What to do next ? Art/Architecture/Technology exploring

fi3er · February 10, 2004

Hallo everyone !

I describe my situation first:

In June 2k3 I finished my Masters ( MgA ) studies at Academy of Arts, Architecture and Design, Architecture department, in Prague, Czech republic.

So I became an architect, and I love doing architecture. You can see my folio at www.fi3er.com. However Im 25 and I feel too young not to explore borderline anymore. Ya see, the Academy Ive came trough was full of painters, sculptors, graphic designers, concept artists, glass artists etc. etc. All of them very nice persons. We all experimented

together, trying to define what Art means. And I miss that now. So, I decided to study some more

This should happen at another Academy at Prague, PhD level ( 3yrs ) and I want to study at New Media department. I love technology, ideas around Virtual

Reality, using medias in different ways.

But I dont want to give up Architecture fot that 3yrs. So what Im looking for is defining some area, where Architecture meets New Media, where It becomes

something brand new, still using its key principles. I can Imagine Architecture without materia, lets say Architecture of atmosphere, informations, mind ?

...

So what Im searching for is any resources, ideas, references in such area of Art/Architecture/Technology. In order to get scholarship, I have to pass the entrance

exam, which means I have to write down kind of Project that I would explore those 3 yrs. And I cant define anything yet. I just have some kind of feel.

Any help very much appreciated.

Sorry for my bad English.

Take care

Fi3er

Dan J · February 11, 2004

Fi3er,

Fully impersive realtime environment. Take a look at the last few years of Siggraph work in the immerging technologies focus. That should keep you busy for atleast 2yrs, though you could drag it out.

Good luck.

Keep us possted

mbr · February 11, 2004

If you are interested more in the architecture side that is utilizing technology, versus 3D marketing (like product design), I would look at technologies that are furthering the profession.

While realtime will be a valuable asset for marketing architecture (although I'd guess it'll be more limited to residential marketing), I believe that the emerging technologies with regards to structural and construction techniques is more applicable.

The first area to look at is Frank Gehry and Gehry Technologies (working with MIT). While his use of CATIA is widely documented, it's still pretty amazing and is still the cutting edge.

The next area I'd look at is Microstation's Generative Components. This is the latest technology that dynamically adjusts the structural components to match the changed in the formal design. Morphosis is currently testing this techology and I believe this will be the next 'big' development in architecture. This will allow designers to create and changed complex forms without worrying about costly changes to the structural components.

The next area, which is being used now, is streamlining the coordination between architect and contractor, dynamically keeping all parties current. This is everything from the supplies to the design changes. Much of this can be coordinated via websites that can be accessed anywhere anytime. While not as glamorous as the above technologies, it saves cost and will continue to be an integral part of architecture and construction.

Perhaps the last area would be new structural technologies. While there really hasn't been anything all that ground breaking since reinforced concrete, surely there will be something at some point, especially with the concerns of terrorism and fire retardation (it was the fire protection failure that caused the collapse of the WTC - you can look at pbs.org for a special on new skyscrapers and their structural technologies).

All of these have the potential to revolutionize the way that architecture is designed and constructed. Other areas that are being explored are CNC machning (look at Gehry and Lynn) and other rapid prototype areas, like stereolythography (again, see Morphosis).

I think there is a lot here to research and could make an interesting thesis. Not to mention, you'd have fun making cool little sculptures to demonstrate some of the techniques (also used in wind tunnel testing by Gehry). This could also be marketable for your career, as firms will be looking for young wiz kids that can manage these new technologies.

Good luck.

Let us know what you decide.

Ras · February 12, 2004

Hi Daniel

I´m having the same thoughts myself. I´m considering aplying for a PhD when I finish this summer - and my thoughts are also revolving around technology and architecture.

Over the last years of my education I have tried to free myself of eastethic sentimentalism that architects and everyone else has. It is very difficult for a conscious being to do this but nature does it with no trouble at all.

One of the main problems with the built environment is in my opinion that it relies so much on taste and trends - something that can be either too conservative or too radical.

Nature has this cool mechanism called "survival of the fittest" which means that everything adapts to its environment in a continuous dynamic proces.

We ourselves are of course part of this process but with our creations we often defy this rule of nature and sustain unreasonable design strategies and trends.

