character. These are not abstract issues, but refer to distinct architectural
elements used in numerous buildings.

c) Linguistic Analogies
Together with the concepts style and system, the other concept used in these papers is architecture
as language. Since the functions and the locations of different buildings may be so different, the
recognizable similarity between them and therefore our ability to classify them is clearly one of
architectural language used. That is, one of a consistent vocabulary and a set of syntactic rules. It is the
consistency of the stylistic language in use which allows us to recognize its presence in the midst of an
infinite number (a Babel) of forms. While we may justifiably regard architecture as a means of
communication, we may, by extension, regard each different style within architecture as a microlanguage with its own vocabulary and grammar. Each of these style-languages is a rule-governed system
which provides a not unlimited number of different ways of expressing the same things and events.

In this paper, the concepts of style and language are synonymous. Both involve a set of characteristic
forms constrained by rules and subject to evolutionary pressures which require it to change over time.

Apart from observing the similarities mentioned above, it is also quite natural to ask how such a
similarity could possibly arise given the fact that architecture is a collection of individual architects each
seeking to solve unique problems. The emergence of a visible order, in this case a distinctive style - out
of a very large number of events is convincingly explained by evolutionary theory applied to
architecture. In looking into how and why these sets of forms come to exist and how they change over
time is to describe the systemic, historical and, ultimately evolutionary forces which govern architecture.

d) Style as Physical Characteristics

Periodization and classification of architectural form are not therefore simply a matter of chronology nor
ideology but of the identification of sets of shared physical and organizational traits. These provide what
we might call the quantifiable species characteristics of different architectures.

f) Style as a Design Template

The issue of style is more than just a matter of classification. While in one sense buildings are unique
events in terms of the specific environmental, financial and technological conditions within which they
are designed and the particular characteristics which they materialize, they are in no sense spontaneous
creations utterly rooted in their particular circumstances. The architect quite deliberately selects and
combines elements and arrangements from an available vocabulary of forms a style - established by
historical precedent and which, to a large extent or other determines the resulting design. Therefore the
physical character of a work of architecture is derived from outside its circumstances from a
historically-defined language which represents it. So, while the building is indeed a product of particular
events, its final form is not. It is impossible therefore to be completely original in the process of design
any more than it is in written or spoken language. For a work to be completely original in this sense
would also make it unintelligible. One is always limited by what has been done before and by the
available languages. From this one can say that:

Style is the name for this collective design constraint which at the same time provides a repertoire of
design possibilities.
Architects select from available stylistic repertoires in order to create new buildings. These buildings
represent the form of various social institutions in particular locations. How well a building represents
an institution both symbolically and functionally, depends to some extent on the prevailing stylistic
choice available to the architect for that task, (and of course his skill in manipulating these forms to
suit).

g) Summary of the Concept of Style

we can summarize the issue of style in the following manner:

a) A style is a set of typical forms and arrangements shared by a group of buildings within a distinct
geographical area and time span.

b) Style provides the repertoire from which architects select and combine forms into particular buildings
which represent certain building programs/institutions.

c) The design process (selection and combination of forms) is constrained by the available number and
relative importance of the various styles which exist During a particular period.
d) There are periods when there are lots of styles to choose from and there are times when such choices
are limited to a single dominant style.

e) If architects are limited in their ability choose forms adequate to the task of representing some
building program, or other, what do they do? How do they compensate when stylistic resources are
limited. Or, on what basis can they select appropriate forms for buildings from a range of equally-valid
styles.

f) For architects, the key issue in the design process is to achieve an appropriate 3-dimensional
representation/expression of an institution/building program at a particular time and place. That is, a
building which in spatial/formal terms is a physical metaphor of the group of activities which form the
institution. Clearly the stylistic resources available to the architect are of major importance in this
respect. It acts as a preset vocabulary for the selection/combination process of design.

g) If styles act as both templates and constraints on architectures, how do they change and adapt to new
circumstances? How do styles emerge or become extinct?

h) Styles emerge over time through the communication and exchange of experience between a large
number of architects. The selection and combination process used by many architects acts as cumulative
selection filter on architectural forms.

i) Of course one can say that there is always more than one style available to architects of any period.
There can never literally be just a single style in existence at any one time. This is true of course, but
equally one can say that in certain periods while there may be several styles in existence at any time,
one style might be the dominant or preferred mode for designing buildings during that period.

j) It is in such periods of increasing uniformity that we get the great canonical styles: Modernism,
Classicism in its various forms, High Gothic or Islamic. During these times most buildings will be designed
according to the canons of that style and will use typical elements drawn from that style. In other, more
diverse times, architects will select architectural elements from a number of different and equally valid
styles.

This very visible change between diversity or uniformity of expression and between quite distinct sets of
traits which we call styles, provides a more useful and concrete way of analyzing the history of
architecture and of more succinctly and accurately identifying its various periods and the rise and fall of
different styles.

Ultimately of course, looking at it this way also provides a way of looking at the mechanisms which bring
about these change.

Using the concepts outlined above as guidelines we can now look at the historical events of the 19th and
20th century architectures.

architecture as evolution
The Evolution of Modern Architecture

By Alex Brown

Book Extract - Chapter One

PART I GENERAL CONCEPTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The short history of architecture presented here is an attempt to understand and explain the
development of the Modern Movement in architecture by using concepts and models of systematic
evolutionary change drawn from researches in the fields of biology, complexity and the study of
dynamic systems. Fundamentally, this approach is based on a definition of architecture as a dynamic
and self-regulating complex system. In this model, stylistic change and development are explained as a
cumulative result of the selective forces which arise in the normal processes of communication and
exchange between architects. Change - in this instance the change from the diversity of historical styles
which prevailed in the 19th century to the dominance of a single architectural style in the 20th century is explained as the unforeseen result of the collective activity of architects. In other words, while
individual architects sought to produce effective solutions for their own design problems by adapting
existing forms to new purposes, there was no conscious or collective intention on their part to produce
what we now call Modern architecture whose characteristics could not possibly be imagined
beforehand. It is in the interaction and exchange of experience between architects and the
consequences of architectures need to adapt its forms to a radical change in its social and industrial
environment that an explanation for such a change can be found. To put it at its simplest: Modern
architecture was not designed or intended by anyone. Nor was it the creation of a small group of avant
garde designers. It emerged from a great mass of individual attempts to adapt available forms to new
and unprecedented uses; attempts which were synthesized into a new set of forms by the mutual
exchange of experience between architects selecting elements from each others work and combining
them in new contexts. It is this process which provides the underlying dynamic of the architectural
system. This continuous exchange of experience gives architecture the uniformity of characteristics
which one can see to some extent or other during any historical period.

