Architectural Model as Machine by Albert Smith

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Architectural Model

as Machine

A New View of Models from Antiquity

to the Present Day

(5)

Architectural Press An imprint of Elsevier

Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP 30 Corporate Drive, Burlington, MA 01803 First published 2004

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the copyright holder except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, England W1T 4LP. Applications for the copyright holder’s written permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publisher

Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone: (44) 1865 843830, fax: (44) 1865 853333, e-mail: [email protected]. You may also complete your request on-line via the Elsevier homepage (http://www.elsevier.com), by selecting ‘Customer Support’ and then ‘Obtaining Permissions’

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN 0 7506 5634 4

For information on all Architectural Press publications visit our website at www.architecturalpress.com

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India Printed and bound in Great Britain

Working together to grow

libraries in developing countries

(6)

uses as a thinking and defining mechanism for understanding and demonstrating architectural concepts. Interestingly, compared to the subject of architectural drawings, little specific research has been done about the meaning of architectural models. When one considers the important position scale models have maintained in the architectural process for centuries, this seems quite strange. This book attempts to rectify this situation by presenting a broad-based discussion of the representational qualities of the architectural scale model.

Scale models are a basic mechanism used to understand, explore and conceptualize archi-tecture. Yet in architecture studios across the country, students and professionals are constant-ly requesting additional information about the use and meaning of models in the design process. Surprisingly, though my colleagues and I can refer to several ‘picture’ or ‘how to build’ books, little exists concerning the concepts of why and how architectural scale models are cre-ated. For the past decade I have collected material and written on the theory of architectural scale models to bring new understanding to this important subject. I believe Architectural Model

as Machine offers a unique view of the architectural scale model’s varying uses as a thinking and

defining mechanism for understanding and demonstrating architectural concepts.

I am interested in ‘why’ and not the ‘how to’ of the methods architects use in design media. Often architects cannot and do not explain their work, especially their design processes, conse-quently it is necessary to extrapolate ideas and meaning from the artifacts they leave behind. My project depends upon artifacts of the media that architects use to think. I am proposing to study these artifacts across a range of time periods. My methodology is to use comparison and specu-lation across architectural movements to question the uses of media in design and to find intent and meaning in the context. My research is about translation and about cross-referencing con-ceptual thinking, from period to historical period and across disciplines. I believe it possible to discuss architectural ideas, indications of meaning and intention through the study of specific design media. The artifacts speak about why they were conceived and how they were used to help architects think through design, both as a medium and as a process.

This book looks at architectural models as mechanisms used for thinking about and defin-ing future builddefin-ings and cultural issues. In this work models are viewed as a basic scaldefin-ing mech-anism used to understand, explore and conceptualize architecture. This research takes the position that architectural scale models are created not only as a means of designing buildings, but also partake in defining a culture’s cosmos. Though specific models from different historical periods may physically appear quite similar, contextually, they can play different roles. Through the use of analogy and metaphor, architectural scale models offer architects an understandable way with which to develop and define their concepts.

(9)

This book was supported by a grant from the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts. I would also like to thank the University of Utah for supporting this project through a Faculty Research Grant. The following people should be thanked for their support and assist-ance in preparing this book: my wife Kendra Schank Smith, my research assistants, Shaun Moon and Henrietta Oyula and finally Marco Frascari for his wonderful guidance.

(10)

1 Futurama model from 1939 World’s Fair. Visitors to General Motors ‘Futurama’ exhibit. Original caption: 4/22/1939 New York, NY:

Seeing the world of tomorrow. Here is a view of the ‘Futurama’ feature of the General Motors highways and horizons exhibit at the New York World’s fair, showing how visitors will view the world of tomorrow from comfortable moving sound chairs while touring a vast scale model of the American countryside, covering more than 3500 square feet. The ‘Futurama’ is the largest scale model ever constructed, it includes over 500,000 buildings and houses, over a million trees and 50,000 motor

vehicles, many of which will be in motion. © Bettmann/CORBIS. xv 2 Cave painting of a man brandishing a spear. © Morton Beebe,

S.F./CORBIS. xvi

3 We Can Do It! Rosie the Riveter. War Production Co-Ordinating

Committee. Artist: J. Howard Miller. xviii

4 J. Robert Oppenheimer talking with Edward Murrow.

5 Trisonic wind tunnel at the Marshall Space Flight Center. An engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) observes a model of the space shuttle Orbiter being tested in the MSFC’s 14 14-Inch Trisonic wind tunnel. Photograph:

Courtesy NASA. xix

6 Saturn rocket engine test bed. A modified space shuttle main engine is static fired at Marshall’s technology test bed. Photograph:

Courtesy NASA. xix

7 Engineering type model. A computer model for the protein crystal trypanathione reductase, which is being studied in an effort to devise a treatment for Chaga’s disease, a devastating illness caused by a parasite.

Photograph: Courtesy NASA. xx

8 Model of embassy to be built in London by E. Saarinen. Finnish-born architect Eero Saarinen points to features of a scale model of the

embassy in London’s Grosvenor Square. © Bettmann/CORBIS. xxi 1.1 Prometheus brings fire from the heavens. Prometheus brings fire

from the heavens to humanity. Undated illustration. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 1 1.2 Undergraduate student model. Model of a virtual technology dance

studio by Brycen Allison developed in a studio taught by Albert C. Smith. 2

Illustrations

(11)

1.3 Undergraduate student model. Model of a virtual technology dance studio by Brian Parker developed in a studio taught by

Albert C. Smith. 2

1.4 Undergraduate student model. Model of a virtual technology dance studio by Eduardo Santamaria developed in a studio taught by

Albert C. Smith. 2

1.5 Image of a hunter-gatherer structure. Photograph courtesy of

Professor James O’Connell, University of Utah. 3

1.6 Urn in the shape of a hut. ©Archivo Iconografico, S.A./CORBIS. 5

1.7 Pyramids of Giza. © Royalty-Free/CORBIS. 6

The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 7

1.13 Exterior of the Propylaea and the Parthenon.

1.14 Greek paradeigma. Computer model created by Shaun Moon based

on information from ‘Greek Architects at Work,’ by J.J. Coulton. 10

1.15 The Nashville parthenon. © Mark E. Gibson/CORBIS. 12

1.16 Interior of Pantheon. Photograph by author. 14

1.17 Vitruvian siege machine/De architectura libri deci. © CORBIS. 16

1.18 Vitruvian machine/De architectura libri deci. © CORBIS. 17

1.19 Façade of the cathedral of Notre Dame. © Royalty-Free/CORBIS. 21

1.20 Royal Abbey at St Denis. Photograph by author. 22

1.21 Villard de Honnecourt. © The Bridgeman Art Library International. 23

1.22 Villard de Honnecourt: Lion and porcupine. © The Bridgeman Art

Library International. 24

1.23 Giovanni de’ Medici model of a façade for S. Maria del Fiore.

Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore/Nicolo Orsi Battaglini, photographer. 25 1.24 Giovanni Antonio Dosio, model of a façade for S. Maria del Fiore.

Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore/Nicolo Orsi Battaglini, photographer. 25 1.25 Academy of Design, model of façade for S. Maria del Fiore. Opera di

Santa Maria del Fiore/Nicolo Orsi Battaglini, photographer. 26 1.26 Temple of Jerusalem/Temple model. A model of the Temple as it

appeared in the time of Herod the Great, part of a model of Jerusalem

at the Holyland Hotel, in Jerusalem, Israel. © Richard T. Nowitz/CORBIS. 30

(12)

2.2 Undergraduate student’s model. From a studio taught by Kendra

Schank Smith. 40

2.5 Theseus and the Minotaur mosaic in the House of the Labyrinth

at Pompeii. © Mimmo Jodice/CORBIS. 43

2.6 Plato’s cave. (Oil on panel) by Flemish School, (16th century). Credit: Musee de la Chartreuse, Douai, France/Giraudon-Bridgeman

Art Library. 46

2.7 Artifiiosi et cvriosi moti. © CORBIS. 48

2.8 House X. Photograph courtesy, Eisenman Architects. 49

2.9 House X. Photograph courtesy, Eisenman Architects. 49

2.10 House X. Photograph courtesy, Eisenman Architects. 49

2.11 De architectura libri deci. © CORBIS. 51

2.12 Model for the reconstruction of St Peter’s. Model for the

reconstruction of St Peter’s in Rome by Sangallo (under Pope Clement XI).

Undated. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 57

3.1 Janus, Roman god of doorways after whom the first month of the

year was named. Engraving. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 61

3.2 Le Corbusier with an architectural model. French architect Le Corbusier with an architectural model of his Villa Savoye.

3.3 Thales of Miletus. Artist French School, (17th century). Location Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, France. Medium engraving, 17th century,

French, © Giraudon/Bridgeman Art Library. 62

3.4 Balance and weights. © CORBIS. 63

3.5 IBM processing machine. Photograph: Courtesy NASA. 63

3.6 Toy as agent of magic, marvel and fantasy. Portrait of two little boys

playing with tinker toys. © CORBIS. 64

3.7 Nostrodamus making calculations. Astronomer making astronomical calculations. Undated copper engraving. Nostrodamus.

3.8 Al Smith and the Empire State Building model. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 67

4.1 Pygmalion and Galatea. © Christie’s Images/CORBIS. 69

4.2 An undergraduate student model built by Sam Bawden. 70

4.3 An undergraduate student model built by Jason Green. 70

4.4 Ptolemy’s Universe, illustrated. Map based on the geography of Ptolemy.

4.5 Portrait of Nicolaus Copernicus, (1473–1543), Polish astronomer.

Undated woodcut. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 71

(13)

4.7 Drawing Automayon by Jacquet Droz. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 74 4.8 Automated chess player or robot. An automated chess player with

the mechanical workings exposed in the cabinet underneath.

An early automaton or chess playing robot. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 74 4.9 Students in front of the École des Beaux Arts, Paris, France.

Photograph by author. 76

4.10 Goering with a model of the Berlin airport. Hermann Goering and

other German officials examine a model of Templehof Airport. © CORBIS. 78 4.11 Anarchist militia in Barcelona. Anarchist militia from the National

Confederation of Labour wave their flags and rifles for the camera in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. © Hulton-Deutsch

Collection/CORBIS. 79

4.12 Close-up of military tank. © CORBIS. 81

4.13 Marcel Duchamp playing chess and smoking pipe. Philadelphia Museum

of Art, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 82

4.14 Play/Young boy building miniature log cabin. © Jim Erickson/CORBIS. 84 4.15 Frank Lloyd Wright. World-famous architect points with his cane to a

model of the Price Tower in Oklahoma. © Bettmann/CORBIS. 85 5.1 Pandora’s box. A 1731 engraving of Pandora’s box by Bernard Picart.

5.2 Baker test, Bikini Atoll. Photograph: US Department of Energy. 90

5.3 Sagrada Familia (Church of the Holy Family) Barcelona by Antonio

Gaudi y Cornet. Photograph by author. 91

5.4 An example of Gaudi’s plaster study models. Photograph by author. 91

5.5 An example of Gaudi’s study models created by hanging chains.

Photograph by author. 92

5.6 A Gaudi study model of hanging ropes and weights. Photograph by

author. 95

5.7 The model workshop located in Sagrada Familia. The construction of Sagrada Familia continues though the rebuilding or recreation of the

original models developed by Antonio Gaudi y Cornet. Photograph by author. 96 5.8 The model workshop located in Sagrada Familia. Photograph by author. 97 5.9 Tatlin’s model of the Monument to the Third International. The model

at an exhibition in Moscow in 1920, with Tatlin in the foreground holding a pipe, illustration from Ivan Puni’s book Tatlin (Protiv kubizma), 1921

(litho). Private collection/Bridgeman Art Library. 98

5.10 Tatlin’s Tower photomontage by El Lissitzky. A 1922 collage and drawing by El Lissitzki of, ‘Tatlin Working on the Monument to the Third

International’. Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 101 5.11 Alchemist engraving ‘Emblema’. Emblem 21 from the Atalanta

Fugiens by Michael Maiers. The image is captioned entitled ‘Make a circle around a man and woman, then a square, now a triangle; make a circle, and you will have the Philosophers’ Stone.’ Courtesy:

(14)

5.12 Tatlin’s Tower under construction. 102

5.13 Proun # 10 by E. L. Lissitzki, © Bridgeman Art Library. 103

5.14 Model of the Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs. Designed by Louis I. Kahn, this unbuilt memorial was to be located in New York City. The Louis I. Kahn Collection. University of Pennsylvania and the

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 108

5.15 Model of the Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs. The Louis I. Kahn Collection. University of Pennsylvania and the

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 109

5.16 Sketch of the Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs. The Louis I. Kahn Collection. University of Pennsylvania and

the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 111 5.17 Drawing, Vertical II, by Daniel Libeskind. From Chamber Works

Series. Copyright, Daniel Libeskind. 113

5.18 Drawing, Horizontal 4, by Daniel Libeskind. From Chamber

Works Series. Copyright, Daniel Libeskind. 114

5.19 Reading machine, by Daniel Libeskind. Photograph: Hélène Binet. 119

5.20 Memory machine, by Daniel Libeskind. Photograph: Hélène Binet. 120

5.21 Writing machine, by Daniel Libeskind. Photograph: Hélène Binet. 120

Plate 1 Steven Holl holding model. Architect Steven Holl is one of the principals at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. The company is working on plans to rebuild at Ground Zero, where the Twin Towers were destroyed in the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001. Other team principals on the project are: Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, and Charles Gwathmey. © Richard Schulman/CORBIS. Plate 2 The painting of Michelangelo Presenting Model to the Pope.

