Kolarevic, Branko. "Introduction." Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2005. 1-10. Print.
Kolarevic, Branko. "Digital Morphologies." Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2005. 11-28. Print.
Kolarevic, Branko. "Digital Production." Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2005. 29-54. Print.
Kolarevic, Branko. "Information Master Builders." Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2005. 55-62. Print.
I enjoyed how Kolarevic really sets the stage for the information age in his writing, and creates the atmosphere for a new genre for architecture. He mentions "master builder" on several occasions, referring to the medieval masons and renaissance men of the past, and how that role is now becoming a reality again. He argues that shipbuilding today has eliminated drawing and relies entirely on the model. The entire design to construction is done in house, and there are no legal liability restraints. Ship engineers have become masters of their project. Kolarevic says the same is happening in architecture, in reference to Gehry's office, and their absence of drawings for complete digital models.
ReplyDeleteHowever I believe in the Architect's attempt to interpret, and find an appropriate expression for architecture in the Information age they have given up their need to model external form. Kolarevic states, "Digitally-generated forms are not designed or drawn as the conventional understanding of these terms would have it, but they are calculated by the chosen generative computational method. Instead of modeling an external form, designers articulate an internal generative logic." For this reason, these "master builders" of the modern age will be drastically different than men like Da Vinci, and Michelangelo, Men obsessed with external form, sculptors, who designed not through computational logic, but through aesthetics in form.
This computational logic approach is a double-edged sword to me. On one hand it is the perfect response to the culture and age at hand. Buildings can be given parameters, and software can be created to maximize building sustainability and living conditions, forms can even be created through deep significant meaning, but what happens when the designer’s logic is no longer needed? What happens when computers can create the parameters?
Certain digital continuums, parametric, metamorphic, genetic, and performative software can already create buildings that are far beyond human capabilities in mathematics and drawing. These building don’t only look cool, but given the right logic and meaning, are actually good designs. So what happens when the computer thinks (A.I.)?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2048138-1,00.html Raymond Kurzweil
I’m not necessarily saying this will happen, and even if it did there would be bigger problems than no more architects. I’m just saying this new form of architecture is alarming to me, If not for a designer giving a certain computational logic to the design, every aspect of a buildings construction could be done today. The 3d model could be machined robotically, with any number of computer tooling technologies, and robotic cranes and workers could do the construction. Just like cars and ships today.
It was assuring to see Kolarevic ask about the sudden interest in “blobby” forms. I have a better understanding now that there is more interest because of technology and the capability of forms that are different from the traditional “box” style. The part that probably best answered my question was when he talked about the “new ecological consciousness that calls for sustainable building.” He gave two examples of buildings whose forms were created to make the buildings more energy efficient. The first one was a multi-use building that was designed with a giant wind turbine in the center. The façade of the building had a curved form to minimize the impact of wind to also to channel the wind inwards towards the turbine. The other building was altered so that there was a smaller surface area and resulting in a reduced solar heat gain and heat loss through the building’s skin, an outcome of studying the sunlight patterns. I am sold on these types of designs more then something purely aesthetic.
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand why the building industry has been among the last to adapt to the new technologies; “CATIA(Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application), had been use for 20 years before it was discovered by Gehry’s office.” What has been the hold up? I think that the elimination of drawings from the design and construction is inevitable. I could see myself and maybe others arguing the importance of traditional drawings, but if the technology is there to move past it then I am all for it. Time and money probably have been saved in processes of design and construction. If time can be saved by using better technology, then more time can be used to address ecologically conscious issues, which is more justifiable then something that just looks cool. We have the technology to make it look cool and make it do something useful simultaneously, right?
The Pantheon in Rome commission by Marcus Agrippa, the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore (Duomo in Florence, Italy engineered by Filippo Brunelleschi, and the Taj Mahal in Agra, India built by Shah Jahan, all three are great examples of architectural history that challenged the norms of their time and pushed for an evolution in thought and implementation. It wasn’t necessary for these structures to be built the way they were and who wants to spend their time figuring out how to build a giant 150 foot diameter dome. Of course just as time is continuous so must be our style of thinking, our techniques of construction, our qualities of aesthetic, and in general our society as a whole. Today’s digital technologies further progress architecture in the ways it is practiced, computed, and conceptualized. These systems have created open ended design processes that allow for a realm of possibility and creativity. Simultaneously it is becoming a way to reintegrate conception and production in a way that has been lost. The interesting fact is that most of the current avant garde styles are not just novel ideas, but are influenced and informed by the writings of theorists and philosophers throughout history, only now the technologies allow for a method of truly demonstrating and testing these ideas. It becomes not just about creating “cool forms”, but it’s about an academic evolution. I also almost see it as an ultimate force, merging function and form.