This interpretation of the architectural history of the 19th and 20th centuries therefore centres around
the processes involved in the emergence, development and transformation of those uniformities of
character to which we give the name: style. As it is used here, the meaning of this concept is quite
specific: that is, the typical set of elements or forms including compositional techniques which acts as
the template for the production of many individual works of architecture. This is the collective unit of
architectural production. Style - which we can now define as a particular uniformity of expression
amongst a large number of different buildings - is explained as an emergent phenomenon which arises

through the mutual selection and combination of their diverse experiences by many different architects.
Stylistic uniformity is an effect of communication between architects. In this model the diversity of
characteristics which is inevitable in the mass of work produced by many different architects gradually
converges towards a limited set of commonly-used forms. This continuous exchange of individual
experience between a limited number of agents in a geographically or discursively confined
environment ultimately leads to an increasing similarity of behaviour between them. The use of this
collective concept, devoid of any intentional aspects, allows us to explore the large scale effects of many
individual experiments in the architecture of the time.

These large scale changes in architecture from the 19th century to the Modern can be understood by
recourse to a general theory of adaptive change similar to that currently employed in the evolutionary
theory which explains change in terms of the interaction and activities of large numbers of individual
agents. Other kinds of theory which attempt to explain the same phenomena usually involve some
arbitrary collective intention or other such as reactions to current events or zeitgeists of whatever
flavour. Others simply import causes from outside architecture itself to explain the changes taking
place within it, for instance, the impact of sociological, technological or ideological forces. Architecture
in these cases is reduced to a passive vehicle for the direct expression of these other forces. The result
is, of course the production of convulsive histories of architecture where things happen suddenly and
inexplicably coming form outside as it were. The historical continuity of architecture, its repertoire of
forms, its internal dynamic and its own formative processes are simply rendered invisible or neutered by
these naively cause-and-effect approaches to historical explanation. The complexity of architecture and
its formal character at any given time lies in the multiple interactions between architects, between
architects and the demands of the social and industrial environment and, most significantly, between
these factors and the formal language provided to them by historical experience. This language of forms
is the only medium of expression available to architects to represent current experience and as with any
language it changes by continuous development or adaptation rather than convulsive leaps to match
the vagaries of taste or ideology. Even when architecture has to respond to radical social and industrial
change as it did in the 19th century, it does not do so by the spontaneous invention of new forms. It
adapts existing forms to cope with the new demands. Over time, this continuous and recursive
adaptation ultimately results in forms which are radically different to their antecedents.

Evolutionary theory, provides a way of looking at these kinds of systemic processes and as a theory has
by now moved well beyond its origins as an explanation for biological phenomena to become a general
theory of adaptive change in dynamic systems which involve the interaction of many agents and their
relationship to their environment. Given the number of architects practicing at any given time and given
the massive industrial and social changes which were taking place in the 19th century which would have
direct effects on architecture of the time, a theory which can deal with large scale transformations is
clearly valuable. It is not enough for a history of architecture to simply offer lists of detailed facts,
biographies or individual buildings with the implication that these of themselves provide an adequate

explanation for the changes that took place. Of themselves the facts do not explain anything. Taken on
their own they suggest a convulsive theory of history full of discontinuities and surprises. intentional
motives to the formation of these large scale movements In order to re-establish the continuity and
coherence of the historical process and its cumulative effects and therefore give adequate explanation
for the changes that took place, it is necessary to inform and organize the facts with relevant concepts
which integrate them into a coherent pattern and are in scale with the environmental forces impacting
architecture at the time. Applied to architecture, the concepts of evolutionary theory and of dynamic
systems allow one to explain both the constancy of stylistic characteristics which define the periodic
history of architecture and, at the same time the inevitable change in those characteristics as one style
shades into another.

Given that this treatment of architectural history is somewhat unusual at least in terms of its
evolutionary approach, the arrangement and formatting of the chapters is designed to ensure the
clearest possible explanation of the theoretical concepts and their application to the historical events.
To this end this first chapter provides definitions of key concepts and lays out the theoretical approach
taken. Further chapters apply these concepts to the state of 19th and 20th century architecture. Where
possible arguments and explanations are laid out in point form. While this may limit the literary quality
or smoothness of the text, it does serve to ensure that the ideas presented here are expressed as clearly
as possible and thus more easily available for consideration.

The aim in this short history of Modern architecture is to provide a coherent alternative to the
individualistic and subjective explanations offered by current architectural history and theory in favour
of a theory which can explain large scale systematic transformations in architecture; the shift, in other
words from one stylistic phenomenon to another. It seeks to offer an alternative explanation for the
shape of Modern architecture.

2.0 INITIAL DEFINITIONS

The definitions offered below are shortened versions of those to be found in the main body of the text.
They are provided at this point to establish a basic vocabulary of concepts and allow easier access to the
ideas presented in the text.

a) Architecture

A recognizable similarity of form between a large number of buildings irrespective of their function. How
else would we recognize the existence of architecture other than by noting such regularities of form?
Architecture is the information which characterizes the forms of buildings which are themselves
material objects. This definition also resolves the confusion which sometimes occurs between the
respective definitions of architecture and buildings. The information which architecture embodies is
the learned product of the mutual exchange of experience of many architects over long periods of time;
experience about which forms can best be used for what purposes.

b) Style

The particular set of characteristic forms which produces a similarity between buildings based on the
use of a typical set of forms which architects select and combine into new buildings. Style a similarity
of forms - is the collective result of the exchange of experience between many architects within a
particular geographical, discursive or historical arena. The most obvious Western example is that of
Classicism and its developments since the Renaissance where a limited number of forms the Orders
plus a preferred set of compositional patterns provided a ready-made repertoire of forms from which
architects could select for the design of many different kinds of buildings. The same preferred set
principle applies to all architectures, Chinese, Islamic, and so, each with its own set of canonical forms.
Styles change over time as architects adapt the basic set of forms to represent new circumstances, thus
producing a gradual stylistic shift in the character of the typical forms used. As with the concept
species, style can be seen as a snapshot of evolving characteristics. A style is not a separate entity. It is
immanent in the form of many buildings which use the same architectural elements. In this sense, style
is a statistical concept. In all historical periods there will be several different and equally valid styles in
existence each of which may be identified with some particular environmental or cultural niche such
(geographical, political, religious, industrial). However, in certain periods, a dominant style emerges
which determines the character of many different building types.