What I would like to do is reset the role of the architect to be the guy who is able to collect all the relevant data in the "datascape" of factors that will affect or be affected by the specific design.

With the help of complex simulation involving all these factors along with gravity, light, wind to name a few of the global factors of design on earth, the architect could use advanced computers to realize unceonventional design that will better the built environment.

Hmm - I´m not sure that I´m getting the idea across... I am thinking that with the aid of the computer, architects could make use of a similar concept to natures "survival of the fittest" but do it in a virtual environment, and with millions of iterations in a short time before actually building - and thus avoid the pitfalls of "good taste".

Give the computer all the available input and watch it iterate over the best possible fit under the given conditions. The tricky part for the architect will be defining the factors that will make the buildings suited for people - this means that socio-political factors will be part of the input.

For me, exploring this concept would be a very interesting subject for a PhD.

Look at these sites - they have been inspirering to me:

Karl Simms - virtual creatures (video about 9 MB)

Karl simms has worked on evolving virtual creatures with great succes. The factors on which the evolution of the creatures depend are of course much simpler than what I´m suggesting but nevertheless it is very exciting.

Topology optimization - using computer algorithms to optimise construction

A few books I´ve been inspired by:

Cats Paws and catapults - Steven Vogel

On Growth and From - D´Arcy Wentworth Thompson

Also - with new technologies like nano- and biotech we might be dealing with construction types in fifty years that are radically different from what we have now. These technologies suggest far more dynamic and differentiated environments than what our present technologies allow. (At our scale of course - seen from very far away our built environments are very dynamic - as in spreading like a virus - eating up natural resources - all very natural )

Alright - enough. Tell me if you are interested and we can talk some more sometime.

[ February 12, 2004, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Ras ]

kanga · February 14, 2004

Arnt trends and taste and style the very symptoms of this natural selection and evoltion. If you consider 'the built environment' as a living thing - you can imagine cities as gigantic organisms - that are growing and breathing with all the inhabitants of its space - each new building and renovation helps to add new complexity and knowledge to these creatures - the city evolves and changes. the buildings that are not valued are often demolished or recycled - thus , a sort of natural selection is taking place.

I know it is difficult to divorce yourself from aesthetic sentimentality - watching this evolution is a slow and frusterating process for architects and designers who have idealised versions of what this space should be - but if you can look at the beauty in its ugliness - its great! you don t worry about the fashions of architecture so much! I think this might be the job of an architect - to try and comprihend all these factors and to insert an appropriate structure into this urban fabric . I also love the idea of being able to harness all the possible variables of a site and using random form generators - compute and design a building specifically relevent to its site environmentally and socially etc. the 'perfect building'!

hmmm, this would be great and i think we are moving some way towards this - but does that mean that we will no longer need architects? we only need to collect all the relevant data with our data collector machines. what about the 'design' and art in architecture - the human expression? i suppose this could some how be one of the input variables to our super program. but i think a human mind is infinitly more able to analyse, disect and appropriate design for our culture that a machine ever could. How could a machine understand 'good taste'? and who would program this good taste in?!?

as a tool a computer is essential - but the most important variable to good architect is still the architect. but their role will porbably change dramatically within the next century. imagine setting up frames of a sort of polymer/organic hybrid and growing a living tissue animal around it to form the house! - the walls would bleed when you cut them - and it photosynthesised to get energy or grazed your property. the ultimate in sustainable design! but maybe a few tricky ethical problems.

mbr · February 14, 2004

I am going to have to agree with kanga. For me, the worst case scenario is when we hand over design ideals to a computer. It is not a new idea to want to incorporate the dynamics of context, the fluctuations of traffic flows, the flux of daily economics. Look at Ben Van Berkel, Asymptote, and Koolhaas for rather thorough investigations into these ideas (for about the last 10 years they've, and others, have been looking at these 'forces').

There have also been a decent amount of research into creating 'designs' through programming (usually through the scripting in Maya). But one thing that you must keep at the forefront of your mind is 'is there really perfection? Can you ever truly divorce yourself from the process of creating?'. I dont' think you can - and you shouldn't. Formulas and economics have created a generic landscape of boring designs the world over. What creates good design, good architecture, good music, and good art is the inspiration and talent (amongst other circumstantial issues) of the creator.

Don't worry about 'trends'. They are 'good', in the large picture. They 'test' boundaries, thereby enforcing your ideas of Darwinian thought. This is how things can be 'better'. As more and more people are exposed to the avant garde, it becomes less avant garde and elevates the entire thought process surrounding design. This IS evolution. The contemporary architects, since the beginning of the profession, have done this - challenged the status quo and what was 'normal'. This is how we reached the arena we are in today.

So, lastly, I would say that until computers can 'think' better than us, the job of the designer/architect should be left in the hands of the human. This is not to say that you can't create a set of criteria of different issues that 'help' to form the architecture, just that at the end of the day, the computer does not matter, it's the architecture that does. So it won't matter if it was made from a clay sketch model or scripted Maya dynamics - it all comes down to the designers choices and intuition.

You should read some of the theory that was around about 10-15 years ago. Look at Eisenman and others and their discussions on 'divorcing the creators hand from the creation' and so forth. It's all about authorless art.

Theory goes round and round, and it's quite fascinating when you get into it. Especially when you realize that most things where thought of, explored, and abandoned well before any of us (like you and me) ever thought about it. Just learn the past, and find a new avenue to explore it.

For my thesis, I looked at Colin Rowe's Transperancy essays. It is decades old, but I felt it was applicable to what I was interested in, I just put a new twist on it and took the ideas farther.

Cheers.

Ras · February 15, 2004

Hi Markus and Kanga

I know what you mean and of course I agree to some extent that the human mind is at this point much more sofisticated than any existing algorithm.

According to a friend of mine who is in the AI-field this will change well within this century.

However I am not talking about removing the architect from the process - I´m just suggesting using new and very advanced tools when working.

For me this is a logical step for all designers - stepping away from the process and just watch the creation for a while to be able to transcend the underlying conservatism of cultural dogmatism.

Nobody ever claimed that God wasn´t creative because he left it up to his creatures to live and itterate within his world a.k.a his imposed set of rules (sorry if I´m offending someone - I´m am not religious myself - at least not in the conventional way)

You all know what it is like when you are brainstorming with a group of people - if someone keeps saying "no, no that can´t be done because so and so (construction, money, ethics etc) you wont ever get to really explore the subject in depth) This is what happens a lot in our field in my opinion - "good taste" gets in the way of exploration.

An example could be that somtehing like parking elevators are a definete eastethic no-no here in Denmark...

- Cars? No, they are ugly and better left ignored... So what happens? Endless fields of parking lots or total congestion and no spatial quality for pedestrians... Why not just realize that the cars are here and better delt with properly? This sort of thing happens because me and my collegues are stuck on the easthetic notion that cars are ugly and unwilling to explore their role in this beautiful organism. If you treat a part of your organism like that it will grow like a malignent cancer.

By doing advanced simultaions on this sort of problem - including the "soft/human" values in the set of parameters - you´ll be able to overlook the situation without actually having to build every iteration of the evolutionary proces. What I´m hinting at is being able to fully simulate the consequenses of your decisions and their impact on the city before actually building. Good theory often ends up in bad practice (after all these years the most recognisable impact the beautifull and sane thoughts of Le Corbusier and his piers have had is dehumanising the built environment here in Denmark). Simulation will also help you interpret your thoughts to fully understand their meaning and how to adapt them to the rest of the world before implementing them.

This approach makes sense to me and I´m sure it has made sense to others before me. I appreciate the wisdom of those before me but I cannot absorb it all wihtout dedicating myself completely and thus have to formulate my own views based on my own experience and the small fraction of wisdom I do pick up.

Althought there is som cleaning up done in the bad places of Copenhagen to make better ones - the dominating tendency is by far that of expansion. We are slowly eating up the countryside(Denmark is very small) because it is far cheaper and easier than cleaning up the old stuff and keeping the city dense - instead we are ending up with endless suburbs with no particular sense of place - its just easier to try again somewhere else instead of cleaning up your mess (Got kids? I do!)

I am very preoccupied with lost space in the city because it is horrible to observe the social impact of "moving on to greener pastures and not looking back". - I am doing my final project on this right now.

You are right that in some way you can consider everything that is going on as a real time "simulation" from which we learn and progress. But we are leaving a stream of only partially used ressources in our wake. Perhaps by using very advanced simulations we could avoid half the mistakes and that would be worth it all.

