That's just nasty. Now I just want to send these poor starving girls a sandwich or perhaps a snickers.

1- models are not free. they are paid.

2- i'm not the one spewing subject-irrelevant bitter trollisms. although i first imagine that some floral prints bore relevance.

3- i'm not a girl (nor am i the topic). but then again i also fancy some guys (more distinctly, "boiz") in a dress, so i sympathize with your twistedly unstated desire to know me in a dress. there is something poignant about the confrontation of gentleness and brittleness of boys in dresses (not transexuals). by the way, i also admire boyish girls.

4- you yourself don't sound free at all. you sound very tethered, even strapped in. i do not imagine free people need to bark at others across a random forum.

5- i like most of those dresses/pant suits, but....

6- yes, the models need to eat. maybe they are free to bare their small thighs, but are they free to bare a full appetite? anyway, i wish them the best.

we shall be like skinny models, trim down on the words when expressing our thoughts.

I think hes trying to make fun of you. Im not sure why.

I was really hoping that had something to do with anything. No such luck I guess.



how can one code the tide of desire, destructive and constructive in turn? a wild sort of code, a bronco parametricism? like, the paradox of creating a forest of form: the complexity of the code must be clearly well understood, enough to incur the non-understood complexity of form? usually we understand surrealism as a domain mired by the dormant, yet potent, vagaries of human consciousness. by alluding to surrealism in a parametric practice, one must be equating the parametric method with psychoanalytic artistry... i.e. using the tool, as its been called, of coding to result not in a rationalization of design (which is the quest of Schumacher) but in an imaginative, and avataristic, evocation of the design's turbulent psyches/possibilities.

I like this. See as long as its serving something I have much less trouble with it, because it certainly isnt serving economics. I guess like anything else it just requires discipline. I mean every bit of the above can be achieved without resorting to the goopy-web look, with mass-produceable components, with real materials that people can actually afford, and respond to emotionally. I want to see these things in the real world, I just think most of the people working with code arent taking the time and patience to connect fully through to a real, built experience.

* - This is no longer a civil archinect discussion.

all these jobs asking for BIM proficiency... parametrics are in!

This thread is the reason the public doesn't understand us or in some cases can't deal with us. I've been through seven years of architecture school, some of it at an Ivy studying with the professors mentioned above, I'm currently a professor and a writer and I can't even muster the patience to read some of the technocratic/philosophical rantings of some of the people here. I think oe said it best...."in all this when does someone get a house".

The original poster mentioned that Hernan was absent from this discussion...there is a good reason for that...he is an aestheticist who doesn't take himself too seriously like the rest of the scriptobots up there. As Hernan says in his interview with Volume Magazine..."my work is like salt. You can't eat food without a little salt but you wouldn't want to eat just f**king salt!" Based on their work, the scriptobot types believe their specific technical process/approach is applicable to every design project at all times and this is not the case. Automated computation should never replace human design intuition and we should not loose touch with what the hell it is we are trying to do as architects (masters of the BUILT environment). Do we talk just to ourselves now?....because I don't see many if any clients going for this stuff. Are we creating inhabitable environments or some installation art or digital masturbation for people to look at and never fully comprehend? If that's the case then I think people wasted their 200,000 dollar education..they should have just went to a community college and learned maya and rhino script..it would have been a lot cheaper.

Oh and another thing...there is a distinction between parametric design and scripting/the search for artificial design intelligence. Gehry Technologies knows this better than anyone which is perhaps why they are able to merge computation and parametrics with architecture and actually get stuff built. These other guys are lost in the dark without a flashlight waiting for someone to try and light a wet match.

