Matias del Campo and collaborator Sandra Manninger are SPAN, a Vienna-based studio focused on the intersection of emerging technology and architectural design. Since 2003 SPAN has executed a number of research, teaching and installation projects and were recently awarded a significant competition victory. With this interview, Matias has provided a window into his thinking on geometry, digital fabrication and "modes of practice" in contemporary architecture.

Greg J. Smith: First off, congratulation on your recent competition win for your proposal for the Brâncuşi Museum in Paris (pictured above). Given your investment in geometry and continuous surfaces a museum dedicated to Constantin Brâncuşi seems like an ideal project for you. Perhaps you could start this conversation off with some comments on your reading of his sculptural practice. How did his body of work influence your response to this architectural program?

Matias del Campo: The moment we heard about this competition it was evident that we had to participate, it was almost a compulsive reaction to the call, as I’ve been a huge admirer of Brâncuşi's work since my teenage years. I was always attracted by the curvilinear bodies of his work that transforms the hard materiality of bronze or stone into a pliable, continuous spatial condition. The vigorous quality in his work is not only represented by the form of the object, but also by the surface quality that oscillates in between high refraction degrees, reflecting and transmutating its environment by its inherent affect. This affect in Brâncuşi's work, radiating in erotic tension, is what became the source for the design process of the Brâncuşi Museum. In order to create a rigorous design technique we scrutinized some of Brâncuşi's procedures that he applied on his sculptures. One specific motif that reoccurs in his work over and over again is the use of constrictions. This technique can be observed in sculptures like The Endless Column, La Négresse Blonde and the famous Bird in Space series. Following this observation we started to speculate in our office about possible spatial implications to this idea. As you mentioned, we have been investigating spatial implications based on the inexact yet rigorous geometry of topological surfaces for some time now, so we had a good basis for speculations on constrictions as architectural design technique. If you observe the sculptures of Brâncuşi that apply the method of constrictions you will see that the constrictions are two dimensional, they always are effective in one specific direction – we speculated on the opportunity to apply this method in four or five directions simultaneously. The resulting body resembles more something like a Kaiser Semmel, than anything else. One of the main aims of this investigation was to create a spatial condition that is not limited to the exterior shell of an architectural object but that includes the interior of the project, meaning that the continuous qualities of topological geometries are used to create differentiated, yet continuously connected spaces within the architectural body. This idea was applied successfully in the Brâncuşi Museum, as the continuity of circulation within the project is ceaseless and creates a spatial flow starting on the Plaza of the Centre Pompidou, which we included in our design, trough the two floors of the museum, to the exit and the café area, wedged between the Centre Pompidou and the new Brâncuşi Museum.

[SPAN / Brâncuşi Museum - Section / 2008]

In examining your statement about the nature of the Brâncuşi Museum scheme, one of the most exciting things to read was the manner in which you planned to exploit the orientation, articulation and surface treatment of the non-standard building envelope to diffuse and modulate light in the display space. The difficulty of working with such idiosyncratic geometries is that one is confronted with “reinventing the wheel” to rethink assemblies (i.e. doors, fenestration, mechanical systems) that might get taken for granted as off-the-shelf standard components in other projects. Could you discuss some of the pragmatic concerns that are guiding your design process? I’m curious as to your game plan about modulating geometry/topology in order to tweak building performance.

The preface for all our architectural projects is that architecture is always a solution to a specific design problem. By elaborating solutions there are always novel opportunities emerging in the process, in that extent we invest considerable amounts of time to investigate these opportunities. In the case of the Brâncuşi Museum there are two specific elements that we concentrated on. One mentioned by you is how to manipulate the infusion of natural light into the museum to create a light environment that will not only provide sufficient diffuse illumination for the sculptures, but will also create a specific atmosphere within the museums main chamber. As we were discussing before this is also a matter of affect at large. There are four elements shaping the lights manipulation within the space: the position of the apertures, the overall form of the domed enclosure, the surface articulation and the applied material that can change its surface quality from glossy to opaque throughout the day and dependent on the light conditions.

Now, the second element is the issue of panelization and apertures in complex curved geometries. This is where issues such as fenestration, or for that matter, any other aperture comes into play. It is true that novel geometries demand different solutions for these problems, outside the more traditional conventions; on the other hand this can be considered a chance or an interesting opportunity to examine novel solutions for their potentials in architectural design. This has become possible with the advent of advanced fabrication tools. For a computer controlled Laser-cutter or a milling machine it makes no difference whether it cuts twenty identical pieces or twenty different ones, making standardized, off-the-shelf components merely obsolete. We are definitely interested in differentiation, continuity, inexact yet rigorous geometries that are formed by the agglomeration of components. The Brâncuşi Museum is also comprised of a variety of panels, forming the entire body. During our research on topology we found out that the curvilinear qualities of this type of geometry can help us to increase the performance of curvilinear bodies. In discussions with various structural engineers and tissue engineers we found out that there are two ways to apply this quality: By increasing the stability of the structure, or by reducing the material consumption, in best case achieving both simultaneously. Without question there is a reason why topological bodies appear so often in nature: Sea Urchins, Orchids, Radiolaria etc. In nature material is expensive, but form is cheap.

[SPAN / Architecture Biennale Beijing installation / 2008]

You talk about mimicking Brâncuşi’s use of constraints to design the Museum dedicated to his work. The application of constraints (operating parameters) is definitely necessary when considering the wild possibilities offered by scripting and parametric modeling. Could you offer your perspective on how the idea of “constraints” varies within the milieu of the custom software powered digital workstation versus the drafting board?

