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

Throughout this essay I will be looking at the term ‘technology’ and its implications within the field of architecture. The word ‘technology’ has several different meanings that are subjective depending on who is describing it. An interesting definition is  ‘technology is a broad concept that deals with a aspecies' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment’.[1]

Introduction – Technological building

Architects have always had an interest in technology as it has changed the way in which we work today. The word technology for architects has always meant the different methods of building, such as using diverse materials as part of their design and how they are installed. In recent years the word technology has become mainly linked with growing use of computers and how they are used as a part of ‘Information and Communication Technology’

The age of systems

A quote from Ivan Illich during a discussion about the changing notion of contingency was “sometime during the 1980s the technological society which began in the fourteenth century came to an end… it appears to me that the age of tools has now given way to the age of systems.” [2] What Illich is saying here is that technologies such as the way in which we design and construct in architecture have become a ‘matter of systems’. Illich was not fond of the era he labelled an age of systems arguing that there was a difference between these eras, “When you became the user of a system, you became part of the system”. This is an interesting statement as it as you can compare it to the systems practising architects use on a daily basis as a fundamental part of their design. If we compare what Illich is saying to using a computer, which is a very literal example of a system as part of design then his quote becomes very relevant. When designing on a computer you would have to learn how to tell the computer what to do, rather than the computer influence you how you design. If you were not careful your design work would change as a result of the systems limitations (in this case the computer’s programs) and in effect alter your design. You have to be careful when implementing your design or the system might inadvertently change the original idea into something different.

As technologies change so does our society and the environment we live in. As a result architecture itself also changes. Over time architects have had to change their relationship to work to the new modes of production and construction and new cultural requirements. Karl Marx provided the example that technologies change society in more or less predictable ways; that technology is both autonomous (evolving) and deterministic in its effects. Marx’s theory was in some ways a reaction to the impact of the industrial revolution and the implications it had on social and cultural conditions at the time. There have been other philosophers since Marx, Martin Heidegger had the opinion that within the autonomy of technological development society’s tools had backlashed against their creators and has them locked within the technological system. The real danger of technology in Heidegger’s opinion was the way in which technology (in this case machines) begins to alter our existence. “The danger of technology lies in the transformation of the human being, by which human actions and aspirations are fundamentally distorted. Not that machines can run amok, or even that we might misunderstand ourselves through a faulty comparison with machines. Instead, technology enters the inmost recesses of human existence, transforming the way we know and think and will.”[3]   Although this might be interpreted as radical thinking there is some truth in this. In some regards the increase and more importantly the change in technology has altered the way we think as architects. Some architects design through the use of tools such as software programs that have been created with the original intention to let us show the finalised design proposals in three dimensions, however they have become in some cases the ‘vehicle’ used for the designing itself. As a result the designs are limited by what the program allows us to show. This is not always the case; all architecture of late has not been hindered by this technological advancement. It should be acknowledged however that this could happen within architecture as it is ultimately up to the architect’s intention in how they want to implement an idea the design process. When an architect relies on a tool that becomes a necessity it is a clear example of Heidegger’s theory realised today in common work practice.

Cedric Price – An architecture of modern technology

An architect I have always been interested in has been Cedric Price. Despite that fact that he hasn’t built much over his career Price is infamous for his interests and opinions in architecture, society and people have always been close to his heart.  Price has always had a fascination with technology, particularly communications technology as a means of ‘increasing the potential for human-well being’[4]. Price’s striking design concept was down to a few features. Firstly is that the architecture supports and enables human activity. Secondly was his fascination with technology. Peter Murray wrote “(Price) looks to technologies which can expose inadequacies in the conventional wisdom of architecture while at the same time celebrating the possibilities of thoughtful supportive environments”[5]. There is a certain set of criteria that appealed to price. The technology needs be appropriate for its purpose and play a critical role in the design. Secondly ‘technology must be securely placed in a particular and real context from which a framework of limiting constraints can be derived ’ A good example in which technology that meets the criteria was on the Potteries Thinkbelt of 1964.