I am supposing, of course, that you agree that some places are nicer to be in than others and that part of the reason lies in the built environment. I guess this is also a subjective observation.

Good goes hand in hand with bad... but its better if good shows the way. Perhaps by simulation you´ll be able to recognise one from the other.

Maybe we could even end up simulating wars and avoid actually making foolish mistakes in the name of "goodness".

But I guess wars are part of the merry-go-round too?!? - I just hope someone remembers to clean up Afghanistan after what happened resently before we turn to other ventures (Afghanistan?!? - who? where?) - or have we moved on to other pastures? (Denmark is an official supporter of the war in Iraq)

Ended up getting political - I guess I asked for it ...

[ February 15, 2004, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Ras ]

mbr · February 15, 2004

I understand what you want to accomplish now. I had thought it was more design oriented than pragmatic programming (of the building, not the computers). That's much more realistic. There was a thread about that a short time ago and I probably am/will reiterate many of the same things here.

If you want to look at 'lost' urban space, look no further than LA! I lived there for 5 years (3 at grad school for arch at UCLA) and became familiar with these vacant spaces in the middle of the city. The problem was, of course, money. It was cheaper to build in the valley and 'make' everyone commute, so they did. The problem with the urban land was that it was polluted from years of industrial use and needed to be replaced. Too expensive, and it could not be financially justified, so they looked at virgin land to develop. It will flip, soon, because prices keep going up and eventually it will be worth while to clean the land up and develop.

Sad, really, but that's what makes our world go round.

I'd spend a decent time researching all this. These are not new ideas, just the technologies are new, so be sure you understand all the precedents before making any conclusions. It's not as simple as 'making a simulation'. We would end up with stacked blocks (I've saw a thesis at SCI-ARC years ago where a student programming Maya to 'simulate' everything from traffic patterns, to sun, to square footage, and generate a building dynamically - even with zoning! Impressive computer usage, but all he ended up with was stacked boxes - architecture NEEDS style, otherwise it becomes banal).

So look around, read about LA architects in particular that have been looking at urban density for decades. Denari is one that comes to mind, but most have addressed the idea at one point or another.

Cheers.

kanga · February 15, 2004

Im also trying to piece together all my different ideas to find an idea for my final year thesis. Im fairly new to this subject so you are going to have to bear with me for this post – because hopefully it will make sense after you’ve read through the first bit and i suspect some of my ideas could be a bit simple! i also thought you were coming from a design / form perspective and below i have tried to make sense of my design process…

Ok, so us humans live on earth. It is a harsh environment in many ways and we represent the evolutionary descendants of billions of organisms. We are the most powerful thing that ‘life’ has created thus far. We are a great success! However we are a weak and fragile creature – SHELTER is a physical need for survival - it protects our bodies from worldly harm. What really makes us such a successful creature is that we have developed an incredibly sophisticated social structure (our culture). And through various techniques and technologies have been able to store and recall our collective knowledge – firstly through primitive forms – language and story telling, rock paintings. And gradually we found more sophisticated ways of transferring and recording this knowledge through the generations with jewellery, clothing, writing, music, video, computers etc. And this is where architecture becomes very interesting for me – the line where architecture became more than just a shelter and started to exhibit and COMMUNICATE its own ‘language’.

It is this ‘language’ that I believe cannot entirely be simulated by machines. Because ultimately it all comes down to a single human standing in a particular space.

And so through the years our societies, develop layer upon layer of information. And so I suppose (using metaphor from previous post) you could look at everything created by man as being part one big huge living library. architects endure about 6 years of difficult education in order to take the position as librarians of our culture! And also taking into account societies physical needs (sustainability) they must direct the built environment accordingly. I hate to see old buildings demolished, even when they appear have little value to society - It is like burning books!

Naturally some objects communicate more than others. The built environment is layered with meanings. thus – you can more or less objectively assign social values to most things in this way. Would this lead to total saturation? Information overload? Is that what modernism was rejecting /exploring? How much value or knowledge does a particular building contain within itself? This is where all of our socio-economic-environmental criterion come in, including the craftmanship of the structure. trying to suppress my aesthetic conditioning I use this as a general method to decide what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ architecture. Most of this informantion is recycled around and interbred in an increasing worldwide monoculture. But the truly important objects – the ones that are valued the most – contain innovative ideas that had never been thunk before!

