# data[].attributes.body
Sibyl Moholy-Nagy argues against the technocratic and science-positive climate of city planning. She is sceptical about  the belief of being able to control the city through models and data. She understands the city as a continuous layering of different beliefs and agencies over time, a “tacit agreement on multiplicity, contradiction, tenacious tradition, reckless progress and a limitless tolerance for individual values.” (p. 12) Role models are Grown European cities, e.g. in middle-age Italy. The point she makes when saying that “only the imperfect is productive”, is striking to me.

Still, in saying that “the strongest […] solutions were achieved in the beginning”, this in reaction must also contain the initial idea of a science-based planning approach, which Moholy-Nagy however criticises. This approach can also be seen as a firstly striking idea, worth to be tested empirically, without “proof for everything”, as Moholy-Nagy even says on p. 20. Which in fact is the principle rule of science, which says that nothing is absolute, but relative. And thus, and in this I disagree with moholy-nagy, "assumption" as a way of thinking and working, which moholy-nagy favours, is also the inherent core of scientific work.

Nowadays, with the abilities of science and AI we have today, the approximation towards reality is minimised. Thus, the argument of science being too abstract, may be questioned today. Science is able to understand these heterogeneity of mankind and their behaviour in the city.

What is unclear to me is how the mentioned concepts in the conclusion can be claimed to be inclusive through explaining the ideas, the concept is based on, yet without pointing at how exactly people are using the space. I am convinced that assuming how people live in the space through the offerings of the design isn’t to be equalised with how people are actually using the space, which I see as a contradiction in the text, as the blurriness of human behaviour is described, but still attempted to be classified.

# data[].attributes.body
In the introduction and conclusion of Sibyl Moholy-Nagy’s Matrix of Man, she offers a powerful reflection on what truly makes cities come alive. She doesn’t see the city as just a collection of buildings or a planner’s blueprint; it’s something living, constantly shaped by the people who inhabit it and the environment around them. In the introduction, she explains how urban form grows naturally from geography, climate, and community needs, and how modern planning often loses that sense of continuity and human scale. Her ideas feel surprisingly relevant today, when many cities still struggle with the same disconnect she warned about.

What stayed with me most is her idea that if we understand the “matrix” of man-environment interaction, we can guide urban development in ways that respect both tradition and innovation. We shouldn’t copy the past but learn from it, using its wisdom to build cities that still feel human and connected. I like how she imagines the city as a living organism rather than a mechanical system. It’s a reminder that good design isn’t about control or efficiency alone, but about creating places where people and their surroundings can evolve together.

Still we have a far way to go.

# data[].attributes.body
The style of the text made it quite difficult to figure out its message. It argued rather philosophicaly which fits the negative attitude to science as a way of figuring out how to build cities. At times however I was wondering if they knew how science is used in practice as what they disliked about it was not how science influences our decisions now. But maybe it did then or maybe they are rather talking about a particular methodology. I myself also dislike the quantitative approach that companies nowadays take to solving problems as even if it produces the improved numbers they were after, it may still not fix the issues. If the design is rather inspired by more "human", empirical methods that cannot be easily assigned numbers we might indeed see better results. I think this is a product of the times when the text was written: the insistence that every scientific field can be measured and calculated and yield objective results. We now know that there is a middle ground between "science" and what this text is using to argue and that they are not mutually exclusive. I have to disagree that science is bad for progress in city planning, however agree with the text as long as we go deeper into what we specifically mean by it.

# data[].attributes.body
In a century where decisive reordering is a must to adapt ourselves on the ongoing changes, men need to face urban crisis and is drunk by achievement. The science is a tool to standardised human activities and problems. Science could be there to provide help and try to understand deeper

and build better our cities but as Sibyl Moholy-Nagy says : " Man learns by observing, imitating, and adapting ... A lion tamer does not train in a flee circus" and "Science proves nothing absolutely".

Man reacts to his environment without science or genesis explanation. Humans are guided by emotional, historical, cultural aspects and are arational.

As so, linking to architecture Sibyl believes that architecture must integrate nature and be integrated as an integral part of it. As example the habitation of Gozo on the island of Malta : "habitation has been adjusted to the site and the site adjusted to man". This street-cosusciusness where pedestrians are free to move and live, connecting themselves with nature and preserving nature within intensive urbanisation is important.

To conclude I understand this text as a manifesto of an interactive way to combine nature and architecture together for the well-being of humans. As giving space for private, public spaces including nature and architecture that does not repeal but attracts by its material, shape, unicity, environment... the stereotype of "this is what the people want" is no longer true the future is bonded with the past as historical and emotional aspects to develop the best needed version for the actual need and desire of a society.

I find this text actual and well chosen for a MUST to think as architects. Nature is everywhere and building with it is the most beautiful way to shape it inherently.

