1) “From Object to Field” argues that as architects, we must grow into an “acceptance of the real in all its messiness and unpredictability”. However, as first years, we were frequently discouraged from considering anything conventional for our projects. Do you feel that this way of teaching detracts from our interpretations of the real world? What would you change about the way we interpret, construct, and design?
2) According to Kilian, the beauty of outside phenomena becomes watered down as we continuously capture it through models and studies. Through your own experience, do you feel that the design process takes us closer or farther away from the concept of abstraction? Do you feel that architecture becomes more interesting when it is either completely abstract or state-of-the-art?
3) Do you see yourself using Parametricism as a major part of your architectural career? Please explain why you feel your choice will be better for your goals and interests in the field. How does its incorporation into our work help to serve larger causes and social issues?
One of the most interesting points brought up in today’s discussion for me was the idea of our interpretation of the “real world”, as it was discussed in “From Object to Field”, evolving alongside the technology of that time period. This makes sense because the advancement of technology has made us as a people smarter and more intelligible. With the same analogy used to describe common knowledge from the Bronze Age not moving, we would not be able to visualize, program, or even comprehend such complex relationships and patterns without the tools made to do so in a matter usable for us.
My main thoughts on this topic are questioning how these things will continue to advance from its current standing and impact in our lives. The lecture portion of the class spoke on the idea of cultural implications being a huge influencer of qualities for both form and performance; one can only think of what parametricism evolves into when it develops to use parameters such as cultural diversity, income, and other social numbers that we as people experience on a daily basis. I feel that this is why Artificial Intelligence cannot “kill” the architect unless it becomes the architect. Without our culture of emotional response and consideration to feelings, technology cannot replace our impact.
1. This week’s readings seem to have fairly mutual opinion on the phenomena and real-world constrictions architects are faced with. The challenge then one could argue is how to merge abstraction and a provocative art form with these real-world parameters without having to give up a greater portion of that abstraction. Current architectural styles seem to take a place somewhere in the middle of minimalism and simplicity and cleanness combined with the idea of abstraction. Is the future of architecture going to be defined by modern technologies and their further liberation from constraints in order to further abstraction or will we continue to perfect this simplicity and complexity within materiality and simple abstractions?
2. The concept of architecture and the concept of abstraction has changed and cycled through throughout history. In “From Object to Field” there is an emphasis on the idea of conforming to the real world and the loss of abstraction. The concept of abstraction will never be clearly defined however we still seem to place a hierarchy on its forms of being. In modern architecture is the element and impression of abstraction through its provocative nature more present if it is dealt through the general form and aesthetic of the architectural space itself or if it is felt though the presence of being within it and contributes to the architectural experience gained?
3. The first week of CDA we read about how modeling, diagraming and allowing the presence of architecture be shown though different medias can contribute to its concept and reach levels of abstraction the physical elements might not be able to contribute to. However, Kilian argues studies and models only further the real world constraints and the work begins to lose its sense of abstraction. How can both be true? Does this show the constant battle between truly defining abstraction? Is there a way one can be proven over the other?
Icon, index and symbols are greatly significant to architecture as they are arguably what gives both history and culture to a specific definition or piece of architecture. Symbols, index and icons are used to drive concepts and break down the purpose and current language of architecture in order to learn and digest it. The physical process of analysis and breaking down the architecture and their icons, index and symbols is important to produce more radical ideas and languages of architecture to further develop and drive architecture in the future. The contribution of both symbols, icons, and index of the ever changing modern culture and architecture has created an interesting relationship of the balance of influencing one another. In some senses you can argue this relationship helps move society and culture forward which then aids the change in architecture and ideals. This is especially seen in cities. Architecture has a part to whole and a whole to part relationship to whatever surrounds it including both people and nature. Nature through natural numerical occurrences or structural occurrences and the interests of people and culture as well as modern needs creates this relationship. This ties to the moiré effect of super imposition of various elements and patterns which could be both natural and abstract in nature. Tying the moiré effect and cultural, historical and social symbols, index and icons.
1. To what extent do we allow the computer to come up with designs for us? Does randomization still count as Architecture, and if so how does it change Architectural intent?
2. What are the dangers of creating Architecture in this primarily “quick” process-based fashion? How do Architects avoid becoming arbitrary?
3. Parametric modeling seems quite decontextualized and experimental. How does it take into account social and cultural implications and needs?
The simple fields and patterns looked at during class were interesting because due to the way something is layered and positioned, more complex features develop. Through controlled experimentation the idea of neglecting ornamentation is reflected by creating complexity from sheer regular arrangement. This radical movement as moved from a sense of precedent to computation. While I believe the computer is a major advantage to the field of architecture, the systems of computational can lead to a disconnect between the architect and the project, where the computer generates too much of the design. I think the point where parametric design follows the idea and doesn’t create it, and doesn’t control it is the point which parametric design is not detrimental. This is a situation where less is more and the computer shouldn’t be taken advantage of and the architect should remain in control.
1) Is parametricism a desire? If so, what is this desire about? Is it a desire of mimicry, or is it a desire of separation?
Note: think of morphogenesis. What exactly is the importance of simulating the natural world in the world of computers and machines? What do we get from it? Why do we need it at the first place?
2) Is there an inherent responsibility to the public in parametric design? If so, how does it inherit from its surroundings, public consciousness, and the past? What is the perceptual implication of this responsibility?
Note: this is NOT to assume that parametric design is decontextualized in general. One thing to keep in mind is that public ideology shaped by existing context could be shape-shifted by what is made possible through the use of computer graphics and vision. This question is asked based upon a position that it is a necessity for public imagination to be opened up and strengthened by what parametricism can help us enable as designers. But what position of power does it put us in? Does it make us the authority of public imagination, or does it actually catalyze the liberation of geometric thinking and democratize it?
3) How do we break the system, assuming that we do not only consider parametricism and/or parametric design as formal acts?
Note: architecture as a broader concept has well been adapted to other disciplines (game architecture, hardware system architecture, etc.), and it seems that the very action of dwelling can only be defined as a substrate of this concept. Parametricism in this case could possibly be considered as a feedback, in which other substrates of architecture start to inform how the production of space could be altered, enhanced, and/or systematized. But is there a boundary where our creativity is hindered by computational media and approaches? I think we may have been witnessing a little bit of it already. And if so, how should we go beyond? What would happen next?
The deterministic nature of algorithms seems analogous with that of architecture in a sense that there is a desire for stability, a desire for absolute control. Such desire in terms of aesthetics is actually nothing new – similar traces could certainly be found in Wagner’s ideology of gesamtkunstwerk. Yet the political implication here almost certainly counteracts with the sporadic nature of human behavior, though sadly this is also reducing with an increasing demand for orders that prioritizes technology in our contemporary society. With this in mind, I consider it crucial for us to think of our role as architects in close alignment with the words of Hakim Bey – “the inclusion of order with chaos in mind.”
1) In Kilian’s “The Question of the Model and its Impact on design” he explains that outcomes of computational geometry can tend to look similar and repetitive. When creating a computational model do you lose the ability to be freely creative and become more derivative due to the similar logic used to create parametric models?
2) In the era of technology how can break out of the repetitiveness caused by computational geometry?
3) Does parametric modeling give us the ability to create architecture for specific climates and context, or is it limited to deriving interesting geometry? In Parametricism Schumacher explains that parametric modeling has breeded a new style of architecture, but does that style take into account context, he says “However, what confronts us is a new style rather than merely a new set of techniques.” a specific style is not suited for every climate.
In the presentation this week parametricism was shown as the new style for architects. Using mathematics, pattern and logic it has broken out as the new style. It is heavily dependent on the computer and technology. Parametricism can be a great way to create a building but only if it is suited for its environment. Creating a ‘style’ of building is interesting, but not successful unless it is created for an environment. We should not strive to create a specific style of buildings, instead create buildings that thrive in the environment and climate they are in. That being said, I do think parametric modeling is a good way to learn about possible iterations and different techniques to include the context of a building. It is also much quicker than drawing and physical modeling and can more accurately show and represent architecture. Zaha Hadid architects use animations and parametric modeling to represent their architecture and it can often lead to a clearer understanding of their creations.
1. Seen as adaptable within their current conditions, within Patrick Schumacher’s ‘A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design,’ the parametric responsiveness of the built environment becomes sensitive to intervention of different temporal scales. Parametric design and resulting order are assimilated to the donkey’s path of least resistance. In this way, the animal resides in field of relationships and responds to the forces on which the environment is sustained. How does the progression of the emergent and unplanned natural path embed itself into the parametric process where the patterns create a field independent of the preconceived planned design?
2. Morphogenesis interests itself in the emergence of underlying complex patterns within the natural environment sustained in the development of interactions until the formation of density amasses into a whole system. Weinstock assimilates these natural processes of organizing patterns in ‘Morphogenesis and the Mathematics of Emergence,’ to the generation of limbs and organs. How does this formulation illustrate the possibility of using the abstract natural complexities in exploring the new design of a self-organizing system within architectural structures?
3. Within Stan Allen’s ‘From Object to Field’ is the conceptual basis of figure being as imperative to field, meaning the space filled is equally essential to the space left empty. Solid and void are of equal value. Within this understanding is the composition of figure against figure and the implications of relations among the modern intervention into the previously clearly delineated relationships of the classical configuration. Does void now become more important when considering landscape urbanisms role in mediating the mass and traversing the built environment? When void is caught between objects how does it form movement and visual relationships among its surroundings?
Within the realization of the blobs downfall within its own isomorphic condition arises the interest of the field; disintegrating the object and creating a complex and ambiguous sea of space. An infinitely vast space poses the idea of a life without objects. The field provides a host for the emergent qualities and properties of the singular acting both individually and amalgamating to a larger organism with a different set of behaviors. Like the super organism of flocking birds, the part to part relationships of self-similar units creates a homogeneity within the self-determined structural system. In this way, the field contains an urban-scaled rhythm. Relying on the attractive forces of adhesion, uniformity, and avoidance the singular unit multi behavioral organism. In this way does form arise from a configuration and amassed behavior of smaller parts? Does the individual act differently from the whole in a way that questions the material of the whole versus the matter.
1. While 3D modeling is becoming a necessary process in architecture, it seems to have an impact on other fields. How has this shift from manual to digital modeling changed architecture and how has this changed the production process of design?
2. In “Parametricism” by Schumacher, he mentions that “parametricism emerges from the creative exploitation of parametric design systems in the course of articulating increasingly complex social processes and institutions.” How has this emergence lead to potential new styles in architectural urbanism?
3. According to Weinstock in “Morphogenesis and the Mathematics of Emergence,” emergence is the new concept in the digital world. Has this concept set architecture into a new phase of design and what would this new phase look like?
This week’s presentation examines parametricism as a dominant style for avant-garde practice. It is a style that relies on program, algorithms, and mathematics that it is categorized into several agendas: parametric accentuation, figuration, responsiveness, and urbanism. These agendas are tools to achieve rationality and urban effects. One example that applies this style is Zaha Hadid Architects. This firm uses digital animation as a stepping stone to design not only architecture but also products. The “Extraordinary Process,” an exhibition at the London gallery in Maison Mais Non, by Patrick Schumacher designed a jacket that use “zippers, and leather in particular zones, and lightness and perforations in zones where you might perspire more.” As parametric design becomes a new approach in architecture, it is becoming a popular tool among designers. The freedom of parametricism offers an opportunity for great amount of variation and geometrical configuration manipulation in architecture.
1. “Living organisms can be regarded as systems, and these systems acquire their complex forms and patterns of behavior through the interactions, in space and over time, of their components.” How is this similar to systems of interaction in architecture? Can systems in a built landscape continue to evolve in dynamic ways?
2. If “the ideal model is like a veil, lightweight and flexible, thin but capable to adapt to the contours of a problem.” Then why do we consider models exact representations of design, something weighted and unwavering?
3. Parametricism comes not from the parametric tools themselves, but from the way in which designers morph and apply those tools. The tool and the designer then have a mutualistic relationship in that one cannot produce parametric design without the other. Since the invention of the parametric tool, how has this relationship between designer and tool changed the way designers think?
1. Whitehead describes organisms as a collection of relationships that are relating to each other, stating that they “adjust own behavior in anticipation of changes to the patterns of activity around them” In this sense can a building be considered an organism? Is it possible for the relations of human social qualities to be represented within the form of a building and the concept behind it?
2. Sanford Kwinter describes technology as a tool to view and understand nature, to learn from it, as even with modern day advanced technology, processes of nature remain far superior to those of mankind. He compares it to Lucretius’ ‘Treatise on Nature’ by which technology has the power to “free humans from the gods…and bear the potential to unlock the door on the universal laws that govern the appearance and destruction of form, freeing us from the multiple tyranny of determinism and from the poverty of the linear.” Should architects always look to nature first and foremost? Will that create the most effective and impressive architecture in terms of environmental and aesthetic affect?
3. In his writing ‘From Object to Field’ Allen describes the figure “not as a demarcated object but as an effect emerging from the field itself – as moments of intensity, as peaks or valleys within a continuous field.” Does this begin to show the removal of monumental architectural objects such as singular skyscrapers? Is architecture already becoming the ‘moire’ that brings cities to the full extent of what a three dimensional field can be, with a logical intensity that creates an urban fabric as a response to the natural field within it?
Parametric architecture certainly seems to be the beginning of a new architectural logic that brings a nuance to form, while also addressing incredibly important issues of fluidity that can become inherently problematic when facing the idea of merging various time periods of architecture within a city. It brings forward the idea of architecture as a system, enhancing the importance of the field. Similarly, in the theoretical sense, parametric design begins to question the architectural language that has been built up until this point. By changing the logic, and thus the words we use, it is bringing forward an entirely new and radical architecture. The role of technology within parametric design also brings into question a variety of topics relating to the role of architects, the effect of technology on a population and on architecture specifically. It could be argued that the technology surrounding parametric design begins to be a figural representation of natural qualities, such as emergent properties, and that this technology allows architects to better design in terms of sustainability.
1. In, The Question of the Model and its Impact on Design, by Killian, there is this question of authorship, and in the contextualization of various fields and designs, that authorship can be blurred. Is the design derived from the landscape and its own reasoning or the architect? Are these fields that are melded into the world, just alien organizations that attempt, yet fail to weave within the structure of the world? Does this then, create an immense emphasis on joints and connections, as without those key moments, the foreign field fails?
2. One issue in architecture, that is often discussed in not only the readings, but during class is this idea of uniqueness, and how at many times it is forced and corrupted for reasons related to selfishness, or the drive to be individualistic as opposed to providing a service. Killian asked that, “[In borrowing from other disciplines], can a model’s signature be overcome by its user through creative use and interpretation or is the creation of a novel model necessary in order to ensure uniqueness in the outcome?” The question here, is what defines the uniqueness? Is it purely formal and aesthetically driven? Or has the profession been damned by this trend as the true uniqueness is through smart design that brings about change/aid without the excessive ornaments?
3. With Parametricism, Schumacher states, “Not long ago we witnessed an accelerated, cumulative build-up of virtuosity, resolution and refinement facilitated by the simultaneous development of parametric design tools and scripts that allow the precise formulation and execution of intricate correlations between elements and subsystems.” Can one argue that the tools and technology given today create the opposite condition? That is to say, that despite how “intricate” and “accurate” these tools are perceived to be, they actually provide a crutch to produce intricate fields, that lack any connection, and or relation to the physicality of the site. How can this duality be remedied so that the latter condition doesn’t occur?
Parametrics in architecture is an incredibly divisive formal logic. There are various benefits and drawbacks associated with this method of design, but there are fundamental issues with this method. During class parametricism was compared to the nature of birds, and the formations they make in the sky while they seek safety amongst each other. They create what was described to be as a “superorganism,” a giant manifestation of smaller organisms into one whole. It’s part to part over part to whole relationship, which is one of simultaneous avoidance, uniformity and attraction. This form of natural parametricism is the product of fear, of the birds flying away in calculated paths to avoid death. With this idea in mind, who is not to say that architectural parametrics is the same exercise, with the fear being predicated on an inability to control nature, and so various systems and fields are organized to attempt to remedy that incapacity. Parametric designs, as seen in the ones presented in class, have an overarching dictatorial and oppressive nature, and whether the intention is to be vituperative in its urban context, the only elements that matter is a freedom of architectural expression and democratic construction, pieces that can be sustained so long as the architect refuses to rely on processes of redundancy and laziness.
1. In the book Parametricism: A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design, Schumacher has mentioned the proposal from Le Corbusier in order to notice the importance of creating orders in the parametricist urbanism. Le Corbusier thought the curve is ruinous, difficult and dangerous: it is a paralyzing thing. However, straight lines are not the only geometry can provide ordered housing, streets, and towns and there are many ordered curves example in the design history of architecture. Do you agree with Le Corbusier’s opinion that curves will make urban design oppose itself to us?
2. Stan Allen emphasized on the importance of keeping an ordered grid in the deign of field condition by providing lots of historical examples such as the precise geometric rule in the design of the Mosque at Cordoba, Spain. Do you think those orders are naturally exist in the building or human define them?
3.Michael Linstock mentioned the use of mathematics in the field of studying perimetric architecture so that we are able to understand the interdisciplinary coherency existing in the architecture. But during ancient times, how does math help ancient people to design cities and towns?
In the presentation, the group provides lots of examples about how Zaha Hadid addressed parametricism in her architectural design from buildings to urban planning. One of the most In the book Parametricism:A New Global Style for Architecture written by Schumacher, the writer mentioned the masterplan of Istanbul in Turkey created by Zaha Hadid Architects in 2006 which towns and perimeter blocks are defined by repetitive blocks. Those blocks are separated into four quadrants allowing for a secondary so that there is a rigorous grid behind the geometry. In my opinion, this rigorous grid is very useful in the design of the city as Le Corbusier has said there must be some precise and strict orders behind the urban planning instead of using uncontrolled curves just like those unorganized medieval towns. Also, the most thing I am curious about is how does parametricism contribute to future study in architecture.
1. In the reading, “From Object to Field” it is mentioned that when working with materials, the artist cannot exercise precise formal control over the material. My question is, would it be a bad or good thing if the artist had precise formal control over materials?
2. In the reading, “The Question of the Model and Its Impact on Design,” ideal model is described as a veil, lightweight and flexible, thin but capable to adapt to the contours of a problem. Why are these the parameters of the ideal model?
3. In the reading, “Computational Fallacy,” Kwinter strongly expresses his feelings toward computers, and brings the question, are they really so bad? When designing is an old fashioned pencil and paper better?
1. In my opinion, I believe that it would not be a great thing as many new discoveries and insights happen by chance, to quote a famous saying, we learn from our mistakes, and if an artist had a precise formal control over material, then the result would be, perhaps, not as great as it would have been.
2. The ideal model benefits from those specifications because they provide further insight into what the model is portraying.
3. Although computers have a somewhat rigid structure for designing, they do provide efficiency and new design methods, although there are some aspects lost when using computers over pencil and paper.
1. In the reading, “The Question of the Model and Its Impact on Design”, is it possible that parametric design makes the architecture profession more accessible to the public?