And within traditional cultural boundaries we are now seeing the emergence of new and massive trans-cultural bodies. They are the large corporations than span the globe and have developed their own identity and cultural branding that defines them and they wield massive power. The benefits of this are massive – it has lead to an unprecedented level of technological development and communication between people and it empowers individuals, having the potential to improve the social conditions for billions.

-here is the flipside-

the problem goes all the way to the top – globalisation has created some very powerful people, namely the heads of large multinational corporations. They are not democratically elected leaders - which is fine – as long as there are sufficient regulations in place to control the amount of power they have. This is where governments come in – the government keeps the corporations honest and in turn the corps keep the government on its toes. I don’t know a lot about politics and I wish I did – but I think we have seen too much unrestricted corporate development – I think this is what you are lamenting - where there is little social considerations in planning – and the great thing about this simulation method that you talk of is that will allow inexpensive exploration into many fields that would just get overlooked for various social and economic reasons.

So in a nutshell, Im with you Ras - using these advanced simulation techniques is definitely the way of the future. However, im pretty sure myself that the human brain will remain the most complex and sophisticated thing in the known universe for many centuries to come. Although AI is developing very rapidly - our understanding of the human mind could scarcely be called a science and has a long way to go. And I think AI probably will have to develop into a hybrid organic/synthetic thing - if you plug in millions of these brains together with sophisticated technologies then perhaps we are building ourselves into cyborg creatures! (this in an old idea just like every other idea ever thunk) we are already becoming entirely reliant on machines! What is really interesting also – is that in constructing these simulations and ‘real world’ analysis, allowing us to be more adventurous in our designs because they has no physical ramifications – we are building a new virtual world, slowly giving it substance – and it turns all of our previous cultural languages on their head!

The problem with your method however – would always be in the validity of the programming. And unless you are taking it well down the path of virtual reality, you are going to have to construct these buildings and communicate your ideas in some way - and probably through using traditional geometric relationships which automatically imposes formal conditions– but what about fractals, chaos theory? Because the ideas of these simulations would at some point need impetus and constraints imposed – you would just have to develop a valid process for which this takes place. But the ‘human factor’ would be difficult as you have already said. The idea of ‘perfection’ seems to be in your thinking, and Im not sure that it exists – I think that is a human construct - even though it pervades most of my thinking too! I dont want to get all religious or spiritual on you, because I am not either - but i suppose what i find interesting and inspiring in art might be the same thing a lot of religious folk feel in their particular creed. the reason Im raving on about this is that is what really interests me in architecture. in particular - my interest in personal communication and the new boundaries that technologies are setting us. I suppose taken from a more psychological approach.

This would be a really interesting area to study – its so interrelated with other fields you would barely know where to begin – psychology, AI, urban, philosophy, architecture, technology, biology! Let alone derive enough sense of it all to start a thesis, good luck. im ceratinly gonna need some - ive got heaps of reading to do I suppose! – thanks for the links markus, im gonna look for some colin rowe and eisenman at the library today. Could you give us a bit more info on the direction you took your thesis? Id be really interested.

'The more you learn, the less you know'!

mbr · February 15, 2004

My thesis was based mostly on experience. I am of the crowd that space, through formal expressions, can generate these experiences. Some argue that form, especially in it's pure, intuitive nature (as the designer inevitably decides what is 'right'), is bad. The argument would be that too much intuition cannot be 'checked', or validated, and thereby without purpose. It's a tough game to play and a never ending battle with theory and reason. Personally, I think that there are architects that can perform formal explorations using their intuition (through many years of learned experimentation - certainly not 'random' - I went through 4 years of undergrad design and 3 years of grad - plenty of practice...and loans).

I don't think there is a correct answer to the question of form, it really comes down to each individual designer. Some create wonders with systematic approaches to the process (see Eisenman, although he is highly intuitive as well, Libeskind, and a few others, maybe Van Berkel), while others rely on their intuition as the primary force, like Gehry. Obviously, you cannot separate the two completely, and every good architect will implement some kind of system to begin with, thereby giving themselves a set of criteria to check themselves against as the project progresses.

