please post something regarding this so we can evaluate it....
i do always enjoy seeing what marcos is doing, but alas his stuff has rarely had any possibility of impacting the practicalities of the profession. brilliant human being, incredibly sophisticated artist, but alas....architecture suffers neither well as it is much broader, muddier, and affected than such brilliance can typically deal with. i'd love to see what he's up to now, though.

HI,

his most recent work is AlloBrain@AlloSphere, which is where Novak's own scanned brain becomes a literal, reflexive generating force in the formation of a spatial environment. virtyally he can change void into mass and therefore 'inhabit' his own brain or extrapolate interesting pieces of it as architectural models.

http://www.mat.ucsb.edu/allosphere/

this site will tell you more about the AlloSphere itself.

i would really like to hear what you think about his new work.

cheers

I have not seen any of this work that was much more than 'art', not architecture.

That said, he was a very influential professor of mine from a purely creative standpoint. He was just starting with motion sensors when I had him.

Based on his older work, I'd say that his work is very inspiring but as futureboy notes, it will not penetrate the profession.


For better or worse, it takes practical (ie monetary) usage for any new technology to make it into any part of the business world.

So be inspired enjoy, but make sure that you understand the difference between companies like Microsoft working towards sophisticated interaction and an artist's experiments. MS is doing it for future business, they have money to burn and they will revolutionize interaction in the future.

Novak might inspire some thinking, but will never have the $$ to push things far enough to be influential to the profession.
I wouldn't consider anything in architecture 'visionary' unless you can truly impact the business side of architecture (it has to be able to be 'real', not just general ideas).

Neil -

Been awhile since I’ve seen Novak’s name come up in these parts. Your thread makes me want to respond in spades.

I know the novel-as-comment is oh-so tacky, but what the hell. Here you go.

I am not familiar w/ Novak's recent work. Although I agree w/ futureboy's personal portrait of Marcos, I feel his work in the field of architecture to be too infatuated with digital technology to really shed light on architectural issues.

This is mainly because the 'virtual environment' as portrayed in his work, and the work of many others seeking to expand human experience by merging digital technology and the perceptual construct of physical reality, is a bad metaphor, and the architectural-futurist ambitions behind the allosphere are just as flawed.

The truth is: notions that digital 'places' have any correlation to physical reality are way too inefficient to survive the process by which technology continually discards extraneous information in pursuit of efficiency. Replicating any aspect of physical reality, even in the most rudimentary sense of having three spatial dimensions, using a microprocessor (or any other binary-based device medium) represents an unnecessary investment of processing resources. Digital ‘places’ have yet to be encountered in reality (physical or otherwise) because of our limited technology. When we do catch up, the uncompromising efficiency inherent in binary mathematics will force us to leave all our physical preconceptions behind lest we fail to fully understand what it means to exist digitally.

Consider the act of compiling code – tools like C++ and JAVA are shells that bridge the gap between our language and the microprocessor’s native tongue. If a microprocessor had to speak our language, personal computing would probably still be decades of technical development away. Compiling allows us to work in a familiar but expanded format without encumbering the microprocessor by forcing it to process unnecessary pieces of information to reach its objective. As unappealing as it may sound, integrating w/ digital technology will mean addressing the microprocessor in its own terms; probably by compiling ourselves - immersion via something akin to transplanting one’s psyche to a ROM chip; something that would make physical apparatus like the allosphere utterly unable to compete since things of its nature are *always* obsolete before they are completed.

I want to emphasize that it is the futurist ambitions represented by the allosphere that I think are silly. The allosphere will always be a snapshot along the path of technological process and as such, it will always have a unique 'flavor' that possesses the potential for unique forms of expression. Pop culture is full of similar examples - DJ's and hip-hop resuscitating the vinyl LP, bit rock composers reinventing the Game Boy console, etc. Check this news item here on this site regarding vector-based displays in old video games. This cultural dynamic is the allosphere’s destiny, and it does seem exciting in this very limited respect.

I realize that characterizing Novak's architectural proposals as 'virtual' does them a bit of a disservice. I suppose a supporter of his work would point out that these places he invents are not meant to be surrogates for physical reality as I seem to be suggesting here. However, this argument doesn't avoid the fact that he is focused on translating concepts from physical reality – a strategy that will prevent him from breaking through to what he seems to be characterizing as the next step in human evolution. Seems a bit ironic, no?

I also want to make it clear that I am only critical of the architectural re-fashioning of Novak’s work. It is inappropriate (and probably impossible) to dismiss its artistic potential – but then if we approached it from that angle, we wouldn’t be talking about it here, would we?

johnszot...good to hear from you. it's been a while.
we met several time in nyc, mostly around pratt...did i mention i recently moved to austin....been running into a few people who've mentioned your name down here.