# data[].attributes.body
From Matrix of Man, I learn for my future as an architect that design must always begin with people. Sybil Moholy-Nagy reminds me that architecture is not just about buildings, but about the living relationships between humans, space, and society. I really like her idea that technology and progress should serve humanity, not dominate it. She shows that design has the power to guide how we see, move, and feel in the world, and that responsibility inspires me. Her human-centered approach makes me think differently about what it means to build: it’s not only about solving problems, but about creating meaning. I admire how she connects art, science, and ethics into one vision of a more conscious, empathetic architecture. For my own work, I take her message as a challenge to design spaces that respect life, awaken curiosity, and help people live with greater awareness and connection.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Matrix of Man Moholy-Nagyby opposes the state of mind of urbanists taking a too theoretical approach to urban design. Taking away some of the needed "chaos" of the city, as to reflect and proliferate the human condition. She writes: "Only the imperfect is productive. Prehuman chaos produced matter, but only man's unfulfilled vision of order produced form." Comparing the images in the introduction chapter and the appendix, it seems to me that her idea of good design revolves around an approach adapted to its environment in historical and topographical sense. But the last picture threw me off quite a bit as the statues seems completely useless and if the point is to make a statement as many cultures have done in history and therefore to honor the history of the human condition, then maybe it is taking things too far.

# data[].attributes.body
In the extracts, Moholy-Nagy argues that cities are not machines or scientific systems, but living results of history and imagination. She criticizes the idea that planning and architecture can be solved through technology or data. For her, the strength of a city comes from its continuous transformation and its connection to human values, not from efficiency or control.

I find her point about “faith in the historical city” very strong, that we should learn from how cities grow and adapt over time instead of trying to replace them with something completely new. The examples she gives, like Neuchâtel or Ratingen West, show how design can still respect the landscape and create identity.

I would slightly disagree with her negative view of science. Technology can also help cities to become more sustainable and connected if it’s used with care. But I agree with her that architecture must stay human and emotional, not just functional.

This text fits well with other readings that question modernist planning, like Aldo Rossi’s The architecture of the city. It also reminds me that as a future architect, I should see design as part of a long history, where every project continues a larger human story.

# data[].attributes.body
Sibyl Moholy-Nagy’s "Matrix of Man" is a visionary work that explores the city as a living matrix, shaped by history, culture, and human aspiration. Moholy-Nagy argues that cities are more than technical or scientific constructs. They embody the dreams, contradictions, and traditions of their inhabitants. The book criticizes technocratic approaches, warning that scientific planning alone cannot ensure vibrant or meaningful urban life. Instead, true urbanity arises from the interplay of landscape, climate, society, and individual creativity. Drawing on archetypal models and historical analysis, Moholy-Nagy emphasizes that creativity and adaptation to local needs fuel lasting progress in cities. In the modern context, her insights remain urgently relevant: rapid digitalization and data-driven planning risk overshadowing the necessity for diversity, social integration, and connection with tradition. Today’s urban challenges, sustainability, inequality, and resilience, require that cities retain their character as arenas for collaboration and renewal, not just technical systems. As Moholy-Nagy insists, cities must always be molded around the needs of their people, balancing innovation with respect for communal and historical context. Her work stands as a call for human-centered, flexible, and creatively grounded city-building.

# data[].attributes.body
In her text, Sibyl Moholy-Nagyby critiques how the scientification of cities, and city-planning is destroying the design process of cities. She explains that cities are not just technical systems that can be fixed by using statistics. Rather she believes that man’s reaction to his environment is irrational and is influenced by emotions and subjective factors.

Another quote that stuck with me was “Experiments are by nature ephemeral; cities are by nature permanent.” (p.15) For me it summarised her attitude towards the scientification of architecture, how it doesn’t work in her eyes because cities should outlast the ephemeral condition that experiments inherit.

I agree with her point of view that cities are a lived, historical and cultural organism rather than a neutral place with functions but I can also see the advantages that statistics could add to city planning. Because if we argue that cities are subjective then we as planners and designers also will automatically design with their background and subjective views and ideas. Which on one hand of course can be beneficial but in certain cases can also lack the consideration for other lived realities.

# data[].attributes.body
In “Matrix of a man” by Sibyl Moholy-Nagy, she states her opinion on the current state  of city development. She describes that each city is a reflections of its own history and the people that made the decisions for it. The cities developed and grew in the context of their individual problems and challenges and so in a rather bottom up kind of a manner. Accordingly, the city grew at a human scale appropriate for the inhabitants. In that sense, she defends the historical city.In Contrast, the modern day city planning is trying to find solutions according to science, which potentially disconnects the city from its actual “direct” problems. On page 18 she describes 5 different types of cities, which are not further described in the excerpt that we read.From page 283 she goes into different examples of what cities could look like. I have to admit that I didn’t quite get if those were supposed to be good or bad examples.