2. Can parametric design dilute the world of innovative design?
3. In Parametricism, Schumacher says the grid of the modern American city is undifferentiated and non-adaptive. Its freedom is limiting and results in a visual chaos. How can this problem be combated?
One interesting topic that was discussed during the seminar was the idea of bio mimicry. This approach is more applied in engineering fields such as creating jets based off the study of birds or creating designs and patterns found in nature. Much of what is mimicked however is the appearance of animals or plants found in nature but not the structure. Mother nature is able to construct and develop organisms that can grow and defy our notions of what structure really is. Could structure that is found is nature translate more into architecture where for example, the structure of a tree is developed into an actual building. I think parametric design may be a stepping stone to find a bridge between bio mimicry and architecture. Parametric design can take two different paths, one where it supplies most of the design ideas and constraints or the other where it is controlled by the user and follows the set of instructions. The design becomes more cohesive and in some ways almost monolithic. However, I do believe that sometimes parametric design is given too much emphasis where it is solely used to create an interesting skin without any thought to the building or surroundings but just for the sake of appearance. The design language then becomes broken and becomes disconnected with the design and architect.
1. In the Question of the Model and its Impact on Design, by Killian, there is the question of authorship. How is the heavy reliance on technology today leading to design work that is so far distanced from the designer’s intent that it becomes unauthored-ingenuine? The question of lack of originality is replaced with lack of design intent-
2.But is it important for factors other than ego/credit? Killian proposes the need for more sophisticated models but at which point is it simply unnecessary to include human in its design process; perhaps ai technology even could supplement computer generated processes with the emotional/social input required by human intervention.
3.Killian descries: “the ideal model is like a veil, lightweight and flexible, thin but capable to adapt to the contours of a problem.” This is an interesting statement as it proposes a dynamic quality’ a fluidity to design that often, in parametric modeling and otherwise, tends to have an end result-something completed. That is the nature, often, of a project. Is there, however, a lack of consideration given to the creation of evolving/adaptable modeling processes and the “end” results alike.
Parametricism offers the ability to create something relating to cultural subjectivity; or subject, rather. Architecture is a political act- and it is something, through the creation of this new architectural language, that brings about a shift to modern culture whether it parallels or juxtaposes mainstream beliefs/practices. “Emergent” effects are not simply of a formal nature but social, in this manner. The complexity of part to part vs part to whole design process contains principles of adhesion, uniformity and avoidance; controlled algorithmically. The question of whether this method of design becomes out of control due to realistic constraints or lack of resolution from a generated output is something I feel should be more heavily critiqued in judging success of a sophisticated design work rather than simply an eye-catching, complex skin; the meat and bones of which are missing.
1. In the article From Object to Field, the author Stan Allen mentioned the “minimalism develops in sequences, but rarely in fields”; the “extrinsic” elements are changed to modified form in the field. How does this change happen through time and through the process? Is this change being read as a positive change or just simply a new generation?
2. The computation of the natural world is exciting and over-complicated; when people try to learn and adapt the pattern of natural mechanism, we probably need specific calculations. With specific calculation, the result is relative predictable; but as the concept of emergence is relative random, how should we solve the conflict between precise computation and emergence?
3. The Parametricism design is indeed become a popular form in recent years. Using parametric modelling and scripting is a very common way to generate the form and analysis special influence of a design. But as the popularization of parametric design, how should we as architects to maintain the consistency of the local area while designing new buildings? How should we not to disrupt the natural order of the site while giving the new design a modern taste?
This week’s topic is about parametricism. Parametric design has been more and more popular among the field, this new way of analyzing and generating from gives more possibilities to modern architecture. Using parametric tools like Grasshopper, we can easily generate charts and graphs that helping us understand the site and our design; at the same time, using these tools can open up new views that was impossible to prospect decades before. This method can be applied in almost every step in design process: basic site analysis, from and distribution, structural formation, façade strategy, etc. We can see parametric process in most works by Zaha Hadid Architects; they all tend to give a strategy of landscape and every line and boundary is very well-controlled. It is like we, as architects, are setting up rules for the design, and letting the parametric computation to realize it. The amount of variations definitely help architects to find new approaches and possible solutions to certain problem, but at the same time we need to be aware of not letting parametricism occupy the entire process. In my opinion, parametric computation is helpful and necessary in the design process, but this will not be the most important part; to consider in a humanistic way is always the most important thing while design.
1. Is a building that engages it’s site more desirable than a building that doesn’t?
2. In some programs, like Grasshopper, there is a certain degree to how much the creator designs the product and how much is left for the program to create. To what extent do we let the computer create before the product doesn’t become the creators anymore?
3. Kwiter says all matter has some degree of active intelligence, even if it’s totally disorganized. If a building is totally disorganized whether its with the exterior appearance or the program, does this still show some degree of active intelligence?
1. I think in some instances, there is architecture that doesn’t engage the site and it is just as desirable as one that does. If a building can sit well on its site and it doesn’t necessarily engage it, I think it can gave a desirable effect like one that can sit well on its site and does engage it.
2. There is a very fine line that has to be drawn in order to decide how much we let the computer decide for us. We need to be able to figure out how to control the computer’s tasks and make sure that they don’t take over. We have to make sure our ideas are visible and that we are the ones telling the computer what to do to give us that result.
3. If a building has no organization then it would be assumed that there was no active intelligence used to create the building.
1. In From Object to Field there is the idea that “parts are not fragments of wholes.” How does one define a part then? Are there dozens of potential parts within the whole or is there a set boundary for what a part is?
2. In Kilian’s discussion of the model, one of the comments he makes is that models, by nature, are exploratory. Why then do we most often build models at the end of a project?
3. In Weinstock’s analysis of using mathematically techniques to produce collective behavior, he states that using a remote central computer is conceptually inferior to that of self-organization. Does this idea of a remote controlling force not also apply to architects who wish to do social projects in areas which they are unfamiliar? If it is necessary to be present to adapt to the environment, how can architects not intimately familiar with the land design for it?
1. Axel Kilian, in his work “The Question of the Underlying Model and Its Impact on Design,” talked about the fact that architects utilize technology in order to create innovated, parametric design. However, this rose the dispute of people questioning if the architecture that results from technology is in fact genuine and innovated. This is perplexing for who ever said that technology is not genuine and is not capable of genuine design since it was genuine humans that created these technological devices and input their ideas into them?
2. It is said that nature’s unpredictability in its design is what makes it beautiful. However when architects establish a design in unpredictability and organized chaos, it is rejected in masses. Why is that? Why is it not acceptable to imitate nature’s chaos?
3. In the article “Computational Fallacy,” it vividly pins nature and technology against each other, stating that no computer system can match the most simple natural system. This brings to question why people are turning away from their own creation of technological devices? Is technology not just the science of trying to mathematically understand nature’s chaos? Are people afraid of the power of computers, or jealous of the fact that computers are perhaps more capable of imitating nature more easily than humans?
It seems like a political act, or rather a social issue when it comes to finding an answer to why designing to a certain extent with technology has a negative connotation. It has little to do with the actual techniques and equipment for technology allows for more efficiency, and a perhaps a bit more accuracy. However, some people are in the mindset that utilizing computers is in a way cheating the system and design procedure, which is a point that has some legitimacy. It was mentioned in class that architecture, in the past, was more of an art than it is now. Architects use to see something, and had to visualize it two dimensionally. From there, they improved upon it and edited elements all on paper and by their hands, keeping in with regulations and codes. After, their drawings would be given to engineers and contractors to build their two dimensional vision in the real world. Technology, in a sense, has taken from this art. Yes, the design process is easier for one can create many variations of a model virtually faster as well as removes a level of human error. However, it is seen less as an art and more of a practice or discipline nowadays. Yet, there is the other side that could argue that technology is treading its way in this world as its own art; therefore, dismissing the issue of architecture being no longer an art when introduced with technology. From this circumstance, it grants that technology does has a place in the design world both as a tool, and as an existing art.
1. Kwinter’s “The Computational Fallacy” values natural systems that do not rely on digital construction over those that do; in what ways can this belief coincide with the move towards parametricism?
2. Kilian alludes to the fact that digital modeling can help illustrate problems that occur and counter-design to address these problems; to what extent can digital correction of problems risk compromise of a project’s aesthetic values?
3. Schumacher makes the case that technological advance of parametricism helps to advance the field of urban planning, what natural examples also give aid to determining a parametric system at a large scale?
An interesting point brought up in discussion was regarding the transition of architecture from virtual to material. I think in the current state of architecture, that gap can’t be bridged, particularly because there are many complications in how a system can be so interactive with itself. In a circumstance such as this, it is very easy for a parametric system to begin to become disjointed from the landscape that it is meant to be working with. This is why it is so important that the focus of parametric architecture be on the relationship between individual parts, and not have individual parts respond to a whole. This makes it easier for smaller components to be able to adapt to microconditions that exist within one landscape without having to necessarily alter the entire structure.
1. From “The Question of the Model”, Killian states that architecture has so many problems that he is surprised that more models haven’t been built to solve these problems. If a model or shape could be designed to solve on of these architectural problem, which one would it be and what would the model look like? ex. How would program be modeled as an conventional concept
2. Schumacher says that with parametric design, one can create these buildings that respond to the different parameters. But is it actually possible to parametrically design a complex, fluid, and responsive space with simple parametrics?
3. Going off the previous point, since architecture is ever changing and can be versatile, how will rigid parametrics be involved in the design process for complex structures? How will they change and adapt to the ever shifting uses and needs of the space?
When thinking about parametricism, individuality and the whole are equally as important. No one form, space or object is any less valuable than the whole which they make up. Thinking about this from a design perspective, it is difficult to imagine an entire form without one of its components, or also to imagine all the small parts that make a completely different structure than the original shape. Much like the birds in their flock, architecture works better and more efficiently with all the parts there, and if it were to be singled out it would be a simple wall or a single door. However, the down side of parametric design lies in the rigidness and stiffness of the code, to the point were it can’t flow and function as an adaptable means of design. Despite this issue, I think that it still serves as merely a conceptual tool and visual aid to understand complex relationships between the part and whole.
1.When beginning a project in architecture, specifically one where a building, home, or structure is being built somewhere, it is important to do a site analysis, or as described in “From Object to Field”, figure out your field conditions. Taking this first step in a project allows for the “acceptance of the real in all its messiness and unpredictability”. In other words, it allows the architect to understand all the forces and “characters” that will need to be addressed by the building in addition to building code and a client’s program. Architects complete the site analysis by visiting the site, taking measurements and data, etc. However, with new technology, site analysis can be done strictly from behind a computer screen, without even having to visit the site in person. Is there a downfall to this new technology? Is it actually necessary to visit the site in person? Is technological analysis all we need anymore?
2.A topic I keep returning to in terms of questions is this idea of creating a new architecture. As stated weeks before, there is this argument that there isn’t a truly “new architecture” because it is just an evolution of what we already have seen. But, can this really be true? Parametricism seems to be a new path for a new architecture and style. The style is based on new technology such as coding/scripting, and design systems based on outputs of programs and equations done by a computer. Is this something we have possibly seen before? Is it an evolution? Or can we actually say we have a new architecture?
3.Technology is a huge part in architecture today. From phase 1 of analyzing a site, and creating diagrams, to designing the building, and creating an image, technology has the ability to do take on all these tasks. However, when it comes to designing a building, even when designed on a program, rhino for example, there is still a huge emphasis placed on building a physical scaled model by hand to truly understanding your building, and how all of the components of the building work together. With technological advancements making everything easier, as in the case of site analysis and understanding the natural elements at work on site, will physical models always be a necessary component of an architect’s design process? Or will the importance of creating a physical model lessen more and more over time as technology becomes increasingly more important?
Technology is becoming more and more apparent in the everyday lives of people. It is no longer just televisions and cellphones and cars in which technology is advancing. We are entering a stage in the world where technology is making the daily lives and tasks of people easier. In the perspective from an architect, one can see how technology aides in the production and designing of a building. From stage one with site analysis and analyzing forces such as wind, water, contamination, etc. to programs such as rhino and Revit where the designing takes place. An even more updated technological advancement is parametricism where now the computer and formulated equations and patterns are designing buildings rather than the architect. This technology is just beginning, so who knows where it will take us.
1. In “The Question of the Model and Its Impact on Design,” the author describes a trend in the field in which architects are “looking to other disciplines” for “genuinely new models for design.” Does this contradict Kipnis’ insistence that architecture is “retreating from the New,” not searching for it? Or does it instead describe new growth in the profession in which, tired of relying on precedent, architects embraced the lack of originality in their own field and moved towards interdisciplinarity in favor of the “genuine new”?
2. If parametricism is the use of dimensionality to change the shape of model geometry in time with the modification of dimensional values, does it possess the ability to measure and account for the “form between things,” in terms of local connection as stated by Allen, or merely the form? How does it handle the “messiness and unpredictability of real life”? Is it too idealized?
3. Knowing that the goal of parametricism is the “total integration of the evolving built environment,” is it realistic to assume, that, should a system fail (i.e., structure,) the parametric model is prepared to replace it? Does it consider the potential of failure in the built environment, and if one system fails, does the model fail?
In today’s presentation, I saw a comment regarding parametric design that I found interesting, and particularly telling: “Evolution is more than adaptation; evolution is differentiation.” The components of the world are constantly evolving, and while the design process is free to evolve with them, built projects are tragically static. Buildings become a snapshot record of a process, but struggle to “evolve” beyond this. Architecture is dynamic, but the buildings architecture forms are inherently unchanging. Parts of the whole may move or shift with the seasons, with the sunlight, with the program, with time- but it has been built with a set of limitations that it will exist within if it is to successfully exist at all. They cannot evolve without renovation, and in parametric design, renovation would produce an entirely different building, as the shift of one component subsequently shifts all components. Is that realistic, or justified? The design cycle of parametricism seems to be more conceptual than tangible, which will only take it so far in the field. By singing its apparent triumphs, parametricism may accidentally be drawing attention to its limitations.
1. Stan Allen presents a discussion over field conditions that are built up from a series of individual objects. He makes the claim that the aggregate of these distinct objects enables a field condition that simultaneously celebrates the individual and the collective. However, we do not see the individual pixels that makeup an image but rather the whole image. If this is true, then does the individual object have the same presence and value as the field?
2. Patrik Schumacher argues for a deep rationality that can be achieved by parametricism through a set of parameters in terms of mass, spacing, and directionality. He contrasts this form of urban design with Le Corbusier’s theories, who once remarked that the straight line and the right angle were the key to man’s dominion over nature. Do you believe that there is an actual difference in methodology between the two, as both seek to establish order and a set of rules within an urban fabric that is constantly being shaped by a series of random natural, political, and social factors?
3. Parametricism on allows us to understand the natural world in a more quantitative fashion. Through video games and computer simulations, we have attempted to understand natural processes such as the flow of water in a river or the swarm movements of a group of bats. This however intrinsically is all based on a drastic simplification and false order of a process that has its own natural order. Is there an intellectual and moral flaw in human’s using computers as a means of understanding the world or are they our gate into gathering the “intelligence” within matter?
The belief that parametricism is the ultimate resolution to urban scale design is one that is flawed in its conception and often is used to hide an underlying agenda by many architects. Patrik Schumacher’s advocacy for this new process of design is presented as a method in which the complexity of factors that affect urban design can all be taken into consideration through parametricism. However, in the comparison between the ideas that he presents and the manifestation of these ideas into a concrete plan, we begin to see that for Schumacher an underlying aesthetic agenda is held to a much higher value than these “factors” he has taken into consideration. In fact, Hadid’s plan for Instanbul seems to glaze over the social role, context, and politics that heavily influence urban design. The only politics that is ultimately considered is not those of the urban context and the people that will inhabit these monolithic spaces, but rather reside in the architect’s dominion over a “blank canvas”.
1. Le Corbusier states that he believes that curves are a negative in the architecture world and won’t work well in urban spaces against the straight lines of streets. Do you believe that moving forward curves should be incorporated into the street designs of new cities or buildings should just not use curves like Le Corbusier said?
2. Schumacher believes that technology is extremely helpful in designing urban areas for the future. Do you believe that the use of technology is going to help not only the Urban areas of design but also start to help all new designs made with the use of scanning, 3D printing and new programs?
3. Kwiter believes that to show intelligence behind designs there must be order behind every move but do you believe that a disorganized design can still be appreciated almost like a Pollock painting?
This weeks presentation was able to look at how each individual piece of a project is able to come together to form something completely new from multiple small pieces. This was described as being a part to whole and part to part approach when designing. Using this part to whole idea I am able to re look at my questions and say that we should instead go against what Le Corbusier believed being that curves were negatives and instead start to incorporate them into street designs to form something new. I also believe that by looking at it as part to whole you can then appreciate disorganized designs or ideas by standing back and looking at them as a whole. On a side note to answer my other question I do believe that with technology we will be able to grow ideas and new designs or plans past what we can do with just our hands. This can form grand new ideas that are more disorganized than ever thought before but yet still organized as one whole form.
1. In Stan Allen’s “From Object to Field”, he states that cities thrive because they are, “products of a complex order emerging over time.” Cities derived from chaos rather than planning might be able to adapt to their surroundings and context better as they begin to take on more complex or unpredictable forms. Should architects then choose to forgo the notion of planning when it comes to cities in order to allow for this unexpected or organic growth?
2. Weinstock investigates the idea of morphogenesis as it relates to forms and behaviors that emerge from the natural world. Mathematical techniques can be used to model these complex systems as a genetic code is translated into a computational code. There becomes a self-organized pattern and dynamic adaptability from which beauty can emerge. Is this method of construction necessary for future environmental design as buildings can become self-sustainable?
3. Parametric design consists of a set of flexible components, which can lead to infinite variations of forms. As outlined by Patrick Schumacher, this practice might be perceived as a new style of architecture. How does this computation account for history and culture? Will there be a point where the architect is no longer needed and the computer/AI system is able to generate its own parametric design?
The discussion addressed the idea of singularity versus an inter-connectivity in parametric design. This explores a part to part relationship over a part to whole. When looking at the video of the flight of the starlings, it is easy to see how the individual birds generate a larger form in motion. Each individual aligns itself with its neighbor for survival. Even at high velocities, they can make an instant turn as one massive organism. With adhesion, uniform direction, and avoidance the system is able to respond and move in a new way. Parametric design allows the architect to create a more complex and uniform design based on these self-similar units. By drawing from this understanding of natural or biological processes, a derived algorithm can produce geometry in a similar way. It leads to the question of whether or not the parameters being plugged in become a political technique. Applying the same logic across a city can potentially generate a greater method of control.
1. In Kwinter’s, “The Computational Fallacy”, it is said that the intelligence of machinery “is both multispectral and free form or ‘complex’”. When comparing this statement of machinic, parametric design to what was said in last week’s readings, that architectural shape should be “easy”, there seems to be a contradiction. Is it fair to say that the complexity of the machine, and the ease of the shape can operate at the same time, or must one choose either the “complex” or the “easy?”
2. Allen speaks to the fact that fields have recently begun to work in concert with the object. The object no longer occupies a seemingly untouched space as a piece of standalone architecture. On the outside, this sounds like a nice way of integrating a building to an existing space. However, when Allen begins to speak about the gridded field, it seems that when using the grid, the field once again becomes disassociated to the existing ground/site/ “field.” By imagining and designing the field, are we reverting back to the detached architecture that is the modernist cube?