Rowe and Eisenman have argued for the formal aspects of architecture, and it's what I feel is ultimately the most important (beyond meeting the requirements of the program, budget, etc.). It is also these 'forms' that help to create the experiential nature of architecture that I feel is, ultimately, the most important part. The 'experience' of the space is what I am most interested in.

Briefly, Rowe explored the figure/ground relationships of the modern aesthetic at the time and wrote of how dynamic the experience could be, given light changes, views, etc. Eisenman, via Deleuze and Derrida, explored the formal aspect through further manipulation, 'folding' the walls, the floors, etc., to basically create a 'new' experience. I was interested in exploring the limits of the figure/ground relationship and blurry the boundaries between the two. There is more to it, but that's what comes to mind as I type. I was also interested in incorporating tactile technologies, via touchscreens and such, to blur the relationships between those that occupied the space.

What I find compelling about your statement is the psychological aspect of architecture. I have argued for many years now (amongst friends) that much of the problems with the blob movement (which was huge while I was in grad school, esp. considering Greg Lynn was, and is, teaching at UCLA full time) was that they never looked at the experience. This is one of the largest down falls to contemporary theory, imo, that the 'experience' of the space is neglected in favor of abstract theory (yeah, there was a lot of chaos theory, and I did my bit), which generated interesting forms and solutions, for sure, but they were never tested in (virtual) reality. This is where I feel CG can be huge, esp. as it gets faster. We can now realistically 'test' the space and materials.

Gehry is an exception in this whole mess, and if you look at his past, you'll see he's been experimenting with materials, with light, and with space for decades. Really, he is one of the few masters that has experiment with space and experience, and pushed the boundaries beyond what most could/can comprehend. If you can, I highly advise that you see one of his buildings, they are incredible! Really amazing experience of light, form, space, and materiality.

So, not to go off in too many tangents, I would suggest that your push in the direction of a psychological investigation. Maybe things like 'what makes this building so wonderful?' How can someone document that 'experience' and learn to create a 'great' space before it's built? Personally, this is an area that needs to be looked at more closely. It's a scary proposition, though, as some would rather it not be 'real' before it's done. I can respect that, but I still want to see that light hit the floor!

It could be a lot of fun, maybe find some models of great buildings, old and new, and try to create a set of criteria to quantify 'space'. That may be too literal, though. Be careful of trying to do something that is too 'real', as it should be something 'inspiring' and not just a report.

A thesis should really have a hypothesis, investigations, tests, and, most importantly, a proposed solution to the initial problem. If it's not a design thesis, than scratch that.

Anyhow, it sounds very interesting. There's a ton of resources out there. I'd suggest posting on www.archinect.com to get some stuff to start reading. I am not a huge theory buff (I like the pretty pictures more ), so others can give you a better reading list.

Here are a few images from my thesis:

http://www.cgarchitect.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000054

Ras · February 16, 2004

Hi guys

This is so interesting!

I don´t really want to debate your views because basically I agree with you. However I think I AM coming from a design standpoint.

From what I know of people using simulation techniques - like Greg Lynn - I think that the techniques are used too loosely.

Using algorithms that take certain factors into account to produce form and space can yield stunning and unexpected results - no question here. From where I´m sitting it just seems that the technology and the algorithms are not yet advanced enough to produce anything of real value unless the designer takes over at some point and uses the output in connection with his own intellect and talent. So you are right - we need designers - for now.

The only reason for this (my personal view of course) is because the algorithms in our brain are incredibly sofisticated and by using them we are able to let all the factors/restraints in the environment/culture/nature sublimate eachother (if we are good)and produce great architecture.

At some point - and probably sooner than we think - our "offspring" will be able to handle equally complex problems - but probably with completely different result simply beacuse the underlying technology is different.

In my view there is no "perfect" solutions - there are as many possibilities as there is for an artist to create beautiful art on a rectangular canvas. If "perfect" means ultimate or the one and only right thing I don´t believe in it.

Nature for example imposes its evolutionary changes through transformation (Take a look at "On Growth and form" as mentioned earlier) which means that wales are a transformation of land living mamals. At all times through this transformation must this organism function optimally in its environment or it will be pushed aside by other organisms. This means that a whale has hips (!) a whale doesn´t need hips. They have hips because they cannot be "skipped" - it is too big an evolutionary step (think of the whole birthsituation). So they are transformed. This is something we are not necesarily restricted to because we simulate - we build models of the world in our heads and have the ability to recognise potential problems and simply eliminate them - We could take out the his of a simulated organism and make the whole birth situation work for it before we would actually "build" it.