Courtesy: Casa Buonarroti, Via Ghibellina n. 70, 50122 Firenze. Plate 3 Filippo Brunelleschi (?), wooden model for the cathedral lantern.

Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore/Nicolo Orsi Battaglini, photographer. Plate 4 Cigoli, model of a façade for S. Maria del Fiore. Opera di Santa Maria

del Fiore/Nicolo Orsi Battaglini, photographer.

Plate 5 The surviving parts of a model of the cathedral. Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore/Nicolo Orsi Battaglini, photographer.

Plate 6 House X. Photograph courtesy, Eisenman Architects, 41 West 25th Street, New York, NY 10010.

Plate 7 Bible moralisee. © Francis G. Mayer/CORBIS.

Plate 8 Maison Carrée columns and Carré d’Art. Architect Sir Norman Foster designed the Carré d’Art museum across the street from the Maison Carrée in Nimes. © SETBOUN/CORBIS.

Plate 9 Rose window in French cathedral. © CORBIS

Plate 10 Daniel Libeskind and his model of World Trade Center. Architect Daniel Libeskind from Studio Daniel Libeskind

(15)

(C) shows New York Governor George Pataki (R) and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (L) his model plans for the development of the World Trade Center site in New York that was chosen as the winning design on 27 February 2003. The plan includes a spire rising 1776 feet making it the tallest building in the world. The former World Trade Center towers were destroyed in the 11 September 2001 attacks. REUTERS/Mike Segar. © Reuters NewMedia Inc./CORBIS.

Plate 11 Architectural model from the office of Frank Gehry. Plate 12 Architectural model from the office of Frank Gehry. Plate 13 Architectural model from the office of Morphosis. Plate 14 Architectural model of the city edge Mies Memorial. Plate 15 Architectural model from the office of Renzo Piano. Plate 16 Architectural model from the office of Kisho Kurokawa.

(16)

Introduction

Long ago, before anyone built their first dwelling, there lived a very intelligent human. One day, the human was walking in the woods and found a marvelous stick. The stick (Figure 2) was long – about as long as the human was tall. It was straight, strong, and pointed at one end. There was something about this particular stick that made the human want to pick it up and keep it. Rather quickly the human found that the stick could be used as a staff to facilitate walking. It was also useful in digging for delicious roots and helpful in knocking down berries from high branches. Once the human, when attacked by a vicious animal, found that the stick could be used for defense. The human realized the stick made a wonderful and controllable extension of the hand. The stick was a tool, and a most prized possession.

Still wandering, the human arrived in a large, pleasant clearing and decided to rest. Not finding a tree close by against which to lean the stick, the human decided to drive it

1 Futurama model from 1939 World’s Fair

(17)

directly into the ground. All day long the human rested and watched the shadow of the stick change. The once controllable stick was beginning to raise wondrous, but not necessarily easily understandable, questions about the universe. The stick took on a life of its own; it presented a better way of understanding the sun, creating questions about a vast chaotic universe. It changed from a tool into a scaling machine and seemed to encourage the possibility of understanding the measure of things.

From then on, whenever the human met other humans, the stick would be ceremoniously thrust into the ground. They, then, were also compelled to think about their relation-ship to their universe and to make a variety of attempts at further explanation. The stick, both a scale model and a machine, pos-sessed the most interesting and powerful ability to take on a life of its own. The stick offered the human the ability to begin formulating an understandable measurement for defining the invisible unknown.

I would like to argue that architectural scale models (Plate 1) operate in a similar way as the marvelous stick. I pro-pose that architectural scale models are typically used as think-ing mechanisms for definthink-ing, and that these models differ from instruments such as transits, yardsticks or measuring cups whose specific measurements are already well defined. The architec-tural scale model is created not only as a means of designing our life-sustaining buildings, but also partakes in defining a culture’s universe. Though specific scale models from different historical periods may physically appear quite similar, there can be major differences as to what these models were seen as defining. Through the use of visual analogy and constructive metaphor, architectural models serve as measuring mechanisms extending the architect’s intellectual might in an attempt to understand a complex and confusing whole. The scale model is a mechanism for creating definition, mediating between perceived chaos and human designs.1 _{Positioned in the marginal area between}

life-lessness and the uncanny, the visible and the invisible, the archi-tectural model appears to offer architects an understandable way with which to develop and define their concepts.2

John W. Miller writes, ‘. . . by what method therefore can the study of philosophy proceed? . . . Only through the defin-ition of term.’3_{We have noted that the architectural model is}

used to create definition. But what do we mean by definition? The Oxford English Dictionary writes that the etymology of the word ‘definition’ comes from the Latin word ‘definire’

2 Cave painting of a man brandish-ing a spear

(18)

which means the setting of bounds or limits. To define some-thing is to create boundaries in order to designate its exact meaning. It is interesting to note that the word ‘designate’ is closely related to the word ‘design’, which means to mark out. There are a great many rules used for creating a good def-inition. A key example of these rules points out that a definition must indicate the essential characteristics of the thing being defined. A thing can be a material or inanimate object. It can be a matter of concern, deed, act or accomplishment that exists as a separate entity. Things can be distinguished from what is purely an object of thought. A thing need not be precisely designated. It can be an artistic composition and as such, an architectural scale model can be a thing; a thing used for creat-ing definition. Some of the characteristics of definition include the following issues. A definition is the meaning of a thing or the meaning intended by the user offering a description of its fundamental characteristics. The key function of definition is to present meaning for things that are not clearly understood, in a context of things that are clearly understood. Definitions increase knowledge and impart information. They attempt to prevent ambiguity, imprecision and complexity. They are reso-lutions; declared intentions indicating both how to use a thing in a specific manner and how the thing is used.4 _When

dis-cussing the transitory qualities of definition, John W. Miller points out that, ‘A static definition is neither experimentally nor logically possible . . . we are compelled therefore to search for a relative permanence, and we find that definition as a whole changes in respect to other definitions.’5

Architectural scale models (Plate 2) can help eliminate problems in perceiving a future building. They can be less ambiguous than drawings. According to Stanford Hohauser, architectural models are the most easily understood presenta-tional technique.6 _{They are useful in allowing architects to}

perceive their developing concepts more clearly. Even though architects are typically experienced in spatial thinking, their clients are generally not. Models are helpful in allowing clients to more clearly perceive a potential design. They can directly communicate ideas to clients as well as the public without the necessity of explaining complicated and confusing technical drawings. Compared to the subject of architectural drawings, little specific study exists about what architectural scale models represent. This is very strange considering how important scale models have been in the architectural process for centuries.

(19)

I will begin to explore this situation by creating relative defin-itive boundaries around the representational qualities of the architectural scale model.

