Christos Hadjichristos University of Cyprus, School of Architecture, Nicosia, Cyprus 439
but demands a way of doing things that is neither standard nor fixed. It involves
acknowledgment of a complex set of relationships that already exist and the devel-
opment of a proposal which ‘comments’ on these relationships in an architectural
manner. A question thus arises: what kinds of tools are appropriate for each stage of
this process? If the development of the composition passes through different stages
which actually develop the design into different degrees, then perhaps there are
mediums and methods of working which are better for one stage and not so efficient
for another.
It could be argued that the more complex a situation gets, the more abstraction
is needed in different forms in order to deal with it. Layering information and ideas
offers the ability to work with abstraction. One form of abstraction is the reduction in
the number of parameters considered in each stage. If an architectural project usually
ends up being a three-dimensional entity which begins interacting with time as well,
then one way of abstracting is to reduce the dimensions initially considered.
It could also be argued that abstraction is also used in interacting with our
environment. The stimuli are enormous yet we manage to sort them out and react
efficiently in most cases. Gestalt theory emphasizes the importance of the figure
and its relationship with its background. Clearly this involves quite a high degree
of abstraction
Layering could be seen as a dynamic form of abstraction. Layering can be taken liter-
ally and thus be composed of two dimensional entities. It could also be more abstract
and take the form of a strategy, a methodology or a frame of mind. Its usefulness
lies in its ability to allow the co-presence of the many rather than give exclusivity
to the one. Equally valuable is the fact that it challenges the finality or givenness of
something, making its definition blurred, dynamic, alive. Also important is the fact
that different layers may have different codes; the shifting between codes or simply
the combination of codes or languages may be important for cultivating a more accom-
modating approach to design and a frame which gives room to the ‘other(s)’.
The claim that layering is part of the apparatus used naturally or otherwise by the
human mind to cope with the complexity of its environment could be questioned.
What cannot be questioned is the fact that layering has been a tool at the disposal of
the architect since the appearance of a drawing material with some degree of trans-
parency, and that it continues to be an important tool through the use of computer
software. What can and perhaps should be a topic for discussion is how different is
the Layering used in design in the two cases. An even more important question is:
what would it mean to loose this and other tools for abstraction and replace it with
technological tools that offer us simulations of the real, the virtual or the imaginary?
Would it reduce our ability to theorize? After all, theory could be seen as one form
of abstraction. In other words would it render the architect more of a craftsman who
knows how to carry out a task but cannot consciously account for what he/she is
doing, instead of a designer who attempts to reflect and, at least to some degree,
understand the processes which he/she initiates, participates or challenges?