Typological differentiation

The object of architecture has been approached from different points of view during the history of architecture. The roots of the object; in particular, the roots of the outcome of architectural production, may lead a discourse of origins in order to explain the historical point zero in terms of the production process of the architecture. Besides that, starting from the Plato and Aristotle of the Ancient Period, there has been a discussion on the world of things as the dualistic approach as ideas and the sensible physical objects. This dualistic point of view through matter has also shown in the typal and typological approaches of the thinkers and theorists. This distinction has first appeared in the Enlightenment Period, as the division of idea as type; and the material production or representations as models. Starting from that point, concept of type and typology is selected as the main frame of dissertation with all the different points of view during the history. Besides that, this research focuses on the existence and the creation of the notion of difference within the typological logic of the process of the architectural production. In order to understand the relationship and differences between objects and relationship between ideas and objects, creations of typological series are crucial. Upon the typological series, from the point of differential in order to understand difference, the function of derivative is used to frame the research. The function of Derivative, here, is held as conceptual abstraction to understand and show the different approaches and situations related to typology. Thus, in the thesis, typological series have been introduced with the sub-situations like prototype, stereotype, archetype and new type, being told and explained in respect to function of derivative as a tool for abstraction. In the first chapter of the thesis, notions to understand the typology and the elements of differentiation are presented with the major instances of the emergence of the typology in the history. Commonly, it is accepted that there are 3 different paradigms have been occurred since the notion of type had first appeared on the discourse of architecture. Firstly the approach of Enlightenment Period searching for the historical origins with the idea of imitation of nature, secondly the point of view through the object of architecture of the modernists as an object of mass production, and lastly with the occurrence of the NeoRationalist Movement right after the World War 2 in relation to the city and the shared memory of citizens. All the different approaches are different comments on the typology with nuances in between and according to recent architectural theorists and their praxis; the notion of type and typology is still valid within different manners and treatments. Apart from aiming to describe type and typology in the ''most correct'' way, the research instead focuses on the state of typology in the manner of creation of architectural object as the single object with variations and changes although coming from the same structure of mind. In the first chapter of the dissertation, a brief conclusion sums up the direction of the research on the typology in order to understand the difference which occurred related to to its own logic. With the beginning of the second chapter, typology, with its ways of understanding the past design solutions and objects of architecture, and the ability of creating new series within a shared form structure has been introduced in detail once more. Rather than searching for the historical approaches and changing logic of typology, in the second chapter, the logic of typology provides a systemization process to gather and look to different individual architectural productions in a given shared ground. To be able to obtain that comparison ground, the research first divides the roles of typology by generative and analytical typologies. The first reflects the way typology approaches and designs series of objects in respect to a shared logic, while the second one shapes the ways of typology of understanding and relating produced individuals. In addition to these roles of typology as generative and analytical tools of architecture, the notions retrieved from genetics represented to explain and organize the mission of typology focusing on the physical materializations of the objects as phenotypes, and the organizing structure lying behind the physical configurations of form as genotypes. Furthermore, phenotype includes architectural and tectonic elements leading to the act of the building with all its stylistic attributions. Within the research, to be able to reach to genotypes that leads to the models or phenotypes, an abstractive point of view has been hired. At that point diagram as a tool to state the relationship between ideas and physical interpretations, is an outstanding actor being able to convert the conceptual ideas which genotype has, to the physical realization of objects or models, which phenotype is attributed. With the help of the diagram, the deep structure of type, which is abstract in its nature, could be converted to the graphic schemes of dynamic relationships creating the object. What diagram does in this case is being a kind of bridge in between ideal knowledge of type and physical conditions of produced models. Noting that diagram, in the research, is not accepted as equivalent of the type or the drawn receipts, but rather accepted as the mediator graphic representation, by determining the general conditions of the borders of idea with all the possible options which come out from the root idea of type within the knowledge it carries and produces. In the case of the single architectural object; diagram, abstractly creates layers of vectors as decisions and movements on the process of design, starting from the setting up of the idea to the materialization. This vectors, directs the steps of the process by creating outcomes in order to create variations, as well as being used as the tool of analysis of a single object by reading its layers which produce it step by step. Thus, single object of architecture by the diagrammatic point of view can be analysed and produced in order to grasp the idea creating the differences in between objects through vectors. However, in order to create difference, it is needed to have different objects to rely on and to compare with. In this case, the relationship in between single design solutions, or models needed to be approached in groups, in other words in typological series. Typology, here works as the incubator of difference by putting single objects together to analyze or generate them in order to create variations. Creation and the existence of the differences within the variations, like the one in the Derrida's difference, constantly states, changes and re-states the type by delaying its static conclusion and meaning. Thus, understanding the difference in the typology leads to understanding of type without stating it with sharp descriptions. The frame that point of view of the derivative provides an alternative looking to the notion of type and differentiation processes within it. By replacing type with a variable "x", leads to permition of differentiation with the help of the diagrammatic vectoral moves of it without dealing with the exact meaning it has. In order to understand the creation of differences and variations, the multiple design processes of Foreign Office Architects called as phylogenies, and the Peter Eisenman's houses analyzed within the dissertation. While FOA's phylogeny aims to create consistency in between their production of buildings, organized by the logic of genetic tree with all the relationships in between; Peter Eisenman's design process, creation of the houses starting from a cube shows the usage of the diagrammatic vectors in order to create different instances within the one single process of design.