The language of parametric modeling and scripting at large represents a very fertile branch of the evolution in digital design techniques. In fact it represents a rigorous method of algorithmic explorations in architectural design. We are in the middle of the Cambrian explosion in design techniques propelled by coding methods, so it is hard to measure the real value for architectural design. Nonetheless it is fair to speculate upon the difference created by the paradigmatic change from the drafting table to coding techniques, which again also differ from a series of techniques prevalent throughout the last decade, such as manipulating curves by the application of calculus and topologies in a more direct and less sophisticated way. Ergun Akleman describes this technique as Naïve Algorithms, which possess a lower sophistication than the computed, coded approach of scripting. What we are looking for in the scripting approach is the combination of mathematical and geometrical elegance, providing us with opportunities for performative solutions, with the elegance of beauty. The interesting part comes when it is time to evaluate the result of the scripting process, another form of constraint triggered by the sensibilities of the designer that represents a non-quantifiable aspect of the design process. Just because the code is right doesn’t mean that the design is right too.

In the SPAN mission statement you identify the focus of your design-research practice as being invested in the “exploration of innovations in the architectural field triggered by the continuous evolution of technological means”. You point specifically at installation projects like Gradient Scale (detail pictured above) and Amplifier as important benchmarks through which you closely scrutinized specific possibilities offered by digital fabrication. Could you discuss the importance of each of these installations to your practice?

As soon as we came in touch with advanced, computer controlled fabrication techniques; we recognized the opportunity to apply these methods outside the predominant application, which was to make models. We thought of possibilities to use this machinery for the creation of actual, one to one scale, architectural projects. The first steps into this direction were to create mock-ups, as big as it is possible with the machinery. It became soon evident that the best option is to fabricate installations for exhibitions. Considering traditional architecture careers in Austria we essentially changed some rules of the predominant sequence; study, work, open your practice, build, exhibit and then maybe teach. We opted for a completely different model that is based on investigation, exhibitions and teaching. Now that we feel more comfortable with the explored design methods and digital fabrication techniques we are heading into the field of actual architectural construction. An important step in this sequence was the work on the installations for various exhibition venues. We used these installations for investigative, and proof of concept, purposes. Such as the installation Gradient Scale, which was commissioned for the exhibition AustriArchitecture, curated by Lilli Hollein. The concept of the piece included speculations on the issue of scale as well as the opportunities inherent in the fabrication process for the creation of surface articulation; the subject of machinic ornaments. The ornamentation of the surface as a specific architectural quality emerged out of the production process, yielding a wide range of concepts of possible applications spanning from the fields of structural engineering to the realms of acoustic control. The rigorous use of the tool path of the three-axis CNC milling machine to create a surface ornamentation proved to be a successful attempt to include machinic sensibilities into the project. The undulating, corrugated surface, and the emerging issues of increased stability spilled over to subsequent projects like the exhibition design for Housing in Vienna, that proved the problem of reduced material consumption and higher stability as a result of the use of machinic ornaments, ensuing corrugated surfaces. The issue of surface articulation was not the only consequence of the work on the installation Gradient Scale. As the piece was way bigger than the CNC milling machines, we had to find strategies to subdivide the object and to produce it in various components. The issue of panelization is by now a widespread problem in advanced architecture design: How to subdivide a complex curved geometry? We opted for the idea to use the underlying geometry, present in the digital model, to find a mode to cut the piece in portions without violating the sensibility of the entire body. Another Issue we started exploring after this installation is the problem of the joint, as we found out that the problem is not the fabrication of panels of complex curved geometries nature, but how you close the joints in-between. A very basic architectural task, that became an own branch in the investigative work of our practice and leaded us to ideas about the application of tissue engineering in architecture. By now this investigations are purely speculative, but it is exiting for us to communicate directly with the field of science, even more so to find scientists, partners in crime so to say, who are interested in a direct dialogue with the discipline of architecture.

On the topics of installation, you mounted one entitled Exquisite Corpse at the MAK Center in Los Angeles in 2007. This institution, and the Schindler House for that matter, has long served as an presence to assert the connection between progressive architecture in Austria and Los Angeles. Could you comment on how your time in Los Angeles has informed your work? The city has been very receptive to small experimental practices exploring fabrication (i.e. Michael Speaks' Fifth Ecology), I'm curious to know whose work you're tracking and how your time in the city influenced your practice.

The importance of our exposure to the vibrant environment of Los Angeles can not be underestimated. It pushed our boundaries immensely further, creating space for novel explorations and possibilities. It was a unique experience made possible by the MAK Schindler Fellowship. One circumstance, among many other things, that make L.A. unique is the presence of three specific ecologies on one spot: Advanced fabrication techniques, present in Car Prototyping companies; The Special effects studios for Hollywood, that are pushing forward the limits of animation software; and a bunch of top level architecture faculties, propelling architecture theory and design forward. These three sectors were the basis of our expeditions into the Los Angeles area, which filled the six months the Schindler Scholarship lasts. It was incredible how open and embracing companies and Universities were in listening to our ideas and proposals. In a matter of weeks we were invited on a constant level to act as guest critics in the various Universities, from UCLA to SCI-Arc to USC to Calpoly and so on. This infused us with an enormous "know how" about pedagogic techniques of the L.A. area. Additionally the academic discourse informed us on a theoretical level which gave, and still gives, us the chance to describe our work with more rigor and precision as well as sharpening our design sensibilities. It was fantastic to find an entire generation of architects thinking in similar or related lineages to our own work.