I personally have some agreements and some disagreements. What makes a lot of sense to me, is that each city has its own context, that determine what makes sense in terms of city planning and architecture. Not only regarding aspects of physical but cultural and historical ones. However, I think its also counterproductive to only take these aspects into consideration. After all, each solution that came up for each city was at some point a “new idea”. Therefore, it would be reasonable to look at scientific evidence and consider it a “tool”, that helps with new ideas rather than basing an entire plan on that scientific evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
My first impression was I found it quite hard to understand the text because of the sophisticated choice of words. After a chatgpt session I think I finally understood her point of criticising the "modern city". Overall I have to say the general vibe of the text was very pessimistic but that's probably also something that intrigued me somehow. Because I think this pessimistic view on the technocratic city and technical evolution in general and how it affects the city is in my opinion justified. Although I think not everything is bad about these advancements and she could also try to argue for a balance in "modern city planning" to incorporate the technocratic approach but also keep the urbanity or liveliness and history of a city.

# data[].attributes.body
This text made me think about how we approach city planning. Moholy-Nagy argues that cities are not just technical problems to solve; they are shaped by history, culture, and imagination. One statement that stood out to me was “Experiments are by nature ephemeral; cities are by nature permanent.” It highlights the tension between short-term solutions and the long-term nature of urban environments.

The images in the text are powerful because they show the contrast between strict futuristic schemes and historically rooted urban forms. The diagrams of settlement patterns demonstrate how certain configurations have endured over time, while the examples of modern projects reveal attempts to integrate human scale and context.

I also found her idea that imperfection leads to productivity very interesting. It suggests that cities should remain flexible and open to change rather than being locked into strict systems. This feels relevant today when technology often dominates planning discussions.

# data[].attributes.body
Sibyl Moholy-Nagy shows in Matrix of Man that cities are expressions of human culture, experience, and adaptability. She argues that modern urban planning, focused too much on science and technology, has lost touch with these emotional and cultural foundations. She does not reject reason, but critiques approaches that treat cities and human life purely as measurable systems.

She calls for a balance between knowledge and culture. Only by combining these can cities function efficiently while also having an identity.

Her writing is both analytical and poetic, blending historical narrative, philosophical reflection, and metaphor. The illustrations in the text make abstract ideas tangible, showing recurring patterns of settlement, adaptation, and symbolism. They reinforce her argument that cities are shaped by collective intelligence and human experience, not just technical planning.

Said this, the main concern of Moholy-Nagy is still present in today's urban design and architecture. Especially with the idea of AI and how it starts to take over. One could argue that AI somehow connected the two sides and brings balance, by it being a collection of human intelligence in a rational, scientific way. But on the other hand, AI isn't living the culture, traditions and everyday-life. At the end, it breaks everything down to data, a binary system; to 0 and 1.

# data[].attributes.body
The text reads like a highly entertaining essay by someone frustrated with modernist approaches. For the most part, I share her criticism of these practices. Bringing cultural aspects back into the discussion seems, for the current Zeitgeist, a logical step in the debate on urban design.

That said, I did not quite understand her position toward science. On the one hand, I share her criticism of the attitude she aptly describes as “20th-century man has become drunk on his achievements.” On the other hand, I am unsure how she envisions science being implemented—or not implemented—within what she calls a heuristic approach.

# data[].attributes.body
What stood out to me is how strongly she defends the city as something alive, shaped by people and history, not by machines or formulas. I like how she points out that cities are full of contradictions - old and new, rich and poor, tradition and change - and that this mix is what gives them character. Her warning against turning planning into a “scientific experiment” feels important, because it reminds us that people’s feelings, memories, and daily lives can’t be measured with numbers alone.

At the same time, I wonder how her ideas fit with today’s problems. We do need science and technology to deal with things like pollution or climate change, but she makes it clear that these tools should never replace the human side of city life. Maybe the real challenge is finding a balance—using science to help, but letting imagination and history guide the way we build and live together.

# data[].attributes.body
The text Matrix of Man by Sibyl Moholy-Nagy talks about the development of human settlements and based on certain values. It seems to critique modern approaches of architecture and puts itself opposite of a sort of scientification of the profession and their view on the qualities of urbanization. Moholy-Nagy compares cities to human behavior and therefore seems to make the statement that like humans cities tend to repeat or keep being stuck in the past whereas it couldn't exist without having a past because that is what gives it shape. Cities are not there to integrate us into nature but to protect us.

