Deleuze and Diagram in the Architectural Point of View

Architecture continues to articulate its concepts, design decisions, and processes predominantly through posteriori rationalisation. "The compulsive force of legitimising arguments still dominates contemporary debate" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002). Since architecture today—at least in open, democratic Western societies—is the result of an institutionalised, cooperative process involving clients, investors, users, and technical consultants, it is not surprising that a truly independent architectural theory remains elusive. "Despite the diversity of practices at work today and despite a hugely expanded volume of architectural publications, there is hardly any real architectural theory to be found. There is only after-theory" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002).

The Role of Diagrams in Architecture

Diagrams in architecture serve various functions. There are bubble diagrams, used for relationship mapping between space and function, and figure-ground diagrams, which are employed for volumetric analysis. Diagrams are not merely representational tools but serve as instruments that can expose architecture as a social-discursive practice. "Looking into diagrammatic procedures is one way to partially open that door and dislocate the protective and constrictive barriers that architecture has raised to hide its vulnerable centre" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002).

However, is this approach strictly social-discursive? Could it not also be seen as relational-discursive? The function of diagrams is to regulate the production, consumption, and distribution of texts within a particular field of interest. "Discursive practices cannot very well be seen as separate from the social framework in which they take place" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002). This argument, however, appears somewhat unstable and could be worth interrogating further.

The challenge for the next generation of architects lies in acknowledging and analysing internal discourse. "From a social-discursive viewpoint, this internal discourse is far more comprehensive than the methodological process that forms the basis of current design practice" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002). The aim, then, is to develop "a theory of the real in that" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002).

The Meaning of the Diagram

Diagrams are interpreted in various ways, positioned on a spectrum between subjectivity and objectivity. More commonly, a diagram is understood as "a statistical or schematic image" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002). Historically, it has been defined as a visual tool that enables one to "convey as much information in five minutes as would require whole days to imprint on the memory" (Krausse, 1998, quoting Playfair, 1786).

Yet diagrams are not only reductive machines for condensing information; they can also function as proliferating machines, expanding meaning and transforming conventional interpretations. "The diagram conveys an unspoken essence, disconnected from an ideal or an ideology, that is random, intuitive, subjective, not bound to linear logic, and that can be physical, structural, spatial, or technical" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002).

Deleuze and the Abstract Machine

The concept of the diagram in architecture has been shaped by Gilles Deleuze, who described its virtual organisation as an abstract machine. Deleuze explores at least three versions of the diagram:

1. Michel Foucault’s interpretation – The diagram is not representational but operational. "Panopticon is ‘the diagram of a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form … a figure of political technology’" (Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 1979). It illustrates the spatial organisation of state power and discipline.
2. Francis Bacon’s approach – The diagram engages in a dynamic, performative process, akin to taking up a paintbrush and improvising in real-time. "‘The diagrammatic or abstract machine does not function to represent even something real, but rather constructs a real that is yet to come’" (Deleuze, Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation, 1992, p. 55).
3. Marcel Proust’s perspective – The diagram introduces the interaction of time and matter, without which transformation cannot occur. Here, the musical turn becomes significant.

Instead of distinguishing between these as separate ‘versions’ of the diagram, it is more appropriate to think of them as moods or tonalities. "What strikes us is that three deeply significant aspects of the diagram are conveyed in three very different modes" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002).

Diagrams as Tools Against Typologies

A fundamental problem with representational techniques is that they "imply that we converge on reality from a conceptual position and in that way fix the relationship between idea and form, between content and structure" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002). In other words, representation inherently limits architectural thinking within existing typologies.

Conversely, diagrams delay typological fixation. "The role of the diagram is to delay typology and advance a design by bringing in external concepts in a specific shape as a figure, not as an image or sign" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002). This is reminiscent of Bacon’s approach—"‘[A diagram] is a violent chaos in relation to figurative givens, but is a germ of rhythm in relation to the new order of painting’" (Deleuze, Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation, p. 55).

For Deleuze, painting constantly battles clichés: "Even the reactions against clichés create clichés" (Deleuze, Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation, p. 49). The same applies to architecture, where design strategies must engage in a perpetual struggle against pre-existing forms.

The Abstract Machine in Motion

At this point, a third aspect of the diagram emerges: the triggering of the abstract machine. "The abstract machine must be set in motion for the transformative process to begin" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002). But how does one activate a diagram? How does an abstract machine become triggered?

Deleuze provides insight by pointing to the novelistic treatment of time in Proust’s work: "Through Proust’s novel run long lines of musicality, passion, pictoriality, and other narrative threads that coil around lack roles within the story" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002). The fundamental question remains: What exactly is the principle that effectuates change and formation in real life and real time? Moreover, how can this principle be isolated and rendered into a form that can be grasped and applied at will?

Faciality and the Operational Dream

The text explores how Proust’s black hole concept might be applied to architectural diagrams. "One of our current projects is structured as a diagram of faciality" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002). The Klein bottle is another structural concept that plays a role in understanding abstract machines in architecture.

Conclusion: The Diagram as a Discursive Instrument

Ultimately, "the abstract machine in motion is a discursive instrument; it is both a product and a generator of dialogical actions that serve to bring forth new, unplanned, interactive meanings" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002). Discourse theory suggests that meaning is not transferred from one agent to another but is created in the interaction between them. "Likewise, the architectural project is created in this intersubjective field" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002).

Diagrams, therefore, should be understood not as static representational tools but as activators—"rich in meaning, full of potential movement, and loaded with structure" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002). They exist within "the intersubjective, durational, and operational fields, where meanings are formed and transformed interactively" (van Berkel & Bos, 2002).