23
Stephen Drew Cultural Context 10566721 Extended Essay The influence of technology, its relevance, meaning and application within architecture Throughout this essay I will be looking at the term ‘technology’ and its implications within the field of architecture. The word ‘technology’ has several different meanings that are subjective depending on who is describing it. An interesting definition is ‘technology is a broad concept that deals with a species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment’. 1 Introduction - Technological building Architects have always had an interest in technology as it has changed the way in which we work today. The word technology for architects has always meant the different methods of building, such as using diverse materials as part of their design and how they are installed. In recent years the word technology has become mainly linked with growing use of computers and how they are used as a part of ‘Information and Communication Technology’ The age of systems A quote from Ivan Illich during a discussion about the changing notion of contingency was “sometime during the 1980s the technological society which began in the fourteenth century came to an end... it appears to me that the age of 1 Definition from Webster dictionary on ‘Technology’ 1

Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Stephen Drew - Extended EssayTechnology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

Citation preview

Page 1: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

Stephen Drew Cultural Context

10566721 Extended Essay

The influence of technology, its relevance, meaning and application within architecture

Throughout this essay I will be looking at the term ‘technology’ and its implications within the field

of architecture. The word ‘technology’ has several different meanings that are subjective depending

on who is describing it. An interesting definition is ‘technology is a broad concept that deals with a

species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and

adapt to its environment’.1

Introduction - Technological building

Architects have always had an interest in technology as it has changed the way in which we

work today. The word technology for architects has always meant the different methods of building,

such as using diverse materials as part of their design and how they are installed. In recent years the

word technology has become mainly linked with growing use of computers and how they are used

as a part of ‘Information and Communication Technology’

The age of systems

A quote from Ivan Illich during a discussion about the changing notion of contingency was

“sometime during the 1980s the technological society which began in the fourteenth century came to

an end... it appears to me that the age of tools has now given way to the age of systems.” 2 What

Illich is saying here is that technologies such as the way in which we design and construct in

architecture have become a ‘matter of systems’. Illich was not fond of the era he labelled an age of

systems arguing that there was a difference between these eras, “When you became the user of a

system, you became part of the system”. This is an interesting statement as it as you can compare it

to the systems practising architects use on a daily basis as a fundamental part of their design. If we

compare what Illich is saying to using a computer, which is a very literal example of a system as part

of design then his quote becomes very relevant. When designing on a computer you would have to

learn how to tell the computer what to do, rather than the computer influence you how you design.

If you were not careful your design work would change as a result of the systems limitations (in this

1 Definition from Webster dictionary on ‘Technology’2 Rethinking Technology, Introduction

1

Page 2: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

case the computer’s programs) and in effect alter your design. You have to be careful when

implementing your design or the system might inadvertently change the original idea into something

different.

As technologies change so does our society and the environment we live in. As a result

architecture itself also changes. Over time architects have had to change their relationship to work

to the new modes of production and construction and new cultural requirements. Karl Marx

provided the example that technologies change society in more or less predictable ways; that

technology is both autonomous (evolving) and deterministic in its effects. Marx’s theory was in some

ways a reaction to the impact of the industrial revolution and the implications it had on social and

cultural conditions at the time. There have been other philosophers since Marx, Martin Heidegger

had the opinion that within the autonomy of technological development society’s tools had

backlashed against their creators and has them locked within the technological system. The real

danger of technology in Heidegger’s opinion was the way in which technology (in this case machines)

begins to alter our existence. “The danger of technology lies in the transformation of the human

being, by which human actions and aspirations are fundamentally distorted. Not that machines can

run amok, or even that we might misunderstand ourselves through a faulty comparison with

machines. Instead, technology enters the inmost recesses of human existence, transforming the way

we know and think and will.”3 Although this might be interpreted as radical thinking there is some

truth in this. In some regards the increase and more importantly the change in technology has

altered the way we think as architects. Some architects design through the use of tools such as

software programs that have been created with the original intention to let us show the finalised

design proposals in three dimensions, however they have become in some cases the ‘vehicle’ used

for the designing itself. As a result the designs are limited by what the program allows us to show.