18x32;

but thats not really what i remember from either of the two books of his,bataille's, i read (The Accursed Share, Eroticism: Death & Sensuality). It is not so much simply the materialistic polarity of consumption of and destruction that stands out, or is original, as does/is the exuberently christian catholic force that impels its (yes i hear the humour, the power of christ compels you..anyway). the excess energy bataille writes about reverberates with the notion of martydom (an excess energy spent creatively...through sacrifice) as does his notion on sexuality with the christian catholic romancing of corporeal sadomasochism (spiritual grace through physycal pain - of course, this is not exclusive to catholicism). bataille is perhaps unique amongst his generation of french intellectuals in summoning up the fervour of religiosity behind base materialism. how does this relate to consumption and production in the context of parametricism?

on the other hand....i have read very little deleuze but it seems to me, from what i read, that bataille's stands as a fine contrast to the much cited deleuzian ephemeral materialism. where the latter materializes the spirit, the former spiritualizes materialism. in an apollonian (channeling Nietzsche ) sensibility (delueze's for instance), there is this clear well lit transaction of ideas; there is a teetotal concern with the limits of things and the lines drawn around the shapes....spatiotemporal- centric. there can be no fetishism or concept of excess ...which resounds with romantic (or maybe, more basically...primordial) intoxication, as there is underlying the dionysian titillated sensibility. it is clearer why delueze is so much easier to architecturally "analogize"(as in an ethereal material fold translates, in the architect's head, into a floor plate fold).

so, the difficulty.

otis151;

you fail to discern the point of the excercise. in a funny way, you are dismissing the possibility of criticism of something that you yourself criticize. if a person claims bataille is an inheritance, and these people are making a mark on us, whether we will it or not...then fine, lets take them at their word....but lets read some bataille first. otherwise, you are only redering yourself into an inflation of the very end statement that you had first planned to end with. in other words, your post which is composed in...wait, i need to check...30 lines that shown up on my screen...can be summarized in a sentence. so you too are guilty.

preemptive apologies for the linguistic skirmishes here, there are many i know. i am on a construction site and i am in a rush and, in this midst of this profusion, precise grammar is a slippery lizard :) lame excuse.

me too... I'm hoping very soon we'll start seeing less of "hey, look what I can do!" and more of "ok - what can we do with this?"

having borrowed 200,000$ to learn a tool i couldn't use in most real world and get me a job really hurtzzz!!!

What just happened? This conversation is waaaaaaaaaay over my head!

Well I guess unless youre a big batille fan,.. I must confess Ive read like one article in school by him, something batshit about the pineal gland when we were talking about Mathew Barney?


I mean I think its bonkers, but its great. Love it. I dont make these criticisms because I think its bullshit, but because Ive been there, and I know what it did to me. I spent half my college career so deep in derrida and heidegger and leibniz it became almost impossible for me to do anything that anyone understood. Its like being in the bottom of a dark hole trying to wrestle mud, I was so involved with my own relationship to the creative process, the relationship between my desires and the things that were emerging on the page and the screen and in the millroom, that I never found the time to find a salient way of communicating it to others. No matter the clarity between the script and the model, at a certain level all the thought and development that went into the output was permanently opaque to anyone who hadnt been sitting there in the lab following the process from the beginning. All that tension and and angst goes nowhere if you cant get it into the heads and lives of the end users. I think thats a serious procedural, practical problem. The refinement loop between the designer and the code and the permutations leaves out the most important people. It leaves out the real, living laypeople who were supposing are going to have to inhabit these things. And I dont just mean emailing the owner progress images everyday, or 3d printing mock ups you can stare at in a conference room, I mean physically inhabiting these spaces, perceiving with living hands and living eyes these materials [/i]at scale[/i].

Now, that expectation is a little unfair. Its a new technology, and understandably, there wouldnt be that much built precedent for people to study. But it has been over 10 years now, and weve seen almost nothing. I think thats a major embarrassment, and I think there are reasons for it. Because people arent seriously thinking about these things as real economic realities, because theyre so absorbed by the fancy graphics, rather than the tangible experience of space, and the practicalities of real construction, (and theyd better, because the code sure doesnt,) theyre emerging from what could be a remarkable process with unfeasible absurdities. So again, Im not saying we cant use it, Im not saying we cant think about Bataille, Im saying at some point in the process we have to get real. Weve got to expand that loop to include the outside world.

Man Ive sortof become a broken record on this one..

