Published Jul 16, 2020
Architecture is a multifaceted, multi-layered, fragmentary structure with many different contents, embracing information and practical experience of varying sizes. The intertwined
pieces are dynamic and loose, continually changing place and size, while some pass, new ones arrive instead. Each piece displays several images as it flies randomly back and forth, up and down, and twists around its axis. Thus, the structure tightens and vanishes over time, its look and form changes, meaning, emphasis, monologues, and dialogues vary. The structure that is continually re-forming develops, new and renewed views appear. Every new appearance is a new image, therefore a new way of seeing. Ways of Seeing[i] are the understanding that forms our actual and intellectual expansion in architecture.
The diptych is understood as a metaphor object to handle the intricate texture with similar plural relations and dynamic, fragmentary qualities. In this way, the metaphor's power both clarifies the object and the skies of description also. Instead of being stuck with the rigidity of directly defining the object, one should adopt that free creativity opens the object to indirect expressions by broadening the description's spheres. Therefore, instrumentalizing the diptych to increase the environment's potency rather than describing a diptych is a resilient approach.
In this context, the fact that diptych is a metaphor/object in creating, producing, and reproducing the visual/pictorial and verbal/discursive tools of architecture's knowledge is the leading plane of definitions.
The diptych remains established at the plane of thought/speculation of architecture as a tool that points to match the parts that seem to contradict or conflict. Moreover, it creates twinship[ii] between them such as ongoing and emerging architecture, industrial and social
services of architecture, architectural objects that trade and wonder, materialization process, and context, solves and discovers problems, rhetoric, and ergonomics, provocation, and innovation, going towards different futures and going around parallel universes and many more.
Defining the diptych on the plane of a new method/style, or an actual model/process developed to discover the potential of the dispersed nebular mass of the architectural background, give it meaning, and reconstruct the thought of architecture is also achievable. The diptych offers endless matching/pairing up[iii]/duplication[iv]/twoness[v] possibilities. In this way, diptych becomes likely to be defined in the plane of a puzzle/exercise that gets more complex as solved or an infinite game/research.
Diptych, instead of focusing on the architectural object itself, undertake the founding of the
relations between the statuses, objects, and elements that constitute it. Thus, the diptych gains a definition plane on creating a holistic fiction/context by correlating with the space in which the objects dwell and distinct temporal and spatial objects.
This context embraces the user/spectator and puts forward that it is a factor that is stimulating, reviewing, and sometimes altering the object's structure, finds a plane of definition on repositioning the user and spectator relationship. Knowledge is a fragmental structure. The knowledge generation process is partly the way of matching these fragments
and putting them together. It requires knowledge but also provides knowledge. The diptych
defined in the multi-dimensional canvas/ground plane becomes more knowledge generative.
There are plenty of things to match inside and outside the architectural environment. Moreover, there is no reason or predetermined rule by neither mandatory/a priori nor direct/perceivable content for these matches. Regarding the qualities, the given/selected matches become a plane to describe the diptych. The conflict/consensus plane is convenient to define the diptych due to the relationship between the convergent contents that it brings together with consistency, sometimes by abstraction or adaptation.
Identification is also the process of collecting, examining, and analyzing information. The object embodies these processes. The research is an act that includes various methods such as observation, listening, questioning, interview, recording, collecting samples, experiments, storage, discovery, analysis. Therefore, these defining levels provide a unique accumulation of knowledge/experience for updating the architectural environment.
[i] Berger thinks that 'Image is a sight which has been recreated or reproduced, it is an appearance, or a set of appearances, which has been detached from the place and time in which it first made its appearance and preserved for a few moments or a few centuries. Every image embodies a way of seeing. Every image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or appreciation of an image also depends upon our way of seeing.'
Berger, J. Ways of seeing: a book. London: British Broadcasting Corporation. 1977. pp. 9-10
[ii] Foucault argues that the one form of similitude is emulation (aemulatio), and there is something in emulation of the reflection and the mirror. He says that 'For emulation is a sort of natural twinship existing in things; it arises from a fold in being, the two sides of which stand immediately opposite to one another. Paracelsus compares this key duplication of the world to the image of two twins' who resemble one another completely without being possible for anyone to say which of them brought its similitude to the other."
Foucault, M. The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. London: Tavistock Publications. 1986. pp. 21-22
[iii] Ekiztepe believes that it is impossible not to realize the interaction field that comes into existence by pairing up two things. This field acts like the desired field that is open to inviting anything else. There is no definite boundary. It has the potential to expand its boundary. It seems betwixt and between that is not fully or adequately either of two things.
Ekiztepe, A. An Experimental Approach to the Understanding of Architecture Through Concept-Pairs. Master thesis. TOBB University of Economics and Technology. Ankara. 2017. pp. 11
[iv] When Foucault explains emulation, which is one of the similitude forms, he mentions the two confronting figures which seize upon one another. He says, 'The two confronting figures seize upon one another. Like envelops like, which in turn surrounds the other, perhaps to be enveloped once more in a duplication which can continue ad infinitum. Unlike the elements of convenientia, the emulation links do not form a chain but rather a series of concentric circles reflecting and rivaling one another.'
Foucault, M. The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. London: Tavistock Publications. 1986. pp. 21-23
[v] According to Eisenman, 'The new architecture must include the fear of losing control of design because the design is the expression of man overcoming nature. There seem to be four conditions which might seem to outline this condition of losing control.' He says that one of the aspects of it is something called twoness. 'There are many different twonesses in architecture which already exist; One is the twoness of form and function; another is the twoness of structure and ornament. However, these are hierarchical categories. They exist in opposition as independent conditions.'
Eisenman, P. ‘En Terror Firma: In Trails of Grotextes’. Deconstruction: Omnibus Volume. Eds, Papadakis A., Cooker C. and Benjamin A. NY Rizzoli International Publications. 1989. pp. 26-27