Architectural scale models are an important part of the design process.7_{They take the place of words and may present}

a design more effectively than pictures. It may be cliché to state that a picture is worth a thousand words, but it could be argued that a model can be worth at least a thousand pictures. Models are used to view shadows, massing of forms, compli-cated intersections and a variety of other issues concerning the design of future buildings. Models are used to visualize elabor-ate shape and new design forms, allowing difficult spatial problems to be more thoroughly and effectively studied three dimensionally. It is generally quicker to solve such design problems using a model than with an already completed build-ing or by draftbuild-ing complicated geometrical projections.

Now I would like to discuss several important concepts about scale. To many architects, scale simply means a system of ordered marks arranged at fixed intervals that are used as a standard of reference in measurement.8_{Scale allows the}

archi-tect a means for climbing towards a definition, developing a balance or medium between a known and an unknown, creat-ing a standard with which to refer and a way of peelcreat-ing away to reveal that which is unseen.

For most readers the concept of the model has wide-ranging implications. An outstanding citizen (Figure 3), a minia-ture version of an aircraft, a mathematical formula or a beautiful woman in the fashion industry are all forms of models. These varying definitions can cause confusion when considering the specific use of a model within a field such as architecture. To clarify this ambiguity we should consider the following four cat-egories of models: (1) mathematical, (2) analog, (3) qualitative, and (4) engineering. Though none of these categories is the sub-ject of this study, describing them helps to define more clearly what lies within the scope of this discussion.

Mathematical modeling (Figure 4) is generally concerned with natural systems and formal mathematical representation. Einstein’s famous formula E MC2 _{or an engineering}

for-mula describing the stress on a loaded beam are mathematical models. Describing mathematical models John Casti writes, ‘[A] model means an encapsulation of some slice of the real world within the confines of the relationship constituting a formal mathematical system. Thus, a model is a mathematical

3 We Can Do It! Rosie the Riveter

4 J. Robert Oppenheimer talking with Edward Murrow

(20)

representation of the modeler’s reality . . .’9 For Casti, the mathematician, mathematics are the appropriate form for modeling. Mathematical modeling plays several roles in the architectural process, though it is not the focus of this study.

Miniature ship hulls built for testing in tanks or water basins and model airplanes used in wind tunnels (Figure 5) are known as analog models. The term ‘analog model’ refers to a specific category of model and should not be confused with the broader concept that models can be analogous. These types of models are used to demonstrate known quantitative relations among governing parameters. Analog models generally employ already established functional relationships and are not used to discover unknown relationships. Today analog modeling is more typically performed through the use of computers.10

Though architects occasionally make use of analog models, this category of model is also outside the scope of this inquiry.

Mock-ups, prototypes and test beds (Figure 6) can all be seen as forms of qualitative models. John Schuring, in his

5 Trisonic wind tunnel at the Marshall Space Flight Center

(21)

book Scale Modeling in Engineering, writes that qualitative models, ‘. . . skirt or even penetrate the domain of precise numbers and functional relations without, however, leaving the qualitative domain.’11_{In special cases and usually through the use of a}

con-sultant, architects utilize such models in order to study essential attributes of a specific object. Specific examples of qualitative models would include a scale model of a highrise exposed to smoke streamers as a means of visualizing potential wind vortex patterns or a cardboard model of a frame structure created to help assess its reaction under a load.12

Engineering scale models (Figure 7) are another category of model, described by Shuring as, ‘. . . experimental models structured to mirror the true physical behavior of an original phenomenon, or a prototype.’13 _{Schuring further describes}

these scale models as valid substitutes for systems that cannot be understood at the prototype level. He writes of these models, ‘If scaled correctly, deflections, deformations, speeds, forces, accelerations, energies, temperatures, electric currents, magnetic fields, and a host of other relevant quantities measured on the scale model permits prediction of the corres-ponding quantities of the prototype design.’14 _{These models}

facilitate both the understanding of fundamentals and the design of engineering hardware.

A final category of model, and the one of major concern for this study, is a relatively subjective model. This category includes the conceptual models developed by philosophers or sociologists that reflect individual views of human nature and society. The subjective model is one that is derived from the mind and not from external objective sources.15 _Schuring

writes that, ‘Architectural and toy models, however high their fidelity, are judged subjectively, that is without scientific exact-ness . . .’16 _{For Shuring, these models lack the exactness and}

strength of scientific research for they are judged by individu-als, not by objective measure. I believe it important to support Shuring’s position and will approach the architectural model as relatively subjective in character.

If it is accepted that architectural models are judged by individuals and not by objective reasoning, then how can they be defined? It is necessary to begin by asking the question – What does the architectural model represent? Here it is essential to consider what a representation actually is. A rep-resentation can be an image, likeness or reproduction in which some manner of a thing is presented to the mind or imagination.

(22)

Mimes offer a good example of a representation, for they attempt to show a motion or an action with an element or a dimension missing. A representation can be seen as something that stands for something else or it can be seen as an imitation with a change. In his writing, Richard Wollheim points out that what a representation is being ‘seen as’ is connected with the intentions of the designer. I would like to relate the notion of architectural representation to the concepts of analogy and metaphor, which are used to refer to greater issues beyond sim-ply a future building.

I take the position that philosophically-based representa-tion must be distinguished from psychologically or scientifically-based representation. The representational qualities of the architectural model will be viewed as primarily philosophical in nature.

The architectural scale model (Figure 8) should be viewed as a mechanism for creating definition, mediating between chaos and humanity’s designs. It is a mechanism that helps architects develop an understandable scale with which to measure the unknown thing, such as a future building. The architectural model machine should be considered a scale device, which helps extend an architect’s intellectual might in an attempt to understand, define, and measure various issues.

I propose that there are two types of architectural models. The first is the architectural reference standard model, which refers to the established rules against which to measure. The second is the architectural scale model machine which is one of the mechanisms humans create to measure and test their vari-ous concepts of the invisible.

The architectural small-scale model machine serves as a device on which to project thoughts in an attempt to develop the perfect design (an attempt at a true definition of the invis-ible). The scale model provides architects with a mechanism by which they can test and re-examine their ideas. Sometimes, however, the projection of thoughts on to the scale model machine can make it appear to take on a life of its own. This happens in the realm of our imagination.

Aristotle (De Memoria, 449631) believed that the imagin-ation served as a mediimagin-ation and that the soul never thinks with-out an image. For Hume, the imagination was also a mediation between ideas of memory and judgment. From Aristotle to Kant, imagining is seen as a mediating or middle-range power. This is the area in which the scale model machine dwells. In this

8 Model of embassy to be built in London by E. Saarinen

(23)

way the scale model is a machine for imagining, for developing the free associations needed to develop new ideas.

To be useful for architects, the free associations reflected from the scale model machine need to be controlled. This con-trol comes from the relationship architects have with their ref-erence standard. If the refref-erence standard is too loosely controlled, the message received from the scale model machine will appear uncanny or overly spontaneous. Conversely, if the reference standard is too tightly controlled then the message reflected from the scale model machine will appear lifeless.

The scale model machine is the mode in which the man-ner (control of society) is measured. By understanding the manner of the scale model machine it becomes possible to begin to comprehend what is being measured. What is reflect-ed in the small-scale model machine is the architect’s relation-ship with the manner (modernity) and the current concepts of the invisible.