Again this isnt really directed specifically at you Fond/Tammuz. Id love to see what youre working on and how all this is playing out. Theyre just broader concerns I have about the future of this stuff and how it can become a fuller movement.

not to mention, er.. probably should be more careful about my little crass-streak when I get into a conversation about Israel *rolls-eyes-at-self*

one thread leads to another

maybe we can see this rift between the parametricisms of schumacher and roche as one between a rationalistic appropriation of parametrics and an expressionistic one.

Wait, wait, wait.. are you selling Penis Mightiers?

wrong thread. search for penismetrics or punanimetrics.

sorry for bringing the thread back on track. Hope Bataille doesn't get upset.

For those interested, but not quite sure of what p* is, I'd recommend taking a look at paramod.net, blog for a seminar I'm taking this semester. Professor puts up all the tutorials/etc on it, may help you get an idea of what it's about.

Parametricism is not the future.

I thought I would learn grasshopper to help me out with a nice little problem I have been working on for a few years now. I tinkered, but utlimately it didnt provide the results I wanted.

The lesson is that if everyone has the same tools, you get the same results. I am reminded of the William Blake who said "I must create my own system or be enslaved by another man's". So thats what I am doing now.

The mathematicians and IT geeks rule this world. And yet again, architects are scrambling around trying to apply methodologies and justifications to an external tool and struggling to find meaning. The trouble with numbers is that they are omniscient and meaningless.

The only use for parametricism [in the broadest sense] is where, as a tool, it allows a greater level of control to the architect for fabrication of buildings, in hand with architects actually having physical and financial ownership over the process.

Not to understate things also, but I like Bruce Mau's Manifesto #24:

Avoid Software
The problem with software is that everyone has it

its how you use it honey.

and what you use it for, baby cakes.

Can I use it to smack you?

fku2, you're a kinky dollop. wanna be my lollipop gestapo?

@ 18x32 - hence my proviso 'not to understate things'

This is a clear case of confusing advancement in a tool for genuine wholistic advancement. From Carpo's summary:

In short, designers need to rise to the challenge of a new, digitally negotiated, partial indeterminacy in the process of making form. And this will not be easy, as none of us was ever trained to become a generic author.


This genericism is the result of everyone using the same tools, and it largely dependent on the economics of consumerism.

and t a m m u z, please show me your wonderful experimentations

Scripting is a mathematical frock coat

For a real no offensive contribution to this thread,

I have thought about this.

My first ever use of parametrics was a plug-in I downloaded for SketchUp that automatically does picket fences. Basically, you plop down this little component and when you stretch it, it automatically fills in posts, slats, crowns and adjust the spacing to make sure everything is visually okay.

So. I was like hot damn! This is nice! Even though I'll probably never have to use this thing any other way other than ironically.

I noticed two problems. The parametric fence did not do gates and adding gates manually would not automatically update the rest of the parts in the model.

That's what brought me to this idea-- I'd really hate to be someone in construction who gets paid to do exactly what this plug-in does. Especially if this plug-in was perfected, anyone with a mouse could design badass awesome fences.

I ultimately fear that is what might happen with parametrics.

For this example:

Say we have a small building composed of three rooms... two banquet halls and a storage room. Say all three rooms are roughly the same size.

Parametrics from a basic point of view could be programmed to build the hallway and the rooms and detail them out with all the necessary and pertinent features (structure, electrical et cetera.)

Now without any additional information, the parametric script would be unable to tell the difference between the storage room and the banquet hall.

Now imagine if we program in the ability to distinguish between the two. And say based on square feet, we can program a way to adjust the entrances of said rooms. Banquet halls for instance get better and more front entrances.

Now take this one step further and assign directions on the rooms where the "front" and "backs" are. Then add into the mix ratios of space (ie 1 foot of hallway space for every 1.6 feet of banquet space).

Then add in code compliance stipulations.

Given more and more data and reference data. The role of the architect diminishes more and more. Anyone with a mouse and the ability to push a bunch of option buttons can get a full decked out and customized space that meets all the requirements the put into the script.

To me, parametrics can be a dangerous ground when it gains a smarter ability to predict buildings before they actually get built.

