Symbols of the 21st Century and Globalization

On a recent episode of Del Cafe Pombo the notion of a universal symbol was discussed, symbols that are now more prevalent and necessary than ever before, as four corners of the world are bridged by a world wide network. In the past, human civilizations would create symbols for universal experiences and necessities. The most powerful symbols or those most prevalent were symbols that were familiar to many due to shared human experience. For example we all have a universal representation for the sun or a stream of water, a bright ball emitting rays of light or blue waves. These symbols stuck because they were everywhere and they needed to be expressed. They became universal symbols because they were common to all man and existed naturally. As we developed a more synthetic existence however it seemed as though we were at a standstill in terms of the symbols that we were sharing with one another. Aside from universal numerical and mathematical symbols, the synthetic worlds that we existed in were most often completely separated and closed. Within the last 100 years or so this has changed dramatically, there is now a sense of a global language, using symbols that allows human beings from completely different environments to communicate and feel connected. Whether we like it or not there are global universals that are completely man made that now exist. No longer is it the natural world that is part of our shared collective experience.

The long and short of it is that the influx of technology has allowed us to share in other universals. Entertainment has become as much a part of our collective and shared experience as watching the sun rise, or any of life’s experiences. Although sometimes seen as negative, this may be unifying. One could be dropped anywhere in the world and there are symbols and people that any human being will recognize. A global culture of blue jeans, Coca-Cola, Nike, Hollywood and Apple all tell us corporate logos and symbols are now as much a part of our reality as natural phenomena. In fact I may see these symbols more often then I do a sunset or a flowing body of water. The symbols of the 21st century have appeared and are global. Upon analysis of such symbols we see that though they are representative of corporations and corporate interests they have very positive connotations. Coca-Cola=enjoyment, Nike=getting things done, Apple=knowledge, as well as the universal language of math, art and science. With such positive symbols constantly around us we propagate a culture of happiness, progress, education and well-being. Now if only we could get corporations onboard with this culture, we’d be getting somewhere.

02 - The Uniqueness of Human Beings (part i)

Hello avid fanbase, have a listen to our second meeting at Del Cafe Pombo (part i). The title gets you to the point, but you may be surprised at what you hear.

02 - The Uniqueness of Human Beings (part i) by delcafepombo

Uniqueness and the Molecular Un-Uniqueness of Human Beings (Connections)

Human (above) vs. Fruitfly Interactome (below)

Sitting in front of a screen for over an hour typing and researching new, interesting things to post on our blog, made me think. What other creature but man could sit staring, devoting himself solely on endeavours of the mind? While a predator may sit patiently for hours waiting for prey to crawl out of a hole, we sit and ponder on a reality unique to ourselves, separate from the world around us. Creativity and our introspectiveness just seem so foreign to any species, even our closest cousins the ape. One could teach an ape to play Pac man (and believe that its been done), but who but us would take it as far as role playing as Pac man. We can immerse ourselves in a world beyond our own, in fact sometimes its absolutely necessary to maintain sanity in our modern life.

One would logically think then that there is a huge divide between us and the next closest intelligent species, so surely there must be a huge difference between us and other creatures in terms of genes and physical structures. We've lived with this assumption for thousands of years, and perhaps its what gave us the egocentric notion that we must take dominion over 'beast'. Recent science however has found the exact opposite, genetically we are nearly 98-99% similar to our ape cousins. In fact in a study conducted recently the main difference in genomes between man and ape occurred in only 510 gene deletions in humans, which fall almost exclusively in non-coding regions. Even a fly shares 60% with a human. So in terms of physical difference we aren't very different or special when compared to any other mammal or even animal.

There is however new evidence to show that its the connections and interactions between our genes and proteins that is we make that really makes us vastly unique. The human interactome (a diagram that shows the connections and interactions between genes and proteins) gives evidence to this as you can see a great degree of difference between animal interactomes. Far more complex in humans than any other animal (far more branches per node). It is in this fact alone that we are the unique creature that we are, the connections between genes and not the genes themselves.