This is not always the case; all architecture of late has not been hindered by this technological

advancement. It should be acknowledged however that this could happen within architecture as it is

ultimately up to the architect’s intention in how they want to implement an idea the design process.

When an architect relies on a tool that becomes a necessity it is a clear example of Heidegger’s

theory realised today in common work practice.

Cedric Price – An architecture of modern technology

3 Michael Heim, ‘The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality’

2

Page 3: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

An architect I have always been interested in has been Cedric Price. Despite that fact that he

hasn’t built much over his career Price is infamous for his interests and opinions in architecture,

society and people have always been close to his heart. Price has always had a fascination with

technology, particularly communications technology as a means of ‘increasing the potential for

human-well being’4. Price’s striking design concept was down to a few features. Firstly is that the

architecture supports and enables human activity. Secondly was his fascination with technology.

Peter Murray wrote “(Price) looks to technologies which can expose inadequacies in the conventional

wisdom of architecture while at the same time celebrating the possibilities of thoughtful supportive

environments”5. There is a certain set of criteria that appealed to price. The technology needs be

appropriate for its purpose and play a critical role in the design. Secondly ‘technology must be

securely placed in a particular and real context from which a framework of limiting constraints can be

derived ’ A good example in which technology that meets the criteria was on the Potteries Thinkbelt

of 1964.

The Thinkbelt proposal was a higher education facility outside the city perimeter on an

unused industrial area located in Staffordshire in much need of renovation at the time. Instead of a

central campus Price proposed the idea of using a network system. His reasoning for this is that it

allowed flexibility and allowed extension. Price made use of existing transportation technology that

was on this site for a hundred years, revitalising its previous use once again. The railway could

facilitate connecting links throughout the network and make use of unused land next to the railway

tracks if the educational facility needed. Price proposed teaching units in a variety of mobile

enclosures such as inflatable lecture theatres and foldout decks all designed to be dismounted and

transferred as required. If there was criticism on the Thinkbelt it was that the proposal was too

imaginative for the audience being described as a fantasy. Price used clever and creative solutions

using existing technology old and current to answer a real problem faced at an important time (this

was when the new university programme in British history was being implemented). Price’s use for

technology was relevant for its purpose, not excessive or unneeded and it made use of abandoned

technology such as the roughly one hundred year old railway tracks.

Projects worth mentioning are The Greater Detroit and Oakland County Adult Educational

Network (1966) in which price proposed replacing centralised built structures with the use of

information technology (computers and communication devices). Generator (1978) is a fantastic

proposal. The concept behind it was to create an architecture that has a capacity to respond, to

react, learned, remembered and to respond appropriately.

4 Cedric Price, Cedric Price – The Squares Book, p9-125 Cedric Price, Cedric Price – The Squares Book,

3

Page 4: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

The Fun Palace

There is a project Cedric Price did in 1961 called Fun Palace. The client was Joan Littlewood

and she described the proposal as a laboratory of fun and a university of the streets. Price and

Littlewood both thought it would be fun if the visitor could be stimulated or informed and could

react or interact. Price’s proposal has been described as “providing a highly flexible indeterminate

space capable of responding to users and enabling a wide range of abilities”. 6 The Fun Palace was

initially to house activities such as music making with instruments, modelling, teaching film drama

and even therapy.

The Fun Palace brief started at a time where most institutions and systems were in a rapid

state of change; however construction methods at the time were too restrictive to the change

required. This alarmingly caused concern because in essence many activities inside were restricted

by the size of the enclosures. With this in mind the Fun Palace’s concept was essentially that it

should reinforce the activities featured inside, even if that meant it had to adjust its enclosures.

The social concept of the Fun Palace is that it is a people’s workshop, a university of the streets. The

users have a certain degree of control of their physical environment. To achieve in built flexibility can

only be achieved only if the time factor is included as an absolute design factor. Awareness of the

time factor and its relationship to the activities happening within must extend to an assessment of

the valid life span of the Fun Palace.