People simulate - this is how we survive - we build models in our minds of the world around us and use this model to work out methods and tools etc. Nature doesn´t do that - nature tests things in reality - in this sense the "real" world is one big simulation.

In "reality" however man also mostly transforms. Our minds are very difficult to pry from the grasp of convention.

Personal development for example - It takes so long for me to get my ego to accept that I have been unreasonable to someone and actually change my ways - although it is theoretically possible to change instantly we are quite slow to adapt.

I mean - why not just resolve the whole middleeast conflict? Because people are caught in cultural patterns and ways. Perhaps this mechanism too has a function that I´m just not recognising right now - but it is besides my point.

What I am suggesting is moving some of these evolutionary steps from the real world to a virtual environment to avoid having to go through all the steps in real life. This is not particularly relevant to architecture compared to for example the field of nanotech - its simpler to símulate a nanomachine before building it because we have enough knowledge to know what it´ll do and it is extremely expensive to build in real life. Again - nature would have to build it to see how it would perform.

So as I said - its not particularly relevant to the discipline of architecure or design - but still very relevant.

I think these principles can be applied at any scale of our world (design) be it cityplan or coffeemug.

When I plan a city I sit down and try to understand the basis on which I operate and then simulate different approaches until I have refined it enough to understand what its about - or my deadline makes me stop(!)

I do the same thing when I do a coffeemug. the basis I work on is just more self-evident - but for a newborn to be able to design a mug - it would have to be educated in the dimensions and movement of the body - the viscosity of liquids and so forth and simulate what all these factors would amount to if put together (I held a wokshop at my university last year with this theme - uncover as many of the implicit factors involved in designing a bottle).

Generally i think architectural theory is problematic for the same reasons Marcus mentioned. The whole field of socio-sciense and psychology is hardly unambiguous science in the sense that for example chemestry is.

In my mind architecture should be the sublime marriage of the understanding of physical processes and the understanding of human behaviour and culture.

The result of an architectural theory must be what determines its worth in my opinion. By cultivating very advanced simulation techniques we might avoid some of the horrible things in the future that beautiful theory has produced in the past.

But that will of course never end that people behave strangely towards eachother - It´ll just relocate it.

[ February 16, 2004, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: Ras ]

fi3er · February 16, 2004

whoa!!! discussion alive BIGstyle !!! nice !!!

you guys are endless source of inspiration for me, thanx loads !!!

well, what Im thinking about as my PhD studies would be something more inbetween Arts and Architecture. Cus of the nature of mentioned New Media Atelier at academy Id like to join. They focus primary on the Art and how it changes in confrontation with New Media. Things you speak about are definetely VERY interesting, but too much architecture oriented.

For me, important thing is to approach architecture as an Art, the way to express atmosphere and feeling ( I mean not in general, I talk about this particural studies, Id like to forget architecture for those three years, Id like to find it again at the end of this period, stronger and more powerful in what artistic parts of architecture mean. )

What I was thinking about is to study LIGHT. As a principle of architecture, but opposite to the other key principle - materia. I wander, what happens with architecture, when there is only light, no materia, no gravity, etc.. is that complete BS? I can imagine studiing everything about light at the first part of the studies - all physics, social aspects, biological effects, experience...then I move on, exploring light in connection to new media/technologies - using lasers, OLED displays, holography, VR...then I move on, back to the architecture, with all gained knowledge, trying to redefine it somehow, my feelings what architecture is...but I still miss the Idea, the final product of my mind exercise, and I dont know if I can have one allready, without all that research mentioned above.

whatcha guys think? any hints?

and thank again for discussion, you are helping me A LOT !

cheers

fi3er

kanga · February 17, 2004

Fi3er you sound as if you are having a similar problem to the one I am having right now! Trying to validate my design process! I have come from a sort of arts background and am finding it tough at my university which is basing on an applied learning approach with very little theory. Forgetting about architecture for a year or so sounds like it could be a really good thing – I think a lot of architectural ideas (just like any field) can become a bit interbred if you don’t take time to go out and study something unrelated every now and then. And you often can see things in a different light with deeper understanding when you come back to them later!