The Thinkbelt proposal was a higher education facility outside the city perimeter on an unused industrial area located in Staffordshire in much need of renovation at the time. Instead of a central campus Price proposed the idea of using a network system. His reasoning for this is that it allowed flexibility and allowed extension. Price made use of existing transportation technology that was on this site for a hundred years, revitalising its previous use once again. The railway could facilitate connecting links throughout the network and make use of unused land next to the railway tracks if the educational facility needed. Price proposed teaching units in a variety of mobile enclosures such as inflatable lecture theatres and foldout decks all designed to be dismounted and transferred as required. If there was criticism on the Thinkbelt it was that the proposal was too imaginative for the audience being described as a fantasy. Price used clever and creative solutions using existing technology old and current to answer a real problem faced at an important time (this was when the new university programme in British history was being implemented). Price’s use for technology was relevant for its purpose, not excessive or unneeded and it made use of abandoned technology such as the roughly one hundred year old railway tracks.

Projects worth mentioning are The Greater Detroit and Oakland County Adult Educational Network (1966) in which price proposed replacing centralised built structures with the use of information technology (computers and communication devices). Generator (1978) is a fantastic proposal. The concept behind it was to create an architecture that has a capacity to respond, to react, learned, remembered and to respond appropriately.

The Fun Palace

There is a project Cedric Price did in 1961 called Fun Palace. The client was Joan Littlewood and she described the proposal as a laboratory of fun and a university of the streets. Price and Littlewood both thought it would be fun if the visitor could be stimulated or informed and could react or interact. Price’s proposal has been described as “providing a highly flexible indeterminate space capable of responding to users and enabling a wide range of abilities”. [6] The Fun Palace was initially to house activities such as music making with instruments, modelling, teaching film drama and even therapy.

The Fun Palace brief started at a time where most institutions and systems were in a rapid state of change; however construction methods at the time were too restrictive to the change required. This alarmingly caused concern because in essence many activities inside were restricted by the size of the enclosures. With this in mind the Fun Palace’s concept was essentially that it should reinforce the activities featured inside, even if that meant it had to adjust its enclosures.

The social concept of the Fun Palace is that it is a people’s workshop, a university of the streets. The users have a certain degree of control of their physical environment. To achieve in built flexibility can only be achieved only if the time factor is included as an absolute design factor. Awareness of the time factor and its relationship to the activities happening within must extend to an assessment of the valid life span of the Fun Palace.

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

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

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

‘The varied and ever-changing activities will determine the form of the site. To enclose these activities the anti-building must have equal flexibility. Thus the prime motivation of the area is caused by the people and their activities and the resultant form is continually dependent on them. The fact that such enjoyment does take place within the pathetic areas in London’s slums gives a clue to the immense potential for enjoyment in an area which encourages random movement and variable activities’[7]

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

 In order to achieve the flexibility Price required it was necessary to be able to rapidly construct the enclosures for the activities from a limited ‘kit of parts’[8]. Enclosures were roughly categorised into two categories that were small-scale-cell-type (i.e. kitchens and restaurants) and large volumes such as auditoriums, the latter requiring a lower degree of servicing.

Although all these activities and amenities are available to the public the idea was that by juxtaposing the facilities that the users would have more freedom of choice and could create new activities.

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

Flexibility in the assembly and disassembly of enclosures is not enough to achieve the degree of immediate change that could be required, therefore movement and access throughout the complex also needed to be able to be adjusted. There was a fixed three-dimensional grid that allowed a definitive way for the user to exit the area, everything else such as all public movement routers on the ground floor were made adjustable.

A membrane roof suspended from a cable grid covered most of the centre of the Fun Palace with operable ‘skyblinds’ allowing light in or out depending on user requirements. Beneath the roof, floor, wall and ceiling modules could be lighted into place by overhead cranes (as shown in figure 3 earlier) that covered the length of the Palace. The internal structures and elements were comprised of inflatable plastic and aluminium modular units which could be positioned and moved anywhere within the Fun Palace. Re-routing the flow in terms of pathways is capable of rapid change that would be based upon prominent paths that the users require. As a result the degree of spatial variation from the movement of users is quite high. Virtually every part of the structure was to be variable.

Considerations regarding the immediate site included using the adjacent areas and buildings as environmental conditioners. The majority of the development near is industrial, part derelict and as a result produced noise, dust and noxious fumes. These surroundings would usually have negative effect on other smaller buildings, however in Fun Palace they can be controlled or exploited to its benefit. For example gasholders are illuminated from the main structure and derelict areas are converted into pathways for pedestrians including viewing routes.

