Building a Lab: Constructing Realities

Abstract

Laboratories, as enclosed architectural-material spaces, are defined by clear physical boundaries. However, the knowledge produced within them is universal, transferable, and subject to transformation. This paradox is reinforced by models and apparatuses, which not only facilitate the expansion of knowledge but also enable the translation of the given world into data, or conversely, the materialization of data into physical reality. Laboratories possess an inherent capacity for knowledge production, allowing them to mediate between diverse agents, operating across multiple scales, through the use of models. The spatiality of the laboratory extends beyond its physical confines, defining and applying models within varied epistemic boundaries—in vitro, in vivo, in papyro, in silico, among others. Within this framework, the laboratory constructs a "code-space," a self-referential domain in which knowledge is continuously generated and reconfigured through material processes. Moreover, the integration of apparatuses not only facilitates the implementation of models but also shapes the way the world is observed and interpreted within the laboratory setting. These intertwined mechanisms transcend mere experimentation, establishing a dynamic interplay that can only be realized within the laboratory environment. However, when applied to architecture, the notion of the "laboratory" does not conform to this exact paradigm.

Architectural researchers are increasingly formulating new methodological frameworks by engaging with material relationships embedded within previously overlooked disciplinary silos. These emergent spaces within architectural practice seek to situate themselves within broader debates concerning future scenarios and the ongoing discourse between theory and practice. At this juncture, despite foundational critiques of scientific research and knowledge production, this study interrogates why architecture, as a discipline, has adopted the "laboratory" model under its own name. Through a comparative reading, the research examines the emergence of architectural laboratories as a practice in relation to the critical junctures that have shaped the evolution of scientific laboratories. Beginning with the historical precedent of Frederick Kiesler’s Biotechnology and Correlation Laboratory, established in 1946, this analysis traces the underlying motivations for the resurgence of the laboratory phenomenon in the 21st century.