3. Kilian states in “The Question of the Model and Its Impact on Design” that through computer based architectural design, the designer is becoming increasingly distant from the product. With this in mind, do you think that in the future, computer scientists will dominate architectural design as opposed to architects?
The topic of object and field is always one that I found rather interesting. To try to respond to my own question, I believe that the field can easily and quickly become an object in its own entity. As a tool for organization, and scalar interplay, the field is a metaphysical entity that can better help to relate the structure or object within it, to the site/ground/landscape; however, when the field becomes more than a virtual or imaginative tool for design, I think it can hinder what it is trying to accomplish by distancing itself further from the preferred integration to the environment. The field should serve as a relatable boundary between the building and the site, if neither can accomplish that on its own. The field is no longer helpful nor is it necessary once it becomes just as distanced from the targeted desire.
1. Weinstock references intricate exchanges between biology, chemistry, and mathematics, with a principle that all higher-level actions are buildups of low-level properties. He goes on to cite systems of natural selection, where organisms that are better-adapted to their environments pass on their traits to more offspring, who are better suited to their environments, and have more offspring, and pass on these traits. Obsolete organisms fail to have offspring and die out. This makes me think of Bjarke Ingels Group’s body of work: they tend to recycle or “upcycle” ideas, adapting them from project to project to create what they call an “Architectural Evolution”, instead of a revolution. (Laziness???) Do you think parametricism shares in this ability? As an evolution, surpassing styles such as Modernism and Post-Modernism? Or as a revolution, replacing them entirely?
2. Schumacher hails parametricism as a powerful new avant-garde style, capable of operating cohesively in all scalar realities from the city down to the nuts and bolts of the furniture. In order to keep things in control: in order to actually build these “interarticulated subsystems” (how’s that for language, Peter Eisenman?) there needs to be a set of agendas. On this list, he places “Responsiveness” at number 4. This is a similar tenet that Kwinter posits, that advanced technological societies have moved from empirical intelligence to numerical, dissociated methods. I think this might be a serious issue for those of the Hadid-Schumacher generation: using these powerful tools to advance stylistic, formal, egotistical agendas, before those which actually respond to the user. Sticking to Zaha for this analogy, we see stunning works like the Heydar Aliyev center; beautiful masterpieces in their own right, that need uber-expensive construction techniques and materials. Architecture for the rich. I have a ton of respect for work such as this, at the scale of the building. But I feel that parametric design at the scale of the entire city might suffer similar egotistical malfunctions. I do agree with Schumacher that this new style has the capability to eclipse Modernism at the scale of the city tenfold, but I’m skeptical that it will. A city could respond to all of the real-life parameters that it needs to in order to function properly, integrating design with current and future life. But it may just fall into this tendency to create hyper-beautiful plans and 3-D models, when what is experienced is the real world. The same thing happened in Modernism, with Corb genuinely proposing to level the entire city of Paris, and Costa designing a quite dysfunctional city plan for Brasilia. Given that much power, do you think whomever designs the city would fall into stylistic advancements? Or would responsibly design for the user-base. Would the result might be what MVRDV was warning us about in their MetaCity / DataTown explorations? Or a new type of integrated city that responds to the informalities and byproducts of cities?
3. I’m worried that the next step after parametric design will be similar to the trends we see with social media networks, serving, as Kwinter writes, as Trojan horses. That which used to bring people together (think drive-in movies) are now keeping people curled up in bed (Netflix). Parametricism has jumped on an uber-important technological advancement in our society in the algorithm, but Kwinter would warn us to stay away from what this means, “expanding the concrete and extending intuition into new domains”. There is no longer a need to know anything: we can just Google everything. Or an algorithm will find it for us even before we search for it. Do you think architecture itself could fall victim to a similar result? Will algorithm-generated virtual realities make our physical one obsolete? Will there be a need for new architecture, if one could just put on a headset and be transported to a new space?
I suppose the solution to my concerns (at the building scale) might just be the employment of a bottom-up approach, designing the CONDITIONS, hoping to achieve EMERGENCE. And not trying to achieve the design that you’ve got in your head, top-down. Like the professor said, Schumacher’s parameters are rather reductive, hoping to make the end result recognizable within Zaha’s style, and not inclusive, as he claims they are. Perhaps a more logical bottom-up approach (at a smaller scale than the city) could be more inclusive, respondent to users and economics, and push materials, logics, etc to something they could not do on their own, achieving true emergence.
1. It seems there is a fine line between using the process off parametric design as a tool for carrying out a design decision and designing based on the desire to use a parametric process. How could one take precautions so to not make the mistake of designing based on the usage of parametric modeling?
2. In Sanford Kwinter’s “The Computational Fallacy,” there is a fair bit of detail about the composition of the natural world and how there is a certain baseline repetitive nature of the building blocks of everything that constructs us. Has parametric design taken inspiration from this idea of using repetition as a baseline building block to fuel how architects think about design today?
3. It seems that the beginning stages of parametric design came from Zaha Hadid’s urban master plans, and yet parametric design can be used for any aspect of architecture imaginable. Could parametric design one day become the standard tool for design?
What defines nature is the shear intensity of the detail of the composition and structure that makes it up. From the tiny atoms that compose everything that has mass to the microscopic bacteria that decompose the deceased wildlife in a forest, nature is ultimately the highest amount of complexity that can be achieved with the usage of many basic units. Every individual thing that exists can be described as constructed using a standard algorithm that is used for the creation of everything of that specific type. It is this idea that inspired the creation of the method of parametric design, a method of design that uses written scripts to generate geometry based on algorithm. This method opens up the possibility for any type of creation, as programs like Grasshopper provide basic components that can be manipulated into functioning in any way the designer wants. Without the precedent of nature, the idea of parametric design wouldn’t exist, and to truly understand the possibilities of parametric design, one must first have an understanding of nature.
1. In “The Computational Fallacy”, Sanford Kwinter states “‘Control’ here means simply the sustained application of intelligent – or organizing – force over time”. But in reality, how much control does the architect have over their design? Does the increase in parametric modeling due to the advancement of technology add to the architect’s control over a design or subtract from it?
2. In “From Object to Field”, Stan Allen describes artist Barry Le Va’s definition of a distribution, stating that “a ‘distribution’ is defined as ‘relationships of points and configurations to each other’…”. The points and the various configurations must blend in order to form a cohesive design. How is this definition of a distribution in relation to parametric design relevant to the overall consideration of site and its relationship to the architect’s design of a project?
3. Throughout the readings, parametricism is described as being an innovative way to develop complex forms in architecture that go “beyond formalism” (Killian, “The Question of the Model and Its Impact on Design”). How does the ability to utilize data sets and results create smarter designs? In turn, can these smarter (and potentially greener) designs have a positive effect on the environment and culture of a city?
Parametric designs differ from designs found in nature due to the fact the technological process cannot mimic the essence of beauty found in the natural world. When architects try to repeat the curves and patterns that naturally occur, the outcome is often not what they expected. This transition to the material world is not always a smooth transition. However, the introduction of parametric modeling, as well as various technological advancements (i.e., 3D printing) have allowed the virtual world to merge into the physical, material world. Ideas and creations now have the ability to escape the architect’s mind and find a place in the real world. These projects reflect actual data and results which help create smarter designs, which can have an impact on the physical world. Through looking at what makes up the parametric designs, a part to part relationship is discovered. Each part plays a specific role that influence the overall result.
Schumacher, in Parametricism, A New Global Style, lists “rigid geometric primitives… (and) simple repetition of elements” as negative design heuristics, inconsistent with parametric ideals and contemporary design culture, and as such are “paths of research to avoid”. As parametric technology continues to advance and architects can begin to imagine entire cities deigned parametrically, how can architects and planners move from the negative heuristic of blocks and grids that have dominated urban planning for decades?
In relation to last week’s topic of laziness- wherein architects can allow the conditions of a site to dictate much of the form and further development- we can relate Kwinter’s essay wherein he mentions Diderot’s concept of ‘sensitivity’ of matter. The Computational Fallacy discusses the active intelligence embedded within impossibly complex yet overall coherent patterns and rhythm in untouched matter, and how electronic design in contrast to mechanical methods allows that intelligence to manifest itself in innumerous ways. With the idea that ‘laziness’ is a favorable design tactic for architects in mind, how far can we allow the ‘active intelligence’ of a site dictate its form without outside input?
Architecture never quite exists on paper or in a model as it does in the real world. As part of the active intelligence and quiet agency the world seems to have, there is always a level of chaos, imperfection, and disorder involved with realization. “From Object to Field” warns that architects need to accept that chaos “in all its messiness and unpredictability”. It is worth noting that parametric design is made possible almost entirely through the advance of computer aided design and other such modeling and construction methods (i.e. CAM). As we move more of our design process away from the mechanic, physical, and thus chaos-laden reality of the physical world and more into the electronic realm, are we poorly preparing our own designs for construction, or worse, from coherence? Will these massive computer-modeled paraform structures effectively translate to the real world?
Parametricism has caused a good deal of controversy within the architecture and design communities. There are various polarizing aspects to the parametric design phenomenon; political, practical, as well as artistic. Several of today’s presenters touched on the subject of practicality when it comes to parametric design. As the line blurs between what is possible in the imagination and what can be made in the physical realm, architects need to question the propriety of bringing such pure mathematical entities into the real world. Zaha Hadid, for all her grand works and stunning visualizations, has been criticized by many for valuing the cutting-edge style and appearance of her buildings over their practicality; the caulking debacle of the Guangzhou Opera House as an example. Architects must take care to ensure their parametric designs, while sleek and shiny at their conception, do not age poorly under the duress of simply existing.
1. Sanford Kwinter talks about the mechanical being the primitive. That it’s overly designed and therefore it’s capabilities become limited. By extension it limits our capabilities when we use these types of technologies. If we as designers are encouraged to be more free with our designs, then why are we given these parameters that create more boundaries for us and limit our design expressions?
2. Emergence is described as the properties of a system that cannot be deduced from its components, meaning it’s more than simply the sum of its parts. For architecture emergence delineates the working concept. It’s meant to outline the organization and interaction of our designs. In a sense it simplifies and makes it easier to understand our designs. How would emergence be used as a tool to simplify the understanding of our designs when emergence itself doesn’t put things in its most simplest terms?
3. Weinstock describes buildings as being part of the environment of its neighbors, in other words they are the parts of the whole as described by emergence. But what is included in the “whole”? Is the “whole” the immediate environment of which a building resides? Or is the environment simply another “part” to a much larger “whole”?
Parametricism and parametrics have been made to influence the way we look at and design architecture. It creates a new way of organization for the architect and allows for a varied analysis of these designs. Having a definite set of parameters however creates boundaries which limits the design freedoms of the architects. This could be taken as a positive or a negative. In once sense, as stated earlier, it gives the architect a new level of organization that they can plug in information into and produce multiple renditions in a short period of time. This creates an efficiency that wasn’t there before that could be seen as more productive. In the other sense, it takes true design out architecture. It over simplifies it so you can just “plug and chug” without thinking about what you’re doing. In order to do this effectively there needs to be a balance between using parameters to initiate a design process and then also spend time to refine your design so that it stays meaningful to the designer.
1. How would Axel Kilian express his conclusion about Patrick Schumacher’s idea about “using parametric modelling inconspicuously to absorb complexity?” Does this method adequately fit Kilian’s description of abstract usage be influential for design exploration?
2. Weinstock discusses the differences and similarities between computer generated forms and biological forms. Do you believe there should be a clear distinction established between these two methods? Should the “boundary constraints” implemented in these methods characterize enough of a distinction?
3. In Computational Fallacy by Sanford Kwinter, why does Diderot refer to active intelligence as “sensitivity?”
One of the questions proposed during the seminar, “how do we remain aware when technology makes it easy to forget,” brings human reliance on technology into question. Is it necessarily wrong to have trust in technology to the point that we forget some of these basic skills that generations before us knew so clearly? In architecture specifically, there is a lack of focus on developing hands on skills (such as hand drawings) and more centralized on digital production. In order to “remain aware” one should take the time to make strides in both fields. Understanding both aspects won’t only make for a more well-rounded individual but also more open to everything. Daniel Libeskind is constantly starting project with a sketch, one of his projects even began on a napkin because he can find inspiration from a variety of things he sees. And has a way of interpreting these concepts of inspiration into his sketches and his overall design of a project.
1. How is the “morphogenetic tendency” between forms prevalent in architecture, ie can the Cartesian transformation of coordinates be applied in architectural forms? How do forms in a structure relate to each other? How are these forms generated in a computational environment?
2. Is the abstract minimalist works of Barry La Vie as featured in “From object to field” and example of morphogenetic tendency? As he defines his forms as “relationships of points and configurations to each other” as he focuses on these relationships and sequences with more importance than the overall form.
3. In “The question o the model and its impact on design” it is noted that new form and models are almost impossible to create as ideas and methods at this point of computational development can only be reused or recycled, could there be any possibilities of developing new technologies and strategies to create new autonomous designs?
Single elements configure together to create a single form. Birds of a flock or fire ants swarm together to create unity as a singular form. In this presentation that was exemplified as well as related ideas. Some of these ideas include that there are three types of signs: an icon, an index, and a symbol. Another idea is that minimalism works as though to get rid of figurative and decorative qualities of art to round the architectural meaning of a form. Modernism neglects the links to people and content and morphogenesis is the creations of forms in space over time. Thus, this is where parametricism is necessary and present because it is what happens when we become aware when technology makes it easy to forget. Parametricism relies on programs, algorithms and computers to manipulate equations for design purposes.
I thought the discussion of mechanical and electronic processes was very interesting. There are evidently fallacies in computations although mechanical is primitive when compared to electronic processes, electronic processes increase precision of design. Thus, mechanical processes have become archaic from electronic processes as they are done better. Today the attitude towards technology refuses to see electronic matter as only crutch and it is our duty to only use it to interpret mathematical relationships. A revival may take place if the resistance promotes being aware of tools at our disposal but not blindly taking convention and technology as gospel in design.
1. In “From Object to Field,” Stan Allen describes the algebraic and geometrical principles used in the Cordoba Mosque, and how such principles allow for “the possibility of incremental growth.” Do you think that newer architectural processes based in mathematics and algorithms will allow for buildings to incrementally grow again? What benefits and challenges could incremental growth produce?
2. Returning to last week’s reading “On Laziness,” do you consider parametricism to be a type of laziness in architectural design?
3. Both Kwinter and Weinstock describe the need in the field of architecture to base computational models off of the principles and organization of natural systems. Why do you think in the beginning of heavy parametric and computational modeling era there existed such an urgency to link architecture to nature?
The discussion this week centered around the emergence in architecture of both part-to-part and part-to-whole relationships. This idea of figure which is created from the assemblage of many discreet, unique elements has become an incredibly important scheme in parametric modeling and architectural discourse at large. Designers like Schumacher claim that the great advantage of parametricism is that is avoids the politics of form, instead deriving all aspects of form from a neutrally chosen base model or algorithm. However, the discussion this week questioned the reality of that statement; is there not a political statement in covering portions of cities in the parametric blob? Perhaps one of the great questions about parametricism as a style is how it can begin to address, rather than ignore things such as politics. I think the idea of the part-to-whole relationship can begin to take on more than just a literal meaning. The idea of the part massing to a whole can be analogized in an infinite number of ways – building to city, person to society, etc. By acknowledging such politicism and designing with intent, parametricism could potentially start to generate not only formally interesting but also ideologically and politically engaged architecture.
1. Stan Allen states in “From Object to Field” that, “By remaining attentive to the detailed conditions that determine the connection of one part to another, by understanding construction as a ‘sequence of events’, it becomes possible to imagine an architecture that can respond fluidly and sensitively to local difference while maintaining overall stability.” Could this idea truly create architecture that responds fluidly to a local difference, or would it create an architecture that is solely based on the way it would be constructed? Would architecture become more like engineering?
2. In Killan’s “The Question of the Model and its Impact on Design”, he says that “The discipline of architecture has such a wealth of problems such complexity and diversity it is surprising that not more models have been developed”. Could making models to help solve problems within the design lead to never ending model making and an unbuilt building?
3. Patrik Schumacher believes that, “The goal is deep relationality, the total integration of the evolving built environment, from urban distribution to architectural morphology, detailed tectonic articulation and interior organization.” If the goal of Parametric urbanism is as stated before, could this be a way to begin designing buildings that respond to the world changing around them? Could the buildings themselves, say, respond to an oncoming flood and raise itself off the ground?
Parametric architecture allows the architect to create a design based on a set of parameters and a code. Even though there are set parameters and a code, there is not always an organized design created. With the evolution of technology it has become easier for us to design using algorithms that can do most of the work for us. These algorithms, however, don’t always do what the architect is trying to accomplish with their design. The design could come out too complex and without any set order to them. They basically create a whole jumble of geometries that look “cool” but don’t actually have any meaning or use. This is a problem that I see in a lot of these parametric designs. Also, while doing my own parametric designs, I have found that it’s very easy to get lost and completely forget what you’re designing. It becomes this never-ending loop of “oh this looks cool” and since the amount of variation that algorithms give you is so great, you lose sight of what needed to be accomplished. Even still, I believe that parametric design can create amazing buildings if the architect doesn’t lose themselves in the algorithms.
1) In Patrik Schumacher’s Parametricism, he explained how parametric design is globalizing the world and become essential to architecture in a way that people rely on mathematical sequences to design and model. But is it considered as “laziness” from week 2 reading because we are only taking the output under mathematical product as architectural design?
2) In “The question of the underlying model and its impact on design”, the author said :”By definition models do not holistically represent the phenomena they describe but operate at different degrees of abstraction.” However, in architecture school, we learned that models should be correctly built in order to let people define the space and shapes. Thus, shouldn’t we be more cognitive when modeling so that the clients and other people could understand the reasoning behind the design.
3) Schumacher explains that parametric design can make the design responsive and fluid because parametric design is cognitive and we generate design output under mathematical rules. Yet, In LeCobusier’s Ville Radieuse, he used similar strategy to plan and partition the city, but why is Ville Radieuse not as glorious in LeCobusier’s career and what did he not consider if he were using parametric rules for his design.
1. How is organic geometry derived in classical architecture when “precise rules of axiality, symmetry [and] formal sequence govern the organization of the whole?”
2. Why is public versus social memory important in how a society is organized?
3. Will parametric design cause future projects to completely eliminate geometries that are staples in architecture today, such as squares and repetitive details?
From Patrick Schumacher’s a New Global Style for Architecture: The article describes the possibility of designing up to 6 Million square meters with one single parametric approach. It seems that parametricism has never been built at this scale. Although we can create continuous designs at this scale, can it really account for all microsystems which it will have to incorporate? Is parametricism really effective at such a massive scale?
From Killian’s The Impact of the Model and its question on design: Killian writes that its easier to generate models now than ever before and because of parametricism we can generate endless iterations. Is there a point where these models become meaningless? If so, how do we constrain parametrics in such a way that they are valuable and practical to society?
