Came across these two videos via Bruce Sterling blog today.
While I agree with Bruce's sentiment here and previously expressed that it is wonderful to see "architectural fiction" being explored (ie; pushing the boundaries of what is architecture) most of the work shown/discussed i find less than inspiring. Not because they are particularly "radical" but rather because they are not radical enough? It seems as if for the most part "robotic" architecture is used mostly as a generative, formative and expressionistic device rather than proposing particularly new ways of thing about architecture or creating/building architecture. Or buildings that address particular pressing concerns of contemporary society. Movable buildings aren't new. What about a building that built itself? Even that idea wouldn't be original.
However, one of the proposed "works" I did find enticing. Specifically the last one in the second video wherein the girl describes a "carpet with small circles" that featured movable sectional pieces and was inspired by "plant robots"??
The idea while interesting was over shadowed by the image(s) of a "green" robotic "flower" carpet growing over the city.
One thing (of many) that I loved about it was that the boundaries were set very explicitly right at the start - this was going to be a project about Culture, Aesthetics, Technology, and Motion. That's it.
Anybody who wasn't down with that didn't bother signing up, so the discussion got really in-depth because the limits were so tightly drawn.
It seems large, but think about what's not included: no urbanism, no sustainability, no budget, not even really any program, the thing is a transformable concert venue ... it was a very narrow set of explicit concerns, and I thought that was really refreshing.
"buildings should move to create a spectacle" , gl.
these words are tiring. after almost 40 years or more, architects are still seeking for a spectacle, this is where i see fallacy. there should be a building that created that spectacle and we should be already well into advance motion stages. where is it? it is not right continuously to ask apologies from people. after all these years, students, models, drawings, lectures, money, elite accommodations etc.
at least roboteers make robots and they make it well.
No apologies necessary, agreed. And yes, I tend to think that bringing in other relationships and criteria besides the spectacular tends to make things more interesting, at least in the larger world. But I also tend to think that design is (among other things) the art of defining your brief, and then executing a project within that arena that expands the boundaries of it. As such, this was a great place to work within, and a great place to learn about design methods.
Anybody from the Angewandte out there have anything to say on this?
i've always found it a bit of a shame how gl channels his ambitions. robotic architecture is to me an extremely fascinating prospect, but to the end of making spectacle? i could think of a large series of more relevant criteria for architecture to move and respond. anything from putting real intelligence into the already moving parts of any building, e.g. shading, ventilation to actually conceiving of space that offers the opportunity to reconfigure itself. in this instance it's both wanting and moving, as far as I'm concerned. a lot of the reason why we're not further ahead in the "advance motion stages" is because the majority of stuff being built is still executed with largely ancient building concepts. those concepts can be pushed forward by this type of thinking. maybe the idea doesn't have to be "new" since it apparently has still to find a good enough execution?
Interesting question nocti,
In a follow up email to 765 i mentioned to him something along the same lines.
That what i find most interesting about discussing the possibilities of robotic architecture is not so much the movement/moveable aspect but the exploration of issues such as self-replication, artificial intelligence, and organic vs non-organic that robotics bring to mind.
The field becomes almost infinitely more exciting when you realize that architectural projects, by definition, entail the reimagination of how humans might inhabit the earth – how they organize themselves spatially and give shape to their everyday lives. Architecture is, within mere instants of discussing any idea or project, real or imagined, something with anthropological, economic, legal, libidinal, seismic, and even planetary implications.
In fact, if architecture can be viewed as the material alteration of the earth's surface, then it is not a stretch to say that architecture has astronomical consequences: it can alter the very shape of a planet.
Little wonder, then, if we do decide to go in this direction, that there appears to be a growing cross-over of interests between architecture and science fiction – as in, for instance, the work produced by Nic Clear's
..... Finally – because you can simply read the interview itself in full – Clear sums it all up: "We have to stop thinking about architecture simply in terms of building buildings – that’s why I am so interested in looking at other models and disciplines to draw inspiration from."