Figure 1: Fun Palace in daytime use, air structured exhibition hall, climbing frames and footbridge in use

6 The Cybernetics of Architecture: A tribute to the contribution of Gordon Pask.

4

Page 5: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

Figure 2: Night time use mobile kitchen unit, three-screen projection enclosed air structure

Price started to perceive the Fun Palace as something different, calling it his ‘anti-building’ and

referring to himself as an ‘anti-architect’:

‘The varied and ever-changing activities will determine the form of the site. To enclose these activities

the anti-building must have equal flexibility. Thus the prime motivation of the area is caused by the

people and their activities and the resultant form is continually dependent on them. The fact that

such enjoyment does take place within the pathetic areas in London’s slums gives a clue to the

immense potential for enjoyment in an area which encourages random movement and variable

activities’7

What happened within the Fun Palace and how would it work?

In order to achieve the flexibility Price required it was necessary to be able to rapidly

construct the enclosures for the activities from a limited ‘kit of parts’8. Enclosures were roughly

categorised into two categories that were small-scale-cell-type (i.e. kitchens and restaurants) and

large volumes such as auditoriums, the latter requiring a lower degree of servicing.

Although all these activities and amenities are available to the public the idea was that by

juxtaposing the facilities that the users would have more freedom of choice and could create new

activities.

7 Price, Cedric (early 1963), Cedric Price Archives. 8 Cedric Price, Cedric Price – The Squares Book p 59

5

Page 6: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

Figure 3: Interior perspective of the fun palace showing several modules being constructed by users.

Flexibility in the assembly and disassembly of enclosures is not enough to achieve the degree of

immediate change that could be required, therefore movement and access throughout the complex

also needed to be able to be adjusted. There was a fixed three-dimensional grid that allowed a

definitive way for the user to exit the area, everything else such as all public movement routers on

the ground floor were made adjustable.

A membrane roof suspended from a cable grid covered most of the centre of the Fun Palace

with operable ‘skyblinds’ allowing light in or out depending on user requirements. Beneath the roof,

floor, wall and ceiling modules could be lighted into place by overhead cranes (as shown in figure 3

earlier) that covered the length of the Palace. The internal structures and elements were comprised

of inflatable plastic and aluminium modular units which could be positioned and moved anywhere

within the Fun Palace. Re-routing the flow in terms of pathways is capable of rapid change that

would be based upon prominent paths that the users require. As a result the degree of spatial

variation from the movement of users is quite high. Virtually every part of the structure was to be

variable.

Considerations regarding the immediate site included using the adjacent areas and buildings

as environmental conditioners. The majority of the development near is industrial, part derelict and

as a result produced noise, dust and noxious fumes. These surroundings would usually have negative

effect on other smaller buildings, however in Fun Palace they can be controlled or exploited to its

benefit. For example gasholders are illuminated from the main structure and derelict areas are

converted into pathways for pedestrians including viewing routes.

The lifespan given had been fixed at ten years. There was a large degree of guesswork in this figure,

but its purpose was to provide a definitive range of requirements that could be scaled over a period

6

Page 7: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

of time. The materials used in the construction of the enclosures require a far shorter life span than

the estimated ten years allotted to the protected steel of the framework. Their application, use and

lifespan will prevent unnecessary prolongation of the pattern of activity they provide.

The involvement of cybernetics within the Fun Palace

Cybernetics has been defined as the study of control and communication in goal-driven

systems of humans and machines. This is a quote referred by a man named Norbert Weiner who was

a pioneer in the study of stochastic and noise processes, contributing work relevant to electronic

engineering, electronic communication, and control systems. Weiner has been described as the

founder of cybernetics.

Cybernetics is the theory of systems. It is closely related to control theory and systems

theory. Cybernetics originated in the late 20th century. It has been described as ‘preeminent when

the system under scrutiny is involved in a closed signal loop’ 9. What this means is the system in an

environment causes some change in the environment and that changes the way the system behaves

as a result.

The Fun Palace was determined by users, as a result its behaviour would be unpredictable,

unstable and indeterminate. Even with no specific objectives the Fun Palace would have to regulate

itself and its physical configurations would have to adapt based upon the patterns of the users and

their requests. Price thought that the solution belonged in the field of cybernetics.

