AGREE ON FORM-LINKED SOLUTIONS TOWARDS THE FUTURE

Development in architecture has changed the perception of architects and

designers with regards to design tradition and innovation. The linkage between two
existing concepts is now being regarded and considered as part of a progressive and
creative process. This system of thinking has been much influenced even by nonarchitectural writers such as Thomas Kuhn and George Kubler. Living at the same
period, both writers have produced their most important works which are the The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions and The Shape of Time respectively. Even though
both writers address different perception on design development, they have deeply
discoursed and addressed the profound aspects and relationship of tradition, innovation
and change.
In the article, Thomas Kuhn has focused on the concept of Paradigm. Though,
the author of the article has assessed his work and has been certain that neither of
Kuhns key concepts and definition of paradigm is clearly defined, thus vague and can
lead to misunderstanding. To clearly interpret his idea, Margaret Masterman, wrote in
her paper namely The Nature of Paradigm, that she has found twenty one different use
of term in Kuhns work and it can be categorized into three basic idea from the most
abstract to the most concrete. First of this is the most abstract, wherein the usage of
Paradigm can be defined as a set of belief or a myth. At the next level, the usage of
paradigm is defined as a set of political institutions or a judicial decision. Lastly, the
most concrete of all, the paradigm was used as an actual work or even a set of tools.
Transformation in perception and innovation is one of the emerging
developments in architectural theories. According to Thomas Kuhn, a scientist and a
philosopher, scientists have failed to understand the development of a theory. He
argues that we cannot start from nothing, instead a model as a reference or a source
that can be developing into another condition. He opposed that a revolutionary science
does not depend on the theory alone but also with accordance of models, scientific
accomplishments in some form of experiments that served as inspiration in discovering
theories.
In the later part of the article, Kuhn started to use the term paradigm under
artifact or construct paradigms. In this phase, scientific researchers who share a
common intellectual framework called a paradigm or a disciplinary matrix. Hes trying to
engage us in solving puzzles thrown up by anomalies between what the paradigm
predicts and what is exposed by study or experimentation. Usually, the anomalies are
resolved either by incremental changes to the paradigm or by finding observational or
investigational error. This is to refer not only to the existing scientific achievement as
described, but to the whole group of methods, problems, theoretical philosophy,
metaphysical assumptions, concepts, and evaluative principles that are present to some
degree or other in an exemplar. In the relation to the principle, the use of such models
are applied to be able to prove the system. He also tries to involve the disciplinary
matrix that is fixed, permitting the emerging generation of puzzle-solutions, whereas in a
revolution of science, the disciplinary matrix go through variations, in order to allow the

result of the more serious inconsistent puzzles that disturbed the preceding period of
normal science. This structure constitutes the fundamental assumptions of the discipline
about how research in that manner should be conducted as well as what constitutes a
good scientific explanation. We believe to Kuhn wherein he stated that the sense of
paradigm as a disciplinary matrix is less fundamental that the sense of paradigm is just
exemplar. Exemplar which is basically defines by example the elements in the
framework that constitutes the disciplinary matrix.
The problem is, can Kuhns paradigms help us to understand scientific
development? We conclude that Kuhn had used the word Paradigm at least twenty-six
different ways. Kuhn tried to simplify or make clear this in his addendum and talked of a
disciplinary matrix. The matrix also implicated assurance to a metaphysical model, one
which comes from someplace other than direct observation of the humanity. A second
quality of a matrix that was discussed clearly is shared values such as those used to
critic predictions. Thirdly, Kuhn said that the paradigm as communal example was the
most original and least understood aspect of his book. He substitutes the word
exemplars in the addendum, and explains them as sort of support example or issues
that a student learns in order to go on and make further relationships, because he can
see a new problem as like a problem already encountered. Exemplars give students
the means to understand a time-tested and group-licensed way of seeing.
The
disciplinary matrix, aka paradigm, is the total of a discipline, of a scientific community.
We can see that Kuhns disciplinary matrix makes sense to linked solutions in the
combination of tradition and innovation, as the paradigm or disciplinary matrix, Kuhn
rejected the way revolution was perceived, he claims that normal science is successful
in making development if there is a strong commitment or engagement in the relevant
scientific community, their shares theoretical beliefs, values, instruments and
techniques, and even metaphysics. It is like how the Intramuros, Manila adapts to the
present. How it emerge its architecture through the decade. Being the walled city,
Intramuros is known for the classic architectural features of its structures. Being home
of the museums, classical churches and restaurants, Intramuros is known as one of the
heritage sites if the country. The walled city continues to develop but still carries with it
the story of the past. Having modern building with incorporating the classical features
that help it blend with the surroundings. It is one of the best examples in Kuhns way of
seeing revolution or innovation wherein it agrees that in order to have a successful
innovation, one must look or take consideration what is in the past or the tradition as it is
the one who shaped and molded what now exists, you just add another feature to it the
and root of where it came from is still there somehow still relevant to what exist before.
According to Joyce Brodsky, a continuing element or theory follows the behavior of a
certain principle where it leads to change in perception, beliefs and knowledge, after
undergoing changes, the continuing element stops wherein discontinuity takes place.
In designing and planning in Architecture, process is a must especially it is a
broad field. Paradigms play an important role in coming up with design solutions for
architecture.
Other prominent architects like Le Corbusier, Philip Johnson, Mies Van der Rohe,
Eero Saarinen and others exploited traditional perception as they utilized their

