Patrick Franke
Abstract
The importance of digital technology continues to grow in the field of Architecture, making paper a thing of the past. Where drafting equipment was used previously computers are now implemented; however, the role of digital production does not stop there. Machinery is steadily taking over the design work as well and is no longer merely a tool used to simplify the path to realization. The article suggests that the digital element is used differently from office to office, and that digital technology is capable of assisting the designer in a variety of capacities. The use of digital programs in this sense- as a kind of genius assistant to the designer- is profoundly beneficial. However, a problem develops when the software program takes dominance and the designer becomes the subordinate.
As discussed in the reading, computer programming takes on various duties in a given design. One of these roles involves using computer technology and simulation abilities to perform precise, accurate site analysis. In this context the use of digital software is completely appropriate. Data is entered regarding the site which is then analyzed in a way that a person cannot do without the computer. This data includes zoning law information, wind and sun patterns, as well as preexisting topographical conditions.
When used for site analysis, digital technology gets along quite well with the designer. The computer has a clearly defined (and limited) role, and the data to be entered is entirely objective. The software program is simply performing tasks that would be difficult if not impossible for a designer. It is providing useful analysis for the design, and is therefore indirectly influencing the final product.
Digital technology is taken one step further in the next type of use. This involves using computer programs to create the structural system for the design. The computer is no longer providing useful information but is now becoming involved with the design process in an active way. The structure of a building is a part of the building’s overall aesthetic, and if it is being designed by a software program then a significant portion of the project is disingenuous. In the issue of structure, however, efficiency is the main objective. A computer is capable of creating a much more efficient structure than the designer is alone. This is a quality that is too valuable to write off as an act of laziness; the computer is able to help save raw materials and in the process cut costs down.
In the most extreme case, digital software can be used to generate the form of a design itself. In this process, the designer enters in parameters that act as restrictions or restraints on the computer’s design possibilities. The more stringent the parameters, the more similar the result will be to one another. In this process the designer has been all but removed from the design. It is no longer the product of a person with the ability to think; it is now less of a design and more of an enormous math equation.
I feel that the complete involvement of digital programs in the generation of a design results in a building that is lacking in life. While it may be visually stimulating and organic to the point of being naturalistic, it does not have the consideration of a human creator. A software program is not able to imagine itself in different spaces, nor is it able to gauge comfortableness. A building should be the manifestation of a designer’s vision, not a model of efficiency engineered by a computer.
As the article describes, the role of digital generation applied to architecture can be divided into two parts. The first is objective, which simply involves storing and rearranging data so as to be of greater use and value. The second category deals with the digital program taking on subjective design work. In this instance, the digital program is taking responsibilities from the designer and as a result the final product suffers. The role of digital generation should be limited to assisting and not the main instrument of design.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
LARRY SASS LECTURE NOTES
-Culturally sensitive community-based design
-Digital fabrication as opposed to factory fabrication
-factories fail because the facility must be maintained. this includes energy and employment
costs.
-affordable design, the "Toyota" of architectural design
-Demand for new to replace old
Standardization
-Walter Gropius and Joseph Wachsmann
-standardization of parts as a failure because of requirement for professional installment
-example Kiernan-Timberlake (2004)
-pre-manufactured components leave no room for error during installment, and there is
always a marginal error
Use of CNC
-replaces need for a factory
-assembly does not require professional skill
-panels fuse together after exposure to the elements
-MoMA installment project
-withstood hurricane-strength winds
-built expediently
-minimal costs
his work is more an exploration of a building methodology and has less to do with formal considerations
-Culturally sensitive community-based design
-Digital fabrication as opposed to factory fabrication
-factories fail because the facility must be maintained. this includes energy and employment
costs.
-affordable design, the "Toyota" of architectural design
-Demand for new to replace old
Standardization
-Walter Gropius and Joseph Wachsmann
-standardization of parts as a failure because of requirement for professional installment
-example Kiernan-Timberlake (2004)
-pre-manufactured components leave no room for error during installment, and there is
always a marginal error
Use of CNC
-replaces need for a factory
-assembly does not require professional skill
-panels fuse together after exposure to the elements
-MoMA installment project
-withstood hurricane-strength winds
-built expediently
-minimal costs
his work is more an exploration of a building methodology and has less to do with formal considerations
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Reading Abstract 2: Ali Rahim
Patrick Franke
Digital Media 320
Professor Del Signore
17 February 2009
The design process is constantly changing as a result of technological advancements. This is true for every industry, architecture included. In Ali Rahim’s published work, “Catalytic Formations Architecture and Digital Design”, he addresses the role and importance of these advancements in regards to the design processes of the current time. In the first part of the reading, Rahim explains the difference between technology and technique, and how the two affect the design process. The second part deals with the definition of time as applied to contrasting modes of architectural design. Rahim’s take on contemporary design and its movement into the future is one that advocates the incorporation of diverse strategies, or techniques, in association with preexisting ones.
