Abstract
Construction Toys have not been the main subject of study from almost any discipline; not even the most important toy museums have collected them in a systematic or specific way. Proof of this is the scarce of existing specialized bibliography. In general, they have been studied mainly from a historical and descriptive approach, without delving into their particularities, and not even differentiating the objects and the actions they deploy from any other kind of toys and play. From the point of view of architecture, they have been linked to formal issues, and to their potential to develop compositional and creative capacities. In this sense, their clear influence on the early training of renowned architects have revealed in previous research. Beyond these relationships, this thesis claims the relevance of an operational look at the objects that instigate the constructive play, already recognized in the disciplinary discourse, but little explored so far. For this purpose, toys are understood as a simplified model to identify the characteristic parameters and the design mechanisms associated with systems of parts. The outcomes of the first part of the research can be assimilated in the complex model of the architectural project. From this approach, this work seeks to demonstrate how toys can be a referential mechanism external to the discipline and more related to the concept of organization rather than composition. The construction toy, as a kit of parts, is defined by a collection of objects -found, purchased or designed pieces- that are brought together intentionally, under certain rules -inherent, explicit o invented- to assemble other objects –limited or unlimited- of greater complexity. At the same time, architecture, as a system of parts, defines a complex entity, formed by ‘units’ of different nature -abstract and concrete- that under specific ‘principles’ admits ‘eventual multiple wholes’. As a result, this work delves into the systematic processes and the fragmented thinking that have become distinctive of the contemporary context. The key ideas developed as conclusions could not only be addressed in the teaching field to learn how to design from this approach, but also be identified as a referential framework for other disciplines. In that sense the interest of these processes transcends architecture. The main concern relies on the relationships between parts, rather than the parts themselves or the specific results of each of these possible relationships separately.