We can extrapolate this model to fit the individual as well, it goes to show that its not our physical selves that make us unique but its the connections and ideas we create. We can all experience the same reality and each perceive it so differently due to past connections we have made. We are in essence the accumulation of connections made. Life is about connections, innovation and creativity which comes from connecting dots in new ways. This powerful brain of ours that went from ape to modern man in 2.5 million years, and it simply allows us to make connections faster as it is hard-wired in our genetics.

What this means is that we can now be even more optimistic than ever before in history. For it was in about a few decades but more recently in the last decade that we have suddenly created a whole new network of connections. A network that connects all our individual minds that create thousands upon millions of connections in a life time. And suddenly we can have everyone contributing without the limitations of geography or even education as knowledge itself has become openly accessible. Now while this may sound overly optimistic, it is a view that is so solemn heard. Life and complex life, consciousness itself stems from connections and we are now in a unique place in time where we can all connect.

Global Internet Network Map.

Snowshoe Party

Courtesy of Temiskaming Shores Public Library Archives and the Little Claybelt Memories online museum. Tertulia redux, circa 1900.

01 - Tertulia

Have a listen to our first show. As promised, there are some Tertulia pictures below.

01 - Tertulia by delcafepombo

Bracket - Soft Systems

Enjoy a variety of projects concerned with passive technology over at Bracket.

No Gimmicks

We recorded our first show as Del Cafe Pombo on the topic of Tertulia. It went quite well, and the confident voice and personality to be heard reminded me of why I wanted to do it.

As I'm saving Tertulia discussion for a post down-the-road, below is a very cool lecture given at the Barcelona Institute of Architecture by Toshiharu Tsukamoto.

BIArch Open Lectures: Yoshiharu Tsukamoto, "Architectural Behaviorology" from BIArch on Vimeo.

Social Media and Technology

Since we are interested in all things cultural, we thought it would be funny to get a twitter account... linking to this blog.

Technology should be mastered so we can achieve greatness. But it should not be programmable to the point where we lose a human touch. The RZA is sympathetic to this idea in his memoir (in fact it inspired those words and is probably verbatim) and architects such as Peter Eisenman have spoken about control and being controlled by the computer.

In the music industry there is an attempt to find the perfect song combination. BPM, key, melody and instrumentation of past hits can be analyzed and averaged into one big average song. But it is perfect right? No, it is just average. Software advances have allowed beat-making to become fool proof. Auto-tune is an advancement of the vocoder and takes away the former requisite vocal nuances of performing and singing. It may work for Daft Punk, but Daft Punk is on the cusp of popular music and an entirely separate cause.

Advances in software do have positive ramifications: more people can create music, instrument-less people have access to digital instruments which carry the same essence as their physical counterparts, music becomes shared more frequently and music becomes fun for many more people. I have been fooled by garageband songs. But I was only fooled post-experience, after I was initially blown away. If one is able to orchestrate a compelling tune via fruityloops or other software of choice, it exemplifies the potential that person has. And it may also inspire others.

Similarly, architecture has historically embraced technology in many ways. Ductile and lightweight steel revolutionized building forms during modernization. Mechanical systems can be analyzed before a shovel hits the ground to produce efficient, energy saving results. The arch was a technological advancement in my eyes. Let us not forget concrete and now parametric software.

Technology became an issue in architecture when it started to dehumanize working, social and living environments. I suppose the idea of a 'cold' architecture is formed out of uninspiring, repetitious and insensuous materials. In the 21st century, technology is an issue when building form overrides energy concerns or the quality of the enclosed and surrounding environments. An easy example would be the suburban garage. It is highly functional... you drive and park. In the morning you drive out. Your motor vehicle is protected from the elements. Unfortunately the garage is often too much of a focus that the repetition on a residential block creates an effect similar to the meatpacking district in New York (back when it was a meatpacking district). It is a highly impersonal aesthetic and relegates all social activity to the backyard, outside of neighbours view.

I really liked suburban garages when I was younger and played street hockey. It becomes an arena, or hockey's equivalent to the batting cage. To some it is a half-court. I have never seen anyone play tennis against one...

Architecture and software is a more theoretical issue (garages are practical.) Building Information Modeling (BIM) allows virtual project management on the computer screen. Drawing 4 lines on the x-plane easily becomes 4 walls in 3-dimensions after some clicks, and by accessing one drop-down menu those 'walls' become Flemish-bond single-wythe cavity walls spec'd to perfection. Adding a roof is only a 6-click process and multiple views are exported with ease. It has the 'architecture' process figured out like I've figured out procrastination.