From Stan Allen’s From Architecture to Field: Stan Allen discusses the standards of history theory and how they can be innovated upon through the use of parametrics. Can parametrics continue to utilize architecture theory or will they generally throw these ideas out in favor of something else. To what extend can parametrics be used with these theories to diagram and plan projects, rather than create a definitive result?
As parametric design is used more and more it seems that computer science may be inherently important to architects everywhere. Those who use computer science in conjunction with architecture are often very successful in their work and push the boundaries of construction as we know it. Since construction of this digital work is so difficult, it’s important that we continue to fabricate it at all costs. Fabrication is essential to understanding the limits of parametric design and what we can do with it. If we don’t attempt to construct such intensely complicated designs, we will never know how far parametric design can be taken. By continuing to build it we can begin to understand the scales at which it can be used and the effectivity of parametric design. Soon we will find out if it’s truly effective at an urban planning scale, or if it’s only practical for smaller scale projects.
1. In Kwinter’s Computational Fallacy he discusses the importance of the electronic and the mechanical. In architecture, he alludes to finding the chaotic order in these paths as a way inspired or taken from nature. To what extent should we as architects be using the processes and patterns of nature in computational design?
2. Finding the balance between order and chaos can be hard, especially in urban contexts of architecture. Many firms now have specific design focuses on growth in urban areas by looking at existing natural, biological processes that promote growth. Do you think harmonizing with nature’s processes in urban areas is the right route or should we be more focused on man-made, computational/algorithmic processes?
3. Do we lose something as architects when we solely look towards the future of architecture as parametric? Are we losing the craft of the profession, or more importantly the authorship over a project?
1. We are already limited by the program of Rhino and the likes. Given from last lecture where laziness is a virtue, and recycling ideas is okay, would one day architecture be taken over by technology? Will creativity become mass produced?
2. In Kwinter’s “Computational Fallacy”, he brings the point of “mechanical relations… being dramatically transferred to new and different levels”. How can virtual reality impact the way we tackle architectural design, or vice versa?
3. Moire effects create “complex and… irregular behaviors” as a result of superpositioning two fields. What are some other instances of superposition bringing attention to something more than what is simply seen?
As per this week’s seminar, there was an interesting point brought up about the emergence of technology in the design field and the mimicry of natural phenomenon in masses. Some to note include the fire ant raft, ant bridge, and school of fish swarming away from predator. The raft and bridge are magnificent instances of parts of parts forming something structural, whereas the fish swarming creates a space relating density and singularity. Mimicking nature in architecture is prominent in modern architecture. One of them being the algorithms formed from analyzing the movements of an ant colony, bird flock, or school of fish. Although the ideas and concepts are astounding, bringing it into reality is not something easy. Roland Snooks Studio focuses on creating intricate forms from such algorithms. He not only designs using technology, but also analyzes the possible fabrication ways of producing the highly complex forms into craft.
1. Parametricism seems to be the future of design according to Peter Schumacher. This is “a new style rather than.. a new set of techniques.” So can parametricism take into account the culture that is being represented within the environment? Is parametricism a type of projectile architecture?
2. With parametricism many varieties of different forms can be produced by a single algorithm, which then an architect just has to choose one design. Do you think that this is feeding into the laziness of architects?
3. Kwinter pits technology and nature against each other in “The Computational Fallacy”. Why don’t architects use biomimicry more in their designs? If is it proven to work in nature, shouldn’t we study and implement them in our designs?
During the panel discussion, biomimicry was brought up and how it was not aesthetic to the design in architecture. But I like to think that there is more to biomimicry than just the shape of a building. Biomimicry could be used in the material of the facade or the circulation of the interior. It doesn’t just have to be how the building is shaped.
It seems like a lot of architects think that parametric design is the answer to all the design problems in this day and age. But it cannot be the future of architecture because what happens when new technology arises. The software and algorithms that are set to design only takes into account the technology that is being used now. Also what if the climate of the Earth changes in a drastic manner where the new architecture has to accommodate to. Will these parametric designs hold up in the ever changing world?
1. In Schumacher’s article, Frei Otto performed an experiment with magnets in floating water. This experiment showed the relationship between occupying and connecting. How is that that urban landscapes, which are man-made, can resemble the patterns found in magnets, which are natural without intentionally doing so?
2. In Allen’s reading, from object to field, it states that “the rectilinear grid is one of architecture’s oldest and most persistent organizing devices”. The grid is used countless times over the years to “measure the immeasurable”. What about the grid made it so well created and planned that it has become “convincing as fact rather than as idea”? What made people want to use the grid to separate objects or ideas?
3. Do grids and models work the same in terms of understanding the underlying problem? Is it just preference as to which method should be selected to be used? Or should we use both methods in understanding the layout and structure of an idea?
In parametric design, part to part relationship is valued more than part to whole relationships. This example is seen in nature in the swarm intelligence. Many animals would rather be in a swarm functioning as just a part of a larger mass than out on their own. The parts individually are much less interesting than the completed whole of parts that are similar but different. Parametric designs are simple yet complex. They are just small deviations from one simple idea or module. This new form of architecture would be much more difficult without the use of technology. By using computer algorithms parametric designs can be done in less than a second. But even simple designs can create a new kind of architecture that is difficult to comprehend as a whole.
1. Parametricism is a style of architecture that is based on computer algorithms. How is an architect able to juggle their own creativity with the confines of the possibilities of an algorithm?
2. In relation to the discussion last week, is parametricism a more efficient way to create beautiful architecture or is it more of a hindrance to the creative process that goes into these designs?
3. It’s easy to design very beautiful and mathematically perfect buildings or schemes but what is the actual ratio of design possibilities to feasible structure designs? At what point do parametric models become too outrageous?
Parametricism is a style of design that uses computer algorithms to create art. In architecture this often leads to dynamic buildings. However, it is uncertain whether there is a limit to this design and how much is too much, or when the effort will be exhausted and nothing new will come from it. This seems rather unlikely considering that there appears to be endless parameters and combinations. However, the more likely issue will be to find combinations of parameters that create buildable structures. Morphogenesis was an interesting topic that was discussed in this week’s readings and presentation. Morphogenesis is the biological process that causes an organism to develop its shape. Parametricism combined with morphogenesis would begin to create some really intriguing, complex, and dynamic designs. Parametricism is quite similar to morphogenesis with a few stark differences. The most prominent is that one relies on a computer algorithm and the other replies on the dependability of biology. However, when combining the process of biology with computers it has the possibility to make very complex yet understandable structures.
1. In the article “Parametricism”, we know that parametricism has became a promising way for architecture, and it develops various aspects in the progress of our design dramatically. One thing that I found interesting is that Schumacher argues about the parametric accentuation, he says “here the goal is to enhance overall sense of organic integration by means of correlations that favour deviation amplification rather than compensatory adaptation”. Nowadays, we are aiming to achieve a more organic understanding of architecture, and develop a more independent characteristic of architecture, which stand for itself and have intricate but logical relationships inside. But, will it eventually ends up in failure and danger? For the reason that we have few embodiment of the idea. And also will it give rise to material wastes?
2. In the article“The Question of the Model and Its Impact on Design”, Kilian argues that models are the abstractions of our design. And computational methods like genetic algorithms gives us more possibilities, which could also be utilized in various kinds of design like form-finding structures etc. Given the fact that the date of this essay is 12 years ago, and we generate computational models easily nowadays. But it is true that many of the design could not be built eventually, so will the accounts for physical realities of the world would be a new consideration that could be solved along with the digital models?
3. Kwinter indicates that the terms “Mechanical” and “Electronic” can be identified in a connotation manner as “Matter” and “Intelligence”. Regardless of whether the object is a natural substance or an artificial matter, even a “rudimentary enzyme system”, can show sign of intelligence at some level as its electronic indication. The matter can certainly perform its mechanical peculiarity primitively, but it has its own limitation and will only be developed with an electronic element where they share an intergrowth relationship. But could computation will be the first step of “studying nature in a contain but active domain” while maintaining physical objectivity?
In the lecture and presentation today, it illustrates a new, avant-garde, mature way of designing architecture, Parametricism. The important symbolic method “index”, the biological generic element like fire ants , the superorganism behaviours, the relationship of part to part and part to whole, etc., are generating new types of architecture and resulting in computational analysis today, which is parametricism. The works by Zaha Architects are probably widely identified as the new trend in the field of architecture. It eliminate the boundaries among constructing elements while maintaining internal logic, thus giving it a beautiful, unprecedented configuration. However, it could cause a lot of energy waste when constructing the pieces and also space waste because of the twisted surfaces and double curvature. This new design method is indeed very promising and might become the future, however, it is also because the easiness of shaping in computer, it will make you ignore the difficulties in constructing. It’s true that the purpose of architecture is probably has shifted from “shelter” to more than that, but it is still important to consider the efficiency in designs.
1. In “From Object to Field,” Stan Allen describes the Mosque of Córdoba to be of “independent elements are combined additively to form an indeterminate whole.” He continues to explain that these independent elements are just parts, that are not pieces of a whole. Based of the definition of a “part,” would these parts actually be a whole in itself that can integrated with others to become a whole? In what ways can architecture be “wholes” put together and/or parts that become a whole?
2. With prevailing technology in the current state of the world, many architectural designs are derived from computational calculations and methods. Soon, the world may just rely on extremely complex technological systems (i.e., artificial intelligence, microprocessors, etc.). In “Computational Fallacy,” Kwinter argues the refusal of humans in using “this new, pseudo material space entirely,” but how can architects prevent the incorrect use of these networks in the next century or so of rapid technological advancements?
3. In “Parametricism,” Patrik Schumacher explains the idea of parametricism in the urban environment with projects like Zaha Hadid’s Kartal-Pendik Masterplan. Although, the idea of parametricism in the urban environment may look “cool” and can promote a different and unique type of aesthetic, can parametricism in the near future be used in the urban environment for other purposes? How can computational designs of parametricism resolve more pragmatic issues of the world today?
The idea of parametric urbanism is one that’s intriguing yet somewhat questionable in its aesthetic and emergent value. Parametricism creates a new form of architecture that defies other more “traditional” forms and can present issues in the field. The forms create an aesthetic that can commonly be associated with architecture in the future and reveals new senses of technological methods of design. But how beneficial can parametricism be in architecture and the environment around it? Zaha Hadid’s creations presents a prefect example for these issues, as they render beautifully and show an unparalleled creation, but can deteriorate easily and not seem like the renders in reality. Parametric designs are often not suitable for reality as the forms are too radical and can’t function with gravity and societal norms. Even if they were, how can parametricism help resolve issues of current news. Urban parametricism has little to no features that can be advantageous in the environment or societal needs.
1. In “Parametricism,” Patrik Schumacher criticizes Le Corbusier for strictly adhering to a rectilinear system of order. He also shares many benefits of parametric design. What flaws are there in parametric design that will be critiqued in the future?
2. In “The question of the underlying model and its impact on design,” Axel Kilian highlights the importance of using parametric design as a means of making discoveries. While using computer generations to discover new potentials can be a strength, is there design potential being lost because of a disconnect with the physical world?
3. In “From Object to Field,” Stan Allen discusses the importance of the site, seeing as no work of architecture exists in a vacuum. How often do architects make mistakes or misjudgments about a site due to working digitally?
Parametric design has recently emerged as a prominent style that is radically different in geometry and in principle from the modernist architecture of the twenty-first century. While twentieth century modernist architects like Le Corbusier were dedicated to straight lines and order, parametric designers like Patrik Schumacher use digital software to try and discover new forms and new systems of order. This can include using algorithms like Grasshopper to mass produce forms with specific or random parameters. The benefit of digital modelling software is that they allow the designer to produce more radical forms than were previously thought possible. However, parametric design has been criticized for being too entrenched in the realm of the digital world, losing integration into real-world sites as a consequence. Parametric design often produces wild, radical forms that cannot physically be built or function. The study models of twentieth-century architect Antoni Gaudi reconcile the parametric mindset with functionality in the physical world. Parametric design could be utilized more successfully if these new digital methods of discovery are compromised and explored with physical models. Parametricism has certainly changed the mindset and design culture in contemporary architecture and has provided more design possibilities than ever before. It is important that we learn to account for its strengths as well as its weaknesses when utilizing parametricism as a design tool.
1. Patrik Schumacher in “Parametricism: A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design,” states that “Parametricism is a mature style.” What does he mean by this? Is he saying that because parametrics is all derived from order, that it has the ability to manage complexity, or that it can create chaos instantly? What else can “mature” be interpreted as in regards to parametricism?
2. Schumacher states that Modernist architects used parametricism to “absorb complexity” but the parametrics themselves want to bring out differentiation and contrasting forms. What does the opposite of bringing out differentiation and contrasting forms and instead absorbing complexity mean?
3. In the “The Question of the Underlying Model and its Impact on Design,” Kilian discusses the ways in which a successful model is formed. However, what makes a model “successful”? Is the term and rules of “successful” based on one person’s preference or is it a universal standard?
In response to a question that was asked in class – how does architecture have the ability to adapt to social and environmental problems through parametrics since parametrics is not always predictable – I think successful parametric design comes from what one chooses to take from it. Meaning, the software can produce unpredictable forms and elements, but the architect has the decision of what to apply to his/her design. Even before the outputs of parametric software, one can set the tools to boundaries and standards; thus, there is still a degree of control. Axel Kilian talks about how human intuition needs to play a large role in parametric design, as in defining a set of relationships and constraints to produce a successful model. Kilian explains that parametric models are not meant to be literal built designs for real life but are abstractions, and from them architects can analyze the strong elements and take those ideas to resolve the social and environmental issues in the world.
1.During week one we discussed the part to whole relationship, and questioned if you could reduce a whole to its parts. In “From Object to Field” Allen discusses how classical architecture is organized and quotes Alberti that “beauty is the consonance of the parts such that nothing can be added or taken away.” Classical architecture dictates the proportions and relationships of these parts. Is the beauty in the relationships of the parts or the parts themselves? Can classical architecture be reduced to its parts?
2.Patrik Schumacher discusses the new style or technique of parametric design in “A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban design.” Laziness was a topic discussed last week, and how architects seemingly always make things more difficult for themselves. Do you think “parametricism” could be a way to be “lazy” but still create new innovative work?
3.Kilian discusses the question of modeling and the impact it has on design. Would you say the digital age has had a positive or negative impact on model and design? What does this say about the way we have been taught about modeling and design?
“Beauty is the consonance of the parts such that nothing can be added or taken away.” – Alberti. Classical architecture dictates the proportions as well as the relationships of parts in a design. To some, like Alberti, this rigid structure and guides creates beauty. Beauty can only be found if the parts of the whole are proportional to one another and fit just so. As architecture has evolved it has moved away from styles like classical architecture. Patrik Schumacher introduced “Parametricism” as a new style for architecture. Like classical architecture it is very exact in its design. However, this is because parametric systems revolve around exact systems to generate different parts to the whole. The digital age has helped to develop parametric design.
1. In last week’s readings, one of the topics discussed was the effective use of laziness in architecture, especially in terms of recycling unused projects and failures. However, has Parametricism become the new modus operandi through which the architect can use his or her laziness to make “radical” or “innovative” architecture?
2. For the modern architect, Kwinter asserts that the use of the computer allows for new differentiation processes and refinement to be discovered in order to generate alternative and “new” forms of architecture, in his writing, “The Computational Fallacy.” However, can the emergence of this new regime of architecture really be considered new given the computational limits of technology? To what extent to digital algorithms effectively create a new architecture, or are these creations simply differentiated versions of recycled instances?
3. In “Morphogenesis and the Mathematics of Emergence,” Michael Weinstock reveals that form and behavior emerge from the process, and the form of an organism – or building in this case—will affect is behavior in its environment. Through the emergence of technology and its integration in architectural discourse, are forms limited given their parametric generation given the information inherited via a digital system? Will built forms generated digitally be able to effectively respond to the environment, or will such proxies have to be changed once physically constructed?
The goal of the modern architect is to free oneself from the constraints of the ground – the field – and the building – the figure. The use of the computer allows for one to explore infinite architectural possibilities, possibly beyond the realms of the one’s imagination. While the field is still used as a model parametrically, and can be recombined and “glitched,” to produce alternative effects, the use of computer algorithms and various systems permits unprecedented depth and abstraction. Human intuition and sense may often point themselves to search for logical solutions to architectural problems. However, the employment of Parametricism allows for these solutions to be otherworldly, in a sense, and alter the architectural blob into a more exciting and dynamic shape. As the world changes socially, politically, and economically, so must architecture. The use of computer and digital systems represents a pivotal shift and transition from the analog into something more radical and ensures that architecture and the design field can effectively respond to the changing circumstances of our world.
1. The readings I have read in the past on the relation between part to whole and whole to part, have characterized the two as congruent systems establishing an equilibrium due to the union of the parts. The reading from Allen sort of took a different outlet, with him basically saying the equilibrium between the two is due to algebraic combination and that parts are a separate factor from the whole. I feel that there’s something erroneous there. When he says “part’s aren’t fragments of a whole; they are just parts” what does he mean by just parts?
2. In order to get into the idea of the “mechanical” and “electronic”, Kwinter made points about, theoretically, what matter is and does. How he describes matter is paradoxical (not in the bad connotation). To him, matter is both organized and disordered at the same time. That would be a product of the fact that there are different orientation of matter. Parallel to this and going into the reading from Allen, is this why field conditions can move freely in its “spatial matrix” going from object to field?
3. Schumacher characterizes parametricism as emerging “from the creative exploitation of parametric design systems” as a way of articulating thought processes. Does this mean that it’s a byproduct of an architect original aesthetic or conceptual thought of a project, and the project’s field conditions?
From the discussion in class, I’ve realized that the reason why parts are just parts, is because something by itself doesn’t do anything. An entity alone has no knowledge of what potential it maintains when it’s alone, or even when it joins other parts. The system that is performed when parts come together isn’t due to a built-in knowledge, but is due to reactions, like how a flock of birds fly together.
Matter seems to have no rules, but in actuality it does: it can never be created or destroyed, only transferred. This rule creates a large bracket of space for matter to remain at a constant. It has that illusionary freedom because of its trait to be altered. In that respect, field conditions are able to move freely in its spatial matrix because it shares the trait of being altered and oriented differently.
Parametricism could be an accumulation of both, but the process could also be driven solely by one or the other. The process could take place without a certain idea/goal or intelligence, as found in nature.
Contemporary Design Approaches 
1) “From Object to Field” argues that as architects, we must grow into an “acceptance of the real in all its messiness and unpredictability”. However, as first years, we were frequently discouraged from considering anything conventional for our projects. Do you feel that this way of teaching detracts from our interpretations of the real world? What would you change about the way we interpret, construct, and design?
2) According to Kilian, the beauty of outside phenomena becomes watered down as we continuously capture it through models and studies. Through your own experience, do you feel that the design process takes us closer or farther away from the concept of abstraction? Do you feel that architecture becomes more interesting when it is either completely abstract or state-of-the-art?
3) Do you see yourself using Parametricism as a major part of your architectural career? Please explain why you feel your choice will be better for your goals and interests in the field. How does its incorporation into our work help to serve larger causes and social issues?