c) Meta-style

The dominant style of a particular historical period derived from a synthesis of the characteristics of a
previous set of styles. Sometimes referred to as a classical architecture. While previous styles may have
been closely associated with particular cultural niches (religious, political or industrial buildings), the
meta-style offers a set of forms which can be universally applied across a wide range of building types. It
poses as the one answer for all architectural problems. The various elements of the original paradigms
are selected and exchanged in terms of their fundamental similarities and differences. The almost

similar becomes the similar in an essentially economic selective process where the most
representative and TYPICAL routines which underlie circumstantial differences become the single
behavioural set which one can call the Meta-style. Note that it is the contextual or circumstantial
aspects of the original forms that are eliminated or repressed during the processes of exchange in
favour of a single comprehensive model which can be applied across a wide range of contexts within the
same architectural system. If we want to 'see' a style or meta-style, we must look at the uniformity of
characteristics which increasingly link many different individual works. In Western architecture, both
Classicism and Modernism have provided such a universal formula.

d) Typological Process

The normal processes of communication and exchange between architects which results in the
production of typical sets of stylistic forms. The process involves mutual selection and combination of
forms by architects within a defined geographical or discursive environment. The continuous exchange
between architects leads to a convergence of characteristics in the forms they use where minor
differences between the same solutions are filtered out with the development of a standard or
canonical solution. The end product of this kind of convergence is the Type, or in architectural terms
the Style.

e) Environment

Architecture is one cultural system among the many which make up a given society. Its general
environment is, therefore the cumulative effect of all the other cultural systems (institutions) which
architecture represents in built form within a given society. More specific environments are those which
require the design of individual buildings and include the building program, location, finance, available
technology, law and so on. It is this complex of environmental factors to which the architect responds by
adapting available architectural forms to suit these specific environmental requirements.

f) Evolution

Continuous adaptive change by a system in response to conditions imposed by its environment. In order
to deal with changes in the environment, and to maintain its organizational integrity, the system draws
upon the repertoire of behaviours which it has learned from experience. It selects and combines these
possibilities to match the current state of its environment. If it is successful in adapting its forms to these

demands, the system will pass these learned routines to the next generation of agents who make up the
system. (See Natural Selection below) In biological terms, it is genetic material which is passed to
future generations. In architectural terms, it is a repertoire of forms. Systems change in order to stay in
the same stable relationship to their environments. Change, in this sense is not an intention, it is,
paradoxically a result of trying to stay the same. Failure to successfully match its behaviour to the
environment may happen because the system for historical reasons simply does not have a suitable
range of behavioural routines available to it to. This is possible if the systems environment changes
radically and quickly. In other words, there is no combination of acts within its repertoire which can
solve the problem. The result is extinction which in architectural terms means that a particular set of
forms is no longer used to produce future buildings.

g) Species

A community of organisms defined by a reproductive boundary within which genetic information is

exchanged leading to a similarity of physical characteristics within the community. Species evolve into
other species by continuous adaptation over long periods of time or, through geographic isolation of
one of the species populations which then adapts to a different ecosystem. Like the concept style, the
term species defines a class of individual entities which have similar characteristics. It is not a thing in
itself but a category. Translated into architectural terms, the reproductive boundary which identifies
the limits of the species refers to the processes of communication and exchange between architects
which produce a convergence of characteristics in buildings. Without such communication, architecture
as defined above would not exist, only an aggregate of different individual buildings.

h) Self-Organization

The characteristics and organization of a system are a function of the interlocking activities of its agents
in their struggle to adapt to their environments other systems. The key activity being the
communication and exchange of information between them. As already discussed, there is no need to
invent extraneous causes to explain the workings of the system or its evolving characteristics. These are
simply products or effects of what the system normally does. Nor is there any need to privilege
particular groups or individuals within the system as motivating forces. All this does is try to give the
system as a whole a personal consciousness or intention and thus a simple and spurious reason for
doing what it already does. While individuals are intentional, systems are not.

i) Representation

In architectural terms this refers to process of adapting architectural forms to match the form of some
referent institution or other. This is the basic process of design where a building can be seen as a map of
the dynamics of a particular organization. (To quote the biologist DArcy Thomson: Form is a diagram of
the forces acting on it). The building is taken to represent the organization in a particular place at a
particular time. The building stands for the organization in a particular context and its character is
derived from adapting (selecting, modifying and combining) existing forms to new purposes In both
architecture and biology a given set of elements (of form, behaviour or genetic information) are
combined to match the organizational state of an environment. In one case the result is buildings, in the
other the result is organisms. In both cases one can think of this as a transcription process or in a more
literary sense the making of a metaphor. The organization of one system (an environment) is written out
or translated into the form of another (the system). When a system adapts, it characterizes or
represents its environment in the form of its own behaviour. The form of a system is a map of its
environment. Again in a linguistic analogy: the building is a statement in a particular language about a
referent organization.

j) System

A group of agents in close and continuous communication with one another, mutually exchanging
information derived from their individual attempts to represent (adapt to) particular aspects of their
environment. (Note the similarity with the concept definition of species). This is the dynamic of the
system. While individual agents may be replaced, the system remains intact defined as it is both by the
medium of expression used and the network of communication between its agents. It is worth noting
here that the concept system cannot be adequately understood by a reductive approach which seeks
to understand the system by isolating and analysing the work of individual agents. It is the dynamic of
exchange which defines the character of the system and its products.

k) Adaptation

When a system adapts, it characterizes or represents its environment in the form of its own behaviour,
(the medium of expression particular to that system. In the case of architecture the medium of
expression is built form). By definition, the concept suggests that new forms are a result of the
combination and recombination of existing forms to describe and represent new experiences. In other
words, architects do not invent new forms for each specific design problem. Architectural forms are
adaptations or modifications of previously-produced forms. This ensures the continuity of the system
and the continued intelligibility of its products.

