122

Nic Clear

AVATAR AND THE POLITICS OF PROTOCELL ARCHITECTURE

The Advanced Virtual and Technological Architecture Research Laboratory (AVATAR) was founded in 2004 at the Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London (UCL). The original remit was to provide a forum for staff and their units to exchange and share their explorations into the digital and visceral terrain. With Neil Spiller’s appointment in September 2011 as Dean of the School of Architecture and Construction at the University of Greenwich, the centre of research has shifted south to Greenwich. Here, one of the principle proponents of AVATAR, Nic Clear describes why, given the present economic and political situation, Protocell Architecture has provided the group with such a fecund fi eld of research.

123

The architecture of tomorrow will be a means of modifying present conceptions of time and space. It will be both a means of knowledge and a means of action.— Ivan Chtcheglov, ‘Formulary For a New Urbanism’, 19531

We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth.— Tony Judt, Ill Fares The Land, 20102

AVATAR’s Protocell Architecture is a collaborative project dedicated to the development of new architectural ideas and strategies through the deployment of science and technology, produced in a manner that is sustainable and ethical.3

AVATAR seeks inspiration from outside the traditional realms of architectural discourse, particularly in the margins of science and digital technology, in the esoteric worlds of alchemy and ’pataphysics, through the avant-garde aesthetics of Dada, Surrealism and Situationism and with ideas gleaned from science fi ction and fi ction science. Protocell architecture seeks to speculate on the ideas and research initiated in artifi cial cell biology to create new architectural possibilities that are in direct opposition to the products of the ‘corporate architectural complex’.

While AVATAR is inspired by the use of scientifi c ideas, it is quite clear that it is producing architecture and not science, or even pseudo-science. The differences between the aims of the two discourses are important; as Dave Hickey the American art historian succinctly puts it: ‘Art and architecture are practices, not sciences. The constructions of science aspire to universal application. Pictures and buildings need only work where they are.’4

Apart from wondering exactly what Hickey means by ‘work’, this is a very useful defi nition. AVATAR does not seek to imitate science in the development of Protocell Architecture; it seeks to harness the creative potential of collaboration through the deployment of art, architecture, science and technology to create new architectures.

Given the methodological differences between architects and scientists it might seem improbable that these groups can fruitfully collaborate. However, what AVATAR proposes is that architects, scientists, artists and technologists of all hues can not only learn from each others ideas, but, given the opportunity that is afforded by contemporary communication networks, such collaborations can make work that is more productive, more challenging, more enjoyable and more effective. The collaborative nature of Protocell Architecture and how it is being developed is both dependent on, and a prime example of, a type of network thinking.

The basic ‘science’ of the protocell is that by combining two simple chemical solutions,5 complex life-like behaviours emerge from their interaction. The results of these behaviours can be controlled, organised and used as the basic components in even more complex arrangements. ‘Complexity’ is of course a highly loaded term, but here it is understood in terms of outcomes that could not be inferred simply from an analysis of the original components.6 The technologies that emerge from the protocell will allow the accretion of structures that can be ‘grown’ and controlled via chemotaxis, phototaxis, self-assembly and self-organisation. Protocells represent a technology that is not conceived of in terms of computational power and elaborate infrastructure; it is something that starts with a simple premise and yet can exhibit truly extraordinary behaviour.

For AVATAR, the protocell as metaphor is as rich in possibility as the protocell is as a chemical building block. While Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari may have favoured the rhizome as their epistemological model,7 AVATAR sees protocells as a more appropriate way of describing a model of knowledge and praxis.

Two NarrativesWe are in the throes of two competing narratives that depict the future of our planet: one describes a world of overpopulation, catastrophic climate-change and a scarcity of usable resources resulting in human and environmental devastation of an unimaginable scale; the other sees us at the threshold of a new technological era ushered in by advances in science and technology that will bring about an unheralded period of prosperity and growth. While the latter does not deny the possibility of the former, it assumes that a technological fi x will be found to remedy the problems of population growth and climate change. Although one should never underestimate the resourcefulness of human adaptation, and even allowing for the possibility that technology does address resource shortages and environmental damage, the uncritical desire for limitless development simply for the sake of it needs to be questioned. As far back as the 1970s, studies have warned that society cannot go on expecting infi nite growth with fi nite resources;8 indeed, some commentators have even questioned whether growth is in fact an essential component of our society.9 Despite the apocalyptic nature of some current planetary predictions, it is also clear that technological development and, in particular, the development of artifi cial intelligence, genetic engineering and nanotechnology will radically transform the productive capabilities of our societies.