LikeLike
One of the most interesting points brought up in today’s discussion for me was the idea of our interpretation of the “real world”, as it was discussed in “From Object to Field”, evolving alongside the technology of that time period. This makes sense because the advancement of technology has made us as a people smarter and more intelligible. With the same analogy used to describe common knowledge from the Bronze Age not moving, we would not be able to visualize, program, or even comprehend such complex relationships and patterns without the tools made to do so in a matter usable for us.
My main thoughts on this topic are questioning how these things will continue to advance from its current standing and impact in our lives. The lecture portion of the class spoke on the idea of cultural implications being a huge influencer of qualities for both form and performance; one can only think of what parametricism evolves into when it develops to use parameters such as cultural diversity, income, and other social numbers that we as people experience on a daily basis. I feel that this is why Artificial Intelligence cannot “kill” the architect unless it becomes the architect. Without our culture of emotional response and consideration to feelings, technology cannot replace our impact.
LikeLike
1. This week’s readings seem to have fairly mutual opinion on the phenomena and real-world constrictions architects are faced with. The challenge then one could argue is how to merge abstraction and a provocative art form with these real-world parameters without having to give up a greater portion of that abstraction. Current architectural styles seem to take a place somewhere in the middle of minimalism and simplicity and cleanness combined with the idea of abstraction. Is the future of architecture going to be defined by modern technologies and their further liberation from constraints in order to further abstraction or will we continue to perfect this simplicity and complexity within materiality and simple abstractions?
2. The concept of architecture and the concept of abstraction has changed and cycled through throughout history. In “From Object to Field” there is an emphasis on the idea of conforming to the real world and the loss of abstraction. The concept of abstraction will never be clearly defined however we still seem to place a hierarchy on its forms of being. In modern architecture is the element and impression of abstraction through its provocative nature more present if it is dealt through the general form and aesthetic of the architectural space itself or if it is felt though the presence of being within it and contributes to the architectural experience gained?
3. The first week of CDA we read about how modeling, diagraming and allowing the presence of architecture be shown though different medias can contribute to its concept and reach levels of abstraction the physical elements might not be able to contribute to. However, Kilian argues studies and models only further the real world constraints and the work begins to lose its sense of abstraction. How can both be true? Does this show the constant battle between truly defining abstraction? Is there a way one can be proven over the other?
LikeLike
Icon, index and symbols are greatly significant to architecture as they are arguably what gives both history and culture to a specific definition or piece of architecture. Symbols, index and icons are used to drive concepts and break down the purpose and current language of architecture in order to learn and digest it. The physical process of analysis and breaking down the architecture and their icons, index and symbols is important to produce more radical ideas and languages of architecture to further develop and drive architecture in the future. The contribution of both symbols, icons, and index of the ever changing modern culture and architecture has created an interesting relationship of the balance of influencing one another. In some senses you can argue this relationship helps move society and culture forward which then aids the change in architecture and ideals. This is especially seen in cities. Architecture has a part to whole and a whole to part relationship to whatever surrounds it including both people and nature. Nature through natural numerical occurrences or structural occurrences and the interests of people and culture as well as modern needs creates this relationship. This ties to the moiré effect of super imposition of various elements and patterns which could be both natural and abstract in nature. Tying the moiré effect and cultural, historical and social symbols, index and icons.
LikeLike
1. To what extent do we allow the computer to come up with designs for us? Does randomization still count as Architecture, and if so how does it change Architectural intent?
2. What are the dangers of creating Architecture in this primarily “quick” process-based fashion? How do Architects avoid becoming arbitrary?
3. Parametric modeling seems quite decontextualized and experimental. How does it take into account social and cultural implications and needs?
LikeLike
The simple fields and patterns looked at during class were interesting because due to the way something is layered and positioned, more complex features develop. Through controlled experimentation the idea of neglecting ornamentation is reflected by creating complexity from sheer regular arrangement. This radical movement as moved from a sense of precedent to computation. While I believe the computer is a major advantage to the field of architecture, the systems of computational can lead to a disconnect between the architect and the project, where the computer generates too much of the design. I think the point where parametric design follows the idea and doesn’t create it, and doesn’t control it is the point which parametric design is not detrimental. This is a situation where less is more and the computer shouldn’t be taken advantage of and the architect should remain in control.
LikeLike
1) Is parametricism a desire? If so, what is this desire about? Is it a desire of mimicry, or is it a desire of separation?
Note: think of morphogenesis. What exactly is the importance of simulating the natural world in the world of computers and machines? What do we get from it? Why do we need it at the first place?
2) Is there an inherent responsibility to the public in parametric design? If so, how does it inherit from its surroundings, public consciousness, and the past? What is the perceptual implication of this responsibility?
Note: this is NOT to assume that parametric design is decontextualized in general. One thing to keep in mind is that public ideology shaped by existing context could be shape-shifted by what is made possible through the use of computer graphics and vision. This question is asked based upon a position that it is a necessity for public imagination to be opened up and strengthened by what parametricism can help us enable as designers. But what position of power does it put us in? Does it make us the authority of public imagination, or does it actually catalyze the liberation of geometric thinking and democratize it?
3) How do we break the system, assuming that we do not only consider parametricism and/or parametric design as formal acts?
Note: architecture as a broader concept has well been adapted to other disciplines (game architecture, hardware system architecture, etc.), and it seems that the very action of dwelling can only be defined as a substrate of this concept. Parametricism in this case could possibly be considered as a feedback, in which other substrates of architecture start to inform how the production of space could be altered, enhanced, and/or systematized. But is there a boundary where our creativity is hindered by computational media and approaches? I think we may have been witnessing a little bit of it already. And if so, how should we go beyond? What would happen next?
LikeLike
Part to part over part to whole relationship……
LikeLike
The deterministic nature of algorithms seems analogous with that of architecture in a sense that there is a desire for stability, a desire for absolute control. Such desire in terms of aesthetics is actually nothing new – similar traces could certainly be found in Wagner’s ideology of gesamtkunstwerk. Yet the political implication here almost certainly counteracts with the sporadic nature of human behavior, though sadly this is also reducing with an increasing demand for orders that prioritizes technology in our contemporary society. With this in mind, I consider it crucial for us to think of our role as architects in close alignment with the words of Hakim Bey – “the inclusion of order with chaos in mind.”
LikeLike
1) In Kilian’s “The Question of the Model and its Impact on design” he explains that outcomes of computational geometry can tend to look similar and repetitive. When creating a computational model do you lose the ability to be freely creative and become more derivative due to the similar logic used to create parametric models?
2) In the era of technology how can break out of the repetitiveness caused by computational geometry?
3) Does parametric modeling give us the ability to create architecture for specific climates and context, or is it limited to deriving interesting geometry? In Parametricism Schumacher explains that parametric modeling has breeded a new style of architecture, but does that style take into account context, he says “However, what confronts us is a new style rather than merely a new set of techniques.” a specific style is not suited for every climate.
LikeLike
In the presentation this week parametricism was shown as the new style for architects. Using mathematics, pattern and logic it has broken out as the new style. It is heavily dependent on the computer and technology. Parametricism can be a great way to create a building but only if it is suited for its environment. Creating a ‘style’ of building is interesting, but not successful unless it is created for an environment. We should not strive to create a specific style of buildings, instead create buildings that thrive in the environment and climate they are in. That being said, I do think parametric modeling is a good way to learn about possible iterations and different techniques to include the context of a building. It is also much quicker than drawing and physical modeling and can more accurately show and represent architecture. Zaha Hadid architects use animations and parametric modeling to represent their architecture and it can often lead to a clearer understanding of their creations.
LikeLike
1. Seen as adaptable within their current conditions, within Patrick Schumacher’s ‘A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design,’ the parametric responsiveness of the built environment becomes sensitive to intervention of different temporal scales. Parametric design and resulting order are assimilated to the donkey’s path of least resistance. In this way, the animal resides in field of relationships and responds to the forces on which the environment is sustained. How does the progression of the emergent and unplanned natural path embed itself into the parametric process where the patterns create a field independent of the preconceived planned design?
2. Morphogenesis interests itself in the emergence of underlying complex patterns within the natural environment sustained in the development of interactions until the formation of density amasses into a whole system. Weinstock assimilates these natural processes of organizing patterns in ‘Morphogenesis and the Mathematics of Emergence,’ to the generation of limbs and organs. How does this formulation illustrate the possibility of using the abstract natural complexities in exploring the new design of a self-organizing system within architectural structures?
3. Within Stan Allen’s ‘From Object to Field’ is the conceptual basis of figure being as imperative to field, meaning the space filled is equally essential to the space left empty. Solid and void are of equal value. Within this understanding is the composition of figure against figure and the implications of relations among the modern intervention into the previously clearly delineated relationships of the classical configuration. Does void now become more important when considering landscape urbanisms role in mediating the mass and traversing the built environment? When void is caught between objects how does it form movement and visual relationships among its surroundings?
LikeLike
Within the realization of the blobs downfall within its own isomorphic condition arises the interest of the field; disintegrating the object and creating a complex and ambiguous sea of space. An infinitely vast space poses the idea of a life without objects. The field provides a host for the emergent qualities and properties of the singular acting both individually and amalgamating to a larger organism with a different set of behaviors. Like the super organism of flocking birds, the part to part relationships of self-similar units creates a homogeneity within the self-determined structural system. In this way, the field contains an urban-scaled rhythm. Relying on the attractive forces of adhesion, uniformity, and avoidance the singular unit multi behavioral organism. In this way does form arise from a configuration and amassed behavior of smaller parts? Does the individual act differently from the whole in a way that questions the material of the whole versus the matter.
LikeLike
1. While 3D modeling is becoming a necessary process in architecture, it seems to have an impact on other fields. How has this shift from manual to digital modeling changed architecture and how has this changed the production process of design?
2. In “Parametricism” by Schumacher, he mentions that “parametricism emerges from the creative exploitation of parametric design systems in the course of articulating increasingly complex social processes and institutions.” How has this emergence lead to potential new styles in architectural urbanism?
3. According to Weinstock in “Morphogenesis and the Mathematics of Emergence,” emergence is the new concept in the digital world. Has this concept set architecture into a new phase of design and what would this new phase look like?
LikeLike
This week’s presentation examines parametricism as a dominant style for avant-garde practice. It is a style that relies on program, algorithms, and mathematics that it is categorized into several agendas: parametric accentuation, figuration, responsiveness, and urbanism. These agendas are tools to achieve rationality and urban effects. One example that applies this style is Zaha Hadid Architects. This firm uses digital animation as a stepping stone to design not only architecture but also products. The “Extraordinary Process,” an exhibition at the London gallery in Maison Mais Non, by Patrick Schumacher designed a jacket that use “zippers, and leather in particular zones, and lightness and perforations in zones where you might perspire more.” As parametric design becomes a new approach in architecture, it is becoming a popular tool among designers. The freedom of parametricism offers an opportunity for great amount of variation and geometrical configuration manipulation in architecture.
LikeLike
1. “Living organisms can be regarded as systems, and these systems acquire their complex forms and patterns of behavior through the interactions, in space and over time, of their components.” How is this similar to systems of interaction in architecture? Can systems in a built landscape continue to evolve in dynamic ways?
2. If “the ideal model is like a veil, lightweight and flexible, thin but capable to adapt to the contours of a problem.” Then why do we consider models exact representations of design, something weighted and unwavering?
3. Parametricism comes not from the parametric tools themselves, but from the way in which designers morph and apply those tools. The tool and the designer then have a mutualistic relationship in that one cannot produce parametric design without the other. Since the invention of the parametric tool, how has this relationship between designer and tool changed the way designers think?
LikeLike
1. Whitehead describes organisms as a collection of relationships that are relating to each other, stating that they “adjust own behavior in anticipation of changes to the patterns of activity around them” In this sense can a building be considered an organism? Is it possible for the relations of human social qualities to be represented within the form of a building and the concept behind it?
2. Sanford Kwinter describes technology as a tool to view and understand nature, to learn from it, as even with modern day advanced technology, processes of nature remain far superior to those of mankind. He compares it to Lucretius’ ‘Treatise on Nature’ by which technology has the power to “free humans from the gods…and bear the potential to unlock the door on the universal laws that govern the appearance and destruction of form, freeing us from the multiple tyranny of determinism and from the poverty of the linear.” Should architects always look to nature first and foremost? Will that create the most effective and impressive architecture in terms of environmental and aesthetic affect?
3. In his writing ‘From Object to Field’ Allen describes the figure “not as a demarcated object but as an effect emerging from the field itself – as moments of intensity, as peaks or valleys within a continuous field.” Does this begin to show the removal of monumental architectural objects such as singular skyscrapers? Is architecture already becoming the ‘moire’ that brings cities to the full extent of what a three dimensional field can be, with a logical intensity that creates an urban fabric as a response to the natural field within it?
LikeLike
Parametric architecture certainly seems to be the beginning of a new architectural logic that brings a nuance to form, while also addressing incredibly important issues of fluidity that can become inherently problematic when facing the idea of merging various time periods of architecture within a city. It brings forward the idea of architecture as a system, enhancing the importance of the field. Similarly, in the theoretical sense, parametric design begins to question the architectural language that has been built up until this point. By changing the logic, and thus the words we use, it is bringing forward an entirely new and radical architecture. The role of technology within parametric design also brings into question a variety of topics relating to the role of architects, the effect of technology on a population and on architecture specifically. It could be argued that the technology surrounding parametric design begins to be a figural representation of natural qualities, such as emergent properties, and that this technology allows architects to better design in terms of sustainability.
LikeLike
1. In, The Question of the Model and its Impact on Design, by Killian, there is this question of authorship, and in the contextualization of various fields and designs, that authorship can be blurred. Is the design derived from the landscape and its own reasoning or the architect? Are these fields that are melded into the world, just alien organizations that attempt, yet fail to weave within the structure of the world? Does this then, create an immense emphasis on joints and connections, as without those key moments, the foreign field fails?
2. One issue in architecture, that is often discussed in not only the readings, but during class is this idea of uniqueness, and how at many times it is forced and corrupted for reasons related to selfishness, or the drive to be individualistic as opposed to providing a service. Killian asked that, “[In borrowing from other disciplines], can a model’s signature be overcome by its user through creative use and interpretation or is the creation of a novel model necessary in order to ensure uniqueness in the outcome?” The question here, is what defines the uniqueness? Is it purely formal and aesthetically driven? Or has the profession been damned by this trend as the true uniqueness is through smart design that brings about change/aid without the excessive ornaments?
3. With Parametricism, Schumacher states, “Not long ago we witnessed an accelerated, cumulative build-up of virtuosity, resolution and refinement facilitated by the simultaneous development of parametric design tools and scripts that allow the precise formulation and execution of intricate correlations between elements and subsystems.” Can one argue that the tools and technology given today create the opposite condition? That is to say, that despite how “intricate” and “accurate” these tools are perceived to be, they actually provide a crutch to produce intricate fields, that lack any connection, and or relation to the physicality of the site. How can this duality be remedied so that the latter condition doesn’t occur?
LikeLike
Parametrics in architecture is an incredibly divisive formal logic. There are various benefits and drawbacks associated with this method of design, but there are fundamental issues with this method. During class parametricism was compared to the nature of birds, and the formations they make in the sky while they seek safety amongst each other. They create what was described to be as a “superorganism,” a giant manifestation of smaller organisms into one whole. It’s part to part over part to whole relationship, which is one of simultaneous avoidance, uniformity and attraction. This form of natural parametricism is the product of fear, of the birds flying away in calculated paths to avoid death. With this idea in mind, who is not to say that architectural parametrics is the same exercise, with the fear being predicated on an inability to control nature, and so various systems and fields are organized to attempt to remedy that incapacity. Parametric designs, as seen in the ones presented in class, have an overarching dictatorial and oppressive nature, and whether the intention is to be vituperative in its urban context, the only elements that matter is a freedom of architectural expression and democratic construction, pieces that can be sustained so long as the architect refuses to rely on processes of redundancy and laziness.
LikeLike
1. In the book Parametricism: A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design, Schumacher has mentioned the proposal from Le Corbusier in order to notice the importance of creating orders in the parametricist urbanism. Le Corbusier thought the curve is ruinous, difficult and dangerous: it is a paralyzing thing. However, straight lines are not the only geometry can provide ordered housing, streets, and towns and there are many ordered curves example in the design history of architecture. Do you agree with Le Corbusier’s opinion that curves will make urban design oppose itself to us?
2. Stan Allen emphasized on the importance of keeping an ordered grid in the deign of field condition by providing lots of historical examples such as the precise geometric rule in the design of the Mosque at Cordoba, Spain. Do you think those orders are naturally exist in the building or human define them?
3.Michael Linstock mentioned the use of mathematics in the field of studying perimetric architecture so that we are able to understand the interdisciplinary coherency existing in the architecture. But during ancient times, how does math help ancient people to design cities and towns?
LikeLike
In the presentation, the group provides lots of examples about how Zaha Hadid addressed parametricism in her architectural design from buildings to urban planning. One of the most In the book Parametricism:A New Global Style for Architecture written by Schumacher, the writer mentioned the masterplan of Istanbul in Turkey created by Zaha Hadid Architects in 2006 which towns and perimeter blocks are defined by repetitive blocks. Those blocks are separated into four quadrants allowing for a secondary so that there is a rigorous grid behind the geometry. In my opinion, this rigorous grid is very useful in the design of the city as Le Corbusier has said there must be some precise and strict orders behind the urban planning instead of using uncontrolled curves just like those unorganized medieval towns. Also, the most thing I am curious about is how does parametricism contribute to future study in architecture.
LikeLike
1. In the reading, “From Object to Field” it is mentioned that when working with materials, the artist cannot exercise precise formal control over the material. My question is, would it be a bad or good thing if the artist had precise formal control over materials?
2. In the reading, “The Question of the Model and Its Impact on Design,” ideal model is described as a veil, lightweight and flexible, thin but capable to adapt to the contours of a problem. Why are these the parameters of the ideal model?
3. In the reading, “Computational Fallacy,” Kwinter strongly expresses his feelings toward computers, and brings the question, are they really so bad? When designing is an old fashioned pencil and paper better?
LikeLike
1. In my opinion, I believe that it would not be a great thing as many new discoveries and insights happen by chance, to quote a famous saying, we learn from our mistakes, and if an artist had a precise formal control over material, then the result would be, perhaps, not as great as it would have been.
2. The ideal model benefits from those specifications because they provide further insight into what the model is portraying.
3. Although computers have a somewhat rigid structure for designing, they do provide efficiency and new design methods, although there are some aspects lost when using computers over pencil and paper.
LikeLike
1. In the reading, “The Question of the Model and Its Impact on Design”, is it possible that parametric design makes the architecture profession more accessible to the public?
2. Can parametric design dilute the world of innovative design?
3. In Parametricism, Schumacher says the grid of the modern American city is undifferentiated and non-adaptive. Its freedom is limiting and results in a visual chaos. How can this problem be combated?