During the Gothic period, God (as defined by the Church hierarchy) was generally accepted as the main con-trolling measure. Consequently, imitation of nature (God’s perfect model) was the prime objective of the architect. However, during the Renaissance there was a lessening of the control maintained by the reference standard, which was still tightly defined by the church.

A renewed interest in antiquity and the philosophy of humanism presented architects and artists with a new, less restricted ability to interpret the prevailing reference standards. Architects began to be allowed a certain freedom in the devel-opment of the measure. Although still under control, the archi-tectural scale model machine reflected this new freedom to create new interpretations of an already well-defined reference standard. For example, it is well known that a major reason Michelangelo built his model of St Peter’s was because he needed to visibly explain the future dome to the Pope.

During the period of Russian constructivism, architects developed their small-scale model machines under a new, developing but trusted reference standard. In the development of this new reference standard, the small-scale model machine played an important role in defining the emerging cosmos. However, since the reference standard was not yet well defined, the small-scale model machine was not always under control. This lack of control may have been responsible for the downfall of the mechanism of the Russian constructivist scale

(24)

model, such as Tatlin’s Tower, and its replacement with the seemingly safer and more governable neoclassical model.

The modern condition, as illustrated by the small plexi-glass models of Louis Kahn’s Jewish War Memorial, points to doubts concerning the ability of architects to control the scale model machines using past definitions of the reference standard. Daniel Libeskind’s scale model machines offer an experiment in what happens if all our reference standards are deconstructed apparently creating a loss of control over the message of the small-scale model machine.17_{Libeskind finds this condition}

dif-ficult to maintain. In the end, he constructs his three scale model machines (lessons in architecture), which offer an under-standable framework within which Libeskind can reconstruct his relationship with reference standards.

This work takes the position that the actual physical appearance of our architectural small-scale models has not changed. What has changed is humanity’s outlook as to what the scale model machine is measuring and defining.

According to John William Miller, a key problem of phil-osophy is the definition of a thing. He believes that the study of philosophy must proceed only through the definition of terms. The ‘thing’ which this investigation will attempt to define is the meaning of the architectural model. Again we are reminded of Miller’s position concerning the difficulty of maintaining static definitions and that we can only search for a relative perman-ence.18 _{The reason I believe Miller’s point is important is}

because I would like the reader to also reflect on what has remained relatively permanent and what has changed regarding the architectural model as a form of representation.

Architects use models to think about and create future buildings.19 _{If the reader will consider the future building as}

also a form of model, then the building itself can be seen as the cause for thinking about something greater. Also, consider that the scale model not only compels the architect to think about a future building, but also serves as a conduit for thinking about and creating definitions.

In future chapters, I will discuss selected key examples of current and historical models and their formative representa-tional theories. The examples will be used to present, analyze and interpret specific points concerning architectural models. These interpretations are based on a flexible hermeneutic which regards history as an open-ended series of narratives. The reader should view the use of historical models in this way. The use of

(25)

historical examples should not be seen as an attempt to list the extensive inventory of architectural models. Rather this study should be considered as similar to a string of pearls, with each pearl representing a specific concept and the connecting string representing the overall search for a relative definition concern-ing the architectural model as a form of representation.20

I would like to propose the following analogy as a way to view the organization of this book. North of Atlanta, in the library of a geriatric center, exists a particular square window that overlooks a child’s playground. Diagonal mullions divide this window, like the letter X, creating an intercrossing or decussation in its center. The left side of the window reflects the right side and the top of the window reflects the bottom. The chapters in this book are structured in a similar way. Each chap-ter, like the panes of glass, can stand alone, but reflects upon the others through the intercrossing or chiasm created by defining the architectural model and the concept that the architectural model defines.21 _{Each chapter proposes that the scale model}

reflects the standard of its maker. Chapters 1 and 5 reflect upon each other and on specific past and present architectural models. Chapters 2 and 4 reflect upon each other and involve critical issues of the past and present. Chapter 3 most directly deals with definition and etymology, and serves as the previously mentioned intercrossing or decussation. This study’s position concerning the relativity of definition has already been noted. Like definitions, etymologies are relative and should not be considered fully reliable. H.G. Gadamer writes, ‘[T]hey [ety-mologies] are abstractions achieved not by language but by linguistic science, and can never be wholly verified by lan-guage itself: that is by actual usage. Hence, when etymologies are right they are not proofs but achievements preparatory to conceptual analysis, and only in such analysis do they obtain a firm foundation.’22 _{Chapter 3 is placed in its central location}

for this reason. When combined with a surrounding investiga-tion, definitions and etymologies can allow the subject of the architectural model to be viewed in new and unusual ways.

The chapters of this investigation are organized as fol-lows. The first chapter discusses specific historic architectural scale models to reveal how they were used as mechanisms for thinking about design. It points out that, traditionally, humans have attempted to develop understandable measurements of nature through their scale model mechanisms. Similar to the individual pearls of a necklace, the first chapter makes a series

(26)

of separate connections between the scale model and a concept. It begins by establishing a link between the Egyptian scale model and magic. It will then point to the relationship between the Greek paradigma scale model and a paradigm. The chapter will move to the Roman scale model, as described by Vitruvius, and the machine. The section on the medieval architectural scale model will discuss the debate between the leadership of the church and the craftsman architect concerning who would be allowed to interpret the message mechanism of the archi-tectural scale model. The chapter then will discuss the use of the Renaissance scale model as described by Alberti. Finally, the Temple of Jerusalem is discussed as an architectural scale model that attempts to define the concept of the divine (both the good and the foretelling) through design.

The second chapter is a critical review of the shifting rep-resentational qualities of the traditional architectural scale model. It begins by pointing to the myth of the Greek archi-tect/craftsman Daedalus who maintained an important and persuasive position in developing the rituals of western soci-ety.23 _{The craftsmen of western society controlled the skills}

necessary for creating the mechanisms that greatly affected the daily rituals of humankind. The philosopher Plato (Book X of the Republic) appears concerned that craftsmen maintained the ability to create illusions of reality. However, as the philosopher Aristotle points out, mechanical skills, such as those required to create scale models, were indispensable for overcoming prob-lems caused by nature. The architect Vitruvius (BI. c.1,

Architecture in Ten Books) believed the way to creating improved

architectural models lay with an educated craftsman who understood both the theory and practice of mechanisms.24

Christianity recalibrated the prevailing view of the ideal by placing past methods of measuring and defining the truth in question. In this chapter, the Christian acceptance of icons as forms of scale models is used as an example to describe the div-ision between theory requiring education, and practice requir-ing craft. Durrequir-ing the Renaissance, shifts in politics and economics, and a renewed access to classical thought, such as that of Aristotle and Vitruvius, once again created the need for an educated craftsman, a mason who knew Latin: the architect. The third chapter defines how the scale model offers architects a key mechanism for implementing their designs. This chapter discusses several important issues. First, the architectural scale model offers the architect the perceived

(27)

ability to interpret and define the limits, basic qualities and nature of the reference standards through the thinking mech-anism of the small-scale model and finally the completed building. A machine (a mechanism) can be a structural or con-structed thing, which is why many architects consider a build-ing a machine. Second, the architectural scale model typically offers a representation of a possible future of an even larger machine. Third, the architectural scale model machine is a measuring device which helps extend the architect’s ability to understand and define (set limits, boundaries) through design. Fourth, the architectural scale model is a thinking mechanism for implementing definition, mediating between perceived chaos and human designs. Finally, the scale model is cast in the role of being a thinking mechanism for definition, allowing an implementation of an understandable scale within which to develop narratives, myths, and buildings.

