“Here we are, with our finite beings and physical senses in the presence of a universe whose possibilities are infinite, and even though we may not apprehend them, those infinite possibilities are actualities”
Following the methodology of Alberti, in the renewed architectural practice of the 15th century, the act of scaling was initially used as a technical mean through which it was possible to condense the explanation of either too large or too big phenomena into a graspable object (here a drawing on a piece of paper). The word scale suddenly appears as a new measuring tool, where the optical capacity of the human eye became the zero-degree scale, the initial reference. Anything that happens beyond that scope would belong either to the macro- or microscopic world without necessarily understanding the correlation between the two extremes. This is today illustrated by one of the biggest humanistic concern in history, looking for a unified theory of everything, potentially able to explain the macrocosm according to the microscopic definition of our reality. More than illustrated, this dualistic split between the micro and the macro is materialised in the scientific practice by the rise of increasingly set of complex technical instruments, detectors, observatories, or other colliders. Each of those objects is built for a very precise set of actions, operating in their own reality, lacking any interrelated value. One can suppose that the information transferred through those machines continuously follows a specific direction: bringing back a far distant object to the limited vision of the human eye which then interact with the brain to create meaning and at the end, knowledge. Thus, the origin of any human assumption and theoretical work upon the building of the universe is seen through the prism of selective devices, discretising, reducing and splitting the global complexity of our milieu, either looking into the micro or the macro scale of the universe.
Therefore, our epistemological approach on the world in its globality should look at alternative observing methodology to capture, connect and experience the deepest part of our Umwelt, our sensorial and spatial milieu. Firstly, is the computerised instrument, powered by artificial intelligence, data centres and digital assistance, using binary LED screens to interact with humans, the most efficient interface to experiment and “experience”? Could we suppose instead that the instrument becomes a tool of “de+re-territorialization” for the body, providing access to multi-dimensional geographies (vertical-horizontal / micro-macro / local-global)? Could the organic body, the optical/mechanical object, and the natural stimuli merge into one architectural space? Would that be a way to craft alternative ontologies, in the same way we need alternative environmental ethics?
The return of experience itself following the phenomenological approach of Edmund Husserl might be a key issue. To reach a state of transcendental connection with the outside phenomena is to escape from the close circuit of perception and denomination and enter in a dynamic of evocation, creating an experience of contrast, an experience for thought (Stengers 2011). What could provide such a state of mind is an architecture of the experiment, offering physical and metaphysical experiences that transcend the way we envision our environment and our reality. The body and the mind simultaneously inhabit the physical space occupied by the observer and the immaterial world of the observation. The experiment architecture address questions that go beyond the actual scientific concerns, desperately looking for answers that might remain uncertain forever.
A look at the early practice of astronomy in ancient Egyptian civilisations might give an interesting perspective regarding the definition of such an architecture. The Nabta Playa observatory located in southern Egypt was built a thousand-year before the most renowned Stonehenge site in the UK. Used as a cosmic calendar, a necropolis, and a ceremonial, the stone arrangement on the land unveiled the organisation of spiritual, economical, and philosophical life of those population. The intuitive observation of the real was physically translated into a meticulous territorial composition. The scale of the stone became the connector between the land and the cosmos providing deeper transcendental experience when seen through the human eye. Shifting from a rigorous scientific approach, observing the world from this specific setup still became an opportunity to build narratives and craft a cohesive vision of human within nature, halfway between astronomy and astrology.
In this sense, astrology understood in the way distant forces make intimate and contradictory claims on the soul, is interesting in our quest of associating the experience with the observation. The macro-scale of the universe suddenly affects the microcosm of the human body and, the mind. Although, to avoid any dogmatic criticism, what emanates from the macrocosm toward the microcosm is more like a field of uncertainty than a line of causality. And this is this field of uncertainty that the architecture tries to frame, the architecture opens up the world of the unknown, a world to which science does not have all the answers.
tangentwithtanner
dailybridgerton
dededos
areudirty
baratheonpilled
ellievsbear
discoholicmusic
yousharknotpass
origamiaround
kaledo-art