Essential to the forward-moving process of design is technology. Rahim defines technology to be “the application of a purely technical or scientific advance to a cultural context” (p. 11). The technology is then an outlet through which any design or idea can become manifest. This process involves the use of technique, which is a systematic way of solving a certain design problem. As these techniques build upon each other, the technology then advances, a process Rahim refers to as the “feedback loop.”
Following this process, then, it is evident that innovative technique is essential to the furthering of the design technology. It is when techniques become overly commonplace and typical that the current technology fails to be innovative. At this point, to design is simply to go through the motions using what creative tools are at hand. It is the designers who look out beyond the commonplace- drafting board, AutoCAD, etc- and search for alternative technique wherever appropriate. For example, Charles and Ray Eames chose not to limit the technology at their disposal to their particular industry. Instead they borrowed ideas and techniques from the automotive, material mass production, and glue industries, amongst others.
Choosing to branch out brought success and opportunity that would never have touched the Eameses otherwise. Their experimentation was not for the sake of efficiency; rather, it was an investigation of new ways to do things. In the context of their time, mass production was the overriding idea behind design. It is true that the Eameses chair designs and their Eames House design were developments in mass production. However, their aim was not to speed up the current process, but rather to adapt it to their ideas using alternative methods.
Fast-forward to today, the digital age and the computer. It is evident that the same challenges still exist. There are old architects who draw up an idea and give it to a person of less importance to merely be translated into a digital format. This process does not involve the digital technology in the design process. There are no changes in the design that take place as a result of the computer, and it is therefore used as a passive design tool in this instance.
Contrast this process with the line-of-thought followed by Frank Gehry’s office. They ran into a barrier regarding the ability to relate complex togological forms to the building industry. Rather than dumbing down the design, Gehry created a new office to develop the possibilities of the software, called CATIA. This new office took the software’s capabilities past its previous limits, opening up new possibilities to the design industry.
The second part of Rahim’s publication describes two different approaches to design in regards to differing definitions of time. The first, called analytical design, treats time as a reversible process. In this sense, parts A, B, and C are added together to create object ABC. This object can then be broken back down into its respective parts, thus it is a reversible process.
The next design process affirms that time is thermodynamic. This means that once a transformation is made, the parts composing it are no longer reversible. In this sense, the building has a synergy. The whole is not equal to its separate parts, but is superior in its function and purpose.
While this is an interesting commentary on two different design approaches, Rahim’s examples do not seem to validate the argument. In the Hydrogen House, Rahim describes how the architect created “pressure fields” that respond to both the sun and the highway in order to influence the design. While this is a nice idea, there is not any evidence of how exactly the “pressures” are related to the building. It seems to be research that was done solely for the sake of having research, providing little practical application. The resulting building’s exposure to the highway simply twisted different ways to allow points of transparency between the building and passing motorists, not particularly related to the specifics of the “pressure field” data.
Patrick Franke
Digital Media 320
Professor Del Signore
17 February 2009
The design process is constantly changing as a result of technological advancements. This is true for every industry, architecture included. In Ali Rahim’s published work, “Catalytic Formations Architecture and Digital Design”, he addresses the role and importance of these advancements in regards to the design processes of the current time. In the first part of the reading, Rahim explains the difference between technology and technique, and how the two affect the design process. The second part deals with the definition of time as applied to contrasting modes of architectural design. Rahim’s take on contemporary design and its movement into the future is one that advocates the incorporation of diverse strategies, or techniques, in association with preexisting ones.
Essential to the forward-moving process of design is technology. Rahim defines technology to be “the application of a purely technical or scientific advance to a cultural context” (p. 11). The technology is then an outlet through which any design or idea can become manifest. This process involves the use of technique, which is a systematic way of solving a certain design problem. As these techniques build upon each other, the technology then advances, a process Rahim refers to as the “feedback loop.”