In 1963 Price and Littlewood both wrote to Gordon Pask after learning of his work. Pask was

fascinated with Price’s project and was also a fan of Littlewood’s Theatre workshop and agreed to

help with the project as he believed it was more about “seeking the unfamiliar, and ultimately

transcending it” than conventional “fun. 10

Gordon Pask relevance within architecture and the Fun Palace

Gordon Pask was an English scientist, designer, researcher,

academic and playwright. Architectural thinking in the 1960s was mainly focused with issues of

flexibility, prefabrication, computers, robotics and a global approach to energy, resources and

culture. The implied systems thinking in architecture inevitably came to embrace cybernetics. Pask

was one of the early practitioners of cybernetics; his contribution was “a formulation of second-

9 Quote from introduction of Cybernetics on Wikipedia.org10 Littlewood, Joan, Joan’s Book p. 703

7Figure 4: Gordon Pask (1928-96)

Page 8: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

order cybernetics as a framework that accounts for observers, conversation and participants in

cybernetic systems”. He is also known for his Conversation Theory which according to Usman Haque

is “a particularly coherent and potentially the most productive theory of interaction encompassing

human-to-human, human-to-machine and machine-to-machine configurations in a common

framework.”

The work of Pask has had interest by architects, artists and designers alike. Pask was

associated with architects since the 1960s where he took comfort within the AA (Architectural

Association) and continued with reside within for the next 30 years. In 1960 Gordon was involved to

architectural projects when he was invited by Cedric Price to become a consultant to the Fun Palace,

a ‘resident cybernetician’ introducing the concept of ‘underspecified goals to architecture systems’.

Gordon Pask’s involvement with the fun palace was in Cedric Price’s opinion ‘invaluable’. “When I

was appointed architect for Joan Littlewood’s Fun Palace I thought of Gordon and Joan did too... His

personal contribution to the design of the Fun Palace was invaluable. For example it was Gordon,

who decided quickly after two weeks of indecision which determined the optimum size of the whole

project. “Don’t use two cranes – rather build a separate, second Fun Palace”. Simple? Only after

Gordon told me.”11

Park also contributed to the philosophy of the MIT Architecture group that was based upon

the idea of ‘architecture as an enabler of collaboration’. Pask’s Conversation Theory suggests how in

an age where computing is growing in use, humans and devices within a shared environment might

coincide in a constructive relationship for both participants. With this logic, Pask’s early experiments

involved machines that tried to demonstrate authentically interactive systems that interacted with

the human participant in a unique way based upon the profile of the person.

Usman Haque within the journal talks about a project he made within his student years

where he was tutored by Ranulph Ganville, a student of Pask. ‘It was an interactive floor system of

sound, smell and light that determined its outputs in relation to fluctuating goals and perceived

responses – no behaviour was pre-programmed12‘ This is an example of how Pask’s work is relevant

to the practice of architecture, and you can see why Price enlisted his help in the interactive Fun

Palace. Several of Pask’s projects in particular give suggestions to how to create, build and engage in

interactive environments. At the time the experiments were done on analogue components as this

was precluding modern computing technology and capacity.

11 Cedric Price, ‘Gordon Pask’12 Usman Haque, 4dsocial: Interactive Design Environments, “The Architectural Relevance of Gordon Pask”

8

Page 9: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

One of Pask’s experiments was the MusiColour Machine, constructed in 1953; it was a

performance between colour led lights that illuminated based upon an audio input from a human

performer. What is interesting about this machine is that it played with rhythm and frequency as

opposed to modern day stage lighting which commonly responds to volume and frequency. As a

result MusiColour created a charismatic performance, creating the sensation of another performer,

as every time was a unique output.

In Haque’s opinion the most interesting part of MusiColour was if the frequency or rhythm

gets too slow then the machine would get ‘bored’ and then ‘listen’ for other frequency ranges or

rhythms. It should be noted however this is not a direct translation; it listened for certain

frequencies and then responds in a unique pattern, Haque uses the example of a jazz musician

responding to the rest of the band as they play.

Figure 5 'Architecture of conversations' sketch by Gordon Pask.

The innovation in this project is that data (light-output pattern) is initiated and created by

the other musicians. Nothing happens until one of them enters into a ‘conversation’ with each other.