ReplyDeleteThe downside of all this only exists in the costs of these technologies and the costs of production in relation to quantity and the costs to the public. The limited the availability of providing these progressive architectural styles to the general public should not limit the exploration of possibility. Would the downfall become a mass production of these unique designs in order to handle the demands of cost? Or would this serve as an opportunity to engage more the general public? How does this begin to affect the specialized craftsmen who have the ability to create works similar to a machine but not as perfect as a machine? Where do they fit into the economic shift that such architectural styles and construction methods demand?
On a completely separate note the topic of the Bezier spline and NURBS in general, seems to have room for so much more exploration. The weight of control points that dictates the extent of influence of a curve is directed by a force which is unseen. It is this unseen force, this invisible space that I find particularly interesting. Is it possible to visualize this force as a form and as the effect instead of the cause? The lines that create these forces have so much power over the result and are more powerful then the resulted curve. Anyway just one thing I was thinking about while reading.
With Hany's last comment about the invisible forces, i had a similar thought with the invisible snapshots of a parametric sequence. Like the frames of a movie, milliseconds are lost from view in the time it takes to snap the picture. What if we played on Venturi's ideas, and design the voids that are given to us in the parametric sequence that contradict the computational logic of the form?
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed this reading not simply for the fact it has expanded my thoughts and feelings about architecture. It is interesting to even look back at the initial page and realize that there is a different era defined for our time and it is that of the Information Era. This era begins to exploit technology for its capabilities and not just what it has done in the past. Architecture is beginning to follow a more technological approach to drawings, but where does this leave room for hand drawing? Does hand drawing even matter anymore in terms of future technologies of modeling and fabrication?
ReplyDeleteIn the new form of architecture, I continually go back to the formation of the blob. This is wrong and I have seen so through this reading. Architecture is not a static function in society but provides a dynamic perceptual and functional form. The blob seems to represent not a form of architecture but a process in to which architecture has developed today so that it is not one of a static function but has a variability to its materials and purpose among the landscape, city or natural. It seems to lie within the designer. Not just as a form but as a system in to which the form belongs. The system provides a strategy to the building and its form. It is interesting to see the comparison of airplanes and ships to architecture. It is almost unbelievable in the sense that ship and airplane fabrication is far more advanced than architecture. Perhaps it lies within the digital fabrication and that all of the tools needed to build such a structure can be done digitally. But do computer programs essentially design a form based off of the initial designers set of rules? It seems to be an intricate and sensitive subject. Is it reliant on digital media or a synthesis of human design and digital design?
This issue might be resolved in the internal logic of a building, which provides various solutions. This might be where the concept of interconnectivity and modularity provide a variety of designs, not just formal but functional. This is where parametric designs come in to play. It relies in the digital media. There is a sense where the forms are modular linked in multiple mutations that are interpolated to provide a set of structural systems. Marcos Novak states, “ Each variable or process is a ‘slot’ into which external influence can be mapped, either statically or dynamically.” This seems to introduce the idea of an external force that is recognized as a benefit to the structural system, perhaps a reason? Maybe not so much as a reason, but a function. The parametric design of a structure relies within the set of rules that comprise a system. Initially my thoughts of architecture were hindered because I saw the process of landscape architecture as a dynamic natural or designed system that changes over time. However, architecture at the time appeared to be static, but with a set of rules to a system the structure can statically lay upon the landscape but the function and materiality of the building are dynamic.
A couple of things to think about...
ReplyDeleteIs drawing really obsolete? Which do you guys think is a closer relative to 3d modeling, hand drawing or physical modeling. First we learn to draw with our hands, then we learn to draw with cad, the we learn to draw in 3d with rhino or whatever. These thing all require a certain level of precision and proficiency that had modeling is more intuitive. I would argue that 3G modeling is more akin to hand drafting than hand modeling for this reason. And I would also argue that if you never learned to draw, you would have no business in Rhino. You would lack an understanding of the conventions.
What happens when the computer can think. Look at the work of Kokkugia or Karl Chu. It hasn't happened yet but many think it's coming. Google: Genetic Architecture or Genetic Algorythm.
Finally, these writings are from building architects. What can...what should we do, as Landscape Architects to contribute to the Information Age? Should what we do in this class consider this?
Hany and Salt, can't wait to hear more about this space your talking about!
First off, a lot of chapter 3 reminded me of my first exposure to CAD/CAM and CNC in my high school. We ran MasterCam software and a 3-axis router to make a few simple projects and I remember being blown away with how fast, precise, and from what I could see, better this machine was than any human at creating form from blocks of wood, foam, plastic, etc. One of those would have been perfect for making topo models, no more layering cardboard…
ReplyDeleteMoving on, I find it interesting how designing and building has evolved, especially with the advent of digital technology. I feel like a lot of designing consisted of the architect trying to figure out what he could build with the materials he had available and creating form from that. Now it has turned to the architect dreaming up whatever form they want and having the machine tell them how it will be built with the materials it designed. This is probably not literally how either of those processes worked, but the jump in technology and design practices is along the same lines.