The rule of computation dictates that where anything can be programmed, it will be programmed. Parametricism will lead to wholesale standardisation of built form under the disguise of progress.

I am all for experimentation - I am on record for that on this site over a long period of time.

However, with my experience of construction and development and the impacts on architects from the recent financial collapse, my view has been modified:

Any form of experimentation has to be aligned with economic factors so that innovation in architecture is tied to greater degrees of control by architects.

Believing that parametricism will save architects is equivalent to believing that robotics will save factory workers.

On the other hand, this kind of revolution is not necessarily all bad. Is architecture as we know it worth saving?

I don't want to live in an architectural world that lacks gargoyles.

18x32 - thanks for posting the Carpo Essay.

interesting point in there about technology facilitating greater design collaboration - however - with the old-timers in the field, there seems to be this belief that technology simply allows for the individual to handle more work with greater complexity (not changing how they work, just eliminating people) - instead of using the technology to do something they couldn't do before. Some firms are actually pushing the boundaries of what we can build and how we deliver projects because of the tools - however most aren't and many keep thinking that these tools are substitutes for actual project management and production (hence the worry that these tools will eventually replace and dictate design).

Besides, I think most architects who have been practicing for a while already understand that they are just the generic authors of the building design. it's an incredibly messy process with many people trying to pull the design in many different directions. The architect's job is to identify a direction and make sure it heads that way. Some people are just more adept at guiding the project than others.

18x32 - I think Carpo makes some interesting points, and certainly moves beyond the "parametricism is the future!" talk we often hear.

My fear is that within these new processes is the architectural professions demise. If the possibilities of broad computation processes that can be applied to form are available to anyone, then what is the role of the architect?

You mention your "hope would be that as these tools multiply and become more pervasive, there follows an understanding that the tools (or technique itself) cannot be equated with design."

I think this is hope because in other areas where technology becomes more readily available, the userbase gets widened and control is lost and qulaity is diminshed

I think the ongoing development of 3D printing technology for example [via people like Ponoko and the increasing availability of 3D printers] mean that the barriers to entry for form making are disappearing. It is not education, capital, knowledge or networks that matter, only the choice to participate.

Witness the rise and public uptake of Sketchup...

"Parametricism" is a bourgeois way of saying geometry. I won't continue to insult, however the point of the technology is to exact rules to a designers product, in our case its a building (which does complicate things much) and then manage this new data. Our industry is always the last to adopt/ adapt...The real problem is the masturbatory use of this technology that is near two decades old. Products we buy (cars), use (plastic bottles) and throw away are all "parametricized" nothing new there. To some maybe...

In 'architecture' there becomes this desire to stunt with the 'technology'. Where a designer is thinking that they can pull something never seen before. (there is value here, buts its some what impractical at this point in time)

What I find most interesting is that there is this common belief out there that the technology, this specific type, will tell you (the designer) something that you don't already know and make your design that much better. Wake up. What usually happens is you waste thousands in man hours trying to build something that wasn't designed well from the start.

The future is in the success of the amalgam and understanding of geometry and architecture, which is very simple. All you need are the facts, which are the constraints that then give you the rules. Rule based geometry. End of story.

Gehry's spaghetti is now being shelved on isle 7.

is bourgeois an insult? i feel...insulted.

im ho, something suddenly gained grounds on something else in this thread. i think maybe its based on a deliberate oversight of the subtle differences between was is seen as being aesthetic and ideological and what seen as being pragmatic. aesthetically and ideologically, i don't see why the notion of a parametrically grown urbanism, for example, is any less valid than the religiously bound or humanistically configured geometrically fatalistic deal cities at the cross intersection of world cultures' planning and religious histories. these past ideological models infiltrated the "pragmatics" of subsequent periods and cultures. in our secular atomized numericized global culture (there are other cultures besides that even occupying the same space though), why should there not be people working on such projective ideological abstract models...and should we dismiss them readily and naively based on present assumptions of what presently and temporarily constitute "pragmatics", as some of you here are unfortunately doing, or should we deal with their ideas on their turf, criticize them for the impacts their might have on people, dig into the origins of their thoughts and imagine their outcome? there are people who dream up something, there are people who connect this dream to the industry and work towards it, and there are those who perfect the tools to realize the dream. have respect for the idiosynchracy of an individuals plateau of contribution and stop fucking lecturing about cabinets. these people are not in an undergrad course and the many of you blabbering about pragmatics certainly are not accomplished crits.

