[ [ [ Atlas of Novel Tectonics [ ATLAS OF NOVEL TECTONICS ] By Reiser, Jesse ( Author )Mar-09-2006 Paperback

by Jesse Reiser

Architects Jesse Reiser and Nanako Umemoto have been generating some of the most provocative thinking in the field for nearly twenty years. With Atlas of Novel Tectonics, Reiser+Umemoto hone in on the many facets of architecture and illuminate their theories with great thought and simplicity. The Atlas is organized as an accumulation of short chapters that address the workings of matter and force, material science, the lessons of art and architectural history, and the influence of architecture on culture (and vice versa). Reiser+Umemoto see architectural design as a series of problem situations, and each chapter is an argument devoted to a specific condition or case. Influenced by a wide range of fields and phenomena Brillat-Savarin's classic The Physiology of Taste is one of their primary models the authors provide a cross-section of thinking and inspiration. The result is both an elucidation of the concepts that guide Reiser+Umemoto through their own design process and a series of meditations on topics that have formed their own sense as architects. Atlas of Novel Tectonics offers an entirely fresh perspective on subjects that are generally taken for granted, and does so with a welcome punch and energy.

Genres: Architecture, Design, Nonfiction, Writing, Urbanism

Paperback

First published February 1, 2006

Reviews

[Nick Black · Rating 1 out of 5]

Amazon 2008-11-05. Random acquisition.

So, this book has a lot of 4- and 5-star reviews on GoodReads -- my single star will be the first of ~20 (as of 2008-11-17) at the 3-star level or below (I was semi-shocked to see so many reviews of an obscure post-Deleuzian commentary from two Princeton-sponsored architects on GoodReads at all; I'm used to being the first to squat on scientific esoterica). None of them offer much meaningful commentary, making me feel a bit better regarding what I'm about to say.

Nonetheless, I ought make some disclaimers: I am not an architect, nor have I ever taken an ARCH class at GT or elsewhere. I've only had a few friends from the ranks of Architecture or Building Construction majors. My understanding of what they do is limited to having read the textbook for Statics and Dynamics, a CivilE class they're required to take (and an asspoor approximation to Lagrangian/Hamiltonian classical dynamics, I'll have you know), the Christopher Alexander work on architectural patterns so beloved by the Gang of Four (no not that 四人帮), and Albert Speer's memoirs. Here at GT, ARCH majors stand alone, somewhat like IEs (Industrial/Systems or Imaginary Engineering, take your pick):

- They're certainly more useful than the masses of shadowpeople, with their liberal arts degrees and 4 years spent doing precisely nothing of benefit to anyone. The smartest of these become lawyers, and will hopefully sue us up an economy from the Far East or something.

- They're less offensive than those masters of effrontery and idolatry, the "social scientists". These heretics will be first against the wall when the revolution comes, riddled with bullets whose kinetic energies they could not evaluate, their corpses ravaged by dogs whose molecular biologies they could not divine.

These two populations are brooked no quarter in this great Republic's proud Institutes of Technology (or only slightly less proud Polytechnical Institutes), as is right and proper.

- Then there's the Management and International Affairs people; we're honestly not sure why these folk are here, but they bring in phat alumni cash, help balance the male/female ratio, and occupy positions in Student Government that, say, Physics students wouldn't have time for or interest in. Good for them. Beyond that, they largely stay quiet and out of the way, industriously plotting to establish inevitable technocracies in which we real majors will enjoy fine fettle.

- ARCH remains. These people clearly have the diligent and sedulous natures required by Mistress Science (just walk past the Architecture building at 0400 any night during a studio class's project week), the autistic focus and fascination with technical minutiae and pedantry that marks so many engineers, and can likely even perform middle-school calculus if given enough time. Yet, they take a watered-down physics, one unacceptable and offensive to all observers. Why?

So, I'm likely not the best person to judge this book's merits. Nonetheless, I was the unlucky soul who, wracked by an evening's heavy drinking, amphetamine to offset the drinking, and a simulation which (surprise, surprise) wasn't coming together by 0645 the next morning, ordered the Atlas of Novel Tectonics on impulse (I blame the (admittedly-awesome) title). So....

The first thing I noticed upon opening the Atlas was that, rather than tried-and-true printing of photographic plates, the authors had...printed inserts, glued along their top borders to rectos? No, these weren't foldouts. If there existed any possible purpose to this save rendering the book short-lived and likely impossible to sell back, it escaped me. I'd certainly be upset if my building got designed this way.

Next, the text itself. Was this some kind of Sokalian joke, dressed up at $30 to make the swindle all that sweeter? Reiser and Umemoto reek, to first order, of pseudointellectual claptrap fiddle-faddle at its most insouciant (I went to look them up; their website, reiser-umemoto.com, is an information-free Flash blob unsuitable for indexing, or for that matter reading in my preferred text-mode browser):

"Internally consistent systems are inherently different from systems of collage" -- isn't the entire point of classical collage the juxtaposition of diverse elements as united by an internal consistency (honestly, I have no idea, but I assume)?

"For a variety of reasons, architecture and engineering have inherited the mean, as described in Atistotelian Ethics, as a virtue." First off, chief, step back from engineering. This is the Lord's house and not some harlot-hut welcoming your grubby panderings, THANK YOU. Secondly, what the hell do you even mean? What an empty, unqualified, vacuous assertion, appeal to classy Greek authors notwithstanding (besides, we all know that the one true Greek philosophy is the TFn'F, the Theory of F'n Forms!).