LikeLike
One interesting topic that was discussed during the seminar was the idea of bio mimicry. This approach is more applied in engineering fields such as creating jets based off the study of birds or creating designs and patterns found in nature. Much of what is mimicked however is the appearance of animals or plants found in nature but not the structure. Mother nature is able to construct and develop organisms that can grow and defy our notions of what structure really is. Could structure that is found is nature translate more into architecture where for example, the structure of a tree is developed into an actual building. I think parametric design may be a stepping stone to find a bridge between bio mimicry and architecture. Parametric design can take two different paths, one where it supplies most of the design ideas and constraints or the other where it is controlled by the user and follows the set of instructions. The design becomes more cohesive and in some ways almost monolithic. However, I do believe that sometimes parametric design is given too much emphasis where it is solely used to create an interesting skin without any thought to the building or surroundings but just for the sake of appearance. The design language then becomes broken and becomes disconnected with the design and architect.
LikeLike
1. In the Question of the Model and its Impact on Design, by Killian, there is the question of authorship. How is the heavy reliance on technology today leading to design work that is so far distanced from the designer’s intent that it becomes unauthored-ingenuine? The question of lack of originality is replaced with lack of design intent-
2.But is it important for factors other than ego/credit? Killian proposes the need for more sophisticated models but at which point is it simply unnecessary to include human in its design process; perhaps ai technology even could supplement computer generated processes with the emotional/social input required by human intervention.
3.Killian descries: “the ideal model is like a veil, lightweight and flexible, thin but capable to adapt to the contours of a problem.” This is an interesting statement as it proposes a dynamic quality’ a fluidity to design that often, in parametric modeling and otherwise, tends to have an end result-something completed. That is the nature, often, of a project. Is there, however, a lack of consideration given to the creation of evolving/adaptable modeling processes and the “end” results alike.
LikeLike
Parametricism offers the ability to create something relating to cultural subjectivity; or subject, rather. Architecture is a political act- and it is something, through the creation of this new architectural language, that brings about a shift to modern culture whether it parallels or juxtaposes mainstream beliefs/practices. “Emergent” effects are not simply of a formal nature but social, in this manner. The complexity of part to part vs part to whole design process contains principles of adhesion, uniformity and avoidance; controlled algorithmically. The question of whether this method of design becomes out of control due to realistic constraints or lack of resolution from a generated output is something I feel should be more heavily critiqued in judging success of a sophisticated design work rather than simply an eye-catching, complex skin; the meat and bones of which are missing.
LikeLike
1. In the article From Object to Field, the author Stan Allen mentioned the “minimalism develops in sequences, but rarely in fields”; the “extrinsic” elements are changed to modified form in the field. How does this change happen through time and through the process? Is this change being read as a positive change or just simply a new generation?
2. The computation of the natural world is exciting and over-complicated; when people try to learn and adapt the pattern of natural mechanism, we probably need specific calculations. With specific calculation, the result is relative predictable; but as the concept of emergence is relative random, how should we solve the conflict between precise computation and emergence?
3. The Parametricism design is indeed become a popular form in recent years. Using parametric modelling and scripting is a very common way to generate the form and analysis special influence of a design. But as the popularization of parametric design, how should we as architects to maintain the consistency of the local area while designing new buildings? How should we not to disrupt the natural order of the site while giving the new design a modern taste?
LikeLike
This week’s topic is about parametricism. Parametric design has been more and more popular among the field, this new way of analyzing and generating from gives more possibilities to modern architecture. Using parametric tools like Grasshopper, we can easily generate charts and graphs that helping us understand the site and our design; at the same time, using these tools can open up new views that was impossible to prospect decades before. This method can be applied in almost every step in design process: basic site analysis, from and distribution, structural formation, façade strategy, etc. We can see parametric process in most works by Zaha Hadid Architects; they all tend to give a strategy of landscape and every line and boundary is very well-controlled. It is like we, as architects, are setting up rules for the design, and letting the parametric computation to realize it. The amount of variations definitely help architects to find new approaches and possible solutions to certain problem, but at the same time we need to be aware of not letting parametricism occupy the entire process. In my opinion, parametric computation is helpful and necessary in the design process, but this will not be the most important part; to consider in a humanistic way is always the most important thing while design.
LikeLike
1. Is a building that engages it’s site more desirable than a building that doesn’t?
2. In some programs, like Grasshopper, there is a certain degree to how much the creator designs the product and how much is left for the program to create. To what extent do we let the computer create before the product doesn’t become the creators anymore?
3. Kwiter says all matter has some degree of active intelligence, even if it’s totally disorganized. If a building is totally disorganized whether its with the exterior appearance or the program, does this still show some degree of active intelligence?
LikeLike
1. I think in some instances, there is architecture that doesn’t engage the site and it is just as desirable as one that does. If a building can sit well on its site and it doesn’t necessarily engage it, I think it can gave a desirable effect like one that can sit well on its site and does engage it.
2. There is a very fine line that has to be drawn in order to decide how much we let the computer decide for us. We need to be able to figure out how to control the computer’s tasks and make sure that they don’t take over. We have to make sure our ideas are visible and that we are the ones telling the computer what to do to give us that result.
3. If a building has no organization then it would be assumed that there was no active intelligence used to create the building.
LikeLike
1. In From Object to Field there is the idea that “parts are not fragments of wholes.” How does one define a part then? Are there dozens of potential parts within the whole or is there a set boundary for what a part is?
2. In Kilian’s discussion of the model, one of the comments he makes is that models, by nature, are exploratory. Why then do we most often build models at the end of a project?
3. In Weinstock’s analysis of using mathematically techniques to produce collective behavior, he states that using a remote central computer is conceptually inferior to that of self-organization. Does this idea of a remote controlling force not also apply to architects who wish to do social projects in areas which they are unfamiliar? If it is necessary to be present to adapt to the environment, how can architects not intimately familiar with the land design for it?
LikeLike
1. Axel Kilian, in his work “The Question of the Underlying Model and Its Impact on Design,” talked about the fact that architects utilize technology in order to create innovated, parametric design. However, this rose the dispute of people questioning if the architecture that results from technology is in fact genuine and innovated. This is perplexing for who ever said that technology is not genuine and is not capable of genuine design since it was genuine humans that created these technological devices and input their ideas into them?
2. It is said that nature’s unpredictability in its design is what makes it beautiful. However when architects establish a design in unpredictability and organized chaos, it is rejected in masses. Why is that? Why is it not acceptable to imitate nature’s chaos?
3. In the article “Computational Fallacy,” it vividly pins nature and technology against each other, stating that no computer system can match the most simple natural system. This brings to question why people are turning away from their own creation of technological devices? Is technology not just the science of trying to mathematically understand nature’s chaos? Are people afraid of the power of computers, or jealous of the fact that computers are perhaps more capable of imitating nature more easily than humans?
LikeLike
It seems like a political act, or rather a social issue when it comes to finding an answer to why designing to a certain extent with technology has a negative connotation. It has little to do with the actual techniques and equipment for technology allows for more efficiency, and a perhaps a bit more accuracy. However, some people are in the mindset that utilizing computers is in a way cheating the system and design procedure, which is a point that has some legitimacy. It was mentioned in class that architecture, in the past, was more of an art than it is now. Architects use to see something, and had to visualize it two dimensionally. From there, they improved upon it and edited elements all on paper and by their hands, keeping in with regulations and codes. After, their drawings would be given to engineers and contractors to build their two dimensional vision in the real world. Technology, in a sense, has taken from this art. Yes, the design process is easier for one can create many variations of a model virtually faster as well as removes a level of human error. However, it is seen less as an art and more of a practice or discipline nowadays. Yet, there is the other side that could argue that technology is treading its way in this world as its own art; therefore, dismissing the issue of architecture being no longer an art when introduced with technology. From this circumstance, it grants that technology does has a place in the design world both as a tool, and as an existing art.
LikeLike
1. Kwinter’s “The Computational Fallacy” values natural systems that do not rely on digital construction over those that do; in what ways can this belief coincide with the move towards parametricism?
2. Kilian alludes to the fact that digital modeling can help illustrate problems that occur and counter-design to address these problems; to what extent can digital correction of problems risk compromise of a project’s aesthetic values?
3. Schumacher makes the case that technological advance of parametricism helps to advance the field of urban planning, what natural examples also give aid to determining a parametric system at a large scale?
LikeLike
An interesting point brought up in discussion was regarding the transition of architecture from virtual to material. I think in the current state of architecture, that gap can’t be bridged, particularly because there are many complications in how a system can be so interactive with itself. In a circumstance such as this, it is very easy for a parametric system to begin to become disjointed from the landscape that it is meant to be working with. This is why it is so important that the focus of parametric architecture be on the relationship between individual parts, and not have individual parts respond to a whole. This makes it easier for smaller components to be able to adapt to microconditions that exist within one landscape without having to necessarily alter the entire structure.
LikeLike
1. From “The Question of the Model”, Killian states that architecture has so many problems that he is surprised that more models haven’t been built to solve these problems. If a model or shape could be designed to solve on of these architectural problem, which one would it be and what would the model look like? ex. How would program be modeled as an conventional concept
2. Schumacher says that with parametric design, one can create these buildings that respond to the different parameters. But is it actually possible to parametrically design a complex, fluid, and responsive space with simple parametrics?
3. Going off the previous point, since architecture is ever changing and can be versatile, how will rigid parametrics be involved in the design process for complex structures? How will they change and adapt to the ever shifting uses and needs of the space?
LikeLike
When thinking about parametricism, individuality and the whole are equally as important. No one form, space or object is any less valuable than the whole which they make up. Thinking about this from a design perspective, it is difficult to imagine an entire form without one of its components, or also to imagine all the small parts that make a completely different structure than the original shape. Much like the birds in their flock, architecture works better and more efficiently with all the parts there, and if it were to be singled out it would be a simple wall or a single door. However, the down side of parametric design lies in the rigidness and stiffness of the code, to the point were it can’t flow and function as an adaptable means of design. Despite this issue, I think that it still serves as merely a conceptual tool and visual aid to understand complex relationships between the part and whole.
LikeLike
1.When beginning a project in architecture, specifically one where a building, home, or structure is being built somewhere, it is important to do a site analysis, or as described in “From Object to Field”, figure out your field conditions. Taking this first step in a project allows for the “acceptance of the real in all its messiness and unpredictability”. In other words, it allows the architect to understand all the forces and “characters” that will need to be addressed by the building in addition to building code and a client’s program. Architects complete the site analysis by visiting the site, taking measurements and data, etc. However, with new technology, site analysis can be done strictly from behind a computer screen, without even having to visit the site in person. Is there a downfall to this new technology? Is it actually necessary to visit the site in person? Is technological analysis all we need anymore?
2.A topic I keep returning to in terms of questions is this idea of creating a new architecture. As stated weeks before, there is this argument that there isn’t a truly “new architecture” because it is just an evolution of what we already have seen. But, can this really be true? Parametricism seems to be a new path for a new architecture and style. The style is based on new technology such as coding/scripting, and design systems based on outputs of programs and equations done by a computer. Is this something we have possibly seen before? Is it an evolution? Or can we actually say we have a new architecture?
3.Technology is a huge part in architecture today. From phase 1 of analyzing a site, and creating diagrams, to designing the building, and creating an image, technology has the ability to do take on all these tasks. However, when it comes to designing a building, even when designed on a program, rhino for example, there is still a huge emphasis placed on building a physical scaled model by hand to truly understanding your building, and how all of the components of the building work together. With technological advancements making everything easier, as in the case of site analysis and understanding the natural elements at work on site, will physical models always be a necessary component of an architect’s design process? Or will the importance of creating a physical model lessen more and more over time as technology becomes increasingly more important?
LikeLike
Technology is becoming more and more apparent in the everyday lives of people. It is no longer just televisions and cellphones and cars in which technology is advancing. We are entering a stage in the world where technology is making the daily lives and tasks of people easier. In the perspective from an architect, one can see how technology aides in the production and designing of a building. From stage one with site analysis and analyzing forces such as wind, water, contamination, etc. to programs such as rhino and Revit where the designing takes place. An even more updated technological advancement is parametricism where now the computer and formulated equations and patterns are designing buildings rather than the architect. This technology is just beginning, so who knows where it will take us.
LikeLike
1. In “The Question of the Model and Its Impact on Design,” the author describes a trend in the field in which architects are “looking to other disciplines” for “genuinely new models for design.” Does this contradict Kipnis’ insistence that architecture is “retreating from the New,” not searching for it? Or does it instead describe new growth in the profession in which, tired of relying on precedent, architects embraced the lack of originality in their own field and moved towards interdisciplinarity in favor of the “genuine new”?
2. If parametricism is the use of dimensionality to change the shape of model geometry in time with the modification of dimensional values, does it possess the ability to measure and account for the “form between things,” in terms of local connection as stated by Allen, or merely the form? How does it handle the “messiness and unpredictability of real life”? Is it too idealized?
3. Knowing that the goal of parametricism is the “total integration of the evolving built environment,” is it realistic to assume, that, should a system fail (i.e., structure,) the parametric model is prepared to replace it? Does it consider the potential of failure in the built environment, and if one system fails, does the model fail?
LikeLike
In today’s presentation, I saw a comment regarding parametric design that I found interesting, and particularly telling: “Evolution is more than adaptation; evolution is differentiation.” The components of the world are constantly evolving, and while the design process is free to evolve with them, built projects are tragically static. Buildings become a snapshot record of a process, but struggle to “evolve” beyond this. Architecture is dynamic, but the buildings architecture forms are inherently unchanging. Parts of the whole may move or shift with the seasons, with the sunlight, with the program, with time- but it has been built with a set of limitations that it will exist within if it is to successfully exist at all. They cannot evolve without renovation, and in parametric design, renovation would produce an entirely different building, as the shift of one component subsequently shifts all components. Is that realistic, or justified? The design cycle of parametricism seems to be more conceptual than tangible, which will only take it so far in the field. By singing its apparent triumphs, parametricism may accidentally be drawing attention to its limitations.
LikeLike
1. Stan Allen presents a discussion over field conditions that are built up from a series of individual objects. He makes the claim that the aggregate of these distinct objects enables a field condition that simultaneously celebrates the individual and the collective. However, we do not see the individual pixels that makeup an image but rather the whole image. If this is true, then does the individual object have the same presence and value as the field?
2. Patrik Schumacher argues for a deep rationality that can be achieved by parametricism through a set of parameters in terms of mass, spacing, and directionality. He contrasts this form of urban design with Le Corbusier’s theories, who once remarked that the straight line and the right angle were the key to man’s dominion over nature. Do you believe that there is an actual difference in methodology between the two, as both seek to establish order and a set of rules within an urban fabric that is constantly being shaped by a series of random natural, political, and social factors?
3. Parametricism on allows us to understand the natural world in a more quantitative fashion. Through video games and computer simulations, we have attempted to understand natural processes such as the flow of water in a river or the swarm movements of a group of bats. This however intrinsically is all based on a drastic simplification and false order of a process that has its own natural order. Is there an intellectual and moral flaw in human’s using computers as a means of understanding the world or are they our gate into gathering the “intelligence” within matter?
LikeLike
The belief that parametricism is the ultimate resolution to urban scale design is one that is flawed in its conception and often is used to hide an underlying agenda by many architects. Patrik Schumacher’s advocacy for this new process of design is presented as a method in which the complexity of factors that affect urban design can all be taken into consideration through parametricism. However, in the comparison between the ideas that he presents and the manifestation of these ideas into a concrete plan, we begin to see that for Schumacher an underlying aesthetic agenda is held to a much higher value than these “factors” he has taken into consideration. In fact, Hadid’s plan for Instanbul seems to glaze over the social role, context, and politics that heavily influence urban design. The only politics that is ultimately considered is not those of the urban context and the people that will inhabit these monolithic spaces, but rather reside in the architect’s dominion over a “blank canvas”.
LikeLike
1. Le Corbusier states that he believes that curves are a negative in the architecture world and won’t work well in urban spaces against the straight lines of streets. Do you believe that moving forward curves should be incorporated into the street designs of new cities or buildings should just not use curves like Le Corbusier said?
2. Schumacher believes that technology is extremely helpful in designing urban areas for the future. Do you believe that the use of technology is going to help not only the Urban areas of design but also start to help all new designs made with the use of scanning, 3D printing and new programs?
3. Kwiter believes that to show intelligence behind designs there must be order behind every move but do you believe that a disorganized design can still be appreciated almost like a Pollock painting?
LikeLike
This weeks presentation was able to look at how each individual piece of a project is able to come together to form something completely new from multiple small pieces. This was described as being a part to whole and part to part approach when designing. Using this part to whole idea I am able to re look at my questions and say that we should instead go against what Le Corbusier believed being that curves were negatives and instead start to incorporate them into street designs to form something new. I also believe that by looking at it as part to whole you can then appreciate disorganized designs or ideas by standing back and looking at them as a whole. On a side note to answer my other question I do believe that with technology we will be able to grow ideas and new designs or plans past what we can do with just our hands. This can form grand new ideas that are more disorganized than ever thought before but yet still organized as one whole form.
LikeLike
1. In Stan Allen’s “From Object to Field”, he states that cities thrive because they are, “products of a complex order emerging over time.” Cities derived from chaos rather than planning might be able to adapt to their surroundings and context better as they begin to take on more complex or unpredictable forms. Should architects then choose to forgo the notion of planning when it comes to cities in order to allow for this unexpected or organic growth?
2. Weinstock investigates the idea of morphogenesis as it relates to forms and behaviors that emerge from the natural world. Mathematical techniques can be used to model these complex systems as a genetic code is translated into a computational code. There becomes a self-organized pattern and dynamic adaptability from which beauty can emerge. Is this method of construction necessary for future environmental design as buildings can become self-sustainable?
3. Parametric design consists of a set of flexible components, which can lead to infinite variations of forms. As outlined by Patrick Schumacher, this practice might be perceived as a new style of architecture. How does this computation account for history and culture? Will there be a point where the architect is no longer needed and the computer/AI system is able to generate its own parametric design?
LikeLike
The discussion addressed the idea of singularity versus an inter-connectivity in parametric design. This explores a part to part relationship over a part to whole. When looking at the video of the flight of the starlings, it is easy to see how the individual birds generate a larger form in motion. Each individual aligns itself with its neighbor for survival. Even at high velocities, they can make an instant turn as one massive organism. With adhesion, uniform direction, and avoidance the system is able to respond and move in a new way. Parametric design allows the architect to create a more complex and uniform design based on these self-similar units. By drawing from this understanding of natural or biological processes, a derived algorithm can produce geometry in a similar way. It leads to the question of whether or not the parameters being plugged in become a political technique. Applying the same logic across a city can potentially generate a greater method of control.
LikeLike
1. In Kwinter’s, “The Computational Fallacy”, it is said that the intelligence of machinery “is both multispectral and free form or ‘complex’”. When comparing this statement of machinic, parametric design to what was said in last week’s readings, that architectural shape should be “easy”, there seems to be a contradiction. Is it fair to say that the complexity of the machine, and the ease of the shape can operate at the same time, or must one choose either the “complex” or the “easy?”