# data[].attributes.body
In the introduction and conclusion of Matrix of Man, Sibyl Moholy-Nagy explores the evolution of human settlements as a reflection of cultural values, environmental adaptation, and collective intelligence. She takes a critical stance on her century’s tendency to design urban environments without learning from the wisdom of the past. Moholy-Nagy deplores how her time became overly focused on scientific and technological progress, celebrating it as a universal sign of advancement while overlooking the qualitative and human dimensions of urban life. Instead of relying on quantitative methods and the illusion of control, she argues for a more adaptive and sensitive approach that observes and responds to the environment in order to achieve true social well-being. Her “matrix” metaphor reveals the city as a living organism, shaped by the interconnected patterns of adaptation, symbolism, and collective intelligence that shape how societies build and inhabit space.

I really enjoyed the richness of the visual material; the diagrams, plans, and illustrations help translate her ideas into spatial expressions. However, I personally did not always grasp where she was going with her argument, as her discourse sometimes felt abstract and difficult to follow. Despite this, I think her call to recover a sense of coherence and meaning within the built environment is still relevant today.

# data[].attributes.body
Published in 1968, Sibyl Moholy-Nagy's "Matrix of Man" takes a critical stance on her era's approach to designing urban environments without considering past lessons. "...Man reveres the past, yet he ignores or denies it in the name of an utterly unknowable future." (p.11)

She deplores how her century has been hyper-focused on scientific achievements, proclaiming them as an proof of universal progress for humanity. Instead of falling into this illusion of controlling our future cities with statistics and technological advancements, Moholy-Nagy advocates for a more qualitative approach to urban development, by observing and adapting his environment, in order to achieve the greatest social well-being for his society. I do agree with her warnings to put into question technocrats' race and blind enthusiasm towards scientific progress, however I don't find her text completely clear in terms of where she concretely sees the future of urbanism going.

# data[].attributes.body
In Matrix of Man, Sibyl showed a critic view on the implementation of science on architecture. She states that "...the planners and architects who know that man's reaction to his environment is largely arational, determined by purely emotional identifications with religion, wealth, education, art, ..." where she emphasizes that human art is most important. And the scientific side which doesn't take all the dynamic sides into account. Science is based on very simplified experiments, that don't measure the chaos humans need for a functional city. Sibyl stated that "Only the imperfect is productive." where she means that only man's unfulfilled vision of order comes from chaos. In the appendix were also many pictures shown where the organic structure is a big factor, and transport and mobility make a city well-working. Such as a big relief where buildings can block each other views. These kind of dynamics make architecture so interesting, and when using the scientific 'man-made' approach, Sibyl says you exclude the important steps while making cities.

# data[].attributes.body
05  Sibyl Moholy-Nagy (1968) "Matrix of Man".

Moholy-Nagys approach to urban design lies in recalling how cities used to be built. Her text beautifully contextualises how the emergence of science (as building guideline) led to „the separation of man from the processes of nature“. Moholy-Nagy stresses that the ‚good‘ planners and architects are the ones „who know that man‘s reaction to his environment is largely arational, determined by purely emotional identifications with religion, wealth, education, art, amusement, charity, and family life“, and therefore not predictable by any algorithm or scientifically solvable. Man, as she says, is so blinded by his scientific achievements of „the future“, that „he thinks he has severed his ties with historical continuity“, when it is exactly where he should look to build lasting, human cities. She puts humans and science in opposing positions and pleads for an evidence-based approach, guided by human emotion and ancient knowledge, to build the cities of the future. Man preceded cities but cities preceded science; cities are here to stay and have been here long before sciences dawn, so let us learn from them, as they acutely represent decisions and lessons humans before us have faced and learned from. In her text, Moholy-Nagy manages to draw a line from Roman slums to the regrouping of matter and it‘s eternal return“, all while having an incredibly human touch at its core.

# data[].attributes.body
In her text “Matrix of Man,” Sibyl Moholy-Nagy draws attention to the history of cities. She states that new social tendencies, such as the massive population increase in the 20th century, can best be observed in areas with the highest density.
Furthermore, Moholy-Nagy points out that the urban crisis of the 20th century differs from those of the past because science had gained greater importance over time. A technocratic way of thinking came to dominate architecture and city planning, which she sees as contradictory to the idea of the city as a place of diversity.
From today’s point of view, I am interested in what Moholy-Nagy would think about the role of AI in architecture. I also wonder which other factors are currently leading to less diversity in cities. Moholy-Nagy goes on to categorize certain archetypes of cities, which seems somewhat paradoxical to me, since categorization itself can be seen as a tool of science.

# data[].attributes.body
Matrix of Man: An Illustrated History of Urban Environment (1968)

Introduction, Conclusion. pp. 11-20 & 284-303

# data[].attributes.body
Post your reading response to the text until 06.11.25 13:00 on this Padlet

Suggestions for the Reading Response:

-What are the most important arguments and suggestions that you can take away from the text?

-Which arguments would you disagree with the author on, and why?

-How do you evaluate the text in light of its historical context?

-How could this text be related to other texts already read in this seminar?

-Which arguments do you consider significant for your future work as an architect?