l) Natural Selection

The mechanism by which the particular characteristics of organisms in an ecosystem are tested against
the prevailing environmental conditions and some are eliminated. It has been suggested that the term
cumulative selection is a more useful description of the process since it describes the continuous and
recursive nature of the process. The success or failure of the individual organisms of a species to cope
with the conditions of their environment determines their relative reproductive success and the
successful traits of those organisms in adapting to their environment are passed to future generations.
In the case of architecture, selection occurs through mutual exchange of forms between architects
where some combinations of forms are found to be useful in the design of different kinds of buildings. It
is these which are taken up and incorporated into the architectural canons the style of the period
and applied in a wide range of projects. Success in biological terms is about adaptive flexibility: the
capacity to adequately represent a changing environment in the shape of its own behaviour. The same
criteria applies to architectural works. The success or failure of a particular building is a matter of how
well it represents its local environment with the set of elements at its disposal; elements which have
been quite pragmatically selected from other works and modified to suit local conditions. Each building
acts as an imitative source for other works of architecture and it is the semiotic flexibility of the forms
used in each which determine the extent to which a particular combination of forms is repeated and
exchanged in the selection and combination process carried out between many architects. Semiotic
flexibility in this sense is about how easily a form can be adapted for use in other circumstances.
Continuous communication and exchange of forms between architects through the medium of their
buildings filters a set of conventional forms a canon - which can be applied generally.

m) Network Principle

Architecture functions as a network of communication and exchange. Individual architects do not create
architecture any more than individuals create their own language. They create statements (buildings) in
a language which emerges out of the shared experience of many architects, past and present. This
continuous sharing of experience involves the selection of real and observable architectural elements
drawn from each others work and their recombination as new and unique buildings. The currency of
this network of exchange is architectural form. That is, the forms that architects observe in the buildings
produced by others. It is the connectivity of the system the degree of connection between its agents which ensures that the mass of experience produced by architects is transformed into a useful set of
uniform characteristics a style. The size of the network the number of architects who share
information defines the spread and influence of the style. The means of communication in this
network, as against its content is a matter of technology. This can mean the availability of books,

magazines, travel, television and so on, but it also involves the uniformity of training received by
architects in schools of architecture. Given the global reach of modern media, this means that
geographical context no longer defines the size of the network and therefore makes possible the
emergence of dominant styles on a global scale, albeit with regional variations.

3.0 UNIFORMITY AND DIVERSITY IN THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE

Its possible to imagine a situation where every building was different to every other building or a
situation where every building was the same as every other building, but these are certainly works of
the imagination because the most visible feature of the history of architecture is the emergence and
dissolution of distinct styles; uniform sets of characteristics shared by a large number of different
buildings. Indeed architectural history is often written out (somewhat simplistically and convulsively) in
terms of a series of such styles, one succeeding the other over long periods of time. Periods in histories
of architecture are defined in terms of the prevailing uniformities of style (Gothic, Renaissance, NeoClassical, and so on). Even the work of particular architects could not be fully understood without
reference to the general state of the architectural language of the time and the attempts by individuals
to formulate their work in terms of, or as revisions to current conventions of form in architecture. Thus,
the concept of style (a set of shared characteristics) and particularly its emergence out of a great mass
of individual buildings provides the explanatory context for a comprehensive study of architectural
history.

The basic premise of the evolutionary argument is that this uniformity of characteristics between a large
number of buildings a style - is an absolutely inevitable product of the interaction of architects and
their exchange of information in the form of architectural elements. In studying these large scale events
one must not lose sight of the fact that they are the result of a myriad individual acts of selection and
combination of forms based on the pragmatic needs of architects to find forms that can be adapted to
suit particular purposes defined by their environment. This is the dynamic of the whole system and it is
out of this apparent chaos of individual concerns that the great movements of architecture emerge. One
must also recognize that the existence of a style or its relative influence on the architecture of a given
period is a quantifiable matter of the number of buildings which use elements drawn from the
repertoire of that style. A dominant architectural style, for instance is simply one whose characteristics
are used by more buildings than any other. Applying evolutionary concepts to the study of architecture
precludes the use of aesthetic, ideological or other qualitative categories to explain the relative success
of different styles. The predominance or success of a particular style is not, at this collective level, a
matter of aesthetics. At the level of the system as a whole the collective level - there is no one to
make such judgments. The relative success of a style (a statistical issue) when compared with others is a
result, not a choice.

4.0 THE TYPOLOGICAL PROCESS IN ARCHITECTURE

The continuous production of definite stylistic sets throughout the history of architecture (and their
extinction and replacement by others) points to the creation of uniformity amongst groups of buildings
as the fundamental process in architecture. It reflects the integration of the experience of many
architects into a usable template for future actions. These typical sets of forms which are filtered out of
collective experience can also be regarded as the product of learning, namely which combinations of
forms work and which dont work in any given situation. This applies not only to the emergence of
universal styles such as Classicism and Modernism whose formal repertoire so completely dominated
architectural production, but also to all the other less ubiquitous styles such as Art Nouveau, Arts and
Crafts and the host of other Neo styles which existed for a time in the 19th century. They were all the
result of a convergence of many architectural works around a distinctive set of formal characteristics,
the formation of a unique stylistic identity and the production of a visible similarity between many
buildings. Yet, the study of architectural history cannot simply be a description or record of a series of
monolithic styles and their characteristics. It must also reflect the considerable variety of periods where
no overall uniformity exists and crucially, the transitional periods between the dissolution of one
dominant style and the emergence of another. There are many periods which are more-or-less uniform
or which have no clear-cut identity or which vary in lifespan. With the disintegration of the great
classical styles it almost seems as if the tendency towards uniformity goes into reverse and there is a
seeming move from order to chaos. While production of uniform sets of characteristics may be the
systemic process which underlies architecture, its realization throughout the architecture of any period
is a matter of degree. There will always be several different styles co-existing within a society at the
same time. One can say that the drive towards uniformity of characteristics is a tendency never fully
realized. The degree to which it is realized in the form of great classical styles or a number of less
influential styles can be explained as a result of the same formative processes constrained in some way
by architectures environment. From this one can suggest that while the rules which govern the
formation of styles are simple (selection and combination and the communication and exchange of
forms), the end results on the ground can be very complex - as the history of architecture shows.

5.0 STYLISTIC VARIETY IN THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE

With the proviso, already mentioned, namely that the architecture of any society can never be
completely uniform and that there will always be a number of styles of varying degrees of influence in
existence at the same time, we can now outline the different possible states of uniformity which can be
found in the history of architecture:

a) Stylistically the character of architecture during different periods is sometimes extremely diverse
while at others it is almost completely unified around a particular style.