compositions in building structures. So then I, positively correspond on their beliefs as

they apply traditional ideas in modelling a building where they showed allegiance. For
instance, Le Corbusier used Palladian precedents, besides, the Modulor. Mies van der
Rohe was in favour of Palladian centrism and other neo-classical expressions of static
order. While Philip Johnson, Eero Saarinen and others also contributed exemplars that
followed the two masters, firmly establishing the now familiar International Style. Thus,
these well-known architects, as we observed, applied new perspectives and ideas in
creating traditional structures for us to visualize new appearances and expressions.
Therefore, we certainly agree that combining tradition and innovation would be a
creative process that would contribute a lot in our future. Some architects nowadays
continually to apply such method showing the combination of traditional and innovative
architecture.

Figure 1: Traditional tukod used on early

Philippine architecture

style architecture.

For instance, Arch. Francisco Manosa,

who uses this similar method of architecture.
From his Filipino inspired architectural designs,
he shows that combining traditional and
innovative architecture can bring a bright future
on the architectural designs in the Philippines.
In conclusion, this method produces different
and new expression in our vision. Thus, this
method is considered as the abstract of the past
and known as the most successful in
contemporary architecture. By looking at the
figures on the left, strategically incorporating the
traditional architecture with the modern style
can be essential to a certain architectural style.
One great example is the innovation from the
traditional tukod or diagonal struts to the
Manosas signature angled windows. Angled
windows are great adaptation to the tropical
environment for it denies excessive sunlight and
heat yet still promotes a decent amount of
daylight. Angled windows are implemented on
most of Manosas projects like the Ylang Lane
and the Campanilla Lane which both projects
modern
Figure 2: Manosa reinvented the tukod for
windows as diagonal struts and applied it to
his signature angled windows to prevent
directed sunlight on coming in.

We agree that Kuhn adapted disciplinary matrix which says that tradition and
innovation has its common ground, common idea will revolved to linked solutions.

Traditional paradigms are like past, you cannot go on with the present and future
without knowing the past. Same goes with the tradition. At some point, you will need to
look at the standard ad basis if the past paradigms; Tradition in the other hand, when
you get a paradigm from the tradition and get a paradigm from innovation new ideas
then problem solving and solutions will appear naturally and it will produce multiple
ideas. Innovation will always be influenced by tradition.
The new paradigm retains much of what was useful in the old one, but sets it
within a broader and more inclusive framework. Just looking at contemporary
architecture, how architects designed their buildings was influenced by the legendries.
How their windows look like and how their plans are organized.

DISAGREE ON FORM-LINKED SOLUTIONS TOWARDS THE FUTURE

The Future: The solve-it-all misconception of Innovations and Traditions

The best way to predict the future is to design it. This is a statement from the
modernist architect, Buckminster Fuller. He is a successful planner in the context of
adding definition and at the same time, redefining the essence of architecture, both in
shaping man and the society through form-linked solutions that innovate his approach in
designing spaces. Form-linked solutions are basically innovative and form-based ideas
that aims to solve problems and issues that arises in the modern context. The concept
of such solutions employs change on the structure of the solution itself in order to
provide a new perspective in addressing new problems. Several theories and
propositions have been developed in order to define and scrutinize the concept of
innovation and its implications towards fostering communal and societal stability.
However several arguments are critical enough to produce ontological statements that
sharply influences the perception of innovation in the built environment. On the other
hand, the role of tradition is inarguably a critical determinant in indicating the approach
of the solution in the context of the sensitivity and preserving the culture and genus loci
of the place. It is a consideration especially on innovation regarding industrialization,
where tradition will always be affected. The relationship between tradition and
innovation are vital components that will determine the structure of the future. Thomas
Kuhn and George Kubler, among other philosophers and theorist, have made an impact
in this prospect. They have set the pioneering definition of what it takes for an
innovation to happen. But regardless of their credibility, does tradition and innovation
really gives birth of a sustainable future or its just a fallacious misconception in order to
make an excusable account to create something new and prove the designers
proficiency in his field of expertise? Does innovation induce sensitivity to the tradition?
Is the future really defined by these two components?