@ nocti - one could argue that the buildings 'want' to move because capital wants them to move. Again, the implications of that were intentionally outside the scope here. Not that it's above question, but I'm just saying I got out a lot out of the temporarily narrow focus.
I think this specific concern is intentionally neutralized by the careful use of the word 'spectacle' in the studio description. The creation of a spectacle was precisely the point.
Yawn. Sorry, but if it weren't for the better animation and prototypes, this is the same studio over and over. Also, there were many others that were interested in movement before he was, a class I had in a Wes Jones studio comes to mind.
In the end, this is just playing a la Hollywood. Nothing real or practical about it. That's the problem, this is just for 'play' without substance or purpose.
Call this sculpture, and I like it and find it fascinating, call it architecture and I can't help but roll my eyes.
I thought Greg Lynn's comments regarding the spectacle were neutral and framed as an area of study rather than a justification.
Same can be said of "Learning from Las Vegas" because it is exactly that, something to be learned, and there is no question about how much influence that book and body of research has had on generations of architects.
The problem with architecture as cultural commentary is that what constitutes culture is usually not decided by architects. Architects are only left to respond, participate to some degree, and in the end, maybe learn something.
That said, I think if people are fascinated with robots, and architects want to do robots, I say go nuts!
Seems like an interesting studio. not all studios have to be about creating an actual identifiable building type. of course they are always going to be about teaching skills that are useful in professional practice (i.e. presentation skills), but the good ones are also about challenging the students to think differently about some aspect of architecture. IMO, how you get there has absolutely no bearing on whether or not there is a recognizable "architecture" at the end of the studio. It's the totality of the education that helps the students prepare for professional practice - not an individual studio.
However, a program would be very irresponsible if it only offered abstract conceptual studios without a clear understanding of their context in the school-wide curriculum.
As much as I have always loved GL's work, his explorations into robots smack of avant garde posturing as a result of his embarrassment over his early writings and work, which ironically was by far the most inspired, foresighted and well researched of anything he has done. It is sad to me that he has chosen not to approach the implicit theory which surrounds robots in the same way. Chuck Hoberman is light years ahead of anything Lynn has purported to do with robotics and architecture.
i wonder whether that robot-vehicle was furnished with a toilet and a kitchenette in its the pilot cabin of its head. peeing inside a robot's skull, amusing.
the point wasn't about style, but that he's made buildings that move.
Dunno, I guess I am tired of these 'theoretical' experiments. It is cool stuff, nice 'art' or 'sculpture', but it is taken so seriously in these circles. That, and it is essentially the same stuff from a decade ago.
robots don't have to be intelligent...you are accessorizing reality with science fiction. My dumb auto vacuum is a robot. something can also have intelligence, say a program on a computer, and not be a robot.
if ur vacuum can memorize how many dust it sucked in last time, its density and content then reconfigure the interval required and its duration and power... then is a robotic... + not bump into furniture next time it automatically start...
Is it realy so, that a small routered image of the thing, is now called architecture, -- then try expand it and ask people to use that huge styrofoam image of how it shuld look alike. Gee -- it's about calculating the form into a structure and a paneling, it's not about mimic the form with a router that was invented before the 60' --- this is wrong, robotics is not the answer recurtion are, as that can generate the structure.
But 3dh is imune to those things, Solid modeling place the tools for building parts manufactoring, even by algoritm, litteraly in the hands of the designers, it's new it's 100 pct. digital, and the form , --- Well with 3dh it's you that shape, -- not a mashin not a rugud engineering dictate, You!
The program take care of testing it's own major cooerdinate, go from there or point me a better idea.
I don't think a brick wall is what will provide the architecture outlined here. Calculated structure assembly pieces are newer manufactored cheaper and with greated accurency then what is calculated from a 3D model.
Tradisional æattrices are made from dusins of various beams stringers and fittings, 3dh allow just one naterial, just sheet materials, -- and if what is here do not deliver the qualities, then what's easier, then develobing new engineered sheets, to fulfill just that issue, -- thickness of sandwich aso.
