In this paper I define as poetic those

In this paper I define as poetic those functions of responsive architecture whose purpose is not primarily instrumental. The meaning of poetics can be linked to that of ornament, traditionally an bace inhibitors of architecture without instrumental purpose or whose architectural significance had outlived an original purpose. The definition of ornament is a contested issue, and there is considerable ambiguity in contemporary uses of the term. Some theorists have insisted on the distinction between ornament and decoration: using etymology to claim a link between decoration and ‘decorum’, Bloomer associates decoration with social custom and ornament with “the timeless order and the intricate rhythms of nature.” Joseph Rykwert echoes Bloomer׳s identification of decoration with decorum (“decoration implies grace and honour”), but does not insist on a strict distinction between ornament and decoration. Sir John Summerson offers a still more inclusive definition, identifying ornament with any surface treatment in architecture designed to realize specific aesthetic ends. Among these ends is the use of ornament as an articulate surface that embodies cultural meaning and informs the reading of the building as a whole. The finishing of surface materials, the color of surfaces, the built-in objects and furniture: all these are elements that can contribute to the beauty and legibility of the building. Color, texture, hardness, form, and transparency are among the qualities of surface that make up its expressive potential, its ability to inform the experience of architecture. To these qualities can be added speed, behavior, choreography: the attributes of responsive surfaces whose properties are subject to change over time.
First case: mechanical adjustment at the scale of building equipment The Maison de Verre (1928–1932) in Paris is known for its integration of multiple kinetic elements which permit the adjustment of the interior to the changing needs of its inhabitants. These elements were designed by Pierre Chareau in collaboration with Louis Dalbet, a talented metalworker who produced full-scale models of each of the important mechanical devices in the house for evaluation by Chareau and his client, Mme Dalsace. I will first describe several of these elements and then consider their implications for the design of responsive components. The mechanical inventions are part of a larger intention to graciously accommodate specific situations and events, an intention that includes the material finishes, furniture, as well as the architectonic elements of the house. So prolific are these devices and so integral to the concept of the house that some commentators have proposed considering the entire house as an elaborate work of furniture. The word ‘furniture’ in the Romance languages (French meuble and Italian mobilia) is derived from the Latin mobile – something movable, changeable, adaptable. In English, furniture is cognate with the act of furnishing, or decoration: the provision of “equipment needed for work or active service”. This is also the word used by Le Corbusier defines in his essay ‘The Undertaking of Furniture’: “Events are unfolding, the notion of furniture has disappeared. It is replaced by a new term: ‘household equipment’.” This ability to accommodate daily activity and change through the design of operable building elements is different from the concept of flexibility as this was developed in the writings of Cedric Price or the High Tech architecture of the 1970s and 1980s. The example of the Maison de Verre is rooted in something older and possibly more integral to the practice of architecture: the association of a complex symbolic agenda with instrumental thinking. It is also a case in which adaptable and changeable components were made a defining element of the building as a whole, despite a relatively rapid rate of obsolescence due to their precise relation to a particular client and a particular moment in time.