2. Allen speaks to the fact that fields have recently begun to work in concert with the object. The object no longer occupies a seemingly untouched space as a piece of standalone architecture. On the outside, this sounds like a nice way of integrating a building to an existing space. However, when Allen begins to speak about the gridded field, it seems that when using the grid, the field once again becomes disassociated to the existing ground/site/ “field.” By imagining and designing the field, are we reverting back to the detached architecture that is the modernist cube?
3. Kilian states in “The Question of the Model and Its Impact on Design” that through computer based architectural design, the designer is becoming increasingly distant from the product. With this in mind, do you think that in the future, computer scientists will dominate architectural design as opposed to architects?
LikeLike
The topic of object and field is always one that I found rather interesting. To try to respond to my own question, I believe that the field can easily and quickly become an object in its own entity. As a tool for organization, and scalar interplay, the field is a metaphysical entity that can better help to relate the structure or object within it, to the site/ground/landscape; however, when the field becomes more than a virtual or imaginative tool for design, I think it can hinder what it is trying to accomplish by distancing itself further from the preferred integration to the environment. The field should serve as a relatable boundary between the building and the site, if neither can accomplish that on its own. The field is no longer helpful nor is it necessary once it becomes just as distanced from the targeted desire.
LikeLike
1. Weinstock references intricate exchanges between biology, chemistry, and mathematics, with a principle that all higher-level actions are buildups of low-level properties. He goes on to cite systems of natural selection, where organisms that are better-adapted to their environments pass on their traits to more offspring, who are better suited to their environments, and have more offspring, and pass on these traits. Obsolete organisms fail to have offspring and die out. This makes me think of Bjarke Ingels Group’s body of work: they tend to recycle or “upcycle” ideas, adapting them from project to project to create what they call an “Architectural Evolution”, instead of a revolution. (Laziness???) Do you think parametricism shares in this ability? As an evolution, surpassing styles such as Modernism and Post-Modernism? Or as a revolution, replacing them entirely?
2. Schumacher hails parametricism as a powerful new avant-garde style, capable of operating cohesively in all scalar realities from the city down to the nuts and bolts of the furniture. In order to keep things in control: in order to actually build these “interarticulated subsystems” (how’s that for language, Peter Eisenman?) there needs to be a set of agendas. On this list, he places “Responsiveness” at number 4. This is a similar tenet that Kwinter posits, that advanced technological societies have moved from empirical intelligence to numerical, dissociated methods. I think this might be a serious issue for those of the Hadid-Schumacher generation: using these powerful tools to advance stylistic, formal, egotistical agendas, before those which actually respond to the user. Sticking to Zaha for this analogy, we see stunning works like the Heydar Aliyev center; beautiful masterpieces in their own right, that need uber-expensive construction techniques and materials. Architecture for the rich. I have a ton of respect for work such as this, at the scale of the building. But I feel that parametric design at the scale of the entire city might suffer similar egotistical malfunctions. I do agree with Schumacher that this new style has the capability to eclipse Modernism at the scale of the city tenfold, but I’m skeptical that it will. A city could respond to all of the real-life parameters that it needs to in order to function properly, integrating design with current and future life. But it may just fall into this tendency to create hyper-beautiful plans and 3-D models, when what is experienced is the real world. The same thing happened in Modernism, with Corb genuinely proposing to level the entire city of Paris, and Costa designing a quite dysfunctional city plan for Brasilia. Given that much power, do you think whomever designs the city would fall into stylistic advancements? Or would responsibly design for the user-base. Would the result might be what MVRDV was warning us about in their MetaCity / DataTown explorations? Or a new type of integrated city that responds to the informalities and byproducts of cities?
3. I’m worried that the next step after parametric design will be similar to the trends we see with social media networks, serving, as Kwinter writes, as Trojan horses. That which used to bring people together (think drive-in movies) are now keeping people curled up in bed (Netflix). Parametricism has jumped on an uber-important technological advancement in our society in the algorithm, but Kwinter would warn us to stay away from what this means, “expanding the concrete and extending intuition into new domains”. There is no longer a need to know anything: we can just Google everything. Or an algorithm will find it for us even before we search for it. Do you think architecture itself could fall victim to a similar result? Will algorithm-generated virtual realities make our physical one obsolete? Will there be a need for new architecture, if one could just put on a headset and be transported to a new space?
LikeLike
I suppose the solution to my concerns (at the building scale) might just be the employment of a bottom-up approach, designing the CONDITIONS, hoping to achieve EMERGENCE. And not trying to achieve the design that you’ve got in your head, top-down. Like the professor said, Schumacher’s parameters are rather reductive, hoping to make the end result recognizable within Zaha’s style, and not inclusive, as he claims they are. Perhaps a more logical bottom-up approach (at a smaller scale than the city) could be more inclusive, respondent to users and economics, and push materials, logics, etc to something they could not do on their own, achieving true emergence.
LikeLike
1. It seems there is a fine line between using the process off parametric design as a tool for carrying out a design decision and designing based on the desire to use a parametric process. How could one take precautions so to not make the mistake of designing based on the usage of parametric modeling?
2. In Sanford Kwinter’s “The Computational Fallacy,” there is a fair bit of detail about the composition of the natural world and how there is a certain baseline repetitive nature of the building blocks of everything that constructs us. Has parametric design taken inspiration from this idea of using repetition as a baseline building block to fuel how architects think about design today?
3. It seems that the beginning stages of parametric design came from Zaha Hadid’s urban master plans, and yet parametric design can be used for any aspect of architecture imaginable. Could parametric design one day become the standard tool for design?
LikeLike
What defines nature is the shear intensity of the detail of the composition and structure that makes it up. From the tiny atoms that compose everything that has mass to the microscopic bacteria that decompose the deceased wildlife in a forest, nature is ultimately the highest amount of complexity that can be achieved with the usage of many basic units. Every individual thing that exists can be described as constructed using a standard algorithm that is used for the creation of everything of that specific type. It is this idea that inspired the creation of the method of parametric design, a method of design that uses written scripts to generate geometry based on algorithm. This method opens up the possibility for any type of creation, as programs like Grasshopper provide basic components that can be manipulated into functioning in any way the designer wants. Without the precedent of nature, the idea of parametric design wouldn’t exist, and to truly understand the possibilities of parametric design, one must first have an understanding of nature.
LikeLike
1. In “The Computational Fallacy”, Sanford Kwinter states “‘Control’ here means simply the sustained application of intelligent – or organizing – force over time”. But in reality, how much control does the architect have over their design? Does the increase in parametric modeling due to the advancement of technology add to the architect’s control over a design or subtract from it?
2. In “From Object to Field”, Stan Allen describes artist Barry Le Va’s definition of a distribution, stating that “a ‘distribution’ is defined as ‘relationships of points and configurations to each other’…”. The points and the various configurations must blend in order to form a cohesive design. How is this definition of a distribution in relation to parametric design relevant to the overall consideration of site and its relationship to the architect’s design of a project?
3. Throughout the readings, parametricism is described as being an innovative way to develop complex forms in architecture that go “beyond formalism” (Killian, “The Question of the Model and Its Impact on Design”). How does the ability to utilize data sets and results create smarter designs? In turn, can these smarter (and potentially greener) designs have a positive effect on the environment and culture of a city?
LikeLike
Parametric designs differ from designs found in nature due to the fact the technological process cannot mimic the essence of beauty found in the natural world. When architects try to repeat the curves and patterns that naturally occur, the outcome is often not what they expected. This transition to the material world is not always a smooth transition. However, the introduction of parametric modeling, as well as various technological advancements (i.e., 3D printing) have allowed the virtual world to merge into the physical, material world. Ideas and creations now have the ability to escape the architect’s mind and find a place in the real world. These projects reflect actual data and results which help create smarter designs, which can have an impact on the physical world. Through looking at what makes up the parametric designs, a part to part relationship is discovered. Each part plays a specific role that influence the overall result.
LikeLike
Schumacher, in Parametricism, A New Global Style, lists “rigid geometric primitives… (and) simple repetition of elements” as negative design heuristics, inconsistent with parametric ideals and contemporary design culture, and as such are “paths of research to avoid”. As parametric technology continues to advance and architects can begin to imagine entire cities deigned parametrically, how can architects and planners move from the negative heuristic of blocks and grids that have dominated urban planning for decades?
In relation to last week’s topic of laziness- wherein architects can allow the conditions of a site to dictate much of the form and further development- we can relate Kwinter’s essay wherein he mentions Diderot’s concept of ‘sensitivity’ of matter. The Computational Fallacy discusses the active intelligence embedded within impossibly complex yet overall coherent patterns and rhythm in untouched matter, and how electronic design in contrast to mechanical methods allows that intelligence to manifest itself in innumerous ways. With the idea that ‘laziness’ is a favorable design tactic for architects in mind, how far can we allow the ‘active intelligence’ of a site dictate its form without outside input?
Architecture never quite exists on paper or in a model as it does in the real world. As part of the active intelligence and quiet agency the world seems to have, there is always a level of chaos, imperfection, and disorder involved with realization. “From Object to Field” warns that architects need to accept that chaos “in all its messiness and unpredictability”. It is worth noting that parametric design is made possible almost entirely through the advance of computer aided design and other such modeling and construction methods (i.e. CAM). As we move more of our design process away from the mechanic, physical, and thus chaos-laden reality of the physical world and more into the electronic realm, are we poorly preparing our own designs for construction, or worse, from coherence? Will these massive computer-modeled paraform structures effectively translate to the real world?
LikeLike
Parametricism has caused a good deal of controversy within the architecture and design communities. There are various polarizing aspects to the parametric design phenomenon; political, practical, as well as artistic. Several of today’s presenters touched on the subject of practicality when it comes to parametric design. As the line blurs between what is possible in the imagination and what can be made in the physical realm, architects need to question the propriety of bringing such pure mathematical entities into the real world. Zaha Hadid, for all her grand works and stunning visualizations, has been criticized by many for valuing the cutting-edge style and appearance of her buildings over their practicality; the caulking debacle of the Guangzhou Opera House as an example. Architects must take care to ensure their parametric designs, while sleek and shiny at their conception, do not age poorly under the duress of simply existing.
LikeLike
1. Sanford Kwinter talks about the mechanical being the primitive. That it’s overly designed and therefore it’s capabilities become limited. By extension it limits our capabilities when we use these types of technologies. If we as designers are encouraged to be more free with our designs, then why are we given these parameters that create more boundaries for us and limit our design expressions?
2. Emergence is described as the properties of a system that cannot be deduced from its components, meaning it’s more than simply the sum of its parts. For architecture emergence delineates the working concept. It’s meant to outline the organization and interaction of our designs. In a sense it simplifies and makes it easier to understand our designs. How would emergence be used as a tool to simplify the understanding of our designs when emergence itself doesn’t put things in its most simplest terms?
3. Weinstock describes buildings as being part of the environment of its neighbors, in other words they are the parts of the whole as described by emergence. But what is included in the “whole”? Is the “whole” the immediate environment of which a building resides? Or is the environment simply another “part” to a much larger “whole”?
LikeLike
Parametricism and parametrics have been made to influence the way we look at and design architecture. It creates a new way of organization for the architect and allows for a varied analysis of these designs. Having a definite set of parameters however creates boundaries which limits the design freedoms of the architects. This could be taken as a positive or a negative. In once sense, as stated earlier, it gives the architect a new level of organization that they can plug in information into and produce multiple renditions in a short period of time. This creates an efficiency that wasn’t there before that could be seen as more productive. In the other sense, it takes true design out architecture. It over simplifies it so you can just “plug and chug” without thinking about what you’re doing. In order to do this effectively there needs to be a balance between using parameters to initiate a design process and then also spend time to refine your design so that it stays meaningful to the designer.
LikeLike
1. How would Axel Kilian express his conclusion about Patrick Schumacher’s idea about “using parametric modelling inconspicuously to absorb complexity?” Does this method adequately fit Kilian’s description of abstract usage be influential for design exploration?
2. Weinstock discusses the differences and similarities between computer generated forms and biological forms. Do you believe there should be a clear distinction established between these two methods? Should the “boundary constraints” implemented in these methods characterize enough of a distinction?
3. In Computational Fallacy by Sanford Kwinter, why does Diderot refer to active intelligence as “sensitivity?”
LikeLike
One of the questions proposed during the seminar, “how do we remain aware when technology makes it easy to forget,” brings human reliance on technology into question. Is it necessarily wrong to have trust in technology to the point that we forget some of these basic skills that generations before us knew so clearly? In architecture specifically, there is a lack of focus on developing hands on skills (such as hand drawings) and more centralized on digital production. In order to “remain aware” one should take the time to make strides in both fields. Understanding both aspects won’t only make for a more well-rounded individual but also more open to everything. Daniel Libeskind is constantly starting project with a sketch, one of his projects even began on a napkin because he can find inspiration from a variety of things he sees. And has a way of interpreting these concepts of inspiration into his sketches and his overall design of a project.
LikeLike
1. How is the “morphogenetic tendency” between forms prevalent in architecture, ie can the Cartesian transformation of coordinates be applied in architectural forms? How do forms in a structure relate to each other? How are these forms generated in a computational environment?
2. Is the abstract minimalist works of Barry La Vie as featured in “From object to field” and example of morphogenetic tendency? As he defines his forms as “relationships of points and configurations to each other” as he focuses on these relationships and sequences with more importance than the overall form.
3. In “The question o the model and its impact on design” it is noted that new form and models are almost impossible to create as ideas and methods at this point of computational development can only be reused or recycled, could there be any possibilities of developing new technologies and strategies to create new autonomous designs?
LikeLike
Single elements configure together to create a single form. Birds of a flock or fire ants swarm together to create unity as a singular form. In this presentation that was exemplified as well as related ideas. Some of these ideas include that there are three types of signs: an icon, an index, and a symbol. Another idea is that minimalism works as though to get rid of figurative and decorative qualities of art to round the architectural meaning of a form. Modernism neglects the links to people and content and morphogenesis is the creations of forms in space over time. Thus, this is where parametricism is necessary and present because it is what happens when we become aware when technology makes it easy to forget. Parametricism relies on programs, algorithms and computers to manipulate equations for design purposes.
I thought the discussion of mechanical and electronic processes was very interesting. There are evidently fallacies in computations although mechanical is primitive when compared to electronic processes, electronic processes increase precision of design. Thus, mechanical processes have become archaic from electronic processes as they are done better. Today the attitude towards technology refuses to see electronic matter as only crutch and it is our duty to only use it to interpret mathematical relationships. A revival may take place if the resistance promotes being aware of tools at our disposal but not blindly taking convention and technology as gospel in design.
LikeLike
1. In “From Object to Field,” Stan Allen describes the algebraic and geometrical principles used in the Cordoba Mosque, and how such principles allow for “the possibility of incremental growth.” Do you think that newer architectural processes based in mathematics and algorithms will allow for buildings to incrementally grow again? What benefits and challenges could incremental growth produce?
2. Returning to last week’s reading “On Laziness,” do you consider parametricism to be a type of laziness in architectural design?
3. Both Kwinter and Weinstock describe the need in the field of architecture to base computational models off of the principles and organization of natural systems. Why do you think in the beginning of heavy parametric and computational modeling era there existed such an urgency to link architecture to nature?
LikeLike
The discussion this week centered around the emergence in architecture of both part-to-part and part-to-whole relationships. This idea of figure which is created from the assemblage of many discreet, unique elements has become an incredibly important scheme in parametric modeling and architectural discourse at large. Designers like Schumacher claim that the great advantage of parametricism is that is avoids the politics of form, instead deriving all aspects of form from a neutrally chosen base model or algorithm. However, the discussion this week questioned the reality of that statement; is there not a political statement in covering portions of cities in the parametric blob? Perhaps one of the great questions about parametricism as a style is how it can begin to address, rather than ignore things such as politics. I think the idea of the part-to-whole relationship can begin to take on more than just a literal meaning. The idea of the part massing to a whole can be analogized in an infinite number of ways – building to city, person to society, etc. By acknowledging such politicism and designing with intent, parametricism could potentially start to generate not only formally interesting but also ideologically and politically engaged architecture.
LikeLike
1. Stan Allen states in “From Object to Field” that, “By remaining attentive to the detailed conditions that determine the connection of one part to another, by understanding construction as a ‘sequence of events’, it becomes possible to imagine an architecture that can respond fluidly and sensitively to local difference while maintaining overall stability.” Could this idea truly create architecture that responds fluidly to a local difference, or would it create an architecture that is solely based on the way it would be constructed? Would architecture become more like engineering?
2. In Killan’s “The Question of the Model and its Impact on Design”, he says that “The discipline of architecture has such a wealth of problems such complexity and diversity it is surprising that not more models have been developed”. Could making models to help solve problems within the design lead to never ending model making and an unbuilt building?
3. Patrik Schumacher believes that, “The goal is deep relationality, the total integration of the evolving built environment, from urban distribution to architectural morphology, detailed tectonic articulation and interior organization.” If the goal of Parametric urbanism is as stated before, could this be a way to begin designing buildings that respond to the world changing around them? Could the buildings themselves, say, respond to an oncoming flood and raise itself off the ground?
LikeLike
Parametric architecture allows the architect to create a design based on a set of parameters and a code. Even though there are set parameters and a code, there is not always an organized design created. With the evolution of technology it has become easier for us to design using algorithms that can do most of the work for us. These algorithms, however, don’t always do what the architect is trying to accomplish with their design. The design could come out too complex and without any set order to them. They basically create a whole jumble of geometries that look “cool” but don’t actually have any meaning or use. This is a problem that I see in a lot of these parametric designs. Also, while doing my own parametric designs, I have found that it’s very easy to get lost and completely forget what you’re designing. It becomes this never-ending loop of “oh this looks cool” and since the amount of variation that algorithms give you is so great, you lose sight of what needed to be accomplished. Even still, I believe that parametric design can create amazing buildings if the architect doesn’t lose themselves in the algorithms.
LikeLike
1) In Patrik Schumacher’s Parametricism, he explained how parametric design is globalizing the world and become essential to architecture in a way that people rely on mathematical sequences to design and model. But is it considered as “laziness” from week 2 reading because we are only taking the output under mathematical product as architectural design?
2) In “The question of the underlying model and its impact on design”, the author said :”By definition models do not holistically represent the phenomena they describe but operate at different degrees of abstraction.” However, in architecture school, we learned that models should be correctly built in order to let people define the space and shapes. Thus, shouldn’t we be more cognitive when modeling so that the clients and other people could understand the reasoning behind the design.
3) Schumacher explains that parametric design can make the design responsive and fluid because parametric design is cognitive and we generate design output under mathematical rules. Yet, In LeCobusier’s Ville Radieuse, he used similar strategy to plan and partition the city, but why is Ville Radieuse not as glorious in LeCobusier’s career and what did he not consider if he were using parametric rules for his design.
LikeLike
1. How is organic geometry derived in classical architecture when “precise rules of axiality, symmetry [and] formal sequence govern the organization of the whole?”
2. Why is public versus social memory important in how a society is organized?
3. Will parametric design cause future projects to completely eliminate geometries that are staples in architecture today, such as squares and repetitive details?
LikeLike
From Patrick Schumacher’s a New Global Style for Architecture: The article describes the possibility of designing up to 6 Million square meters with one single parametric approach. It seems that parametricism has never been built at this scale. Although we can create continuous designs at this scale, can it really account for all microsystems which it will have to incorporate? Is parametricism really effective at such a massive scale?