The difference between different periods does not necessarily mean that the architectural processes
involved are therefore different. For example, while Modernism may have been the predominant style
for most of the 20th century, acting as the single template for many if not most buildings, the diversity
of styles which identify the Postmodern era does not presuppose the invention of a whole new set of
architectural processes. Architects continued to do what they had always done in terms of selection and
combination of forms, but while the processes remained the same, the results were different.
Recognizing the continuity of these architectural processes throughout history precludes the application
of convulsive and arbitrary theories to explain the observable differences that arise over time. So too in
evolutionary terms, the process of adaptation allows the formation of new forms by recombining
existing material. Combined and re-combined to suit many different contexts, differences are the
inevitable result. There is no need to invent spontaneous events to explain the emergence of differences
in history.

b) The emergence of global similarities of form - the great classical styles which can dominate
architecture for long periods of time.

In a sense the emergence of such styles is an improbable event, given that they are product of
innumerable individual design decisions. The same can be said of the emergence of technological,
political, social or artistic movements or paradigms which are also the product of the interaction of
many individuals. However, they do happen and they happen often because, as has been described
previously, there is a selective or filtering process built into any continuous exchange between a large
number of individuals in close and continuous communication with each other. In the exchange
between such groups, the almost similar becomes the similar with circumstantial differences of form
being eliminated from the typical set which eventually arises. Only the most essential or typical
elements are defined as part of the stylistic set and given the status of templates or standards for future
actions. From this point of view, Gothic, Classicism and the Modern were not invented by any
individual or group, but are simply the products of cumulative selection from amongst a great mass of
architectural work.

c) The co-existence of a dominant style with a group of styles of more limited application (usually
focused on some institutional niche or other)

Theoretically at least, the great classical styles provide a set of forms, a vocabulary and grammar which
can be applied across a wide range of different design problems. This is their inherent value, their
adaptive flexibility which allows that at least some combination of the typical set will provide a coherent
solution to any given design problem. That anyway is the theory. In practice however, no single design
template can ever provide the solution to all problems. The model can never be as complex as the
reality it represents (otherwise it would be the reality). The map is not the territory. This leaves room for
other styles which have either developed around a very specific environment or have become closely
associated with a particular kind of institution. These can be termed vernacular These styles are
precisely engineered to suit particular environmental niches. The continued use of Gothic as an
acceptable way of creating religious buildings or the development of specifically industrial forms of
architecture exemplify the diversity of the architectural ecosystem at any given time. Equally, the rise
of a universal style does not automatically lead to the extinction of other styles but rather limits their
application. They remain as historical leftovers from previous environments eventually withering away.

d) The disintegration of classical architectures into several different and equally-valid styles.

Styles rise, but they also fall. One can safely say that there is nothing inherent in the style itself which
brings about its extinction. There is no reason why its forms should not continue to provide formulae for
the design of many buildings unless, of course those buildings must reflect a whole new set of spatial
and technical conditions which cannot be dealt with by any combination of the prevailing style. Then,
the style is thrown into crisis, but the result is not the swift and magical acquisition of a whole new set
of more relevant forms. Architects can only work with what they already have; they can only adapt
existing forms to the new conditions. Forced to adapt to new circumstances, there will be a period of
trial and error where existing forms are distorted to match new kinds of problems producing
increasingly radical and non-canonical adaptations of what they already have. The integrity of the
dominant style will be gradually dissolved since its compositional formulae no longer provide workable
answers to new kinds of problems. Pragmatism, the demand to accurately represent the form of a given
institution in architectural terms forces change and change, in this case can only be the slide from
uniformity to diversity of combination. There is nowhere else to go. The end result of this is the
multiplication of non-canonical versions of the style as its forms are pragmatically distorted to match
new compositional requirements.

e) The disintegration of classical architectures into variations on a theme

There is, however, a parallel process to the disintegration of the dominant style described above which
arises out of the internal dynamics of architecture itself. In this case, over long periods of time in very
stable environmental conditions, the language of architecture becomes increasingly stereotyped. The
key factor here is continuity of the environmental conditions in which a particular style exists. The
tendency towards uniformity described earlier is reinforced over long periods of ultra-stability to the
point where even the typical set of forms already established the classical set itself is subject
selection and combination and overly precise analysis in a search for its most typical or essential
aspects. The result is a rigid stereotyping of the typical set of a style and an elimination of its flexibility.
In a sense the environment, by its very stability has tricked the system into establishing a preciselyengineered formula no matter what the local circumstances. Evolution, the gradual transformation of
one style into another to meet new conditions is here replaced with its negative - involution, the
establishment of a rigid and abstract set of forms which cannot possibly respond to any set of
environmental changes. The result is the collapse of the integrity of the style into a set of variations on
itself which rely on decoration to distinguish one from another and to distinguish one building from
another. Given the continued stability of its environment, there is no reason why this play of variations
on variations should not continue indefinitely.

6.0 CONSTANTS AND VARIABLES

If we include amongst this diversity of states the sometimes considerable variation in the lifespan of
styles with some lasting only a decade while others last a millennium we have what appears to be
almost a random element in the history of architecture. In one sense of course, this is true since the
variations which occur in architecture are in many cases the result of changes taking place outside
architecture itself in its environment - other systems such as technology, economics and social
organization to which architecture must respond. Seen from within architecture such changes are
random ,unpredictable and the product of chance events which is of course exactly what they are since
the developments which take place in these different systems are not coordinated. A society is not a
unified machine but a constellation of different systems interacting with each other and each with its
own developmental timescale. Chance events which by their nature cannot be foreseen, such as the
Industrial Revolution will ripple through a whole society provoking adaptive change in all other systems.
The state of architecture at any time its degree of uniformity or diversity - is, therefore a response to
several conditions:

a) Its general environment in terms of events taking place in other parts of society

b) Its local environment in terms of the kinds of building projects it is required to represent

c) The particular character of the architectural language at the time which is historically determined

And

d) The selection-combination processes and the mutual exchange of information between architects.

The first three conditions change over time, while the latter is a constant since it is the formative
process which translates the others into built form at particular times and places.

7.0 THE ENVIRONMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

The only factor which can explain the variations in the state of architecture throughout its history is the
effect of some general constraint on the `behaviour' of architecture as a whole which would reinforce or
reduce its tendency towards producing uniformity of characteristics. In other words, if the basic
tendency of architecture is to produce stylistic sets, then what is it that theoretically prevents the whole
of architecture from becoming single uniform style over time? What are the limitations or constraints on
architectures behaviour its integrative tendency - that produces diversity?