The lifespan given had been fixed at ten years. There was a large degree of guesswork in this figure, but its purpose was to provide a definitive range of requirements that could be scaled over a period of time. The materials used in the construction of the enclosures require a far shorter life span than the estimated ten years allotted to the protected steel of the framework. Their application, use and lifespan will prevent unnecessary prolongation of the pattern of activity they provide.

The involvement of cybernetics within the Fun Palace

 Cybernetics has been defined as the study of control and communication in goal-driven systems of humans and machines. This is a quote referred by a man named Norbert Weiner who was a pioneer in the study of stochastic and noise processes, contributing work relevant to electronic engineering, electronic communication, and control systems. Weiner has been described as the founder of cybernetics.

Cybernetics is the theory of systems. It is closely related to control theory and systems theory. Cybernetics originated in the late 20th century. It has been described as ‘preeminent when the system under scrutiny is involved in a closed signal loop’ [9]. What this means is the system in an environment causes some change in the environment and that changes the way the system behaves as a result.

The Fun Palace was determined by users, as a result its behaviour would be unpredictable, unstable and indeterminate. Even with no specific objectives the Fun Palace would have to regulate itself and its physical configurations would have to adapt based upon the patterns of the users and their requests. Price thought that the solution belonged in the field of cybernetics.

In 1963 Price and Littlewood both wrote to Gordon Pask after learning of his work. Pask was fascinated with Price’s project and was also a fan of Littlewood’s Theatre workshop and agreed to help with the project as he believed it was more about “seeking the unfamiliar, and ultimately transcending it” than conventional “fun. [10]

 

Gordon Pask's relevance within architecture and the Fun Palace

Gordon Pask was an English scientist, designer, researcher, academic and playwright. Architectural thinking in the 1960s was mainly focused with issues of flexibility, prefabrication, computers, robotics and a global approach to energy, resources and culture. The implied systems thinking in architecture inevitably came to embrace cybernetics. Pask was one of the early practitioners of cybernetics; his contribution was “a formulation of second-order cybernetics as a framework that accounts for observers, conversation and participants in cybernetic systems”. He is also known for his Conversation Theory which according to Usman Haque is “a particularly coherent and potentially the most productive theory of interaction encompassing human-to-human, human-to-machine and machine-to-machine configurations in a common framework.”

The work of Pask has had interest by architects, artists and designers alike. Pask was associated with architects since the 1960s where he took comfort within the AA (Architectural Association) and continued with reside within for the next 30 years. In 1960 Gordon was involved to architectural projects when he was invited by Cedric Price to become a consultant to the Fun Palace, a ‘resident cybernetician’ introducing the concept of ‘underspecified goals to architecture systems’. Gordon Pask’s involvement with the fun palace was in Cedric Price’s opinion ‘invaluable’. “When I was appointed architect for Joan Littlewood’s Fun Palace I thought of Gordon and Joan did too… His personal contribution to the design of the Fun Palace was invaluable. For example it was Gordon, who decided quickly after two weeks of indecision which determined the optimum size of the whole project. “Don’t use two cranes – rather build a separate, second Fun Palace”. Simple? Only after Gordon told me.”[11]

Park also contributed to the philosophy of the MIT Architecture group that was based upon the idea of ‘architecture as an enabler of collaboration’. Pask’s Conversation Theory suggests how in an age where computing is growing in use, humans and devices within a shared environment might coincide in a constructive relationship for both participants. With this logic, Pask’s early experiments involved machines that tried to demonstrate authentically interactive systems that interacted with the human participant in a unique way based upon the profile of the person.
Usman Haque within the journal talks about a project he made within his student years where he was tutored by Ranulph Ganville, a student of Pask. ‘It was an interactive floor system of sound, smell and light that determined its outputs in relation to fluctuating goals and perceived responses – no behaviour was pre-programmed[12]This is an example of how Pask’s work is relevant to the practice of architecture, and you can see why Price enlisted his help in the interactive Fun Palace. Several of Pask’s projects in particular give suggestions to how to create, build and engage in interactive environments. At the time the experiments were done on analogue components as this was precluding modern computing technology and capacity.

