GHASSAN ALSERAYHI
 MSc. Arch, M. Arch, B. Arch, Assoc. SCE

ARCHITECT + EDUCATOR + RESEARCHER
The Role of Machines in influencing the perception
of artifacts and human body


  Towards the end of the industrial revolution, a fresh perspective on art began to crystallize. This view melded the mechanical operations of the human body with machinery. As cities became hubs for technological innovations, they saw the emergence of new art forms, social spaces, and entertainment. This section of the proposal focuses on the period from the mid-1800s to the interwar years, illustrating how industrial materials bridged art and life using technology. In this era, mechanization profoundly influenced both the human body and the created artifact. The proposal seeks to outline a framework that dives into the intricacies of this relationship, spanning various scales of interaction between machinery and the human form. Whether considering architecture, an artifact, or a living organism, they all function as intertwined components and relational systems. Together, they lead to groundbreaking creations, fostering unique collaborations between diverse elements, and cultivating new motion patterns and spatial configurations. The study attempts to contextualize these layers by comparing avant-garde art with contemporary technological trends, culminating with insights from artists like Laszlo Moholy-Nagy and Naum Gabo. Their art embodies a fusion with objective mechanics.

Reflecting on technology's influence on art necessitates examining the discourse around the transformation of the human body into a mechanical entity. It raises questions like: How has art historically portrayed the evolving human form? The focus isn't on predicting a technology-influenced future for the body but understanding how art has mirrored the societal changes impacting our physical existence. A prime example is Matthew Barney's Cremaster Anatomies series, which delves into potential body evolutions. Barney gained prominence with the 1993 Post-human exhibition, curated by Jeffrey Deitch. This event spotlighted a forthcoming era where biotechnologies, medicine, and cosmetic surgery might drastically reshape human anatomy. Deitch praised this transformation, underscoring art's pivotal role in reimagining human dimensions. He posited that artists might redefine both the art realm and the essence of life. This fascination with body modifications driven by technology has long been a staple in Western art and lore, with stories like the Pygmalion myth suggesting that art stems from the desire to craft a superior, artificial body. Throughout the 19th century, with industrial growth and changing labor dynamics, the concept of the mechanized body became prevalent. The 20th century continued this trend, showcasing technology's ever-evolving influence on our physical form. The "post-human" notion, dominant in the 1990s, signaled a shift from tangible machinery to the realms of advanced communication and biotechnologies. Against this backdrop, this section of the study analyzes significant artworks and drawings influenced by these ideologies. It situates them within the discourse of machines, technology, and humans to understand and meticulously examine the thought processes, driving factors, and circumstances that accompany and influence material culture.

Michael Osman posits that the relationship between architectural ventures and what Douglas Engelbart dubbed as the augmented or automated clerk—essentially the computer—marks a significant transition from historical practices. This shift gravitates towards standardization, which underpins mass production in modernism. Some contend that the incorporation of architectural design tasks into digital software packages has addressed the former challenges posed by extensive paperwork. This technological capacity has relegated manual clerical tasks to the background, somewhat altering the architects' collective identity. By the early 2000s, "mass customization" was viewed as a transformative approach, distinct from the traditional mass production ethos. Unlike the age-old industrial hierarchy where intellect steered hands, this novel method witnessed the convergence of the artistic and the craft-based facets of architecture. This perspective also questioned architectural modernism's allegiance to conventional standards, those binding protocols that bridged industries via mass production's processes and paperwork. In the file-to-factory model, standards' indirect role in mass production would be superseded by the direct transformation of the
designer's data-driven vision into a bespoke product. Thus, a closer look at computerization's history could reveal whether distinctions, such as between art and craft or standard and non-standard, are indeed morphing within the digital realm. By delving into these differences and their formation through bureaucratic tools like paperwork, we gain insights into Engelbart's intrigue towards the architectural office worker's role.

From the mid-19th century onwards, specifications have been pivotal in defining the dynamic between designers and builders, establishing a clerical groundwork that went beyond the capabilities of any architectural firm. This reliance on specifications still undergirds architectural design, emphasizing its inextricable ties with clerical undertakings pivotal to the industrial age. Engelbart's notion of the augmented architect suggests that his view on digitized practices stemmed from recognizing the significance of clerical roles. Decisions in design would cyclically interplay with specifications, continually revitalized by the automated clerk. This wasn't the utopia of all-encompassing standardization as foreseen by modernists. Instead, it aimed at amalgamating specifications into diverse design facets, retaining the division between design and construction. Amid technological advancements, the architectural realm underwent changes, influencing not only methodologies and structures but also ideologies and linguistic mediums. In the era of hand-drawn drafts, architects were perceived as master craftsmen skilled in translating concepts into detailed drawings. Presently, they are seen more as technologists and project managers, harnessing digital tools to craft intricate designs and coordinating myriad project stakeholders. The lingua franca of architecture has evolved too, transitioning from specialist terminologies to a language comprehensible to a wider audience. After all, in what ways have digital tools reshaped architectural specifications, styles, and standards? Is the current digital technology going to put itself and the architect on the road of specification and standardization? which somehow indirectly started to evidently and gradually happen.





Bibliography

  1. Moholy-Nagy, László. "Vision in Motion." Chicago: Paul Theobald, 1947.
  2. Gabo, Naum. "Naum Gabo: Sixty Years of Constructivism." Edited by Steven A. Nash and Jörn Merkert. Munich: Prestel-Verlag, 1985.
  3. Barney, Matthew. "Cremaster Anatomies," 1993.
  4. Deitch, Jeffrey, curator. "Post-human." New York: Deste Foundation for Contemporary Art, 1993.
  5. Osman, Michael. “Modernism's Visible Hand: Architecture and Regulation in America.” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018.
  6. Engelbart, Douglas. "Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework." Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute, 1962.