Teleologism, Systematism

I. Introduction

Architecture today is absorbed in outcomes.
Architects today concern themselves only with “what to build” and “how to build it.”
These concerns arise from a view of architecture as the sum of “function” and “form.”

But is this really so? Is architecture the sum of function and form?
​
​
“What is architecture?”
​
​
This is a question we seldom ask anymore.
For [[Le Corbusier]], architecture was a “machine.” For [[Michelangelo]], architecture was “art.”
What is architecture to us today?
Is it still a machine, or is it art once again? We cannot answer, because we have not considered the question itself. We merely repeat answers from the past. Progress without purpose will eventually lose its way.
​
​
In this essay, I propose an architectural direction for our time through my own answer to “What is architecture?” and the reasoning behind it.
​

II. What Is Architecture?

This section uses questions to challenge established assumptions and provide a starting point for thinking beyond them.
​
What is architecture? Let us think about it simply.
​
Is a “building” architecture? Probably.
Is a building in which no one lives architecture? Probably.
Is a building intended only to be looked at architecture? (Like a house in a folk village.) Probably not.
Is an unbuilt building architecture? (As in [[Paper Architecture]].) Probably.
​
Is planning a building—[plan, elevation, section, aerial view]—architecture? Probably.
Is virtual architecture architecture? Probably.
​
Can a “floor plan” be considered architecture?
Can we say that we have made architecture when all we have is a floor plan?
Conversely, can we say that it is not architecture? If everything has been planned, is the mere fact that it has not been translated into reality a criterion that separates architecture from what is not architecture?
​
How does “architecture,” as something akin to an [[Idea]], or what might be called the [[Signified]], become a sign?
​
Let us summon once again the [[Descartes' demon|demon]] Descartes invoked. If our senses make us perceive a building, has it now become architecture? (What if a [[XR (Extended Reality) Architecture|building]] is realized through a VR device? Or created as a stereoscopic image?)
​
​
​
For us, architecture is no longer concerned only with the “building (the outcome).”
​
If architecture is not an outcome, what is it?
Architecture is purpose and process.
​

1. Defining Architecture / Systematism
   Architecture as a Responsive System
   ​
   Architecture is the process itself.
   More precisely, architecture is a “system that responds and adapts” between the environment and human beings.
   A system that responds to human activity and a [[System]] that responds to the environment are, ultimately, architecture.
   A system is continually “operating” as a process itself, rather than as an outcome.
   The essence of this system is defined by its purpose (I will discuss this in more detail later).
   ​
   [[University of Michigan’s Diag]] can be understood as an example of a basic system that responds to human activity. By analyzing [[desire pass]] and turning them into actual walkways, it responds directly to activity.
   ​
2. Architecture of Purpose / Teleologism
   Architecture has traditionally focused on “how” and “what.” The new architecture, however, focuses on “why”: its purpose, or telos.
   ​
   Conventional architecture has replaced this purpose with something abstract—the phrase “good space”—and then focused solely on producing an outcome. Purpose-centered architecture, by contrast, investigates “what architecture exists for.” In this view, however accomplished and successful the resulting building may be, it loses its essence if its purpose is misaligned.
   ​
   ​
   Ultimately, this architecture—Teleologism and Systematism—operates much like programming. I therefore call its outcomes [[Programmable Architecture]]. An outcome may be a building, a floor plan, or an algorithm. The term refers to the system itself that responds to people and the environment.
   ​
   ​
   The answer to “What is architecture?” here is, ultimately, “a system.”
   More specifically, it is “a system with a purpose.”
   ​
   ​
   ​
   Two propositions are frequently cited and debated in conventional architecture.
   **[[Form Follows Function]] and [[Function follows form]].
   ​
   The new architecture moves beyond this debate to propose a different proposition.
   System Follows Telos
   ​
   (What conventional architecture calls “what (form)” and “how (function)” becomes “why (telos)” and “how (system).” Where function was a physical element of “how,” system is a nonphysical element.)
   ​
   ​