critics rather.

and: projective, ideological and abstract models
deal= ideal

their= they

etc

son, yr hair is too long fer this office.

why don't you try to be a little more, you know,
respectable.

"In 'architecture' there becomes this desire to stunt with the 'technology'. Where a designer is thinking that they can pull something never seen before. (there is value here, buts its some what impractical at this point in time)"

Welcome to the idea of Novelty.



"What I find most interesting is that there is this common belief out there that the technology, this specific type, will tell you (the designer) something that you don't already know and make your design that much better. Wake up. What usually happens is you waste thousands in man hours trying to build something that wasn't designed well from the start."



Tell that to Arup, Buro Happold, Frei Otto, and on and on. Knowledge is power and with computation and intuition many have been able to adopt novel solutions using "bourgeois" means.


At what point then is technology valid and when is it mute? And who gets to decide? This is always the case and parametricism has not changed that truth.

"Gehry's spaghetti is now being shelved on isle 7."


Ghery's work is not parametric. It is sculptural top down. It is made first then digitized...he uses things like scrap carpet and glue guns. There is no script to his work at all out side of extracting data for construction.

architecture isn't just about form-making. Most of what we do deals with how people use and experience space.

and who has the map to this mysterious Isle 7?

how do i get there?

I think it is next to the aisle that sells the chain link - across from all that "modular" stuff.

"architecture isn't just about form-making. Most of what we do deals with how people use and experience space."

Of course it does - now explain to the average client about why you should be paid to create a building based on user experience in light of the growing accessibility of computation to almost everyone who has an interest in form-making.

...Ghery's work is not parametric. It is sculptural top down. It is made first then digitized...he uses things like scrap carpet and glue guns. There is no script to his work at all out side of extracting data for construction...

I could have agreed with most of what you wrote until you decided to over extend yourself. Did it hurt?

When The Concorde was decommissioned from service, one of these marvels of parametric technology was shipped on a barge to its resting place. (next to the US Intrepid Sea, Air & Space museum.)

Were you one of those people gasping at what a ridiculous site "A plane on a boat was?" Some asked "Why, when they could have easily flown and landed the plan on the 'boat'?"

I can't help but think there are a few fundamental miscalculations you are making in your judgment not to mention you frankly (pun) don't know what you are talking about.

Ok,

I have been trying to think of an example of what I am trying to get at. Read this article in Wired Magazine:

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough

Despite low quality image capture on mobile phones, the use and distribution of that kind of media has become ubiquitous and has even changed what is expected in terms of what people accept.

The old adage of capturing images in the highest quality device possible, has been replaced with low cost devices whose sole purpose is to provide Youtube quality media.

Why? Widespread availability and the simplification of access means that people will accept lower quality to get greater access.

There is a lesson here for computation in application in architecture. Who is generating the content for 3D models in Google Earth?

What, aside from your degree and knowledge will stop others from trying to engage in building when the methods used to create buildings are becoming simpler and more widely available?

As I said before, anything that can be programmed, will be. Streetview anyone?

The nuance or degree of complexity you use computation for in architecture will not be enough to sufficiiently differentiate what you produce, from what someone else can produce using similar media.

interesting dicussion. i can no longer tell if you all are discussing the glorified blobby parametrics of schumacher or the revit-based parametrics of insert corporate office here. no matter really. while certainly not being one in the same, there is room in this world for both. therefore setting up a parametricism versus ? dualism is really sort of pointless. if zeitgeist is what you are interested in, then i say simply, "yes."

Nope. Facts don't hurt. Quite a pithy response for someone with so little to offer.

demonoid anyone?