I could go on, but suffice to say I was shocked and appalled by this nasty little book. It was communally read, with much laughter and rejoinder, early Saturday morning among friends. It shan't be read again.

added Mon Nov 17 21:15:07 EST 2008: if you're interested in the Sokal hoax, his page is practically supersaturated with informative links

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

Over the years, I've taken a lot of joy and insight from architecture, critical theory, contemporary materialist philosophy, complex systems science, and in general the source influences this book is drawing from. So, I would think I have as much chance as anyone of appreciating what this book is about on its own terms. Overall, though, my first reading has left me in a fairly critical place.

Before we get to my criticisms, I'd like to highlight some of what's good about the book, starting from its magisterial yet enigmatic title, classy cover and sleek shape, and effective sectional organization and design with short punchy chapters that make single points that cumulatively swirl around the overall gist. It demonstrably takes contemporary theoretical ideas as prompts to generate arresting structural motifs, and equally well articulates that this generative correspondence is what it aimed for. It's a success at everything it sets out to do.

Unfortunately, I think the contents are now both quite dated and rather half-baked, because what it sets out to do is insufficient, contradictory, and self-defeating as I will now explain.

The direction articulated seems to be to:
1. push the material expression of geometry and mass to an "edge of chaos" level of complexity between simplicity and randomness, optimizing for a tension between many different engineering objectives to create intriguingly vague and richly articulated structures.
2. abandon, in varying tones of disinterest and dismissal, notions of appropriate scale, program, context, or any form of overt concessions to humanism or the human condition beyond asserting their personal material freedoms.

The self-defeating insufficiency of this is that it is incredibly intriguing and contemporary (but also probably timeless) to also apply the notions of "edge of chaos" complexity to multiplicities of program and context. What does it look like to optimize for multiple contradictory programs while still avoiding "the error the mean"? Even better, what does a structure then built that way feel like and how does it work for these purposes? What does it mean to address programs and context vaguely, and it is each still legible?

They manage to articulate an incredible concept, but were too busy trying to elide conventional norms and expectations that they didn't realize they had an entirely new conceptual apparatus to speak to those norms and expectations beyond the narrow prism of physical phenomena. This is how it's half-baked.

Now, I'd like to consider how this makes the material dated. What I think has happened here is that we're seeing a holdover from the 1990s and early 2000s, where people were beginning to use computers for novel structural forms, but before there was a widespread expectation and support for using computers to address a more extended set of programmatic goals (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...).

But it is not only that, but also perhaps attempting a flight from the consumerist materialism inherent in "starchitecture", without a corresponding grounding in the realities of habitat as a destination. This lack of grounding, and its resulted datedness, was perhaps most revealed by the section about "Fight Club".

Overall, I'm not sure I can take anything from "Atlas of Novel Tectonics" directly but I found it interesting and I did enjoy thinking about the above. And I didn't hate it. I think I see what they were trying to go for, and why that seemed like enough.

[Sham AlOlabi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Other reviews are more elaborate and useful. However, I gotta tell you that this book is insightful and a must check for architects.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

In my work life, I spend an enormous amount of time striving to insure that everything I write can be understood in one and only one way. Much of my intellectual life is devoted to understanding the sense in which certain things can be said to be true. In my professional writing nearly every sentence has, attached to it, some indicator of its truth value, and an indicator of the truth standard by which it should be evaluated.

So, this book was incredibly interesting to try to wrap my head around. It is perhaps better understood as a manifesto than an argument, let alone a discussion or presentation of evidence. It asserts repeatedly, boldly, and often ambiguously. It is often unclear in what sense these assertions could even be evaluated to know if they right. Often, it is clear that the tiny little chapters are true to the extent that they inspire one to think differently about a building, or the process of building. And, indeed, it is at the same time an argument about how to be in the world, with some surprising parallels to another book I just read, Shop Class as Soulcraft. It is argument for modesty, for understanding the futility of dictating how others in the future will use what we build. It is an argument for thinking hard about the reality of what we have to build with, and using that reality, not just an abstraction of it. While these things are certainly all applicable to architecture, I suspect they can be provocative and usefully thought of in any creative venture.

I'm not sure if the authors are right in much of what they say. Some of this may be a brilliant. Some of it may be a boldly original reinterpretation of complexity theory, with fascinating ties to agent-base modeling. Some of it may have been meelie-mouthed garbage. But I certainly am quite glad I read it.

[Constantine Ronquillo · Rating 3 out of 5]

by Jesse Reiser and Umemoto. it seems to me that at times, the content is more of scholastic arrogance, redundancy, rather than content. Interesting attempt to marry the elements and metaphors of physics and architecture tho. Lots of good stuff inside.

But nonetheless, along with other theory-based books, this one is subject to be tasted, chewed and swallowed; and if you find it awful, just spit it it out and try something else that suits your mood.

As gravity and Force plays a vital representation in their architecture, those who actually are knowledgeable in the fields of science have found their thoughts elementary

warning. This isnt architectural theory for everyone.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

I like the color plates scattered throughout the book.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

I very nearly worship these people

[Shawn Weiland]

Read stan allen instead much more edifying.

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

really cool look at conceptual building strategies and their formal implications.

[Rebekah]

never to be gotten through.

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

Don't look closer, or you'll discover nothing is there.

[Karl-johan Ingerslev · Rating 4 out of 5]

Beautiful book, but too imprecise in its language at times. Stuffed with good ideas, opinions and observations