Following this process, then, it is evident that innovative technique is essential to the furthering of the design technology. It is when techniques become overly commonplace and typical that the current technology fails to be innovative. At this point, to design is simply to go through the motions using what creative tools are at hand. It is the designers who look out beyond the commonplace- drafting board, AutoCAD, etc- and search for alternative technique wherever appropriate. For example, Charles and Ray Eames chose not to limit the technology at their disposal to their particular industry. Instead they borrowed ideas and techniques from the automotive, material mass production, and glue industries, amongst others.
Choosing to branch out brought success and opportunity that would never have touched the Eameses otherwise. Their experimentation was not for the sake of efficiency; rather, it was an investigation of new ways to do things. In the context of their time, mass production was the overriding idea behind design. It is true that the Eameses chair designs and their Eames House design were developments in mass production. However, their aim was not to speed up the current process, but rather to adapt it to their ideas using alternative methods.
Fast-forward to today, the digital age and the computer. It is evident that the same challenges still exist. There are old architects who draw up an idea and give it to a person of less importance to merely be translated into a digital format. This process does not involve the digital technology in the design process. There are no changes in the design that take place as a result of the computer, and it is therefore used as a passive design tool in this instance.
Contrast this process with the line-of-thought followed by Frank Gehry’s office. They ran into a barrier regarding the ability to relate complex togological forms to the building industry. Rather than dumbing down the design, Gehry created a new office to develop the possibilities of the software, called CATIA. This new office took the software’s capabilities past its previous limits, opening up new possibilities to the design industry.
The second part of Rahim’s publication describes two different approaches to design in regards to differing definitions of time. The first, called analytical design, treats time as a reversible process. In this sense, parts A, B, and C are added together to create object ABC. This object can then be broken back down into its respective parts, thus it is a reversible process.
The next design process affirms that time is thermodynamic. This means that once a transformation is made, the parts composing it are no longer reversible. In this sense, the building has a synergy. The whole is not equal to its separate parts, but is superior in its function and purpose.
While this is an interesting commentary on two different design approaches, Rahim’s examples do not seem to validate the argument. In the Hydrogen House, Rahim describes how the architect created “pressure fields” that respond to both the sun and the highway in order to influence the design. While this is a nice idea, there is not any evidence of how exactly the “pressures” are related to the building. It seems to be research that was done solely for the sake of having research, providing little practical application. The resulting building’s exposure to the highway simply twisted different ways to allow points of transparency between the building and passing motorists, not particularly related to the specifics of the “pressure field” data.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Computer-Assisted Design, Not Computer-Driven Design
response to "Digital Morphogenesis" reading
The architectural design process is in the midst of change. Computer programs and tools once reserved for rendering completed work are becoming more integrated into the design process itself. Computer-aided design now allows for topological transformations that are curved and highly irregular in contrast to the boxy, Euclidian geometries of which most traditional architecture consists. The emergence of these digital design tools is a benefit to the design community that has for so long remained (for the most part) greatly simplistic. Digital transformation tools that are used to further a project’s effectiveness- whether it is through relationships, performance, or sustainability- are a benefit to the profession. Only when the process revolves around nothing more than the creation of a complex form does the computer become a hindrance.
Technology can be used to create dramatic spatial relationships that were simply not possible with earlier design methods. This is accomplished through a breakdown of the black-and-white of architectural concepts; for example, indoor and outdoor cease to be the only two options. A plane does not have to choose between wall and ceiling. This is possible because of the dramatic involvement of gradient in architecture being created in the Information Age.
The computer’s incorporation of complex mathematical equations into design software is responsible for the expansive middle ground that is now present between two planes, poles, points, etc. By manipulating key points, the curve is making its way into the architecture of tomorrow. When used effectively, the irregular curve can clarify the intended idea in spite of the complex form. Examples of these forms include the Mobius strip and the Klein bottle. Both forms could be considered nothing more than “blobs” when taken at face value. However, their complexity is the result of very gradual changes that make it impossible to tell where exactly the change takes place.
Digital morphogenesis is also being used to improve a building’s performance. This could be in the capacity of economics, material conservation, environmental impact, or any other category that can be measured using statistics. There is no question that the computer can be an invaluable tool in calculating a building’s performance. In fact, there are companies that exist for the sole purpose of digitally evaluating structures and providing avenues for improvement.
An interesting development in environmental design that digital technologies has encouraged is biomimicry. Architects like John Frazer utilize technology to emulate organic systems found in nature. Frazer in particular has examined the biological process of chromosome reproduction, which he tries to mimic using spline curves that are repeated and mutated. Processes like this one attempt to create an organizational structure that reaches beyond pure form. Using the generative idea of nature, Frazer is able to bring life to space through the use of machine.
