The Problem: Diagram

Excerpt from 'Why Does Modernism Refuse to Die?' Session 3. Modernism and Research.pg 95

"Descriptive Programming in Contemporary Modernism" - Taeg Nishimoto, Texas A&M University

In order for the diagram to exist, there has to be more than two components involved. In architectural terminology, they are from the dialectically related components such as “inside/outside” “public/private” “service/serviced”, etc. to more articulated components such as “entrance” “living room” “waiting area” “lounge”, etc. Therefore, a diagram relies entirely on the definition of each articulated component, which are usually attributed to the spatial conditioning. These spatial terminologies are used to categorize the relative characterization of the articulated spaces. They are relative, because the articulation occurs in different degrees of clarity, as we have other terminologies such as “semi-public” or “living/dining room”, etc. The greater the degree of the articulation, the more impossible it becomes to define, as in the case of “breakfast counter (what about other meals taken at the same place)” or “relaxing area”, etc. In fact, these articulations become somewhat a combination of objects or intended activities and the ambiguous identification of space, such as “bed” “daybed” “reception” “work”, etc. plus “area” “corner” “space” “room”, etc. thus the convoluted invention of “daybed corner”, “reception space”, etc.

Living room, for example, has an inherent definition problem, especially in relationship to “family room” in the same context. “What is a living room?” creates layers of problems in the minds of our daily life. In fact, the accompanying book of “Un-private House” exhibition at Museum of Modern Art in New York, curated by Terence Riley in 1999, uses the word “living area” as well as “bedroom” and “work space”, as the standard index for the showcased different houses. We are also witnessing the symptom these days that the real estate new terminology for the living room is “great room”. Now what is that supposed to mean?

There is an additional way in which programmatic articulation works, and that is to characterize the activities involved, such as “sleeping” “eating” “working”, etc. However, these categorizations are inherently crude, since they require instantly more conditioning to become legitimate for articulation, such as “sleeping for half an hour after the lunch (napping)” or “eating breakfast by oneself”, etc. At the same time, they also involve a particular temporal dimension: “eating breakfast” for either 10 minutes or 2 hours are totally different situations to be articulated separately. That format continues until all the articulated components become quantifiably overwhelming, and there will be another dimension of generalization/categorization all over again.