From Killian’s The Impact of the Model and its question on design: Killian writes that its easier to generate models now than ever before and because of parametricism we can generate endless iterations. Is there a point where these models become meaningless? If so, how do we constrain parametrics in such a way that they are valuable and practical to society?
From Stan Allen’s From Architecture to Field: Stan Allen discusses the standards of history theory and how they can be innovated upon through the use of parametrics. Can parametrics continue to utilize architecture theory or will they generally throw these ideas out in favor of something else. To what extend can parametrics be used with these theories to diagram and plan projects, rather than create a definitive result?
LikeLike
As parametric design is used more and more it seems that computer science may be inherently important to architects everywhere. Those who use computer science in conjunction with architecture are often very successful in their work and push the boundaries of construction as we know it. Since construction of this digital work is so difficult, it’s important that we continue to fabricate it at all costs. Fabrication is essential to understanding the limits of parametric design and what we can do with it. If we don’t attempt to construct such intensely complicated designs, we will never know how far parametric design can be taken. By continuing to build it we can begin to understand the scales at which it can be used and the effectivity of parametric design. Soon we will find out if it’s truly effective at an urban planning scale, or if it’s only practical for smaller scale projects.
LikeLike
1. In Kwinter’s Computational Fallacy he discusses the importance of the electronic and the mechanical. In architecture, he alludes to finding the chaotic order in these paths as a way inspired or taken from nature. To what extent should we as architects be using the processes and patterns of nature in computational design?
2. Finding the balance between order and chaos can be hard, especially in urban contexts of architecture. Many firms now have specific design focuses on growth in urban areas by looking at existing natural, biological processes that promote growth. Do you think harmonizing with nature’s processes in urban areas is the right route or should we be more focused on man-made, computational/algorithmic processes?
3. Do we lose something as architects when we solely look towards the future of architecture as parametric? Are we losing the craft of the profession, or more importantly the authorship over a project?
LikeLike
1. We are already limited by the program of Rhino and the likes. Given from last lecture where laziness is a virtue, and recycling ideas is okay, would one day architecture be taken over by technology? Will creativity become mass produced?
2. In Kwinter’s “Computational Fallacy”, he brings the point of “mechanical relations… being dramatically transferred to new and different levels”. How can virtual reality impact the way we tackle architectural design, or vice versa?
3. Moire effects create “complex and… irregular behaviors” as a result of superpositioning two fields. What are some other instances of superposition bringing attention to something more than what is simply seen?
LikeLike
As per this week’s seminar, there was an interesting point brought up about the emergence of technology in the design field and the mimicry of natural phenomenon in masses. Some to note include the fire ant raft, ant bridge, and school of fish swarming away from predator. The raft and bridge are magnificent instances of parts of parts forming something structural, whereas the fish swarming creates a space relating density and singularity. Mimicking nature in architecture is prominent in modern architecture. One of them being the algorithms formed from analyzing the movements of an ant colony, bird flock, or school of fish. Although the ideas and concepts are astounding, bringing it into reality is not something easy. Roland Snooks Studio focuses on creating intricate forms from such algorithms. He not only designs using technology, but also analyzes the possible fabrication ways of producing the highly complex forms into craft.
LikeLike
1. Parametricism seems to be the future of design according to Peter Schumacher. This is “a new style rather than.. a new set of techniques.” So can parametricism take into account the culture that is being represented within the environment? Is parametricism a type of projectile architecture?
2. With parametricism many varieties of different forms can be produced by a single algorithm, which then an architect just has to choose one design. Do you think that this is feeding into the laziness of architects?
3. Kwinter pits technology and nature against each other in “The Computational Fallacy”. Why don’t architects use biomimicry more in their designs? If is it proven to work in nature, shouldn’t we study and implement them in our designs?
LikeLike
During the panel discussion, biomimicry was brought up and how it was not aesthetic to the design in architecture. But I like to think that there is more to biomimicry than just the shape of a building. Biomimicry could be used in the material of the facade or the circulation of the interior. It doesn’t just have to be how the building is shaped.
It seems like a lot of architects think that parametric design is the answer to all the design problems in this day and age. But it cannot be the future of architecture because what happens when new technology arises. The software and algorithms that are set to design only takes into account the technology that is being used now. Also what if the climate of the Earth changes in a drastic manner where the new architecture has to accommodate to. Will these parametric designs hold up in the ever changing world?
LikeLike
1. In Schumacher’s article, Frei Otto performed an experiment with magnets in floating water. This experiment showed the relationship between occupying and connecting. How is that that urban landscapes, which are man-made, can resemble the patterns found in magnets, which are natural without intentionally doing so?
2. In Allen’s reading, from object to field, it states that “the rectilinear grid is one of architecture’s oldest and most persistent organizing devices”. The grid is used countless times over the years to “measure the immeasurable”. What about the grid made it so well created and planned that it has become “convincing as fact rather than as idea”? What made people want to use the grid to separate objects or ideas?
3. Do grids and models work the same in terms of understanding the underlying problem? Is it just preference as to which method should be selected to be used? Or should we use both methods in understanding the layout and structure of an idea?
LikeLike
In parametric design, part to part relationship is valued more than part to whole relationships. This example is seen in nature in the swarm intelligence. Many animals would rather be in a swarm functioning as just a part of a larger mass than out on their own. The parts individually are much less interesting than the completed whole of parts that are similar but different. Parametric designs are simple yet complex. They are just small deviations from one simple idea or module. This new form of architecture would be much more difficult without the use of technology. By using computer algorithms parametric designs can be done in less than a second. But even simple designs can create a new kind of architecture that is difficult to comprehend as a whole.
LikeLike
1. Parametricism is a style of architecture that is based on computer algorithms. How is an architect able to juggle their own creativity with the confines of the possibilities of an algorithm?
2. In relation to the discussion last week, is parametricism a more efficient way to create beautiful architecture or is it more of a hindrance to the creative process that goes into these designs?
3. It’s easy to design very beautiful and mathematically perfect buildings or schemes but what is the actual ratio of design possibilities to feasible structure designs? At what point do parametric models become too outrageous?
LikeLike
Parametricism is a style of design that uses computer algorithms to create art. In architecture this often leads to dynamic buildings. However, it is uncertain whether there is a limit to this design and how much is too much, or when the effort will be exhausted and nothing new will come from it. This seems rather unlikely considering that there appears to be endless parameters and combinations. However, the more likely issue will be to find combinations of parameters that create buildable structures. Morphogenesis was an interesting topic that was discussed in this week’s readings and presentation. Morphogenesis is the biological process that causes an organism to develop its shape. Parametricism combined with morphogenesis would begin to create some really intriguing, complex, and dynamic designs. Parametricism is quite similar to morphogenesis with a few stark differences. The most prominent is that one relies on a computer algorithm and the other replies on the dependability of biology. However, when combining the process of biology with computers it has the possibility to make very complex yet understandable structures.
LikeLike
1. In the article “Parametricism”, we know that parametricism has became a promising way for architecture, and it develops various aspects in the progress of our design dramatically. One thing that I found interesting is that Schumacher argues about the parametric accentuation, he says “here the goal is to enhance overall sense of organic integration by means of correlations that favour deviation amplification rather than compensatory adaptation”. Nowadays, we are aiming to achieve a more organic understanding of architecture, and develop a more independent characteristic of architecture, which stand for itself and have intricate but logical relationships inside. But, will it eventually ends up in failure and danger? For the reason that we have few embodiment of the idea. And also will it give rise to material wastes?
2. In the article“The Question of the Model and Its Impact on Design”, Kilian argues that models are the abstractions of our design. And computational methods like genetic algorithms gives us more possibilities, which could also be utilized in various kinds of design like form-finding structures etc. Given the fact that the date of this essay is 12 years ago, and we generate computational models easily nowadays. But it is true that many of the design could not be built eventually, so will the accounts for physical realities of the world would be a new consideration that could be solved along with the digital models?
3. Kwinter indicates that the terms “Mechanical” and “Electronic” can be identified in a connotation manner as “Matter” and “Intelligence”. Regardless of whether the object is a natural substance or an artificial matter, even a “rudimentary enzyme system”, can show sign of intelligence at some level as its electronic indication. The matter can certainly perform its mechanical peculiarity primitively, but it has its own limitation and will only be developed with an electronic element where they share an intergrowth relationship. But could computation will be the first step of “studying nature in a contain but active domain” while maintaining physical objectivity?
LikeLike
In the lecture and presentation today, it illustrates a new, avant-garde, mature way of designing architecture, Parametricism. The important symbolic method “index”, the biological generic element like fire ants , the superorganism behaviours, the relationship of part to part and part to whole, etc., are generating new types of architecture and resulting in computational analysis today, which is parametricism. The works by Zaha Architects are probably widely identified as the new trend in the field of architecture. It eliminate the boundaries among constructing elements while maintaining internal logic, thus giving it a beautiful, unprecedented configuration. However, it could cause a lot of energy waste when constructing the pieces and also space waste because of the twisted surfaces and double curvature. This new design method is indeed very promising and might become the future, however, it is also because the easiness of shaping in computer, it will make you ignore the difficulties in constructing. It’s true that the purpose of architecture is probably has shifted from “shelter” to more than that, but it is still important to consider the efficiency in designs.
LikeLike
1. In “From Object to Field,” Stan Allen describes the Mosque of Córdoba to be of “independent elements are combined additively to form an indeterminate whole.” He continues to explain that these independent elements are just parts, that are not pieces of a whole. Based of the definition of a “part,” would these parts actually be a whole in itself that can integrated with others to become a whole? In what ways can architecture be “wholes” put together and/or parts that become a whole?
2. With prevailing technology in the current state of the world, many architectural designs are derived from computational calculations and methods. Soon, the world may just rely on extremely complex technological systems (i.e., artificial intelligence, microprocessors, etc.). In “Computational Fallacy,” Kwinter argues the refusal of humans in using “this new, pseudo material space entirely,” but how can architects prevent the incorrect use of these networks in the next century or so of rapid technological advancements?
3. In “Parametricism,” Patrik Schumacher explains the idea of parametricism in the urban environment with projects like Zaha Hadid’s Kartal-Pendik Masterplan. Although, the idea of parametricism in the urban environment may look “cool” and can promote a different and unique type of aesthetic, can parametricism in the near future be used in the urban environment for other purposes? How can computational designs of parametricism resolve more pragmatic issues of the world today?
LikeLike
The idea of parametric urbanism is one that’s intriguing yet somewhat questionable in its aesthetic and emergent value. Parametricism creates a new form of architecture that defies other more “traditional” forms and can present issues in the field. The forms create an aesthetic that can commonly be associated with architecture in the future and reveals new senses of technological methods of design. But how beneficial can parametricism be in architecture and the environment around it? Zaha Hadid’s creations presents a prefect example for these issues, as they render beautifully and show an unparalleled creation, but can deteriorate easily and not seem like the renders in reality. Parametric designs are often not suitable for reality as the forms are too radical and can’t function with gravity and societal norms. Even if they were, how can parametricism help resolve issues of current news. Urban parametricism has little to no features that can be advantageous in the environment or societal needs.
LikeLike
1. In “Parametricism,” Patrik Schumacher criticizes Le Corbusier for strictly adhering to a rectilinear system of order. He also shares many benefits of parametric design. What flaws are there in parametric design that will be critiqued in the future?
2. In “The question of the underlying model and its impact on design,” Axel Kilian highlights the importance of using parametric design as a means of making discoveries. While using computer generations to discover new potentials can be a strength, is there design potential being lost because of a disconnect with the physical world?
3. In “From Object to Field,” Stan Allen discusses the importance of the site, seeing as no work of architecture exists in a vacuum. How often do architects make mistakes or misjudgments about a site due to working digitally?
LikeLike
Parametric design has recently emerged as a prominent style that is radically different in geometry and in principle from the modernist architecture of the twenty-first century. While twentieth century modernist architects like Le Corbusier were dedicated to straight lines and order, parametric designers like Patrik Schumacher use digital software to try and discover new forms and new systems of order. This can include using algorithms like Grasshopper to mass produce forms with specific or random parameters. The benefit of digital modelling software is that they allow the designer to produce more radical forms than were previously thought possible. However, parametric design has been criticized for being too entrenched in the realm of the digital world, losing integration into real-world sites as a consequence. Parametric design often produces wild, radical forms that cannot physically be built or function. The study models of twentieth-century architect Antoni Gaudi reconcile the parametric mindset with functionality in the physical world. Parametric design could be utilized more successfully if these new digital methods of discovery are compromised and explored with physical models. Parametricism has certainly changed the mindset and design culture in contemporary architecture and has provided more design possibilities than ever before. It is important that we learn to account for its strengths as well as its weaknesses when utilizing parametricism as a design tool.
LikeLike
1. Patrik Schumacher in “Parametricism: A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design,” states that “Parametricism is a mature style.” What does he mean by this? Is he saying that because parametrics is all derived from order, that it has the ability to manage complexity, or that it can create chaos instantly? What else can “mature” be interpreted as in regards to parametricism?
2. Schumacher states that Modernist architects used parametricism to “absorb complexity” but the parametrics themselves want to bring out differentiation and contrasting forms. What does the opposite of bringing out differentiation and contrasting forms and instead absorbing complexity mean?
3. In the “The Question of the Underlying Model and its Impact on Design,” Kilian discusses the ways in which a successful model is formed. However, what makes a model “successful”? Is the term and rules of “successful” based on one person’s preference or is it a universal standard?
LikeLike
In response to a question that was asked in class – how does architecture have the ability to adapt to social and environmental problems through parametrics since parametrics is not always predictable – I think successful parametric design comes from what one chooses to take from it. Meaning, the software can produce unpredictable forms and elements, but the architect has the decision of what to apply to his/her design. Even before the outputs of parametric software, one can set the tools to boundaries and standards; thus, there is still a degree of control. Axel Kilian talks about how human intuition needs to play a large role in parametric design, as in defining a set of relationships and constraints to produce a successful model. Kilian explains that parametric models are not meant to be literal built designs for real life but are abstractions, and from them architects can analyze the strong elements and take those ideas to resolve the social and environmental issues in the world.
LikeLike
1.During week one we discussed the part to whole relationship, and questioned if you could reduce a whole to its parts. In “From Object to Field” Allen discusses how classical architecture is organized and quotes Alberti that “beauty is the consonance of the parts such that nothing can be added or taken away.” Classical architecture dictates the proportions and relationships of these parts. Is the beauty in the relationships of the parts or the parts themselves? Can classical architecture be reduced to its parts?
2.Patrik Schumacher discusses the new style or technique of parametric design in “A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban design.” Laziness was a topic discussed last week, and how architects seemingly always make things more difficult for themselves. Do you think “parametricism” could be a way to be “lazy” but still create new innovative work?
3.Kilian discusses the question of modeling and the impact it has on design. Would you say the digital age has had a positive or negative impact on model and design? What does this say about the way we have been taught about modeling and design?
LikeLike
“Beauty is the consonance of the parts such that nothing can be added or taken away.” – Alberti. Classical architecture dictates the proportions as well as the relationships of parts in a design. To some, like Alberti, this rigid structure and guides creates beauty. Beauty can only be found if the parts of the whole are proportional to one another and fit just so. As architecture has evolved it has moved away from styles like classical architecture. Patrik Schumacher introduced “Parametricism” as a new style for architecture. Like classical architecture it is very exact in its design. However, this is because parametric systems revolve around exact systems to generate different parts to the whole. The digital age has helped to develop parametric design.
LikeLike
1. In last week’s readings, one of the topics discussed was the effective use of laziness in architecture, especially in terms of recycling unused projects and failures. However, has Parametricism become the new modus operandi through which the architect can use his or her laziness to make “radical” or “innovative” architecture?
2. For the modern architect, Kwinter asserts that the use of the computer allows for new differentiation processes and refinement to be discovered in order to generate alternative and “new” forms of architecture, in his writing, “The Computational Fallacy.” However, can the emergence of this new regime of architecture really be considered new given the computational limits of technology? To what extent to digital algorithms effectively create a new architecture, or are these creations simply differentiated versions of recycled instances?
3. In “Morphogenesis and the Mathematics of Emergence,” Michael Weinstock reveals that form and behavior emerge from the process, and the form of an organism – or building in this case—will affect is behavior in its environment. Through the emergence of technology and its integration in architectural discourse, are forms limited given their parametric generation given the information inherited via a digital system? Will built forms generated digitally be able to effectively respond to the environment, or will such proxies have to be changed once physically constructed?
LikeLike
The goal of the modern architect is to free oneself from the constraints of the ground – the field – and the building – the figure. The use of the computer allows for one to explore infinite architectural possibilities, possibly beyond the realms of the one’s imagination. While the field is still used as a model parametrically, and can be recombined and “glitched,” to produce alternative effects, the use of computer algorithms and various systems permits unprecedented depth and abstraction. Human intuition and sense may often point themselves to search for logical solutions to architectural problems. However, the employment of Parametricism allows for these solutions to be otherworldly, in a sense, and alter the architectural blob into a more exciting and dynamic shape. As the world changes socially, politically, and economically, so must architecture. The use of computer and digital systems represents a pivotal shift and transition from the analog into something more radical and ensures that architecture and the design field can effectively respond to the changing circumstances of our world.
LikeLike
1. The readings I have read in the past on the relation between part to whole and whole to part, have characterized the two as congruent systems establishing an equilibrium due to the union of the parts. The reading from Allen sort of took a different outlet, with him basically saying the equilibrium between the two is due to algebraic combination and that parts are a separate factor from the whole. I feel that there’s something erroneous there. When he says “part’s aren’t fragments of a whole; they are just parts” what does he mean by just parts?
2. In order to get into the idea of the “mechanical” and “electronic”, Kwinter made points about, theoretically, what matter is and does. How he describes matter is paradoxical (not in the bad connotation). To him, matter is both organized and disordered at the same time. That would be a product of the fact that there are different orientation of matter. Parallel to this and going into the reading from Allen, is this why field conditions can move freely in its “spatial matrix” going from object to field?
3. Schumacher characterizes parametricism as emerging “from the creative exploitation of parametric design systems” as a way of articulating thought processes. Does this mean that it’s a byproduct of an architect original aesthetic or conceptual thought of a project, and the project’s field conditions?
LikeLike
From the discussion in class, I’ve realized that the reason why parts are just parts, is because something by itself doesn’t do anything. An entity alone has no knowledge of what potential it maintains when it’s alone, or even when it joins other parts. The system that is performed when parts come together isn’t due to a built-in knowledge, but is due to reactions, like how a flock of birds fly together.
Matter seems to have no rules, but in actuality it does: it can never be created or destroyed, only transferred. This rule creates a large bracket of space for matter to remain at a constant. It has that illusionary freedom because of its trait to be altered. In that respect, field conditions are able to move freely in its spatial matrix because it shares the trait of being altered and oriented differently.
Parametricism could be an accumulation of both, but the process could also be driven solely by one or the other. The process could take place without a certain idea/goal or intelligence, as found in nature.
LikeLike