Scaffolding

Author(s): Enrique Walker

Source: Log , Spring/Summer 2014, No. 31 (Spring/Summer 2014), pp. 59-61
Published by: Anyone Corporation

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43630888

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Anyone Corporation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Log

This content downloaded from

52.166.116.5 on Tue, 28 Jun 2022 22:40:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Enrique Walker

Scaffolding

In an interview with Georges Charbonnier in the winter

of 1962, Raymond Queneau referred to his work through
the notion of scaffolding. Queneau claimed that, since La
Chiendent , all his novels had been organized around math-
ematical structures. These mathematical structures, how-
ever, were not meant to be apparent to the reader. Not unlike
scaffolding, freestanding structures that, once removed,
leave no marks on the building whose construction they have
supported, the mathematical structures around which those
early novels had been constructed were meant to disappear as
soon as the novels were finished.

Two years earlier, Queneau had cofounded the Ouvroir

de Littérature Potentielle (Oulipo), a group of writers and
mathematicians devoted both to formulating new and un-
earthing old literary constraints, as well as to producing
literary objects that would serve as examples of those very
constraints. Queneau exploited the notion of constraint,
self-imposed and as a result arbitrary, to oppose the notion
of chance, as well as to refute what he identified as the false
equivalence surrealism had established between chance and
freedom. Accordingly, Oulipo members have defined them-
selves as rats who must build the labyrinth from which they
plan to escape.
The notion of scaffolding was arguably drawn from, and
certainly implied by, the notion of clinamen^ which Oulipo
inherited from its former affiliation with the College de
'Pataphysique. Clinamen is a swerve without a cause. The
term was first used by Epicurus, and later elaborated by
Lucretius, to describe the spontaneous deviation of atoms in
their trajectory. Alfred Jarry incorporated the term in Gestes
et opinions du docteur Faustroll, 'pataphysicien, and 'pataphysi-
cians took it on as a principle. For Oulipo, clinamen is an er-
ror derived from the use and misuse of constraints toward a

literary goal.
Georges Perec described his novel La Vie mode d'emploi ,
his Oulipian masterpiece, which he dedicated to the mem-
ory of Raymond Queneau, precisely by using the notion of

59

This content downloaded from

52.166.116.5 on Tue, 28 Jun 2022 22:40:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 scaffolding. The description of a building whose facade had
been imaginarily detached, La Vie mode d'emploi yields no
information regarding those constraints that preceded, and
in turn triggered, its writing. The constraints that Perec
voluntarily and as a result arbitrarily imposed on himself
to write the novel were meant to vanish once the novel

was completed.
Accordingly, Perec first utilized clinamen in La Vie mode
d'emploi. For Perec, clinamen was an error derived from the
purposeful use and misuse of constraints, whether volun-
tary or involuntary, an idea he supported by referring to Paul
Klee's claim that genius is the error in the system. Clinamen
allowed both for exploiting and damaging the system used to
write the novel, and rendered the system instrumental rather
than meaningful. The scaffolding in La Vie mode d'emploi en-
tailed the rules of the game for composing the book. But the
rules would not dictate the game or explain the outcome of
the game: the novel itself.
In the epilogue of Complexity and Contradiction in
Architecture , Robert Venturi describes his early work through
the notion of the difficult whole . Since a project must bring
together various conflicting constraints, architectural de-
sign inevitably entails accommodation, compromise, and
inconsistency. While advancing an approach, or a sensibil-
ity, Venturi also elevates and obliquely theorizes the brief,
the chance encounter of constraints that converge, usually
clash, and are in turn mobilized into a project. As it happens,
sometimes that encounter is tight, and may prevent almost
any design action. Sometimes that encounter is loose, and
may allow for almost any design action. Sometimes that en-
counter is predictable, and may lead to a recurrent solution.
Sometimes that encounter is unexpected, and may lead to an
unforeseen finding.
An architectural problem is not automatically granted by
the chance encounter of constraints, but in fact strategically
formulated by an architect on close examination, as well
as negotiation, of those very constraints. Their encounter,
though, is often predictable, and leads to recurrent problems
and solutions. Conversely, constraints might become sources
of invention when their encounter is, on the one hand, unex-
pected, when they do not easily allow for recurrent solutions,
or when their encounter is, on the other, calibrated, when
there is enough room to move, though also not room to move
enough. Not unlike the encounter of a chimney and a stair-
case at the core of the Vanna Venturi House.

60 Log 31

This content downloaded from

52.166.116.5 on Tue, 28 Jun 2022 22:40:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Given the abundance of constraints in the practice of
architecture, and the assumption that problems are granted
rather than formulated, constraints have, with few excep-
tions, been either dismissed as obstacles to the imagina-
tion or accepted as requirements to be met. Some architects
advance concepts and in turn strive to meet the constraints.
Other architects meet the constraints and in turn strive to

advance concepts. That is, some favor the formulation of ar-

guments and neglect the resolution of constraints whereas
others favor the resolution of constraints and neglect the
formulation of arguments. A few others embrace the con-
flict vis-à-vis constraints as definitional, and claim to use it
to their advantage as surfers would with waves, or judoists
would with opponents.
If constraints are external, self-imposed constraints are
internal - that is, voluntary and therefore arbitrary con-
straints introduced to instigate an unexpected encounter
of involuntary constraints, to realign a predictable prob-
lem. Self-imposed constraints are arbitrary regarding given
requirements, as their inclusion bears no relation to the
project, but not arbitrary regarding the formulation of the
problem, as their inclusion seeks to release potential for the
project. In other words, self-imposed constraints are a sup-
plement for calibrating involuntary constraints, and in turn
diverting a brief.
Self-imposed constraints are agreed at the outset, but do
not entail an origin or a secret . In other words, they are not
principles that precede, and are expected to inform, an object,
or messages that precede, and are expected to remain within,
an object. Instead, self-imposed constraints are hurdles to
both. As opposed to the former, a constraint precedes but does
not dictate the object. As opposed to the latter, a constraint
precedes but does not explain the object. Not unlike scaffold-
ing, which, once removed, leaves no marks on the building.

Enrique Walker is an architect.

61

This content downloaded from

52.166.116.5 on Tue, 28 Jun 2022 22:40:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms