Patrick was formally championing "Parametricism" as the new pervasive era of design, while Roche exposed his surreal, phenomenological Deluzean dreams. The torrential downpour outside caused so many to leave the lecture early, but late that night, there was this tension in the air that I will never forget. It was as if we were seeing a new and very relevant debate crystallizing. Zellner and Leach provocation's and the way the lectures were curated seemed to pointedly pose the question to the new guard of parametricists and scripters that were there that day (including the likes of Fornes, Reas, and Snooks):
What does all this scripting really mean?
I think everyone on all sides of the debate looked to De Landa numerous times for an unequivocal nod of approval, but the debate was only further nuanced by the weight of so many powerful intellects. Conspicuously absent ( but listed on the bill) were Lynn and Hernan.
I myself am not entirely able to frame the entire discussion here...but am merely trying to learn more....and hope to see if anyone else attended and/or cares to help elaboate on their own stance on Parametricism /Scripting/Algorithmic as a valid and predominant phase of evolution of Architecture (as Schumacher would have you confirm):
...or is it something else....
Some, like Kwitner and Jason Payne, have have lumped scripters into the "third generation" of digital designers, and have suggested an inevitable deflation of the popularity of scripting and the parametricism for reasons such as a general lack of semiotics and ideation in much of the work.
I think that parametrics are definitely the way of the future, though the technology is still in its infancy nearly fifty years after early building information modeling technology was developed.
The problem is that right now, as in the past, there is not a system in place that can take my design and make it 'transparently parametric'.
There are great possibilities for pragmatic applications in scripting, such as determining optimum placement for photo-voltaics or operable windows for passive ventilation. But, as it is right now, the available options (maya + python, rhino + grasshopper) are too HEAVY and unintuitive to spark the market into adopting the technology.
Firms like Hadid's need a staff of programmer/designers which will certainly be the great hybrid architectural position of the coming decade, but will eventually be phased out as their knowledge is coded into simplified graphical user interfaces.
What will drive the evolution?
There is the carrot of "If I can draw a 'wall assembly' and specify the studs, structural loads, finishes, shape... and out comes a wall section which is already detailed with keynotes, I'm in good shape."
Another possibility is that rapid prototype construction becomes so streamlined that ordering a custom door handle or railing is just as costly as running down to Home Depot.
Until either of these things happen, Scripting is wet-dream neo-baroque awesomeness relegated to classrooms and the ultra-wealthy.
IMO :
Scripting + Intuitive Interface + Hard Data = The Future
To me saying parametrics will save architecture is kind of like saying artificial intelligence will save humanity. Yea, maybe. Or maybe it will erase architecture. Either way it isnt going to happen for 50 years.
I actually love the work, I love the ideas. I think though theres a kind of irrational over-exuberance about it that isnt really addressing some staggering challenges. So far Ive seen it achieve almost nothing beyond some pretty fanciful (and ludicrously expensive) formal novelties.
The first challenge is this:
Another possibility is that rapid prototype construction becomes so streamlined that ordering a custom door handle or railing is just as costly as running down to Home Depot.
The day I can order a custom toaster or iphone for the same price as I can pick one up at wall mart, I'll believe this is possible. Youre talking about the end of economies of scale, one of the most important underlying principles in all production and economics on earth. The trouble is, and anyone whose used a CNC mill will know this, every time a production component changes, time, energy, and money is consumed. This isnt trivial, especially when youre forcing minute formal alterations to every physical component a building is composed of. No matter how fancy your little robots are, youre talking about fundamental time and energy costs that are orders of magnitude higher than any form of mass production. Worse perhaps, is beyond time and energy, youre adding orders of magnitude increases in moving parts, wear on production systems, and opportunities for failure both during manufacture and in the final building. That means endless inspectors, quality controls, and repair challenges for anyone producing these things. Not to mention liability.
Im not saying the tools arent useful, just that we should be honest with ourselves about what the real limitations are. To me, for the foreseeable future, the genuine economic usefulness of this stuff is going to remain fairly limited.
The second major challenge I see is this:
Scripting + Intuitive Interface + Hard Data = The Future
This, is hard. Life is more than just complicated, its fucking unimaginable. I frankly havent seen anyone even start to think about this in a serious way. Sure, you can calculate out simple things like solar panel angles or how to cram the largest number of cubicles into a space, but that tells you almost nothing about what architecture really is, or what humans actually experience in space. At least cognitive scientists know enough about what theyre studying to admit they havent a fucking clue whats going on. I see no such awareness in the field of architecture. The truth is, and I think this is obvious, that efficiently accommodating human behavior and perception is the central function architecture fills, and there is essentially no data whatsoever on how to go about that. Any strait faced environmental psychologist will admit as much. So again, maybe. In 50 years, we'll have scratched enough of the surface to plug things into a computer and get something coherent back out, but for the foreseeable future these are pretty minor tools assisting within a much larger framework of hopefully thoughtful investigation into how to frame living space.
But who knows? Maybe even minor insights from environmental psychology will break into enormous innovations and advances. In a practical sense though, I personally wouldnt bet on it beating out good old fashioned common sense and creativity any time soon.
Anyway. Sorry for all the cold water. I didnt hear the lecture but I imagine that puts me in the roche camp?
i don't dismiss parametricism on any ideological grounds since that was never the intention, but my hope was that parametricism would result in the proliferation of knowledge production by allowing architects to experiment more efficiently, but all i have seen is morbid redundancy using scripting language developed over 20 years ago. has anything changed in the past year i have been out of school?