The machine ceases to become a reaction and instead causes an interaction by deciding based on

the musicians sounds so that if it was too slow or repetitive the machine would stop entirely, this

then could cause the musician to play something entirely different to evoke a reaction from the

machine, creating in Pask’s terminology the idea of a ‘conversation’ (see diagram above); the

exchange of data between the human and the MusiColour.

To fully understand the theory of Pask’s notion I have included below a diagram that

explains the ‘first order ‘of cybernetics. The most common illustration used is based on a captain in

his boat through the winter; the captain is guiding his boat from destination A to B, however there is

stormy weather. (The reason this is the most common illustration is because the word cybernetics is

derived from the Green word for boat helmsman). Based on the conditions of the weather the

captain changes course slightly, but still sails to point B. The affect of the weather has changed the

9

Page 10: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

captain’s course. In essence this is an interaction created, as the course the ship took in the water

was subjective to the weather and path relevant to get to point B.

Figure 6: Diagram showing the cybernetic principle. Boat example starting its journey. Weather (represented as the

linear grey line) has had an effect on the ship during travel, resulting in a different route taken (red line)

The Paskian Environment model

During the 1980’s in terms of interactive design a “one-way, reactive interaction model”

(abbreviated ORIM) became much more prominent. The ‘machine’ in this case contained infinite

information and the human simply navigates the interactive system to uncover it all. What this

means is that the person is limited to the capabilities of the machine and once he has navigated it all

there is nothing left to compare. This is very different from the Paskian model where the interaction

is between the “machine” and the “human” who are both peers in a conversation. In this

conversation information is created and exchanged through both interactions. The ORIM model was

the most popular in the 80’s unfortunately in art and industry use as it provided short-term results

that people could easily understand and experience. The ORIM system only relied on a reaction

between ‘human’ and ‘machine’, which was much easier to implement than the Paskian

environment. To explain it easily, the ORIM system relied on a very casual relationship between the

user and the machine such as “If I do X, the machine will do Y back to me”, users could understand

this logic very quickly. Basically, System has a goal, aims towards a goal, corrects itself based upon

environment

The Paskian model to implement is a lot more difficult, though the results are arguably much

more productive since it creates a more sophisticated-type of reaction. It ceases to become a

reaction of the user and creates Pask’s notion of a ‘conversation’ between both users. A much more

intelligent representation of the theory realised. The benefit of the Paskian system though is that it

is much more engaging to the user, the problem with the ORIM system is that once the user has

experienced the reactions then the initial sensation would wear off quickly as it would repeat the

10

Page 11: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

same interaction. In the Paskian system however an exchange of information is the form of a

conversation is given, in the case of MusiColour as long as the user changed the frequency and

rhythm in the form of playing an instrument different then the machine would keep exchanging

information in the form of lights in a unique way back to the user thus creating a conversation. The

Paskian model relies fundamentally on an ‘intelligent’-type interaction. A simple analogy is that

when we meet people, their intelligence does not mean we will like or dislike them as long as they

are receptive and pleasant, however that has no implication on how productive the conversation is.

When we talk to a person who is intelligent and is able to communicate a productive conversation in

the form of exchanged information is produced. This is a lot more beneficial long term as the

conversation could lead to new actions and thoughts on a participant’s behalf.

When looking at the ORIM system it is reminiscent of Illich saying “When you became the

user of a system, you became part of the system”. It could be said that in the ORIM system since all

the reactions to specific human interactions are pre-designed and just react to the specific command

of the user that there is no true interaction, no exchange in data. Instead the user is part of the

system as opposed to engaging with the system.

Cybernetic principles within the Fun Palace

The Fun Palace would need to be able to ‘learn’ behavioural patterns and ‘plan’ for future

activities according to cybernetic principles much like MusiColour. Even though in comparison to

scale and ambition the MusiColour is quite small the Fun Palace shares the cybernetic environment

where information is shared between the ‘user’ and the ‘machine’.