Thomas Kuhn, a philosopher during the modern period, has made a

controversy in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolution. He claims that
innovations are produced through the anomalies that lies on the present paradigm. If
well follow the postulate of imperfections of every solution and its inability to provide all
the answers, we can say that innovations will always be perpetual and indefinite in its
phase, thus helping to solve existing problems and at the same time, produce new
problems. In Kuhns point of view, the main misconception that planners and scientist
comes into, is the total reliance on theories and not crucially looking on its origins and

failure to develop concrete analogies. This intellectual dependence leads to vague

innovations and produces more conflicts. Form-linked solutions out of dependence on
theories will never be sensible enough to efficiently solve the present issues.

If we need to go back to our origins, then we can have an assumption on

the concept of tradition as our prime source of innovation. Tradition is the concept of
originality and peculiarity of a certain community that sets it apart from other
communities. It is often characterized by a distinct culture and it is shaped by the
situations that the community gets involved over time. If these traditions will be the basis
of our model, there is a greater probability that innovations and form-linked solutions
would have its more tangible source of credibility. Moreover, given the different physical
site and conditional differences, these traditions would also have certain circumstances
(during those times) that specifically shaped the framework of the tradition itself. If we
would never be certain of those

circumstances, then we will never have a perfect analogy to develop thus, we will never
have the most concrete solutions to every problems. If this concept holds true to
everything, then innovations and conflicts will be perpetual and the future will never
become the future that we might expect.

One example is the present situation of Intramuros. Century-old walls may

not have dilapidated due to preservation by the administration but it doesnt help to the
prevalence of urban sprawl inside the historic district. The innovation that has been
done today is the renovation and retrofitting of the neo-hispanic buildings inside
intramuros. On the other hand, this priority has left the administration to ignore the
urban residential context and the historic integrity of intramuros. Being sensible to
tradition does not totally incorporate a sensible solution. The districts situation only
concerns the tangible and concrete exemplars by which the viewers and users benefits,
using the plasters and other architectural skins to develop a fraud frontage to make
historic district, historic.

Furthermore, another concept have influenced on our perception on

innovation. The concept of Kubler on innovation lies on its dynamic model of change
and modification of form. He interprets that innovation is due to change in pattern, thus
producing a new one. This is developed through drift, noise, and/or interference. In
Kublers point of view , modifying something will eventually change its structural
configuration though it doesnt remove the fact that the origins core is still there. This
proposition was opposed by Joyce Brodsky, who states that innovation is the gradual
revealing as staying close in revealing the real pattern , and not necessarily creating a
new pattern , which displaces the old. Over time, she developed a concept which
opposed Kublers point of view. She translated Kublers opinion into the idea of
continuity and discontinuity.

For Brodsky, continuity and discontinuity are natural phenomena that occur
in the built and natural environment. Every problem triggers the need for a new solution
that in the long run , will produce future conflicts. In this logical sense, the concept of
chained reaction produces societal instability. One example on this concept is best
illustrated on the consecutive patterns on Marcosian Brutalism architectural style and
the Vernacular Filipino concept by other architects such as Manosa. During the 1970s,
Brutalist buildings dominates the Philippines, creating a strong character on the national
context. This innovation solves the concern on the lack of identity of Filipino
architecture. Such architectural style that was applied on convention centers also
developed a sense of social involvement of Filipinos on the Global Platform , gaining
multiple investors during that time. But identity is not just the problem during that time.

On the 20th century, Climate change began to sprout as an alarm for

designers and planners alike to alter their programmatic solution towards architectural
innovation. This new problem discontinued the use of brutalist architecture but it doesnt
displace the importance and the contribution of the raw concrete buildings towards
architectural distinction and innovation. Until today, vernacular and sustainable
architecture is still prevalent since the issue on climate change is not yet resolved. If we
try to follow Joyce Brodskys concept of change. The true essence of architectural
pattern is adaptation. Regardless of what we want to do as designers, well always
design to adapt and to respond to the needs of the users and broadly, of the society.

In a nutshell, innovation and tradition significantly contribute to the

development of solution to the problems in the society but on the context of future,
these two components also play a role in producing new problems, thus providing us a
different variation of future. If the future that we are pertaining is having the Utopian
ideology of a perfect society, it will never come true. This concept holds true on all
things, given the chained reactions among situations that produced the present society.
Embracing the societal condition and the underlying problems is the key in order to
appreciate the future. The future that we should expect must not be something thats
free from problem but rather, it should be something where innovation, tradition , and
culture will learn to live together, perpetually resolving the natural disorder that exists.