The idea of such a radical advance in technological development is explored by Ray Kurzweil in his book The Singularity is Near. Kurzweil predicts that within

124

the next 30 years, machine intelligence will surpass the capacities of human intelligence and this will lead to an exponential increase in technological development. Such a transformation will result in unimaginable social and technological changes. Kurzweil suggests that the benefi ts of this shift may be that people can live as long as they wish to, material shortages become irrelevant with almost any material being able to be manufactured through nanotechnology, and virtual environments will be part of everyday life due to the existence of intelligent ‘foglets’. He posits that, ultimately, the whole of our universe will become part of an extended machinic continuum.10

A key issue not addressed by Kurzweil concerns the political and social distribution of these technologies and whether such advances will benefi t all people or be the reserve of a relatively small minority; previous technological ‘revolutions’ have been, and still are, to the benefi t of only a few. Kurzweil assumes that such advances will be universally embraced, though judging from recent opposition to GM foods, human genetic research and the popular demonisation of machine intelligence, this might not be as smooth as he imagines. Underpinning his view is the assumption that it is developments in advanced hardware and software that will be leading the way. However, not all technology should be reduced to a factor of computational power.

There are other models of technology that run alongside the ‘heroic’ grand narrative and some of these other ‘minor’11 narratives are developing through more modest technologies that may have an equally important impact on our future development. The implementation of these minor technologies does not come with the same extravagant pronouncements, and they operate much more discreetly as everyday agents directly transforming the lives of individual subjects.

One of the most signifi cant of these technologies focuses around new ways of using networks for working and sharing information through collaborative exchange. Many such practices are often collected together under the term ‘open source’. The use of open-source collaborative endeavours originated in the technical and scientifi c communities as a practical way of distributing tasks and pooling resources, and the development of open computer software was particularly instrumental in the spread of this approach.12 However, such tactics have been taken up within other spheres of cultural and political life. Central to open-source methodologies from their inception was a political concept of power and knowledge distribution that forces us to question issues of authorship and copyright; through the development of creative commons licenses, this form of decentralised collaborative development is not only highly attractive but also highly effective.

Protocell Architecture has essentially been set up as an open-source project; through a series of conferences,

exhibitions and publications, AVATAR is inviting collaboration and actively looking for partnerships. Through its own particular version of auteur theory,13 architecture has failed to embrace the potential of these ideas.

The discourses of disaster versus utopia, like many future predictions, may actually say more about our own time than offer an accurate picture of what is to come, and it is dangerous to see the extremes of either of these narratives as inevitable. Attitudes to the future cannot be reduced to an either/or situation; what is needed is a coherent engagement with our use of technology that requires us to be both more effi cient with resources and to utilise technological developments more effectively to enable us, as citizens, to fl ourish. Merely putting our faith in ‘high’ technology without recourse to the issues of social justice will perpetuate division and social unrest.

Protocells and the Architecture of Late CapitalismOne thing that does seem clear is that things will not carry on as they have in the most recent phase of capitalism, described by Ernest Mandel as ‘late capitalism’.14 Despite what politicians and bankers may want to tell us, there is no ‘getting back to normal’; we are clearly in new territory and we need to embrace new ways of thinking and new ways of acting.

One of the most important concepts behind the development of Protocell Architecture is the apparent simplicity of protocell technology and the belief that its potential as an architectural component will be the ability to implement a locally derived variation in nearly all situations, using locally obtainable variations of the necessary materials, using local skills and expertise, and to perform specifi c locally directed tasks without the requirement of importing massive amounts of external infrastructure and capital.

The failure of the recent speculative building boom to deliver coherent long-term strategies for our urban centres has once again exposed the vulnerability of the architectural profession to the whims of the market. What needs to be questioned is whether the goals and outcomes of contemporary architecture are simply defi ned by the traditional laissez-faire concepts and procurement methods of the building industry. Architects need to be looking beyond the short term to create new ideas about the development of the built environment utilising a whole range of approaches and emerging technologies responsive to future needs, rather than simply trying to get back to ‘business as usual’.

The architectural profession is failing to rise to the challenges of fi nite resources, the development of machine intelligence and the collaborative possibilities of open-source methodologies. Where once architecture took a leading role in developing ideas that could shape the future, it is now reduced to hoping that a reactive strategy will be preferable to committing itself and getting it wrong.

125

Nic Clear, Protocell Architecture 01 [Form], 1200 x 600 print on lightbox, 2010 Architectural form is fi xed by the material limitations of its construction techniques. Following Max Ernst’s decalcomania and Situationist bricolage techniques, Protocell Architecture imagines spaces that could be literally grown, printed or found.

Protocell Architecture has essentially been set up as an open-source project; through a series of conferences, exhibitions and publications, AVATAR is inviting collaboration and actively looking for partnerships.

126

Nic Clear, Protocell Architecture 02 [Networks], 1200 x 600 print on lightbox, 2010 Architecture needs to move away from the massive tectonics of building, and to be reimagined as a network of information and experience. Drawing upon Guy Debord’s psychogeography and Bernard Tschumi’s spatial and programmatic sequences, Protocell Architecture suggests the creation of open and inclusive ‘synthetic’ spaces that exist between the virtual and the actual.

What is of great interest is the way that the concepts surrounding the development of Protocell Architecture can be used to challenge traditional notions of architectural production and offer alternatives for thinking about how we develop and produce architectural ideas that do not simply rely on high-technology fi xes, or predict apocalypse.