Beside, 3dh is possible easy, with 3D CAD and laser or water cutters, the cheapest N.C. Manufactoring possible.
Offcaurse this do not work as an image of the thing.
I made my paintings and murals for the geneal public, they are crazy about them. 3dh is not complex at all , a child can understand it, Those who "can not" understand it often are just stubbern, --- just look back and read how the arguments newer was about 3dh, but about my person, bad jokes made towerds me from some bored usenet group looking for new pray, people focused by a childlish drive "to bring it down". Newer has so foolish arguments taken place, arguments replaced with personal attacks, and silli bragging from people capable of only their own language, using spell foults as arguments.
But true -- if all the personal attacks is just a reflection of what you call "boring for general public..kakaka..." , then I see what you mean.
Weting your pants exited by the dirt the other guy's allowed you to throw ; Na I don't think you aspect, can say people has been bored, -- they uncovered what is their innermost thoughts when someone else succes to suggest a splendid vision, but the underdog attitude is what has been here, not the bored one.
but i hardly see any vision here, just a dumb grid being extruded, not only a child can understand but they can also do it blindfolded in 123 steps- grid>deform>polyextrude...
Looks as if a load of studio's is not seeing this like the "general public..kakaka..." , and please do not blame me for your lack of seeing, maybe you can spot a spell foult instantly but is blind to the picture and you can't blame anyone for that, -- you can say exactly the same about a brick, a steel beam any building displayed with it's structure, fact is that 3dh is still the only pointer to a system, that work with 3D modeling and cheap manufactoring. --- qho can't blindfolded stack bricks, bot do that offer jobs with the computer, do that build litterly anything, --- and btw, isn't you saying both yes and no, by first saying, I quote :
"complex for some ppl"
"not only a child can understand but they can also do it blindfolded in 123 steps- grid>deform>polyextrude..."
I think the best way for you to realise, is to take my challance, and display something better, now yoy think it is so boring, then for a clever guy as yourself, it must be easy to publish a brand new method no one thought of before, one that make jobs with the computer and project houses so easy, that even a child understand.
Yake my challance and stop those silli cheap complains --- Show a better system the world need new cheap and digital building methods.
It's only lazy by you to brag about how clever you are, not by showing something better. but only complaining like this ;
""not only a child can understand but they can also do it blindfolded in 123 steps- grid>deform>polyextrude..."
"u need to have better vision."
What about displaying a better vision yourself instead of licking up to the class bully ? Gee so many others has said their meaning, so many others has Borowed from it ,what do that tell about american universities.
Just to have a Vision. -- isn't that what it is about.
Show and display something better, the only boring issue there is that instead of being challanced to play along as creative people do, instead of saying thank you for a brave idea, then this site turn to hate the guy who can acturely maneage, and the underdog hounddogs wet the pants in joy. finding a new victim.
Oh how you guy's hate the one who maneage a great Vision, Oh and his paintings, now how could you comment, --- blind for the image blind for the vision. It's only about picking on the weak guy that's how to grow, and if the guy is not weak, then the funnyer it become to crowd behind the class bully.
Jan 18, 09 9:34 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Studio Lynn-Robotic Architecture?
Came across these two videos via Bruce Sterling blog today.
While I agree with Bruce's sentiment here and previously expressed that it is wonderful to see "architectural fiction" being explored (ie; pushing the boundaries of what is architecture) most of the work shown/discussed i find less than inspiring. Not because they are particularly "radical" but rather because they are not radical enough? It seems as if for the most part "robotic" architecture is used mostly as a generative, formative and expressionistic device rather than proposing particularly new ways of thing about architecture or creating/building architecture. Or buildings that address particular pressing concerns of contemporary society. Movable buildings aren't new. What about a building that built itself? Even that idea wouldn't be original.
However, one of the proposed "works" I did find enticing. Specifically the last one in the second video wherein the girl describes a "carpet with small circles" that featured movable sectional pieces and was inspired by "plant robots"??
The idea while interesting was over shadowed by the image(s) of a "green" robotic "flower" carpet growing over the city.