In all of these instances, the computer is intended to be a tool for manipulation. This implies that the designer has complete control over the transformations that are taking place. By manipulating spline lines and altering surface conditions, the designer is the one creating the work with the assistance of a computer.
Greg Lynn views the computer’s role differently. In his opinion, it is acceptable to let the computer do the work after the designer has entered in the parameters and requirements. The machine then spits out several variations of the design, leaving the architect to select one. In this case, “the designer essentially becomes an ‘editor’ of the morphogenetic potentiality”, as author Branko Kolarevic puts it. The design now seems to be detached from the living world which it is supposed to serve, because it is not the product of a person’s imagination.
I draw the analogy of translating a passage from one language to another. Using a person who is fluent in both languages as an interpreter will ensure a sensible translation, free of any confusing or misleading words. The same passage typed into a machine will almost always give a confused, ambiguous, or downright false translation.
So it is with computers. If the design is nothing more than an endless sum of equations, chosen at random by a computer to meet certain criteria, it will be missing the imagination and creativity that every building design should include. Design technology can bring the most fantastic designs into reality, but it can only accomplish this as a tool or the designer, not as the designer.
response to "Digital Morphogenesis" reading
The architectural design process is in the midst of change. Computer programs and tools once reserved for rendering completed work are becoming more integrated into the design process itself. Computer-aided design now allows for topological transformations that are curved and highly irregular in contrast to the boxy, Euclidian geometries of which most traditional architecture consists. The emergence of these digital design tools is a benefit to the design community that has for so long remained (for the most part) greatly simplistic. Digital transformation tools that are used to further a project’s effectiveness- whether it is through relationships, performance, or sustainability- are a benefit to the profession. Only when the process revolves around nothing more than the creation of a complex form does the computer become a hindrance.
Technology can be used to create dramatic spatial relationships that were simply not possible with earlier design methods. This is accomplished through a breakdown of the black-and-white of architectural concepts; for example, indoor and outdoor cease to be the only two options. A plane does not have to choose between wall and ceiling. This is possible because of the dramatic involvement of gradient in architecture being created in the Information Age.
The computer’s incorporation of complex mathematical equations into design software is responsible for the expansive middle ground that is now present between two planes, poles, points, etc. By manipulating key points, the curve is making its way into the architecture of tomorrow. When used effectively, the irregular curve can clarify the intended idea in spite of the complex form. Examples of these forms include the Mobius strip and the Klein bottle. Both forms could be considered nothing more than “blobs” when taken at face value. However, their complexity is the result of very gradual changes that make it impossible to tell where exactly the change takes place.
Digital morphogenesis is also being used to improve a building’s performance. This could be in the capacity of economics, material conservation, environmental impact, or any other category that can be measured using statistics. There is no question that the computer can be an invaluable tool in calculating a building’s performance. In fact, there are companies that exist for the sole purpose of digitally evaluating structures and providing avenues for improvement.
An interesting development in environmental design that digital technologies has encouraged is biomimicry. Architects like John Frazer utilize technology to emulate organic systems found in nature. Frazer in particular has examined the biological process of chromosome reproduction, which he tries to mimic using spline curves that are repeated and mutated. Processes like this one attempt to create an organizational structure that reaches beyond pure form. Using the generative idea of nature, Frazer is able to bring life to space through the use of machine.
In all of these instances, the computer is intended to be a tool for manipulation. This implies that the designer has complete control over the transformations that are taking place. By manipulating spline lines and altering surface conditions, the designer is the one creating the work with the assistance of a computer.
Greg Lynn views the computer’s role differently. In his opinion, it is acceptable to let the computer do the work after the designer has entered in the parameters and requirements. The machine then spits out several variations of the design, leaving the architect to select one. In this case, “the designer essentially becomes an ‘editor’ of the morphogenetic potentiality”, as author Branko Kolarevic puts it. The design now seems to be detached from the living world which it is supposed to serve, because it is not the product of a person’s imagination.
I draw the analogy of translating a passage from one language to another. Using a person who is fluent in both languages as an interpreter will ensure a sensible translation, free of any confusing or misleading words. The same passage typed into a machine will almost always give a confused, ambiguous, or downright false translation.
So it is with computers. If the design is nothing more than an endless sum of equations, chosen at random by a computer to meet certain criteria, it will be missing the imagination and creativity that every building design should include. Design technology can bring the most fantastic designs into reality, but it can only accomplish this as a tool or the designer, not as the designer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)