1. The System of Patronage

Global limitations such as these can only arise outside the architectural system itself, in the state of its
environment. The specific mechanism by which these external relations are mapped on to architecture
is the system of patronage in existence at the time which reflects the number and relative power of the
institutions within a society. This can be precisely defined as the institutions or individuals who have the
economic power to commission buildings. The motivating force and the very existence of architecture
depends entirely on the production of buildings; buildings which in their number and type reflect the
social and economic relationships of the time and consequently represent the varying degrees of
economic power of different institutions in a society. This is not at all an abstract relationship since this
economic power is reflected in the large concentrations of capital required to build buildings. The
system of patronage is therefore the crucial point of contact between architecture and its social and

economic environment; the specific relationship where the architect is required to translate the
dynamics of social institutions in built form.

2. Social and Economic Conditions

The variation in the number and importance of styles throughout history is an effect of changing
relationships within the economic system transmitted through to architecture by a corresponding
change in the number and commissioning power of the patrons. Like any other dynamic system, the
socioeconomic organization of a society changes from time to time and three different possible states of
organization and therefore of patronage can be suggested:

a) The Integrated State

The total wealth of a society may be centred on a small number of large institutions. These few
institutions which dominate the economic and social life of a society. These institutions may be
monarchic, theocratic, centralized government or corporate power.

b) The Plural State

The total wealth of a society may be dispersed amongst a large number of smaller institutions. In this,
the various institutions within a society are autonomous and have random or variable relations with one
another. Examples of this kind of society would be Mercantile capitalism and the rise of a middle class.

c) The Transitional State

The socioeconomic system moves unpredictably between these two poles of organization Integrated
and Plural - with a consequent change in the number and relative power of the patrons who will
commission buildings. In other words, there is a mixture of large and relatively smaller institutions
coexisting in the society. This is the normal state of things.

8.0 THE TIME FACTOR IN HISTORY

Time is a significant factor here. Without some degree of continuity, none of these states would have
any particular effect on architecture. For instance, it obviously takes a considerable amount of time for
architecture a great mass of individual activity - to converge around the particular set of characteristics
which define a style. It has already been pointed out that time in the sense of continuity of conditions can have its own definite effects on architecture by locking it into a stereotyped state. It is also worth
noting that the interaction of a particular state of technology with a particular state of architecture, for
instance the 19th century introduction of frame structures of steel or reinforced concrete into the
building process at a particular time is a matter of timing and therefore of chance. It could have
happened sooner or later than it did given the different developmental timescales involved in each
system. Either way, the time factor is the crucial element in the establishment of a particular
architectural and stylistic state.

9.0 PERMUTATION OF STATES

Architectural activity, acting within one or another of these socioeconomic states - of integration or
plurality - will produce different degrees of uniformity of style in the repertoire. Through the medium of
the system of patronage which prevails at the time, architecture will reflect the organization of the
socioeconomic system in its own way, through alteration in the number and relative influence of the
styles within it. In other words, architecture becomes a metaphor of the system of patronage and
ultimately the prevailing social and economic state of the society since the number and type of buildings
that are built are a direct reflection of socio-economic conditions transmitted through the number and
relative influence of patrons. However, the direct impact of the system of patronage does not define
the content of architecture such as the architectural characteristics of buildings or styles. It only defines
the degree of stylistic choice that becomes available to architects as an inevitable result of a centralized
or plural system of patronage. What therefore passes between the system of patronage and the system
of architecture is information about the organization of things which is translated into architecture as
the degree of uniformity of style which it is allowed to display. Thus, while the tendency to produce
uniformity amongst buildings is a product of architectural processes and the interaction of architects,
the degree to which it will extend throughout a society is a function of the system of patronage
architectures environment. This is the real constraint on the emergence or otherwise of dominant
styles throughout architectural history.

From the above one can summarize the effects of the system of patronage and its constraints on
architecture on architecture as follows:

a) In an Integrated system of patronage, a few powerful institutions will each commission a large
number of buildings similar in character and requirements thereby reinforcing architectures tendency
to produce uniformity of style.

b) In a Plural system of patronage a large number of less powerful institutions will each commission a
number of buildings similar in character and requirements. This diversity of patronage will limit
architectures tendency to produce uniformity of style

In the first case, architecture is locked into a narrow range of stylistic options, while in the second it is
forced into producing a wider range of options. The environment does not of courses determined the
stylistic character of those options, but simply their number: few or many. Or to put it another way, in
an Integrated system of patronage, architecture cannot be diverse, it must become more uniform in
character. In the Plural system, architecture cannot produce a uniformity in the shape of a predominant
classical style but is limited to the production of a number of different but equally-valid styles. However,
the very fact that architecture, as a metaphor of its environment is constrained to producing a narrow or
wide range of stylistic possibilities does indirectly have an effect on the formal character of styles. Again,
it is important to recognize the need for continuity in either of these states in order to have any effect
on architecture at all.

10.0 THE LIMITS TO DESIGN

Architectural activity the mutual selection and combination of forms between many architects - is
invariant no matter what the current state of the system of patronage. Architects are still required to
accurately represent social institutions in built form; accuracy in this sense also means the capacity to
distinguish the similarities and differences between buildings and thus imbue them with a distinct
meaning. The environments inescapable demand for uniformity or diversity of approach will have a
considerable impact on architects ability to produce such distinctions. In a system which demands
uniformity is it possible for architects to accurately represent radically new building types if they are
constrained by strict canonical rules which are a function of uniformity of expression? And, what
happens if they cannot? Equally, in an environment which is inherently diverse, is it possible for
architects to address the similarities between buildings or even establish (through mutual selection) the
standards and canons of practice which define the economics of design. In extreme terms, these
questions are indicative of the endless search for both order and freedom of expression in design
terms. The problem is that at least half the answers to these questions lie outside architecture itself in

its environment. All that architects can do is to manipulate the language of architecture in such a way
that the problems of uniformity or diversity of expression at least appear to be solved even if this is
done through decorative or fictive means as we shall see in the following discussion.