Additionally, Chapter 3 discusses two types of architec-tural models: what remains is the invisible world of the ideal (which has historically been considered divine, as in the work of God, or having the nature or condition of being perfect) and the scale model machine (the attempt at divining or foretelling the future). These two meanings of the word divine are closely related. It is through the architect’s attempt to reproduce the powers of the divine that the analogies and metaphors required in developing the scale model machine are created. Humans build small-scale architectural models not only to foretell future buildings but also to mark out plans for an overall attempt to define the supreme or ultimate reality. The model machine provides humans with an understandable scale from which they can project and develop the measurements needed for defining the reference standards and, finally, the invisible.

Chapter 4 is a critical analysis of the representational con-dition of the modern scale model machine. It proposes that the rules of the game (the reference standards) are human created, and therefore not surprisingly imperfect, as they always have been. These concerns may point to current fears that human-ity is losing faith in the abilhuman-ity to control scale model mech-anisms through reference standards. However, if humankind is not to become a victim of a technology spinning out of control then architects must remain responsible for regulating and governing the machines. These regulations are difficult to develop without a faith that humankind may eventually define the unknown or the invisible.

(28)

The creation of the labyrinth by Daedalus may be con-nected with the creation of architectural scale models. For example, Penelope Reed Doob, in her book The Idea of the

Labyrinth, notes that the labyrinth was used as a key model in

the design of the Gothic cathedral.25_{Actual pavement carvings}

of labyrinths, which can be seen as symbolic of the Christian’s search for faith, were included in the design of many Gothic cathedrals.26 _{Doob writes that, ‘Almost any church labyrinth,}

then, might be interpreted as signifying the marvelously articu-lated complexity of the building that contains it.’27 _Geoffrey

Chaucer makes an interesting connection between architecture, literature and the labyrinthian model in his work, The House of

Fame, which contains a blending of medieval literary,

intellec-tual, metaphysical, visual, and popular labyrinth traditions.28

Similarly, Virgil’s Aeneid, Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, and Dante’s Divine Comedy all entail a labyrinthian experience by hero, narrator, and reader.29

The flight of Daedalus can also be considered analogous to the architect’s relationship with the scale model machine. If the scale model machine is overgoverned, it becomes sodden (lifeless) and may fall into the sea. Conversely, there is the real possibility of being burned by the chaos created through an ungoverned technology. By following a moderate mediating course Daedalus, the architect, reached his goal.

In the fifth chapter, this work discusses the particular scale model machines of the Spanish architect Antonio Gaudi, the Russian constructivists Vladimir Tatlin and El Lissitsky, the American architect Louis Kahn and, finally, the Polish/ American architect Daniel Libeskind (particularly as described during his tenure first at Cranbrook and then at his own pri-vate school in Milan). These and additional contemporary scale models are discussed as a means of describing the current condition of the architect.

The modern condition often makes us wonder whether we can control our scale model machines through past refer-ence standard definitions of the ideal. Many architects today actually question the necessity of maintaining controlling reference standards. I suggest that this situation produces a loss of control over the message of the architectural model machine.

To summarize, it has become necessary to develop several specific terms, particularly after the third chapter, in order to more fully describe different categories of architectural models.

(29)

For example, architectural models will be referred to as either ‘small-scale model machines’ or ‘full-scale model machines.’ A small-scale model machine is a design or presentation model of the type that one would typically expect to find used in an architectural office or school. In other cases I will use the term ‘full-scale model machine’ to refer to a completed building of the type that influences other designs and reflects the current habits of humankind. The term ‘architectural scale model’ will be occasionally used to apply to both conditions. In another example, the term ‘reference standards,’ a term borrowed from the theory of measuring, will be used to refer to the current commonly accepted human-based standards. These standards are the agreed upon rules or boundaries developed for under-standing and defining a cultures’ concept of that which remains invisible. The architectural model is a thinking mechanism used in making the invisible visible.

Notes

1. Machines can be considered one of the objects most closely asso-ciated with the fortunes of architecture.aThey can be seen as analo-gous to inspiration, the force which moves the human mind.b Buildings can express pleasure and architecture creates a reality that connects the senses with the physical.cMarco Frascari writes, ‘If we consider architecture to be a machine that is analogous to the human mind, then buildings exemplify and suggest rather than determine or impose.’d

Vitruvius viewed machinery as not only devising construc-tion but also connected to the proporconstruc-tions dictated by the shadows of a building. Frascari writes, ‘Buildings are passive machines, where the casting of shadows trace the everyday story of the infinite semiosis of the art of living well as it is expressed in the habits and “topical thinking”.’e By representation, a future building, the scale model operates as a passive signifying machine whose shadows offer a three-fold semiotic combination of index-ical, iconic and symbolic signs. The shadows of a model, as of a building, are important in making tangible that which is intan-gible. If the reader accepts this position, then past models can be seen as memory machines, informing us of the times of our habits.g

a. Alexander Tzonis and Diane Lefaivre, The machines in archi-tectural thinking, Diadalos 18, 15 December 1985, p. 16. b. Marco Frascari, Scammozzi’s ‘idea’ of Architecture, Via II,

(30)

c. Ibid., p. 35. d. Ibid., p. 36. e. Ibid., p. 33. f. Ibid., p. 36.

g. An interesting example of this is offered by Giulio Camillo, who attempted to build a theater of memory, an edifice-machine in which the entire universe of human thought could be embodied. The reader may also wish to consider the myth of Diboutades. This myth on the origin of painting tells us of a love-blinded Corinthian maiden, who traced the shadow of her departing lover on a wall. The shadow is the iconic pres-ence and is a mechanism for memory.

2. Merleau-Ponty connects concepts of the visible and invisible to the imagination and the senses of the body.a_{He tells us that the}

invisible can be imagined, but cannot be seen. He writes, ‘Meaning is invisible, but the invisible is not the contradictory of the visible: the visible itself has an invisible inner framework and in in-visible is the secret counterpart of the visible. . . .’b _{Merleau-Ponty}

believed the invisible is not non-existent but that it pre-exists in the visible. He writes, ‘This visible not actually seen is not the Sartrean imaginary: presence to the absent or of the absent. It is a presence of the imminent, the latent, or the hidden. . . .’c

a. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Primacy of Perception, transla-tion by James Edie, (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1964), pp. 162–164.

b. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible, transla-tion by Alphonso Lingis, (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1969), p. 215.

c. Ibid., p. 245.