One of Pask’s experiments was the MusiColour Machine, constructed in 1953; it was a performance between colour led lights that illuminated based upon an audio input from a human performer. What is interesting about this machine is that it played with rhythm and frequency as opposed to modern day stage lighting which commonly responds to volume and frequency. As a result MusiColour created a charismatic performance, creating the sensation of another performer, as every time was a unique output.

In Haque’s opinion the most interesting part of MusiColour was if the frequency or rhythm gets too slow then the machine would get ‘bored’ and then ‘listen’ for other frequency ranges or rhythms. It should be noted however this is not a direct translation; it listened for certain frequencies and then responds in a unique pattern, Haque uses the example of a jazz musician responding to the rest of the band as they play.

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

 

The innovation in this project is that data (light-output pattern) is initiated and created by the other musicians. Nothing happens until one of them enters into a ‘conversation’ with each other. The machine ceases to become a reaction and instead causes an interaction by deciding based on the musicians sounds so that if it was too slow or repetitive the machine would stop entirely, this then could cause the musician to play something entirely different to evoke a reaction from the machine, creating in Pask’s terminology the idea of a ‘conversation’ (see diagram above); the exchange of data between the human and the MusiColour.

To fully understand the theory of Pask’s notion I have included below a diagram that explains the ‘first order ‘of cybernetics. The most common illustration used is based on a captain in his boat through the winter; the captain is guiding his boat from destination A to B, however there is stormy weather. (The reason this is the most common illustration is because the word cybernetics is derived from the Green word for boat helmsman). Based on the conditions of the weather the captain changes course slightly, but still sails to point B. The affect of the weather has changed the captain’s course. In essence this is an interaction created, as the course the ship took in the water was subjective to the weather and path relevant to get to point B.

 

Figure 6: Diagram showing the cybernetic principle. Boat example starting its journey. Weather (represented as the linear grey line) has had an effect on the ship during travel, resulting in a different route taken (red line)

 The Paskian Environment model

During the 1980’s in terms of interactive design a “one-way, reactive interaction model”  (abbreviated ORIM) became much more prominent.  The ‘machine’ in this case contained infinite information and the human simply navigates the interactive system to uncover it all. What this means is that the person is limited to the capabilities of the machine and once he has navigated it all there is nothing left to compare. This is very different from the Paskian model where the interaction is between the “machine” and the “human” who are both peers in a conversation. In this conversation information is created and exchanged through both interactions. The ORIM model was the most popular in the 80’s unfortunately in art and industry use as it provided short-term results that people could easily understand and experience. The ORIM system only relied on a reaction between ‘human’ and ‘machine’, which was much easier to implement than the Paskian environment. To explain it easily, the ORIM system relied on a very casual relationship between the user and the machine such as “If I do X, the machine will do Y back to me”, users could understand this logic very quickly.  Basically, System has a goal, aims towards a goal, corrects itself based upon environment

The Paskian model to implement is a lot more difficult, though the results are arguably much more productive since it creates a more sophisticated-type of reaction. It ceases to become a reaction of the user and creates Pask’s notion of a ‘conversation’ between both users. A much more intelligent representation of the theory realised. The benefit of the Paskian system though is that it is much more engaging to the user, the problem with the ORIM system is that once the user has experienced the reactions then the initial sensation would wear off quickly as it would repeat the same interaction. In the Paskian system however an exchange of information is the form of a conversation is given, in the case of MusiColour as long as the user changed the frequency and rhythm in the form of playing an instrument different then the machine would keep exchanging information in the form of lights in a unique way back to the user thus creating a conversation. The Paskian model relies fundamentally on an ‘intelligent’-type interaction. A simple analogy is that when we meet people, their intelligence does not mean we will like or dislike them as long as they are receptive and pleasant, however that has no implication on how productive the conversation is. When we talk to a person who is intelligent and is able to communicate a productive conversation in the form of exchanged information is produced. This is a lot more beneficial long term as the conversation could lead to new actions and thoughts on a participant’s behalf.

When looking at the ORIM system it is reminiscent of Illich saying “When you became the user of a system, you became part of the system”. It could be said that in the ORIM system since all the reactions to specific human interactions are pre-designed and just react to the specific command of the user that there is no true interaction, no exchange in data. Instead the user is part of the system as opposed to engaging with the system.