11.0 AN EVOLUTIONARY MODEL OF ARCHITECTURE

In order to produce an evolutionary model of architectural history one must integrate the various
factors discussed above. The intention is to get to the point where one can define how these various
factors ultimately affect the formal characteristics of buildings. In other words, to shift the scale of
analysis from the system to the individual work of architecture, and moving from evolution as such to
the historical processes which brought about the emergence of the various kinds of styles to be found in
the history of architecture. History in this sense is evolution taking place at a particular time and place.

One can start with the principle already stated that the normal processes of communication and
exchange between architects acting within different environments will produce different end results,
either allowing the emergence of a greater degree of uniformity ( allowing a classical style to emerge
which predominates throughout architecture) or ensuring a continued diversity of stylistic approaches.
Based on this principle one can permutate the relations between architecture and its variable
environments. The two initial components for this model would be as follows:

a) The constant factor - the collective activity of selection and recombination of architectural form
taking place through the normal processes of communication and exchange of experience between a
large number of architects.

b) The variable factor - two possible socioeconomic states, whether Integrated or Plural and their
equivalent systems of patronage.

From the interaction of these two factors over time one can suggest three possible historical states for
architecture. These states will affect the degree of diversity or uniformity of style within architecture at
any given time and ultimately through the semiotic freedom made available to architects, the kind of
formal characteristics which will be exhibited within each period. Along these lines one can suggest the
results of various possible interactions in the following way:

1. Normal Architectural Processes in a Plural System of Patronage will Produce an Pragmatic State in
architecture.

This involves a state of continuous undifferentiated change. The character of architecture in a Pragmatic
state may be suggested as follows:

a) The continuous production of different behaviours, styles and sets of forms. Given the institutional
diversity of the Plural environment the number and relationships between institutions keeps changing.

b) The only thing that can be achieved in the exchange between architects is the creation of temporarily
stable groups of forms produced by local circumstances. The lifespan of these styles will inevitably be
limited.

c) Several equally valid styles co-existing during the same period. This is consistent with the diversity of
the socioeconomic system at that time. Architects in this situation have a choice of styles which they can
use to represent different social institutions.

d) There are in a sense more stylistic answers than there are questions and always several different
ways of doing the same thing - of representing the same experience.

e) Since the same institution can legitimately be represented by different and equally valid styles, the
prevailing trait of the Pragmatic state is ambiguity.

f) There is a continual crisis of meaning since it is impossible to establish and maintain a coherent and
generally accepted set of typical forms for similar situations.

g) The key semiotic aspect of the Pragmatic state is that it cannot represent the similarities between
different experiences.

In this situation architects use different sets of typical elements to represent the same kinds of
institutions. A 19th century example would be where architects would design banks or office buildings
or whatever using Classical or Gothic-inspired architectural elements. Or, in the late 20th century where
architects might use hi tech forms or historicist forms to represent exactly the same institution. In other
words, very different ways of saying the same thing. At one level there is nothing wrong with this:
different ways of saying the same thing. However, when these statements are made in completely
different architectural languages, there is a problem: the problem of ambiguity and of the chaos which
results when there is a lack of coherence or consistence of expression. The underlying assumption here,
of course is that there is an ideal situation where a single set of typical elements is articulated to
represent any given context while always retaining its unique identity. Here, similarity and difference
become merely variations on a constant theme. This concern is consistent with the general idea about
language where individual expression is only validated or made intelligible by its references to
commonly- accepted conventions.

Architects in the 19th century sought to overcome the problems of ambiguity caused by the existence of
different styles by the use of two techniques:

a) Design by Association, where the choice of style to be used in a particular project was justified by
reference to some historical or cultural association between the institution to be represented and the
particular style used. The obvious example is the use of the Gothic style in the design of churches.

b) Decoration could alleviate but not overcome the increasing difference between different buildings.
Standard motifs shared by many buildings and drawn from known historical and allegorical sources
could to a limited extent semantically unify groups of buildings although it could not bridge the gap
between the characteristics of very different styles.

2. Normal Architectural Processes in an Integrated System of Patronage will Produce a Developmental

State in Architecture.

This allows the formation of a single stylistic paradigm by integrating the characteristics different styles
into a single set a meta style. This is only possible if the system of patronage has itself become more
integrated. An example of this might be the integration of mercantile capitalist enterprises into
corporate capitalist entities as happened for instance during the latter part of the 19th century.

The same collective processes acting in an INTEGRATED environment will produce an increasing
convergence in the characteristics of different styles within architecture This may be called the
Developmental or Paradigmatic state where the interchange and combination of elements underlying
different styles results in the formation of a simple, global routine or predominant style. In systemic
terms there is a shift from the evolution of new forms of behaviour to the development and elaboration
of a single behavioural program. The characteristics of architecture in the Developmental state can be
outlined a s follows:

a) Concentration of patronage derived from more integrated relations between different parts of the
socioeconomic system allows increased connectivity between architects.

b) The normal collective processes of communication and exchange between architects NOW results in
the synthesis of the elements and geometries which underlie different styles into a single limited set of
forms. Initially at least these forms retain their simple geometric characteristics.

c) The first stage of this synthesis may be recognized as a period of eclecticism where the forms drawn
from different styles are combined while still retaining their own stylistic identities.

d) Further exchanges in the context of a stable environment reduces these identities to their most
fundamental or typical characteristics and these are essentially geometric, spatial or organizational in
nature. For instance, Modern architecture as a synthesis of the orthogonal grid of Classicism and the socalled free plan of Neo-Gothic or vernacular.

e) The Developmental state produces a set of forms which can be seen as a single economic answer to a
number of different representational problems.

f) The ambiguities of architecture in the Pragmatic state are resolved since there is now a single but
flexible instrument of expression which can be adapted to suit different contexts and yet maintain its
stylistic identity. It is able to represent both the similarities and the differences between different
institutions with various combinations of its generic typical set. There is no further need to invent new
solutions for different problems which can all be handled by some combination or other of the same
typical set.

g) Buildings are now seen to be variations on a single theme, combined as they are from a recognizable
set of forms.

h) This meta-style forms the basis of a classical architecture and comes to be closely associated with a
particular historical and social era.

The Developmental synthesis exemplifies the recombination of existing elements in order to create the
new. The unprecedented nature of the new forms of Early Modern Architecture should not blind us to
the fact that they are still albeit extensive and radical recombinations of historical material. It is at this
historical point that one can identify the emergence of a new architecture.

3. Normal Architectural Activity in a Continuous Integrated System of Patronage will Produce an

Involutionary State in Architecture.