3. John William Miller, The Definition of a Thing, (New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1980), p. 38.

4. Peter A. Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, (New York, NY: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981), pp. 55–59.

5. Miller, op. cit., p. 42 and 50.

6. Stanford Hohauser, Architectural and Interior Models, (New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1970), p. 6.

7. This work discusses the representational qualities of architectur-al scarchitectur-ale models. To avoid confusion it should be noted that there are several general subcategories within this term, which are used to note the location of the model within the design process. Sketch models are typically used early in the development of a design concept and are fluid and changeable in nature. They concentrate on the basics of space-refining elements and usually remain free from the attention to surface detail. Study models contain more details and are more time-consuming to build than

(31)

sketch models. They are easily changeable and are used to study the site, a specific detail or the overall building concept. Finally, presentation models are highly detailed, difficult to change and very expensive to build. In this study these subcategories will generally be described as scale models.

8. Scales’s other definitions can offer interesting and unusual insight into a deeper meaning of scale. The word scale derives from the Latin scalae, which means ladder, and currently scale can mean to climb. A scale can be mechanism that provides an understandable balance between a known and an unknown. When a fisherman scales a fish he or she, through the act of peeling away, reveals something which was previously unseen underneath.

A standard of reference or reference standard is a term borrowed from the field of measuring and simply means to direct to the established fixed rules. In measuring, an unknown is measured by comparing it with a known thing that has been previously developed. Such reference standards are calibrated from time to time by comparing them with a higher-level, generally agreed upon, reference standard.

9. John L. Casti, Mathematical Model, Alternate Realities of Nature

and Man, (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1989), p. 1.

10. Dieterich J. Schuring, Scale Modeling in Engineering, (Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, 1977), pp. 6–7.

11. Ibid., p. 5. 12. Ibid., p. 6. 13. Ibid., p. 7. 14. Ibid., p. 7.

15. Angeles, op. cit., p. 276. 16. Schuring, op. cit., p. 8.

17. For examples, the reader can look at the work of Libeskind as published in End Space, (London, UK: The Architectural Association, 1980).

18. John William Miller, The definition of a Thing. (New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1980), pp. 43 and 50.

19. Miller believes that the words ‘thing’ and ‘think’ maintain a close etymological relationship. Miller explains that the etymology of ‘thing’ leads to the French causer, the German kosen, and the Italian causa which mean ‘cause.’a_{Here thinking is the cause that}

produces the effect, result of consquence.b

a. Ibid., p. 159. Miller writes, ‘Professor H.A. Wolfson told me that in certain semitic languages the same word means think, know, desire, speak, depending on the context.’

b. Ibid., p. 159.

20. See Richard Kearney, The Wake of the Imagination, (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), Introduction. 21. Merleau-Ponty makes reference to the concept of the chiasm

(32)

the crossing of the optic nerve on the ventral surface of the brain, known as the optic chiasm, in order to explain his concept. He believes the chiasm is a crossing over of fields which allows for ‘pivots’ and hinges; describing a paradigmatic manner in which fields interrelate. He writes, ‘. . . like the chiasm of the eyes, this one is also what makes us belong to the same world – a world which is not projective, but forms its unity across incompossibilities such as that of my world and the world of the other . . .’.a

a. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible transla-tion by Alphonso Lingis, (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1968), pp. 215, 268.

The current use of terms such as trancontextural or intertextur-al refer to the recent wide variety of works which define their positions through a cross-referencing of different fields. Such works define in a way more similar to how one uses an encyclo-pedia as opposed to a dictionary. David Summer writes in

The Judgement of Sense:

Simply to define a term is to imply that it has a fixed mean-ing, whereas it is more accurate to say that terms cover a wide range of effective meanings that only becomes fully evident in the context in which they are used. The many examples of terms are thus also meant partly to give a sense of their transformation by adaptation. Insistence on the functional dimension of terms cannot be reduced to the significance of situations in which they are used. If terms were never, strictly speaking, used in the same way twice, it is still centrally important that the same terms were used. The continuity of terms itself is deeply conser-vative, which is to say that something like the agreement of the meaning of terms that makes communication possible is, in its historical dimension, a conservative principle essential to the fabric of a tradition. At the same time it is a conservative principle taking part in a process of contin-ual transformation.b

b. David Summer, The Judgement of Sense, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 13.

22. H.G. Gadamer, Truth and Method, second revised edition, (New York, NY: Crossroad Publication, 1989), p. 103.

23. Myths are stories or beliefs that attempt to explain a basic truth. This work refers to certain myths as yet another means of adding definition to our use of the architectural scale model. Hans Blumenberg writes in his Work on Myth, that myths can provide us with an important point of departure because they come down to us through a natural selection process of telling,

(33)

creating a ‘Darwinism of words.’aHe undertakes to show that scientific rationality and an ongoing ‘work’ on our inherited myths are not only not incompatible but are both indispensable aspects of the comprehensive effort that makes human existence possible.b

Blumenberg corrects the ethnocentric implications of the ‘from mythos to logos’ schema. He notes that there is probably no point of demarcation at which rationality takes over (or should take over) completely from more ‘childish,’ prerational modes of thought involving, for example, fantasy. Literary treat-ment of myth cannot be segregated as a ‘merely aesthetic’ mat-ter with no bearing on the practical business of life. Finally, he points out that myth does not ‘precede’ (and is not rendered obsolete by) rationality.c

a. Hans Blumbenberg, Work on Myth, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985), pp. vii–xxxvii.

b. Ibid., p. viii. c. Ibid., pp. xii–xiii.

24. Vitruvius, Architecture in Ten Books, translated by Frank Granger, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948), BI. C. 1, pp. 7–25.

25. Penelope Reed Doob, The Idea of the Labyrinth, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), pp. 101–144.

26. Ibid., p. 5. 27. Ibid., p. 123. 28. Ibid., p. 309. 29. Ibid., p. 307.

(34)

C H A P T E R

1

Define/Divine/Design

This chapter proposes that traditionally architectural scale models were not only used for designing buildings but also served, with varying influence, as a means of defining a culture’s universe. This chapter is not a history; rather it is a chronologic-al series of theoreticchronologic-al descriptions concerning different aspects of the scale model. For example, it is generally accepted that ancient Egyptian culture believed that scale models could be used to magically control nature. Classical Greek models

1.1 Prometheus brings fire from the heavens

(35)

can be seen as greatly influenced by traditions, with seemingly forgotten origins, creating a progression of simulacra which continues today. The Roman architect Vitruvius connected the concept of scale models with machinery. The section on the Middle Ages introduces the concept of the architect as a mechanic whose scale models maintained the church’s already well-defined universe. The writings of the Renaissance architect Alberti describe the renewed influence of scale models in defin-ing overall concepts of society. Finally, the Temple of Jerusalem is employed to demonstrate the traditional usage of scale models as divining mechanisms for defining the divine through design. This represents what occurred when an anger’s tem-plum in the sky became a built temple. The temtem-plum served the anger as a template, a pattern or guide, for the future temple. In this way a model is a template (Figures 1.2–1.4).