How about you all any thoughts?
I'm biased, I was in this studio at Yale in '06.
One thing (of many) that I loved about it was that the boundaries were set very explicitly right at the start - this was going to be a project about Culture, Aesthetics, Technology, and Motion. That's it.
Anybody who wasn't down with that didn't bother signing up, so the discussion got really in-depth because the limits were so tightly drawn.
that's like pretty large perimeters. you can almost grab anything with those four. many projects in schools don't even have quarter of that range.
It seems large, but think about what's not included: no urbanism, no sustainability, no budget, not even really any program, the thing is a transformable concert venue ... it was a very narrow set of explicit concerns, and I thought that was really refreshing.
"buildings should move to create a spectacle" , gl.
these words are tiring. after almost 40 years or more, architects are still seeking for a spectacle, this is where i see fallacy. there should be a building that created that spectacle and we should be already well into advance motion stages. where is it? it is not right continuously to ask apologies from people. after all these years, students, models, drawings, lectures, money, elite accommodations etc.
at least roboteers make robots and they make it well.
where is the building?
"buildings should move to create a spectacle"
quite right, i found it spectacular when some buildings are moved away!
wonder why they not invite denari for critique...
No apologies necessary, agreed. And yes, I tend to think that bringing in other relationships and criteria besides the spectacular tends to make things more interesting, at least in the larger world. But I also tend to think that design is (among other things) the art of defining your brief, and then executing a project within that arena that expands the boundaries of it. As such, this was a great place to work within, and a great place to learn about design methods.
Anybody from the Angewandte out there have anything to say on this?
why would a building 'want' to move? are we more concerend with the wanting bit or the moving bit?
soon near you
i've always found it a bit of a shame how gl channels his ambitions. robotic architecture is to me an extremely fascinating prospect, but to the end of making spectacle? i could think of a large series of more relevant criteria for architecture to move and respond. anything from putting real intelligence into the already moving parts of any building, e.g. shading, ventilation to actually conceiving of space that offers the opportunity to reconfigure itself. in this instance it's both wanting and moving, as far as I'm concerned. a lot of the reason why we're not further ahead in the "advance motion stages" is because the majority of stuff being built is still executed with largely ancient building concepts. those concepts can be pushed forward by this type of thinking. maybe the idea doesn't have to be "new" since it apparently has still to find a good enough execution?
Interesting question nocti,
In a follow up email to 765 i mentioned to him something along the same lines.
That what i find most interesting about discussing the possibilities of robotic architecture is not so much the movement/moveable aspect but the exploration of issues such as self-replication, artificial intelligence, and organic vs non-organic that robotics bring to mind.
hey greg, ignore the naysayer, one day ur robotic architecture will become household name... can't wait to see it happen^^
passage from blgblog
The field becomes almost infinitely more exciting when you realize that architectural projects, by definition, entail the reimagination of how humans might inhabit the earth – how they organize themselves spatially and give shape to their everyday lives. Architecture is, within mere instants of discussing any idea or project, real or imagined, something with anthropological, economic, legal, libidinal, seismic, and even planetary implications.
In fact, if architecture can be viewed as the material alteration of the earth's surface, then it is not a stretch to say that architecture has astronomical consequences: it can alter the very shape of a planet.
Little wonder, then, if we do decide to go in this direction, that there appears to be a growing cross-over of interests between architecture and science fiction – as in, for instance, the work produced by Nic Clear's
..... Finally – because you can simply read the interview itself in full – Clear sums it all up: "We have to stop thinking about architecture simply in terms of building buildings – that’s why I am so interested in looking at other models and disciplines to draw inspiration from."
http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/architects-of-near-future.html
@ nocti - one could argue that the buildings 'want' to move because capital wants them to move. Again, the implications of that were intentionally outside the scope here. Not that it's above question, but I'm just saying I got out a lot out of the temporarily narrow focus.