I think Markus is right – there is no answer to the question of form because it ultimatly comes down your own personal process that you develop – but the more you test and challenge this process the more valid your design will become and ultimatly it will hopefully lead to superior architectural design!

Approaching “architecture as an art”? This is a tricky thing to do - artists need to be respected for what they do and I think a problem with many design based architects is that they mistake themselves as artists - it took me some time to realise that art and architecture shared few similarities and infact are fundamentally different I feel. An artist has no social responsibilities – they push the boundaries of their human spirit, just like an athelite does their body. They soak up culture and produce from it their INDIVIDUAL expression.

The architect must make a SOCIAL expression. They must consider the benefits and relevence of their design to this community. An architect must have no ‘personal’ input into the design and that is probably why architects have so much trouble dealing with theory - always trying to validate their design not to themsleves, but to the collective - always looking for formulas and systems. Architects feel uncomfortable using their intuition.

But having said that, I do consider that perhaps our built envrionment would have more meaning if there was more individual expression in architecture. And probably the reason this has not come about is because of the economic constraints of building – and again, new technology is making it more viable to do this and be more expressive. I really do believe in technology as providing the means and the possibilities of empowering societies from the ground up – decentralising the governments and giving more technology and knowledge to individuals . perhaps we will all become artist/architects.

However, as things now stand for me, the process with which an artist finds form would be frivilous for an architect to attempt. It can be incorporated in varying degrees into the programme of the building however, just like all of the other constraints and variables that we have already mentioned. And this is what I have understood of the ‘advanced simulation technique’ talked of already, using computers to develop design.

I think this is where architects belong. Whether they take a more systematic approach to design or a more intuitive approach. Even if machines could do a more ‘accurate’ job of digesting this data, I think it wouldn’t matter because removing humans from the process would render it irrelevant. Architecture is a human construct from every direction you look at it.

And the pursuit of form is not an end within itself, it is just one aspect of architecture – a very important one – as reletive as any situation deems it. For example emergency housing does not need to be formally expressive – it will probably be structurally expressive (form follows function) as a result of its efficient design and certainly has beauty in its honesty. So I think you must look through ‘cultural eyes’ when discussing architecture – otherwise it becomes art.

I am really interested in what you say about light - well we know that it is a form of energy. Life feeds on energy – time feeds on energy also?. Material is constant, it just exists in varying forms as a kind of function of time and energy I suppose. So we have light (energy), form (material), time, and life. If these are all separate things then maybe you could just study the individual properties of one, even though they are all interrelated.

So, perhaps you are right – there are two truths in our universe, energy and material? Or maybe they are not mutually exclusive and can exist on their own - can you seperate the two? This is maybe where the idea of the virtual comes in handy – perhaps it is in someway dissolving the need for materiality –maybe this is a process of life and time. And then after that your gonna have to consult a preist! You could argue that humans have developed the ability to ‘percieve’ life through a sense of conciousness – sort of a self loop (“I think therefore I am”) – is that what this means? Would this validate the virtual - the idea that eventually all knowledge could end up just as energy/light in the name of life (culture)? Can architecture exist without a site? Without substance? Im sure there are many philosophies devoted to this.

I don’t think any of that makes much sense – in any case, I think we can only relate it to our own understanding of the world. And I suppose im pursuing it looking on a broader scope of cultures as whole entities, made up of subcultures and communities etc. but another way to look at this might be similar to how an artist would approach it – looking at a human as the individual. This would be studying the causal nature of form, whereas I might be looking at the affect it has made and how that influences individuals – Is the ‘experience’ of architecture triggered by intrinsic human qualities that we are born to? Or are they learned from our culture? - they overlap, ‘genetic learning’ both encourages inate recognition of forms and this in turn influences the cultural learning further and further? Or does form exist in its own right – eg. platonic solids.

I just read Nicholas Humphery's 'The Inner Eye' (psychologist looks into human conciousness) and would recommend it. Also Herman Hesse’s ‘Narsis and Goldmund’ (fiction – adventures of mind and spirit) - very easy and enlightening concepts and both are a quick read.

This looks interesting too - www.smartgeometry.com