Through using the principles of cybernetics it allowed dynamic systems to self-regulate the

Fun Palace and to change itself without an end goal, based on the current criteria and use of the

participants. ‘It would thus be able to anticipate unpredictable phenomena, because instead of a

determined programme, it would rely on probability to adjust its programme to accommodate

changing trends and events.’13

The objectives of cybernetics were as flexible as the criteria and were able to change as the

system was itself. Although cybernetics were associated with computers and information

technology it was Norbert Weiner that suggested it was fundamentally a model of a natural

processes which allow all living things actively adapt to the changing conditions of life in this world.

Price also looked at the game theory, which was relevant. Game theory, developed by John von

Neumann in the 1920s unlike cybernetic principles did not just respond to changing conditions and

provide corrections in the short term. Game theory indicated strategies and modifications to the 13 Matthews, Stanley “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy”

11

Page 12: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

already made guidelines of the system, therefore changing the limitation of cybernetics only dealing

with current conditions. In terms of predicting the indefinite possibilities of interactions of the

several factors Stanley Matthews compares the behaviour of game theory to the ‘dynamic behaviour

of complex social and economic systems’

Von Neumann’s theory of games provided the basis for the logic behind modern electronic

computers. In 1927 Alan Turing suggested that by altering the sequence of von Neumann’s operating

codes would create a virtual machine that could be made to emulate the behaviour of many

different devices.14 Much like this the Fun Palace had no singular programme, it could be

programmed and reprogrammed to enable a number of different functions at different times based

upon the user’s needs; a ‘virtual architecture’.

Cybernetics and game theory allowed the basis and met the requirements Price and

Littlewood deemed essential to the Fun Palace its concept and purpose, to allow it to adapt and

evolve over the ten-year period. As a result the Fun Palace could not be truly represented in a set of

typical drawings. In the words of Stanley Matthews the Fun Palace was ‘closer to what we might

understand as the computer program: an array of algorithmic functions and logical gateways that

control temporal processes in a virtual device. The three-dimensional structure of the Fun Palace was

the operative space-time matrix of a virtual architecture’

What happened to the Fun Palace?

The Fun Palace was at an ideal time for the proposal to come along. People were interested

in the technical challenges installed, its creativity, originality and the social implications.

It should be noted however that Price welcomed Pask’s contributions, although he didn’t agree with

Pask’s view that the architect is a social engineer. Price trusted that through cybernetic systems that

him or any other controlling force would allow users of the Fun Palace to create their own

requirements based upon what they are currently doing or plan to do. Littlewood and Price realised

that the Fun Palace would require more people than themselves if it was ever to become a reality

and received help from volunteering scientists, sociologists, psychologists, cyberneticians and even

politicians.

Price and Littlewood’s open positive opinions regarding technology might seem a bit naive

and uninformed considering the extent of what would be needed and the limitations they faced at

the time, however many people believed completely in the limitless possibilities that evolving

technology promised for the good of mankind. It could be said that Price and Littlewood shared

some sentiments of Karl Marx mentioned earlier that technologies change society in both

14 Von Neumann, John, Computer and Brain, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958, p. 70

12

Page 13: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

predictable and unpredictable ways and that technology both evolves and deterministic in its

effects.

If the Fun Palace project went underway in our present time, based on the new

advancements made in systems available today it would have been interesting to see how modern

day computers could have aided or even supported the design. Perhaps the use of computers would

have changed the design inadvertently into something else which doesn’t have the same essence as

Price intended. The brief today might have changed in form from what Price originally proposed

entirely as the requirements from us have perhaps also altered entirely. The project would still be

relevant however could be implemented in several different ways based on the different resources

we have to offer. Perhaps it could all be processed into an advanced system that would operate the

whole site based on the cybernetic principles.

You could compare the Fun Palace including its demise to some of the theoretical quotes

mentioned earlier. Part of me believes that the concept behind Fun Palace was somewhat doomed

to fail. On one hand I think the scope of the Fun Palace through the use of cybernetics theoretically

is too large.

Here I have included an a draft of

promotional literature for the Fun Palace where Price

lists ‘YOU’ several vertically down the page with the

idea of the activities that the users of the Fun Palace

system could achieve. Price only manages to get

down three lines then crossing out the third

suggesting to me that the system and/or his

ambition is too open ended. You could argue on one

hand that by not limiting the definitive goals to be

achieved in Fun Palace that it ceases to go anywhere,

as illustrated to the right.