Cybernetic principles within the Fun Palace

 The Fun Palace would need to be able to ‘learn’ behavioural patterns and ‘plan’ for future activities according to cybernetic principles much like MusiColour. Even though in comparison to scale and ambition the MusiColour is quite small the Fun Palace shares the cybernetic environment where information is shared between the ‘user’ and the ‘machine’.

Through using the principles of cybernetics it allowed dynamic systems to self-regulate the Fun Palace and to change itself without an end goal, based on the current criteria and use of the participants. ‘It would thus be able to anticipate unpredictable phenomena, because instead of a determined programme, it would rely on probability to adjust its programme to accommodate changing trends and events.’[13]

The objectives of cybernetics were as flexible as the criteria and were able to change as the system was itself.  Although cybernetics were associated with computers and information technology it was Norbert Weiner that suggested it was fundamentally a model of a natural processes which allow all living things actively adapt to the changing conditions of life in this world.

Price also looked at the game theory, which was relevant. Game theory, developed by John von Neumann in the 1920s unlike cybernetic principles did not just respond to changing conditions and provide corrections in the short term. Game theory indicated strategies and modifications to the already made guidelines of the system, therefore changing the limitation of cybernetics only dealing with current conditions. In terms of predicting the indefinite possibilities of interactions of the several factors Stanley Matthews compares the behaviour of game theory to the ‘dynamic behaviour of complex social and economic systems’

Von Neumann’s theory of games provided the basis for the logic behind modern electronic computers. In 1927 Alan Turing suggested that by altering the sequence of von Neumann’s operating codes would create a virtual machine that could be made to emulate the behaviour of many different devices.[14] Much like this the Fun Palace had no singular programme, it could be programmed and reprogrammed to enable a number of different functions at different times based upon the user’s needs; a ‘virtual architecture’.

Cybernetics and game theory allowed the basis and met the requirements Price and Littlewood deemed essential to the Fun Palace its concept and purpose, to allow it to adapt and evolve over the ten-year period. As a result the Fun Palace could not be truly represented in a set of typical drawings. In the words of Stanley Matthews the Fun Palace was ‘closer to what we might understand as the computer program: an array of algorithmic functions and logical gateways that control temporal processes in a virtual device. The three-dimensional structure of the Fun Palace was the operative space-time matrix of a virtual architecture’

 

What happened to the Fun Palace?

The Fun Palace was at an ideal time for the proposal to come along. People were interested in the technical challenges installed, its creativity, originality and the social implications.

It should be noted however that Price welcomed Pask’s contributions, although he didn’t agree with Pask’s view that the architect is a social engineer. Price trusted that through cybernetic systems that him or any other controlling force would allow users of the Fun Palace to create their own requirements based upon what they are currently doing or plan to do. Littlewood and Price realised that the Fun Palace would require more people than themselves if it was ever to become a reality and received help from volunteering scientists, sociologists, psychologists, cyberneticians and even politicians.

Price and Littlewood’s open positive opinions regarding technology might seem a bit naive and uninformed considering the extent of what would be needed and the limitations they faced at the time, however many people believed completely in the limitless possibilities that evolving technology promised for the good of mankind. It could be said that Price and Littlewood shared some sentiments of Karl Marx mentioned earlier that technologies change society in both predictable and unpredictable ways and that technology both evolves and deterministic in its effects.

If the Fun Palace project went underway in our present time, based on the new advancements made in systems available today it would have been interesting to see how modern day computers could have aided or even supported the design. Perhaps the use of computers would have changed the design inadvertently into something else which doesn’t have the same essence as Price intended. The brief today might have changed in form from what Price originally proposed entirely as the requirements from us have perhaps also altered entirely. The project would still be relevant however could be implemented in several different ways based on the different resources we have to offer. Perhaps it could all be processed into an advanced system that would operate the whole site based on the cybernetic principles.

You could compare the Fun Palace including its demise to some of the theoretical quotes mentioned earlier. Part of me believes that the concept behind Fun Palace was somewhat doomed to fail. On one hand I think the scope of the Fun Palace through the use of cybernetics theoretically is too large.