Kolarevic writes, “New digital architectures are emerging from the digital revolution, architectures that have found their expression in highly complex, curvilinear forms that will gradually enter the mainstream of architectural practice in the coming years.” Since the beginning of architecture, new practices are discovered, tested and then put into the mainstream of design, but what I wonder is, since architecture is so closely tied with digital technology now, and digital technology evolves at such a ridiculously rapid rate, will evolution in architecture also begin to evolve even faster?
I am a little scared after reading the section on “intelligent, smart, and adaptive” materials. I find it very cool that we have come as far as being able to build sensors and actuators into our materials, allowing them to react to external forces. However, the last sentence in that paragraph says, “designs are already “alive”-the buildings will soon be as well.” Creepy, no?
In reference to what BO said about having no business in Rhino if you never learned hand drawing, I definitely agree. You would lack the conventions, not only of drafting and modeling, but possibly of design itself. The chapter on digital morphogenesis is lead off with the statement, “In contemporary architectural design, digital media is increasingly being used not as a representational tool for visualization but as a generative tool for the derivation of form and its transformation" I think that this is definitely true to a degree, but I still do not believe that one can design from scratch in a digital program, 3d or even CAD. No matter how far design evolves, I think it will always begin with ideas scratched out on a piece of paper.
It's interesting how one can draw parallels between architecture and Renaissance architecture. Though drawn from two different reasons, both are reliant on computational logic. Digital architectures are influence by conceptual mathematical and physical logic to create holistic forms. Renaissance architecture on the other hand derives buildings from euclidean geometry. High Renaissance architecture in particular emphasized the module as a concept for creating the perfect, orderly space. Decoration was even sacrificed if it didn't add to the module. Palladio is primarily known for working in this manner.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why Renaissance architects favored modules and proportions stem from a desire to understand nature...or more specifically how ancient Greeks and Romans related to it. To them, nature was some sort of ideal, powerful force, and if you understood it, the more awesome you were.
From what I gather in the reading, digital architecture quanitifies nature in systematic components...we break down entities like sun for the ray angles and solar power, or wind for direction, speed and force, trees for branching pattern and cell growth...exploiting them as inputs for our form.
From all the emphasis on digital technology though, I get the sense that nature and landscape seem subservient to the "system", (which baffles me as a landscape architecture student).
Is there a way to twist this process so that landscape/nature plays a more primary role?
@BO and Ben, this pertains to using Rhino as a design tool right? It's funny because I know several people who use Rhino to model data of some sort, and none of which are designers (so hand drawing is most likely out of the question). And I'm pretty sure a person with adequate mathematic or computer programming knowledge can use Rhino/grasshopper too.
Anyway, I don't really agree with you...its like learning to play acoustic and electric guitar. Some people just jump directly to learning electric, rather than acoustic...nothing really wrong with it...you can still make awesome music either or. Of course if you start out learning with electric you can't play an acoustic guitar, whereas if you started out learning with an acoustic guitar you can easily transition to electric.
“The digital Generative processes are opening up new territories for conceptual, formal and tectonic explorations, articulating an architectural morphology focused on emergent and adaptive properties of form. The emphasis shifts from the making of form to the finding of form, which various digitally based generative techniques seem to bring about intentionally”. I believe these quote piggy backs on what salt and Hany were discussing about the introduction of digital thinking. This process does become a question of how much can a machine produce and when will they begin to phase out the human. I found this quote particularly interesting because it talks about the finding of form through a set of parametric, rather than the creation of form. It also seems as though Kholarevic is trying to imply that we don’t design through a vision but rather through trial and error and what looks good on the screen. If this is the case then the spaces we begin to create become meaningless and are more about form then about form and function.
ReplyDeleteWhen we begin to analysis the idea of the master craftsman of the earlier architecture there is clear difference of who the actual master craftsman is today. I disagree with salts comment about how they are trying to re-introduce the idea of the master craftsman in today’s architecture, unless you consider and robot being fed numeric data a craftsman. What is changing about architecture and how it gets designed I think is the understanding of the constraints and challenges prior to building it. So in this case the designer becomes the master craftsman through the digital process. He begins to figure out the problems before the building is erected which makes the need for a master craftsman, (someone who is particularly good in a related field) obsolete. This is where I believe architecture is heading and as Salt had mentioned before I do think it can be a downfall as well. A computer can think and analysis data much quicker which can eventually make the architect obsolete.
Although this is all very theoretical I did find this reading particularly good compared to the last ones. It began to break down and allow me to understand a lot of the words that are thrown around in the digital fabrication world. Also bens comment about the buildings becoming alive. Funny thing is there is a building being constructed I believe over Hudson yard that will be on train tracks that can expand and contract to accommodate different amounts of people. Couldn’t find the link for it but I will post it when I do. It’s pretty wild