On the other hand, it could be said that there is a

clear purpose to the fun palace, and that through

cybernetic principles Price has managed to create a system that adjusts itself to suit the purpose of

the user’s requirements in a quite mechanical fashion. By disassembling, moving or assembling

modules within the Fun Palace you do change the environment. However at the time when this was

proposed there wasn’t really a system that was embodied cybernetics installed. The system

proposed only followed the principles of cybernetics and the brief outlined by Price, and was made

13

Figure 7: Draft of promotional literature for the Fun Palace, 1963

Page 14: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

mechanically viable with the assembling/disassembling units and cranes – but there is very little on

the actual details of how the system is implemented or more importantly controlled. In the event

that one person had the role of controlling the site as the cybernetic system was to run the Fun

Palace it wouldn’t be a true representation of the user’s needs and interactivity as it would be

subject to the controlling person’s judgement and operation. If on the other hand you said the users

are in control by setting up units and disassembling them where they deem fit then much of the

magic, the true cybernetic principles are lost; unlike the Pask’s MusiColour much of the

‘conversation’ between ‘user’ and ‘system’ ceases to exist here, a fabricated reaction controlled by

one person would be designed for the user.

Cybernetic principles and the system of technology within architecture

In the Fun Palace Cedric Price in effect used the system of existing technology to try to embody the

principles of a cybernetics to create something that was founded on the belief that anything could

happen. He was in effect making an experiment, a sandbox environment for which the results where

ultimately defined by the end user and what he wanted to do, if he even knew what he wanted to

do, and so it goes on. In the end the scope of the system within the Fun Palace was too large to

embody within a project. The Fun Palace relied on the cybernetic principles to define the project

which is quite a daunting prospect considering the whole entire world could be argued as a system

which could be broken down in different systems within systems. In cybernetic theory changes at a

low level of an organism under certain conditions have large effects on the overall behaviour of the

system 15

It is hard to say that it is Price’s fault that it lost support by the public and failed to get built, as the

project even by today’s standards could be perceived as ahead of its time. The fundamentals of the

project were honest and the aims were in essence what the project name was about, it was

essentially a fun palace. Perhaps in current times if the project was to be revisited we would be able

to create Pask’s notion of a conversation between the user and the Fun Palace to create what Price

and Littlewood both strived for through a sophisticated system, but then would the physical,

mechanical quality that the Fun Palace possessed be lost?

15

14

Page 15: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

Bibliography

Frazer, John H. The Cybernetics of Architecture: A Tribute to the Contribution of Gordon Pask.

Kybernetes. The International Journal of Systems & Cybernetics

Matthews, Stanley, ‘The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of

Indeterminacy, The Journal of Architectural Education’

Matthews, Stanley , From Agit-Prop to Free Space: The Architecture of Cedric Price

Richard Coyne, Cyberspace and Heidegger’s pragmatics.

William. Braham & Jonathan A. Hale, Rethinking technology

Michael Heim. ‘The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality’

Samantha Hardingham, Kester Rattenbury ‘Supercrit #1 Cedric Price – Potteries Thinkbelt’

Simon Urwin, Analysing Architecture

Cedric Price, ‘Cedric Price – The Squares Book’

Usman Haque, 4dsocial: Interactive Design Environments, “The Architectural Relevance of Gordon

Pask”

Cedric Price, ‘Gordon Pask’

Joan Littlewood, ‘Non-Program, A laboratory of fun’

Michael Heim, ‘The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality’

Littlewood, Joan, Joan’s Book

Von Neumann, John, Computer and Brain

15

Page 16: Technology: Cybernetics and the Fun Palace

Jon Goodbun, An introduction to Environmental Cybernetics, The Code is not enough - sustainability

thinking part one

Websites:

General information on cybernetics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics - 02/01/2009

Information on Norbert Wiener - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener - 02/01/2009

Details of Haque’s past projects - http://www.haque.co.uk/ - 11/10/2008

Details of Price’s past projects - http://www.designmuseum.org/design/cedric-price - 12/10/2008

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=725&storycode=3112138 -

16