Here I have included an a draft of promotional literature for the Fun Palace where Price lists ‘YOU’ several vertically down the page with the idea of the activities that the users of the Fun Palace system could achieve. Price only manages to get down three lines then crossing out the third suggesting to me that the system and/or his ambition is too open ended. You could argue on one hand that by not limiting the definitive goals to be achieved in Fun Palace that it ceases to go anywhere, as illustrated to the right.

On the other hand, it could be said that there is a clear purpose to the fun palace, and that through cybernetic principles Price has managed to create a system that adjusts itself to suit the purpose of the user’s requirements in a quite mechanical fashion. By disassembling, moving or assembling modules within the Fun Palace you do change the environment. However at the time when this was proposed there wasn’t really a system that was embodied cybernetics installed. The system proposed only followed the principles of cybernetics and the brief outlined by Price, and was made mechanically viable with the assembling/disassembling units and cranes – but there is very little on the actual details of how the system is implemented or more importantly controlled. In the event that one person had the role of controlling the site as the cybernetic system was to run the Fun Palace it wouldn’t be a true representation of the user’s needs and interactivity as it would be subject to the controlling person’s judgement and operation. If on the other hand you said the users are in control by setting up units and disassembling them where they deem fit then much of the magic, the true cybernetic principles are lost; unlike the Pask’s MusiColour much of the ‘conversation’ between ‘user’ and ‘system’ ceases to exist here, a fabricated reaction controlled by one person would be designed for the user.

Cybernetic principles and the system of technology within architecture

In the Fun Palace Cedric Price in effect used the system of existing technology to try to embody the principles of a cybernetics to create something that was founded on the belief that anything could happen. He was in effect making an experiment, a sandbox environment for which the results where ultimately defined by the end user and what he wanted to do, if he even knew what he wanted to do, and so it goes on. In the end the scope of the system within the Fun Palace was too large to embody within a project. The Fun Palace relied on the cybernetic principles to define the project which is quite a daunting prospect considering the whole entire world could be argued as a system which could be broken down in different systems within systems.  In cybernetic theory changes at a low level of an organism under certain conditions have large effects on the overall behaviour of the system [15]

 

It is hard to say that it is Price’s fault that it lost support by the public and failed to get built, as the project even by today’s standards could be perceived as ahead of its time. The fundamentals of the project were honest and the aims were in essence what the project name was about, it was essentially a fun palace. Perhaps in current times if the project was to be revisited we would be able to create Pask’s notion of a conversation between the user and the Fun Palace to create what Price and Littlewood both strived for through a sophisticated system, but then would the physical, mechanical quality that the Fun Palace possessed be lost?

 

Bibliography

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

Kybernetes. The International Journal of Systems & Cybernetics

Matthews, Stanley, ‘The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy, The Journal of Architectural Education’

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

Richard Coyne, Cyberspace and Heidegger’s pragmatics.

William. Braham & Jonathan A. Hale, Rethinking technology

Michael Heim. ‘The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality’

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

Simon Urwin, Analysing Architecture

Cedric Price, ‘Cedric Price – The Squares Book’

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

Cedric Price, ‘Gordon Pask’

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

Michael Heim, ‘The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality’

Littlewood, Joan, Joan’s Book

Von Neumann, John, Computer and Brain

Jon Goodbun, An introduction to Environmental Cybernetics, The Code is not enough – sustainability thinking part one

 

Websites:

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

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

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

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

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

[1]  Definition from Webster dictionary on ‘Technology’

[2]  Rethinking Technology, Introduction

[3] Michael Heim, ‘The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality’

[4] Cedric Price, Cedric Price – The Squares Book, p9-12

[5] Cedric Price, Cedric Price – The Squares Book,

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

[7] Price, Cedric (early 1963), Cedric Price Archives.

[8] Cedric Price, Cedric Price – The Squares Book p 59

[9] Quote from introduction of Cybernetics on Wikipedia.org

[10] Littlewood, Joan, Joan’s Book p. 703

[11] Cedric Price, ‘Gordon Pask’

[12] Usman Haque, 4dsocial: Interactive Design Environments, “The Architectural Relevance of Gordon Pask”

[13] Matthews, Stanley “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy”

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

X