127

Towards a Protocell ArchitectureCentral to the AVATAR philosophy is that architecture should be visionary; indeed, it should be utopian. However AVATAR’s collaborators are not naive idealists and are fully aware of the historical critiques of utopias.15 AVATAR calls for architects to radically rethink what they are doing and why, and Protocell Architecture is an important step in challenging existing architectural models and outcomes.

AVATAR’s conception of Protocell Architecture is predicated on a number of simple principles. The fi rst is that Protocell Architecture embraces bottom-up strategies that adapt local techniques and materials in providing a simple and sustainable material infrastructure. However, such structures would be linked into global information networks and use the power of those networks to transfer, develop and promote ideas beyond the immediate locality.

A second principle would require us to change our relationship to the spaces we inhabit, since those spaces would no longer be inert and static. In effect we would be creating spaces that are living, or at the very least life-like; they would be synthetic spaces with augmented and embedded technologies, and with the implementation of artifi cial intelligence some would even be considered sentient.

A third principle would necessitate questioning the very role of the architect and the building ‘professions’. The current organisational system of the building industry uses a very hierarchical structure. Protocell Architecture would be much more horizontal; the role of the architect would be more of an enabler and an activist whose role is to develop and communicate ideas collaboratively. Due to the implementation of open-source ideas, traditional ideas of authorship and copyright would be challenged.

A fourth principle: of Protocell Architecture would involve a completely different conception of time in developing projects; short-termism needs to be reconsidered. While the issues of poverty, environmental devastation and social injustice in the global South do require immediate action – action that is quite conspicuously not being delivered – there is a greater need to have a longer global vision and one that is based on social justice.

This leads to the fi nal principle, that Protocell Architecture would need to be based on a qualitative rather than a quantitative value system, where greater concern was given to the type of society that we are trying to create rather than to simply producing more stuff, for it is clear that any development that does not have at its heart the need for greater levels of social justice, cohesion and equality is going to perpetuate the problems of the current system.

The approach to Protocell Architecture outlined here is perhaps less literal than the approach taken by others on this issue. The actual mechanisms of using protocells to create

possible architectures are not of central importance, though their potential as a building material is signifi cant. What is of great interest is the way that the concepts surrounding the development of Protocell Architecture can be used to challenge traditional notions of architectural production and offer alternatives for thinking about how we develop and produce architectural ideas that do not simply rely on high-technology fi xes, or predict apocalypse.

The year 2008 was signifi cant in human history as it was the fi rst year that more than half the world’s population were living in cities.16 The future of our planet depends on how we deal with the built environment. Architecture, if it is to survive in any meaningful sense, must develop coherent strategies to promote development with fi nite resources and infi nite possibilities. 1

Notes1. Ivan Chtcheglov, ‘Formulary For A New Urbanism’, in Ken Knabb (ed), Situationist Anthology, Bureau of Public Secrets (Berkeley, CA), 1981, p 1.2. Tony Judt, Ill Fares The Land, Allen Lane (London), 2010, p 1.3. Advanced Virtual And Technological Architectural Research (AVATAR) was founded by Professor Neil Spiller at the Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL, in 2004. Examples of AVATAR’s research can be found at www.avatarlondon.org. Nic Clear has been a leading member of AVATAR since its inception.4. Dave Hickey, quoted in Stan Allen Essays, Practice: Architecture, Technique and Representation, G+B Arts, 2000, p xiii. 5. Neil Spiller often uses the example that protocells are like a ‘salad dressing’.6. Whereas complexity in architecture is often seen in terms of ‘formal’ complexity, largely predicated on shape-making.7. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, ‘Introduction: Rhizome’, A Thousand Plateaus, Athlone Press (London), 1987, pp 3–25.8. See Dennis Meadows, Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers and William W Behrens III, The Limits to Growth: A Report to the Club of Rome, Universe Books (New York), 1972.9. Tim Jackson, Prosperity Without Growth, Earthscan (London), 2009.10. ‘Nanobots called foglets that can manipulate image and sound waves will bring the morphing of virtual reality to the real world.’ Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, Gerald Duckworth & Co (London), 2005.11. Adapting the term from Deleuze and Guattari’s description of Kafka’s literature, see Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, University of Minnesota Press (Minnesota, MN), 1986.12. The Linux operating system is the best example of software developed through open-source collaboration.13. The original conception of auteur theory was developed in fi lm criticism around the Cahiers du Cinema magazine in the 1950s.14. Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism, Humanities Press (London), 1975. Mandel describes late capitalism as existing from the 1950s representing a third phase of capitalism; it is a concept used by Fredric Jameson in Postmodernism: The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Verso (London), 1990.15. See Neil Spiller, Visionary Architecture: Blueprints of the Modern Imagination, Thames and Hudson (London), 2006, and Nic Clear, 1 Architectures of the Near Future, Vol 79, No 5, September/October 2009.16. See ‘World Population Prospects: The 2007 Revision, Highlights’, Working Paper No ESA/P/WP 205, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations (New York), p 2. Online at. www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2007.

Text © 2011 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Images © Nic Clear