Material Processing: Self-starting, Self-stopping Architecture
The potential of automated computing rests not in autopoiesis, or self-generation, but in the simultaneity, flexibility, and interconnectivity of the systems created. While form-finding algorithms can transform data sets into novel instances of structure, space, and experience, this process will never be free from an initial ‘willed’ construct. Instead, the goal remains to relate more closely to the human condition, now increasingly associated with theories of emergence, continuity and complexity.
Architecture must rely on simultaneous processes of generation in order to achieve continuity. Scripting techniques of recursion, feedback loops, and conditional statements allow for continuously calculated differentiation and interaction across a variety of scales. A self-starting method can begin by gathering and organizing relevant data from a number of sources both intensive and extensive: material properties, programmatic flows, environmental conditions, building codes, etc. When algorithms translate these relationships into form, in order for the output to be useful, it must be self-stopping. This allies with the principle of emergence: A set of relationships begins at equilibrium, gains new information, and then reorganizes itself to find a new equilibrium. Frei Otto’s ‘material computing’ experiments exhibit this phenomenon, but only explore one factor of the system: the structure. A simultaneous program will create feedback across organization systems both performative and experiential, finding-form through negotiation and translation.
This experiment can be tested through the design and exploration of an architectural project: A framework of electric refueling stations along the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Craig -
ReplyDeleteTwo questions: In order to facilitate the mathematics involved in such algorithms and process it into raw usable data - what data shall you choose to input? The talk of human condition linking to these new methods of design seems somewhat of a non-sequitur to me, as I would imagine putting into math the intangibles that create "enjoyment" rather than "function" to be rather a challenge.
Second question: What inspired the choice of program? I'm curious what the construction of these building through this method means to you.
If I'm understanding this correctly, won't any computer generated script still maintain the original 'willed' construct - you still are setting up the parameters for which the end product will be created, even if it could have a trillion different outcomes. This doesn't seem dissimilar from something the human mind could create: yes, the computer can calculate and generated forms from data sets a person would never be able to tackle, but at the same time a person can generate a beautiful, gestural, and experiential form utilizing just our own thoughts and feelings.
ReplyDelete...so I guess I just wonder how computer generative design is any different from human gestural design, and how you empirically test whether one works or not? (I'm not even sure if what I'm talking about relates at all to what you're doing, to be honest, I'm just writing out thoughts that came to mind after reading it)
@jspring
ReplyDeleteA big chunk of my statement deals with rebutting any claims of self-generated or automatic architecture, so I completely agree that the architect will always author the "setup".
However, I see a big difference between so-called generative design and gestural design (I like the term gestural, it can apply to both hand-drawn and computer drawn methods, etc). Your question brings up a good point, one that I think will be central to my investigation. At first, the two may just seem like different methods to arrive at the same place, as long as the gesture can match the computer output. In this case, the advantage of computing may lay solely in the workflow/explicit history of it, the ctrl z factor, or the ability to tweak a few parameters between generations. Yet, what I tried to outline in my statement, is that scripting works best for architecture when it employs simultaneous(that which creates complexity, etc) and self-stopping methods of form-finding. In my view, although gestural forms can exhibit complexity, continuity, etc, the stopping point will always be arbitrary( or you could be Vitruvius: "A harmonious design requires that nothing be added or taken away.") In self-stopping 'machines', the threshold for transformation, the stopping-point, is inherent to the code. Of course, I could develop self-stopping code with no basis in reality, but thats different, as programmers say: "garbage in, garbage out".
That being said, there is plenty of room to be gestural or intuitive within the scope of "generative" architecture. One of my favorite implementations is the work of engineer Mutsuro Sasaki. With his "sensitivity analysis method", he is able to transform gestural roof canopies of Arata Isozaki and Toyo Ito into stabilized forms by subjecting them to a self-correcting gravity system.
Thanks again for the question, the length of the response alone show me that I still have a lot to work out.
re: "[...] when it employs simultaneous(that which creates complexity, etc) and self-stopping methods of form-finding"
ReplyDeleteto me, that seems just as arbitrary; instead of a persons hand and emotions being the final form finder, a computers scripting/code is. i don't think either is right or wrong, i just think that design by code is no more exacting (?)
so i guess i'll be myself and agree to disagree with you on this one. haha.
Your position is strongly stated but...how does a refueling station support your well stated complex position?
ReplyDelete