I think this specific concern is intentionally neutralized by the careful use of the word 'spectacle' in the studio description. The creation of a spectacle was precisely the point.
is it just me or is this beyond extreme. i mean... seriously?
Yawn. Sorry, but if it weren't for the better animation and prototypes, this is the same studio over and over. Also, there were many others that were interested in movement before he was, a class I had in a Wes Jones studio comes to mind.
In the end, this is just playing a la Hollywood. Nothing real or practical about it. That's the problem, this is just for 'play' without substance or purpose.
Call this sculpture, and I like it and find it fascinating, call it architecture and I can't help but roll my eyes.
I thought Greg Lynn's comments regarding the spectacle were neutral and framed as an area of study rather than a justification.
Same can be said of "Learning from Las Vegas" because it is exactly that, something to be learned, and there is no question about how much influence that book and body of research has had on generations of architects.
The problem with architecture as cultural commentary is that what constitutes culture is usually not decided by architects. Architects are only left to respond, participate to some degree, and in the end, maybe learn something.
That said, I think if people are fascinated with robots, and architects want to do robots, I say go nuts!
robot and architecture are inherently embedded with human body matrix and shape our habitual pattern... who dare said they are not the same?
I want to see architecture manufactured by robots, just like cars. Cheap, efficient, better designed and compact.
Seems like an interesting studio. not all studios have to be about creating an actual identifiable building type. of course they are always going to be about teaching skills that are useful in professional practice (i.e. presentation skills), but the good ones are also about challenging the students to think differently about some aspect of architecture. IMO, how you get there has absolutely no bearing on whether or not there is a recognizable "architecture" at the end of the studio. It's the totality of the education that helps the students prepare for professional practice - not an individual studio.
However, a program would be very irresponsible if it only offered abstract conceptual studios without a clear understanding of their context in the school-wide curriculum.
Yeah, of course this is just one of many ways to do things.
The option studio I took before this one was with Glenn Murcutt, BTW, very different.
buildings should move. so i don't have to.
As much as I have always loved GL's work, his explorations into robots smack of avant garde posturing as a result of his embarrassment over his early writings and work, which ironically was by far the most inspired, foresighted and well researched of anything he has done. It is sad to me that he has chosen not to approach the implicit theory which surrounds robots in the same way. Chuck Hoberman is light years ahead of anything Lynn has purported to do with robotics and architecture.
Calatrava is light years ahead of Lynn, without the pretentious archi-babble.
While I find is forms some of the ugliest stuff on planet earth, I did enjoy his first book and early writings.
i think calatrava is light years behind the organic architecture during 1960's...
robot + architecture= grendizer
i wonder whether that robot-vehicle was furnished with a toilet and a kitchenette in its the pilot cabin of its head. peeing inside a robot's skull, amusing.
the point wasn't about style, but that he's made buildings that move.
Dunno, I guess I am tired of these 'theoretical' experiments. It is cool stuff, nice 'art' or 'sculpture', but it is taken so seriously in these circles. That, and it is essentially the same stuff from a decade ago.
How does something like this figure in?
I mean it focuses on the movable aspect we have talked about but i wouldn't call it robotic.
Read
when it is called a robotic, i think shall be embedded with somekind of intelligency...
robots don't have to be intelligent...you are accessorizing reality with science fiction. My dumb auto vacuum is a robot. something can also have intelligence, say a program on a computer, and not be a robot.
if ur vacuum can memorize how many dust it sucked in last time, its density and content then reconfigure the interval required and its duration and power... then is a robotic... + not bump into furniture next time it automatically start...
all those can be done by programming...
with great possibilities.
Is it realy so, that a small routered image of the thing, is now called architecture, -- then try expand it and ask people to use that huge styrofoam image of how it shuld look alike. Gee -- it's about calculating the form into a structure and a paneling, it's not about mimic the form with a router that was invented before the 60' --- this is wrong, robotics is not the answer recurtion are, as that can generate the structure.
may be ur imprisoned by form, structure,paneling all these years... time to set ur mind free...