Of the multiple definitions associated with the word ‘model’, the French word maquette is probably closest to the con-cept of what this study refers to as the architectural model. Literally, a maquette is a demonstration designed to gauge the general appearance or composition of the thing planned. The key to the significance of a maquette is the concept of demonstra-tion. The word ‘demonstrate’ comes from the Latin monstrum, and means to divine, portend or warn. A demonstration offers a foreshadowing of coming events and allows a certain prophetic indication of meaning through marvel, prodigy, and wonder.

The idea of demonstration is closely related to that of the divine. The primary meaning of the word ‘divine’ is directly related to the concept of God or perfection.1 _{However, while}

this definition has had an important effect upon the concept of the model, it is divine’s secondary definition that is identified most directly with the idea of the maquette. To divine can also mean to foretell through inspiration, intuition or reflection on the shape of future events. For example, many believe that a divining rod has a magical quality which can foretell the future location of a well. Others may simply credit the individual using the divining rod with the power of observing and inter-preting the signs of where water might be located. In a similar way the maquette allows the architect to predict the future by interpreting signs and omens. The maquette can warn the archi-tect of future problems and can allow marvel, wonder, astonish-ment, and surprise into the design process.

A completed building also can serve as a kind of maquette. In this situation the building itself can be seen as demonstrating

1.2 Undergraduate student model

1.3 Undergraduate student model

(36)

transcendent concepts rather than simply defining another future building. Here the architectural model becomes more closely involved with the primary meaning of ‘divine.’

This work posits that traditionally architectural scale models have been employed as thinking mechanisms, used not only for designing future buildings, but also as templates for understanding and testing concepts of invisible things in gen-eral. In other words, scale models have been conduits used to define what was considered the absolute truth or, typically, the work of the divine. It is then possible to conclude that various early monuments, tombs, and temples all operated as forms of architectural scale models during their times. Therefore, what remains of these past implementations of architectural design helps define humanity’s search to understand the perceived chaos of nature (Figure 1.5).

Historical overview

It is difficult to pinpoint when the first architectural scale model was used, though it probably coincided with the inception

(37)

of art and architecture. Architectural historians generally accept that the first architecture was developed as a means of controlling nature, for example by providing shelter from the elements and protection from wild animals. However, this is not the only reason the first architecture was developed. E.H. Gombrich writes, ‘Among these primitives, there is no dif-ference between building and image-making as far as usefulness is concerned. These huts are there to shelter them from rain, wind and sunshine and the spirits which produce them; images are made to protect them against other powers which are, to them, as real as the forces of nature.’2 _{Gombrich also writes,}

‘If we take art to mean such activities as building temples and houses, making pictures and sculpture, or weaving patterns, there is no people in all the world without art.’3_{It is well}

docu-mented that from primitive times humankind has created visual images.4 _{The creation of these visual images stems from the}

need of primitive people to protect themselves against the forces of nature that they did not understand, to represent the sources of their food supply, and to honor and preserve the spirits of ancestors. They were templates of their understanding of life.

Architecture seems directly connected with measuring what many consider God’s work: the material world and its phenomena, or what we call nature. W.R. Lethaby writes in

Architecture, Mysticism and Myth, ‘Architecture, then,

interpen-etrates building, not for satisfaction of the simple needs of the body, but the complex ones of the intellect.’5 _{This situation}

occurs because, as Lethaby continues, ‘all architecture, temple, tomb or palace was sacred in the early days and is, thus, inex-tricably bound up with a people’s thoughts about God and the universe.’6_{The universe may appear on the surface to be in a}

state of flux. Aristotle writes in Mechanical Problems, ‘For in many cases nature produces effects against our advantage; for nature always acts consistently and simply, but our advantage changes in many ways. When, then, we have to produce an effect contrary to nature, we are at a loss, because of the diffi-culty, and require skill. Therefore, we call that part of skill which assists such difficulties, a device.’7_{Within this seeming}

contradiction, can art and architecture operate as scale model devices, developed for creating an understandable measure of the work of the divine, nature? To assist in answering this larger question it is possible to turn to Lethaby, who writes, ‘If we trace the artistic forms of things made by man, to their origin,

(38)

we find a direct imitation of nature.’8 Thus, architecture can also be seen as a reflection of humankind’s changing attempts to understand and imitate nature through buildings. These buildings serve as thinking mechanisms for developing under-standable measurements of nature.

When Spiro Kostof writes of the beginnings of architec-ture, he is describing modes of designing understandable meas-urements of nature in terms of boundary and monument.

Boundary and monument both imply a determined marking of nature. Humans impose through them their own order on nature, and in doing so introduce that tug of balance between the way things are and the way we want them to be. Now the first human gener-ations lacked such confidence in their own standing with-in nature.9

A monument is reminiscent of the boundaries marked out by past architects (Figure 1.6).10 _{Thus, it is possible to consider}

monuments as reminders or memories of past forms of scale architectural models. Early monuments, tombs and temples could all be seen as operating as various forms of scale archi-tectural models. These buildings were created as means of defining the boundless, operating as reminders of humanity’s search for order in the seeming perplexity of nature. Then, scale models can also be considered to serve as thinking mech-anisms used in an attempt to recreate and explain the concepts of absolute perfection or the ideals of the time.

Ancient Egypt

Egyptian civilization is one of the world’s oldest, lasting nearly 3000 years (Figure 1.7). E.H. Gombrich writes on the import-ance of this period, ‘the Greek masters went to school with the Egyptians, and we are all pupils of the Greeks.’11 _The

ancient Egyptians present a well documented and historically logical beginning point for this study of the architectural scale model.

It is generally accepted that the ancient Egyptians were happy, optimistic people who enjoyed their present life enough to want an afterlife modeled after it. This optimism was reflect-ed in their art and architecture. However, they did have one important worry: they feared the spirits of deceased relatives, on whom they blamed all their troubles.12_{It is little wonder that}

(39)

the Egyptians developed a preoccupation with the afterlife. For them death seems to have resembled life. Their greatest efforts were directed towards preparing their tombs with all the equip-ment and provisions necessary to keep them at least as happy in death as they were in this life. It is not surprising that the Egyptian concepts of house and tomb are represented by very similar hieroglyphs. The house is the template of the tomb and the tomb is the template of the house.

Typical of such a tomb is the pyramid, the generally acknowledged prototype of which is contained in the tomb complex of the third dynasty pharaoh Zoser at Saggara. This pyramid was based on two earlier full-scale models. The first