III. The Architecture to Come

​
Architecture as a Complex System
​
Earlier, I wrote that “progress without purpose will eventually lose its way.” For that reason, I argued that we must consider what architecture is.
​
Can this new view of architecture offer us a purpose?
Can we find a direction in the idea that architecture is a system?
​
The answer is “yes.”
A view of architecture, however, does not itself propose a new architecture. It concerns how we look at architecture. We must also be able to see existing architecture through it; the role of such a view is to anticipate the architecture to come on that basis. Architecture is a system. How, then, can existing architecture be interpreted when viewed as a system?
​
​
​
As a system, conventional architecture corresponds to a [[Simple System]]. In a simple system, the relationship between input and output is intuitive. It could also be compared to [[Reductionism]]: the whole is the sum of its parts. Architecture is seen as a “machine” made from an assembly of components (which recalls [[Le Corbusier]]'s “machine”).
(There also seems to be a curious connection between [[Materialism]], often associated with reductionism, and architecture's focus on the building as its outcome.)
For instance, form is form, and function is function. They are, of course, interrelated, but they remain separate elements that merely affect one another.
​
If conventional architecture is a simple system, then the architecture to come is, naturally, a [[Complex System]]. Multiple elements interact in complex ways. In a complex system, the relationship between input and output is neither intuitive nor linear. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Complex systems are a challenge at the forefront of many disciplines, including physics and sociology. Familiar examples include the [[Many-Body Problem]], which calculates the motion of multiple bodies, and the activity of [[Ant Colonies]]. What does it mean for architecture to operate as a complex system? Comparing it with the simple system above makes this easier to consider. The architectural outcome—Programmable architecture—is no longer merely the sum of its parts; it becomes a single element as a whole.
One example would be a state in which function and form are combined.
Architecture based on “network theory” could be one example. Architecture composed of nodes and links is itself both function and form. Function and form are not the only things that may combine; many other elements may come together as well. Various theories of complex systems, including [[Feedback Loops]], [[System Dynamics]], and [[Agent-Based Modeling]], can be employed to produce Programmable architecture. It may also be developed by drawing on fields related to complex systems, such as [[Ethology]] or [[Economic Geography]].
​

Conclusion

This architectural theory is not simply a method or a technology. It is a new [[Paradigm]] that redefines the ontology and essence of architecture. Within this paradigm, architecture is a system serving a purpose rather than an outcome, and a fluid process interacting with its environment rather than a fixed structure.
​
Within this theory, the architecture to come is an architecture of complex systems. Architecture's true value will lie not in “what was built,” but in “why it exists.”
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​

Points to Add

• Metabolism as a transitional phase. (An architecture of complex systems, though limited to form.)
• Computation as a transitional phase
• Differences from existing theories
  ​
  | Existing Architectural Theory | Teleologism / Systematism |
  | ------------------------------ | --------------------------------- |
  | Functionalism: focuses on functional efficiency | Teleologism: investigates the reason for existence and meaning itself |
  | Metabolism: emphasizes the organic growth of form | Systematism: encompasses not only physical change but also immaterial interactions |
  | High-tech architecture: emphasizes technical systems | Responsive systems: emphasize interaction with human behavior, data, and the environment |
  | A Pattern Language: rule-based design | Complex systems theory: embraces nonlinear interactions and unpredictability |
  | Conventional architecture: Result-Oriented | Purpose-Driven |
  | | |

Significance

• Although it begins with an abstract line of inquiry, it does not remain at the level of architectural philosophy; it arrives at a tangible outcome in “complex systems.”
• It can also offer practical methodologies that are immediately applicable, such as system dynamics and feedback loops.
• Its significance lies in being a next step, rather than a rejection of existing architecture. It functions as a paradigm in the literal sense.
• It shares the same foremost challenges as other disciplines, making interdisciplinary inquiry possible.