But 3dh is imune to those things, Solid modeling place the tools for building parts manufactoring, even by algoritm, litteraly in the hands of the designers, it's new it's 100 pct. digital, and the form , --- Well with 3dh it's you that shape, -- not a mashin not a rugud engineering dictate, You!
The program take care of testing it's own major cooerdinate, go from there or point me a better idea.
talking to per is like talking to a brick wall...
I don't think a brick wall is what will provide the architecture outlined here. Calculated structure assembly pieces are newer manufactored cheaper and with greated accurency then what is calculated from a 3D model.
Tradisional æattrices are made from dusins of various beams stringers and fittings, 3dh allow just one naterial, just sheet materials, -- and if what is here do not deliver the qualities, then what's easier, then develobing new engineered sheets, to fulfill just that issue, -- thickness of sandwich aso.
Beside, 3dh is possible easy, with 3D CAD and laser or water cutters, the cheapest N.C. Manufactoring possible.
Offcaurse this do not work as an image of the thing.
As I said, 3dh is imune to that thing.
the algoritm for 3dh- grid>deform>polyextrude...
complex for some ppl, boring for general public..kakaka...
I made my paintings and murals for the geneal public, they are crazy about them. 3dh is not complex at all , a child can understand it, Those who "can not" understand it often are just stubbern, --- just look back and read how the arguments newer was about 3dh, but about my person, bad jokes made towerds me from some bored usenet group looking for new pray, people focused by a childlish drive "to bring it down". Newer has so foolish arguments taken place, arguments replaced with personal attacks, and silli bragging from people capable of only their own language, using spell foults as arguments.
But true -- if all the personal attacks is just a reflection of what you call "boring for general public..kakaka..." , then I see what you mean.
Weting your pants exited by the dirt the other guy's allowed you to throw ; Na I don't think you aspect, can say people has been bored, -- they uncovered what is their innermost thoughts when someone else succes to suggest a splendid vision, but the underdog attitude is what has been here, not the bored one.
but i hardly see any vision here, just a dumb grid being extruded, not only a child can understand but they can also do it blindfolded in 123 steps- grid>deform>polyextrude...
u need to have better vision.
Looks as if a load of studio's is not seeing this like the "general public..kakaka..." , and please do not blame me for your lack of seeing, maybe you can spot a spell foult instantly but is blind to the picture and you can't blame anyone for that, -- you can say exactly the same about a brick, a steel beam any building displayed with it's structure, fact is that 3dh is still the only pointer to a system, that work with 3D modeling and cheap manufactoring. --- qho can't blindfolded stack bricks, bot do that offer jobs with the computer, do that build litterly anything, --- and btw, isn't you saying both yes and no, by first saying, I quote :
"complex for some ppl"
"not only a child can understand but they can also do it blindfolded in 123 steps- grid>deform>polyextrude..."
I think the best way for you to realise, is to take my challance, and display something better, now yoy think it is so boring, then for a clever guy as yourself, it must be easy to publish a brand new method no one thought of before, one that make jobs with the computer and project houses so easy, that even a child understand.
Yake my challance and stop those silli cheap complains --- Show a better system the world need new cheap and digital building methods.
It's only lazy by you to brag about how clever you are, not by showing something better. but only complaining like this ;
""not only a child can understand but they can also do it blindfolded in 123 steps- grid>deform>polyextrude..."
"u need to have better vision."
What about displaying a better vision yourself instead of licking up to the class bully ? Gee so many others has said their meaning, so many others has Borowed from it ,what do that tell about american universities.
Just to have a Vision. -- isn't that what it is about.
Show and display something better, the only boring issue there is that instead of being challanced to play along as creative people do, instead of saying thank you for a brave idea, then this site turn to hate the guy who can acturely maneage, and the underdog hounddogs wet the pants in joy. finding a new victim.
Oh how you guy's hate the one who maneage a great Vision, Oh and his paintings, now how could you comment, --- blind for the image blind for the vision. It's only about picking on the weak guy that's how to grow, and if the guy is not weak, then the funnyer it become to crowd behind the class bully.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.