Neil,
as an aside related to johnszot's very well presented critique. i would suggest that there is a very interesting potential in people like novak's work in relation to the virtual prototype. if one were to "misread" novak's intentions and instead align his work toward an interactive virtual prototyping of space and artifact...it might gain more relevance to the profession of architecture. in fact one could argue that there has been a stream of influential work in this regard which is often aligned with novak's work..but in my experience such a direct correlation hasn't been novak's intention.

neil - i got your email; with your blessing, i'd like to keep this conversation a matter of public record. if you post your request here, i'll do my best to formulate a thoughtful response

ftrby - ah, austin. i miss it so. wish they would've kept me; i had a cush office in the West Mall office Bldg overlooking Goldsmith. i'm going to be on a panel for SXSW interactive in March - drop in and say hello or email me where the party's at

Hi,

Thank you for taking time to respond to my discussion on Marcos Novak. I have found finding an informative response on forums can be very difficult, so all your replys are very much welcomed.

I was hoping that you could take time to respond to the following text, as it is informing my research into Novak.

Modern information technology and the rapid spread of computer-aided design (CAD) to all fields of architecture and design, has helped to free up design and designers' creative processes. With the latest three-dimensional design software it is much easier to design and model sophisticated and complex shapes and forms.

But what are the reasons behind this nature-inspired design? With the exception of those who adhere to functional design, why in recent times have we started arranging ourselves in surroundings inspired by topography or vegetation, or which take on the forms of human or animal bodies or body parts?

Cheers

Neil Corr

N -

in response to your second question (?) ("But what are the reasons behind....") - i think if you search the message board you'll find a wide range of rationales and reactions. it's highly subjective territory and there are probably as many critics of these kinds of designs as there are proponents. an interesting and engrossing debate if you care to join it, to be sure.

One thing is for certain tho - elaborate metaphors tied to exotic geometry are clearly attempts to propel an unlikely project into being built; this is Eisenman's (sp?) game, and if you follow him closely, you'll find that lately he's been unravelling his legacy through from-the-hip remarks about his own built work; it's very disquieting to see this happen considering the number of architects that have mistaken Eisenman's political career for his design approach.

In response to the first bit - reading your paragraph carefully ("Modern information tech...") i think there's a kind of sleight of hand at work; yes - CAD has freed up designers and CAD makes it easier to document complex forms for construction, but these two statements don't necessarily follow one another. Some designers would have their audience believe that, however - which makes it a riff on the Eisenman dynamic described above. No designer worth their salt believes there's an inherent form favored by computers - they make boxes and blobs both look good. This is really a personal predilection, or projection if you like; just like seeing animals or topographical features in the forms themselves.

The reason many designers have started exploring unconventional geometries in their projects is because now the possibilities are broadly within reach of every practitioner. So, it's done, because it can be done.

And for another reason: much of this "progressive" exploration happens in the US, and in proximity to image-industries. ---> there is a large pool of architects without the need/possibility/talent to engage meaningfully with real, built architecture and a large demand for creative forms/surroundings for entertainment-purposes (movies/games/interaction-platforms).

No idea why this development is often viewed as a part of the avant-garde, regarding architecture.

I am not sure how old everyone is, but people will exploring avant garde geometry long before Maya and Rhino were invented (anyone remember Decon?). Indeed, Novak was using Form-Z when I took him (he had a demo of the soon-to-be-released Maya).

The notes on politics certainly play a part. Novak was kicked out of UCLA for this reason as well, while Lynn went on to marry Sylvia Lavin, the then chair of arch.


Neil - I think that you need to separate the 'real' from the 'real bs'. Each can be cool, but only one is architecture.

Look at comparing someone like Gehry to Greg Lynn. One designs and then uses technology to build it efficiently, the other uses technology to build forms, but there is no practicality in the design and, therefore, very very little built (and damn ugly what is).

I also think that there is within Neil's recent post a bias of the architectural media. The selection of images to sell concepts to the profession at large and the larger public audience is not necessarily fueled by necessity or inevitability, but instead an attempt to metaphorically translate the intangible...now this might sound like the grasping of a zeitgeist, but is actually the supplanting of a "larger consciousness" with a mediated vizualization of a conceptual argument. this is what i was sort of referring to in my previous post. does a landscape looking architecture actually function better than a building looking architecture? or is it that visually landscape looking architecture sell the idea of a environmentally functional architecture better than a building looking architecture....
also, johnszot's relation of this whole argument to eisenman's intellectual legacy is quite apt. in fact many of the progenitors of the architecture you reference can be tied quite easily to eisenman. it's like 6 degrees of kevin bacon, except more like, 2 degrees of eisenman.