But where is the spirit? Where is the mystery, the complexity once sought in the mind and expressed in line by hand? Being in school and seeing this process used as an excuse for 'design' is flabbergasting. BIM is all about production, not praxis. Because I believe even praxis takes humanity into account-you know, the idea that someone may actually inhabit these spaces. And I am not arguing for an architecture 'of the hand' drawn in graphite on cotton paper, built without electricity (a la McKay-Lyons). I am asking my peers to consider being masters of the systems they use. With BIM this means expanding beyond traditional notions of enclosure with walls and windows. It means form-finding founded on scale and habit rather than pattern. Aesthetics should be inclusive and not applied.

Regarding the positives of BIM: it allows the accelerated conception of cartesian spaces and if properly used, can make inventory and schedules really thoughtless (in a headache-less way). There are some parametric applications and the expedition of sections, 3D views and 2D drawings is desirable for large buildings.

Architects and students should be one step ahead. Their education should question what is beyond standardization and how this controlled software can embrace difference and anomaly. I believe it is the freeform applications that are really at the foreground of digital architectural discourse. I am referring to software that allows visualization and construction of extra-cartesian spaces imaginable yet impossible to model in the physical world. I have a dream... oh, wait-all architects should have dreams. It is dreaming (embraced as a mode of production) that should inform design decisions and not pure quantitative production. Modeling dreams will undoubtedly lead to more inventive architecture.

Back in 1995 computers were the shit. Lycos, Altavista, dial-up, Pentium 1 75mhz. Word had spread that this digital revolution would open up the world, make it transparent and allow people to become smarter, more informed, cross-pollinated and able to find answers to complex questions a lot faster than before. This would ultimately lead to more intelligent products, decisions and habits, right? I think to some extent (maybe 50%). It should have allowed us to question the ordinarily boring, to get beyond old habits and reestablish our identity on Earth as even more creative and insightful. For the better of course, with the Earth in mind. To this I say: BIM is nothing more than a summation of old habits, nothing creative, nothing insightful. It reorganizes the dated practice of "walls go here" and "windows go here" and is so rigorously modern that I am surprised there is not a built in Miesian or Corbusian proportioning system!

Protein Connections

An Edgar initiated topic has led to some in-depth thinking of networks. While working on an architectural problem involving nodes and connections, I found myself using different strategies for joining. The networks were data-interpretations and sometimes simple forced-connections of locations on a map. In the end, all networks could be generalized into three categories.

The grid method involves symmetry and economic distribution of paths. The data sets in this category were usually evenly spread or so dense that no visual pattern emerged. Sometimes the grid method was used to simplify networks to avoid unnecessary complexity.

An intuitive approach assesses redundancies ad hoc and sometimes makes unwarranted claims, albeit inventive or in-line with secondary logic. When two branches formed a V it was obvious to make a triangle out of it. When this scenario repeated itself several times, the network gained complexity but also functionality. Doubling back was erased and a multiplicity of nodes emerged.

A third strategy was more scientific in its creation and involved a programmatic assessment of relationships. A larger X allows for a larger number of Y. The smallest of X were allowed the smallest of Y. In this case, variable Y (paths) ranged from 1-8 and X (nodes) was an interpretation with 4 sizes. The strategy led to 'demand based' results.

The networks can be seen below. Try to assess them!



But where does this all lead? A future post by Mr. E (mystery) on the uniqueness of human beings relative to fruit flys. An article explaining this topic can be found here. Some eye-sugar related to the issue is what is below.

What is?

Del Cafe Pombo is for optimists, generalists, futurists and progressives. It is for people who are open to new ideas, willing to challenge accepted truths, and characterized by a phenomenological or experiential tilt. We embrace multiplicity and interdisciplinary research, believing this cross-pollination leads to greater discourse and better comprehension. We stand against the restriction of science to objective models and abhor the idea that knowledge is limited. We believe people are tired of pessimism in the media and want to bring forth imaginative, intellectual and accessible discussions.