It is at this point that time, in the sense of continuity plays a decisive part in shaping the characterists of
architecture and ultimately results in the fragmentation of the developmental synthesis and its classical
Architecture.

The continuity of the Integrated state leads to ultra-stable environmental conditions where the same
systemic processes produce entirely different and apparently contradictory end results, namely the
fragmentation of the Meta-style itself the classical architecture. During an Involutionary period the
quite natural tendency of architecture to produce uniformity (driven by communication and exchange
between its agents) is reinforced by the further integration of its socio-economic environment. In
cybernetic terms this is the equivalent of positive feedback which reinforces the tendency towards
uniformity. While in the Developmental period this process simply meant that the almost similar
became the similar, in the Involutionary period of a system the similar becomes the identical. In the
Involutionary state systemic processes trapped within a highly-integrated and seemingly 'immortal'
socio-economic environment subject the Meta-style itself and its uniformity to selective re-combination.
The architectural characteristics of the Involutionary state can be outlined as follows:

a) There is an increasing disarticulation of architectural form. The classical set is fragmented into a
number of variations on its own theme. While the selection-combination mechanism inevitably
articulates architectural form around its most probable elements, in the Involutionary phase this results
in the disarticulation of the classical set.

b) There is a tendency to integrate what is already integrated, to clarify what is already clarified and to
further articulate the most probable elements of the classical (Developmental) paradigm. The result is to
stereotype the elements of the classical set by identifying and fixing their most probable and precise
characteristics. In effect the set is bureaucratized and made inflexible.

c) Only the most probable characteristics of forms can be legitimately selected so that buildings become
increasingly similar to one another to the point where they can be termed identical. Architecture is
therefore unable to represent the differences between different contexts. It can only speak of what is
similar. This results in an inevitable crisis of meaning. In this post-classical state there is a drastic
reduction in the semiotic freedom of the architectural language. The function of architecture requires it
to represent the full complexity of relations in the environment - it no longer has adequate means of
doing so. It has been rendered rigid and inarticulate. It now has very limited semiotic freedom to express
what it must express.

d) During this period architectural canons, compositional rules, standards and practices are precisely
formulated by finally eliminating contextual or circumstantial characteristics. All are fixed and
categorized and in social and institutional terms given the authority of law.

e) Decoration becomes the predominant visual feature of the Involutionary architecture. It is used as a
remedial device to resolve current semantic problems by introducing an apparent diversity of form to
the primary (but inflexible) elements of the typical set. Given the rigidity of Involutionary forms they
cannot represent differences of context. Therefore decoration in the Involutionary phase must be fluid
and diverse to give a fictitious diversity of character to possibly identical buildings. Decoration acts as
fictitious context.

f) So too during this period, proportional systems are introduced as a remedial device to ensure the
visual coherence of increasingly disarticulated forms. The stereotyping of architectural form means that
the character of the elements used in a building must be precisely defined. They will not be adapted to
suit their particular location in a building or their relationship to the buildings context. The building in
this case becomes an assemblage of self-referencing parts.

12.0 FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INVOLUTIONARY STATE

One can summarise this whole process by noting that in architectural history:

a) The later forms of a style are more articulate, rhetorical and exaggerated than those of the earlier
phases. (The circle becomes the ellipse in Baroque terms and in Modern architecture a new formalism of
texture and shape replaces classical restraint. Even so-called Functionalism requires the exaggerated
emphasis of particular forms at the expense of others for spurious ideological reasons. The syntactic
results are the same).

b) Details are emphasised at the expense of wholes as the character of particular elements are ever
more precisely defined to the point where the whole becomes an assemblage of parts. (In
communicational terms the flexibility and complexity of the original elements is split or punctuated into
several discrete and precise elements).

c) There is a tendency towards decomposition of the whole building into distinct volumes or assemblies
as each part of the building becomes a self-referencing identity. This is the so-called functionalist stage.

d) There is a greater use of decoration and proportional systems as a means of maintaining the unity
and the meaning of the forms used in a building.

e) There is a tendency towards irony, parody, play, illusion and self-reference in post-classical
architecture. At one level these may be seen as language games made possible when the system is
freed from any dependence on context. It is the architectural language itself which becomes the subject
of experiment and further coordination rather than its relation to the reality outside the system itself.

While architects will continue to select forms from the available repertoire for their individual works,
they will find that the degree of semiotic freedom they have to do so changes over time. The too-flexible
repertoire of the Pragmatic period eliminates the regularities of form which define what is probable or
what is general. The rigidity of form during an Involutionary period cannot represent anything in
particular. Apart from the Developmental period described above, in the other two phases architects
are forced to add determinative clues to their buildings to indicate the precise meaning of the forms
used. Thus decoration - a secondary formal language derived from the past is now used to maintain the
necessary quota of meaning required by architectural form. In practical terms, decoration in the
Pragmatic period provides a fictitious unity of form while in the Involutionary period it provides a
fictitious diversity of form.

13.0 COLLAPSE OF THE META-STYLE

In the extreme conditions of the Involutionary state it can no longer refer to particular times and
particular places. For this reason in its final stages, the Meta-style begins to display pathological
symptoms. In communicational terms, this pathological state is equivalent to schizophrenia where
diverse behavioural fragments are assembled to meet complex social situations. The inevitable
differences of form which must occur in the system over time in order to cope with complex realities are
now dealt with by the production of a secondary language of decorative `fictitious' differences.

Subject to intense selective pressure the Meta-style disintegrates into variations on variations of itself
giving rise to an allegorical or scholastic phase where a superficial plurality of behaviours is emphasised
by decoration In concrete terms, overwhelmed by the decorative elements required to maintain its
semantic credibility, the single dominant style seems to fragment into a series of different but related
sub-styles as in Postmodern architecture.

In seeking to represent all possible contexts with a single precise formula, architecture in the
Involutionary state succeeds in representing none of them in particular. The systemic drive for syntactic
clarity ends in a state of total ambiguity. Architecture as Meta-style collapses under a welter of
decorative and contextual forms in the attempt to confirm the authenticity of its routines. In
psychological terms, this can be seen as a return of the repressed where the circumstantial diversity of
behaviour originally selected out of the repertoire during the emergence of the Meta-style is now the
dominant feature of the Involutionary period. It should be remembered that the periodic changes in
architecture outlined above are in no way a matter of choice for architects but of purely systemic
processes.

END