I think "parametricism" is being lumped into this greater complaint against starchitecture (brand-name architecture) and the excesses of the past decade because it was the tool of choice.
practically speaking, before parametric, say we took 100 steps to build a model, if we want to change any steps inbetween, we have to repeat the 100 steps again...
now its juz a click of a button,
i dun see why there is all this resentment about this very useful tool and mostly come from the ppl who doesn't know how to use... strange...
the resentment comes because by calling it "parametric" we prove we are illiterate in early 20th century science. And by fetishizing it, we look more akin to our colonial subjects than the colonial overseers we once were.
What if people get bored with it. If everything is scripted and parametric and neo-baroque, and you can make quick changes with the click of a button. It is paralyzing when everything is possible.
Is it progress that there are hundreds of cereals available, or you're just wasting time and can't choose and end up with the one you always have?
What if clients want something different than parametrics, if all is parametric the one handcrafted project stands out.
But if you look at the projects R&Sie produce against what Hadid's studio comes up with, R&Sie is way ahead, at least they don't repeat themselves all the time and really conceptually challenge each project. Remember "Dustyrelief" or "Aqua Alta", man those projects blew me away when I stumbled upon their monograph some years ago.
"Parametric design" is a tool for optimization, I don't understand how it could be a tool for "design" - design being the process of making choices and decisions about values and priorities.
It's a tool, people. Not something that in itself can produce meaning.
Helsinki is right. One must design and organize the parametric procedure. understand the extensive and intensive pressures. then one has designed a system which can produce a series of
"if all is parametric the one handcrafted project stands out"
If all is parametric all is handcrafted. There is not an either or. It is more a relationship of time and iteration that has been sped up and stored. We designed through iteration in the past - it was just lost as a purely linear pursuit. Now the non-linear aspect of the process, the parametric element, has been isolated and optimized to specific needs, goals, aims, etc.
I suspect most issues with parametrics come from a largely ignorant view and understanding of its meaning and application.
I also think the criticism of parametricism has more to do with the pedagogy of architecture and it's integration into curricula rather than whether or not it's worthwhile as a "movement."
in academia, it should be: "how do we use these tools in a way that doesn't distract from the development of the students as designers and architects.
IMO - the real issue is that when profs introduce unfamiliar tools with a steep learning curve (especially in some programs where they expect the students to learn the tools on their own) the studio becomes more about learning the tools than it is about learning design. Instead of recognizing their own failures in teaching, they criticize the tools for being a distraction.
There is also the chasm between parametrically defined forms (those that are not able to be well-defined by nonparametric means of drawing communication) that are nonetheless mute about their composition, construction, layers and details...
...versus the parametrically "informed" (information-imbued) designs that have all sorts of data but are mute as to what governs their geometry.
What loremipsum's post raises is whether construction-based hard data can be used to govern or determine the parametrics therein.
Was this part of the discussion at all?
So I'll confess, In the last two years in professional work Ive used this stuff exactly twice. There just werent the resources to take advantage of it in a way that made much sense. But I spent a good amount of time in it in my last two years at school. So I'll certainly admit I may fallen behind the curve, but Im not making these criticisms out of total ignorance. I agree, wholeheartedly, its a tool. Id argue its not really even that useful a tool, that claims of its near-term practical usefulness is grossly overstated, that its essentially at this point a luxurious aesthetic novelty. But "its a tool" is not the kind of claim being made by many^. Theres this hysteria and obsession with it in some circles, claiming 'Its the future', and 'It will change everything', that just doesnt seem to acknowledge the enormous technical hurdles it faces before it can become as powerful as they imagine it can be.
All BIM is parametric and I would argue that it is definitely growing in use...as opposed to it being used less and less.
There has also been a huge leaps in mathematic translation and adaptation which could also be argued as a parametric element. Basically it is those things that allow for variables to be constructed into the design for all sorts of elements - the use is up to you.
I would argue those saying it is the future are more siding with the notion that computational tools will more and more infiltrate our deisign and manufacturing processes...these tools are not merely to allow for making aesthetic novelty...that is merely the academic result in the sphere of semesters and budgets of students. There have been a plethora of new works developed in the last 10 years largely made possible due to computational and parametric flexibility throughout the design and manufacturing process. SHoP would be one such group.
I do agree though that others that preach these notions, say Hernan Diaz Alonzo, have not resolved the construction and production out of the machines who speak in the same mathematical tool language. He instead has had to fallback on handicraft from the film and theatre industry to finish off his work. But to his credit someone has to set some goals out of reach of attainment so that there is a trajectory for which to imagine.
You could also argue that parametrics starts in architecture with the search for ratios and proportions that held true outside of any individual form. such as pie * radius squared being a symbol of a circle vs. a specific single rational circle.
fibonacci, etc are all parametric examples and computation is why I believe you are seeing the excitement in the use. People today can conceptualize, write a program and get data back as real data in ways never imagined. If that doesn't excite you then you are not using your imagination enough. Gives me all the reason to never sleep. I love the stuff.
I do find that many who have issues with parametrics do not like programming at all, or, they have a particular distaste for a specific type of use, i.e. pure aesthetics.
I find those issues to be not against parametrics though, but a bigger question of aesthetics vs. everything. Material aesthetics can be just as blase. Granite counter top anyone? But a counter top manufacturer may love the parametric software that nests many projects at once into a single cut sheet that is then fed to a robot that cuts 5 projects at once saving time, material, etc...I think that the tools are actually being underestimated.
i think helsinki makes a great point about whether parametricism is a tool for optimization or for design, and i agree it is certainly a great tool for the former and will certainly change the way we practice architecture (money or no money). however, i am trying to separate from this debate and pose the question, "what have we learned from it?"
i have seen numerous case studies of how parametric design was implemented to optimize a predetermined or pre-designed building sytem e.g. norman foster's british museum, but where is the true design innovation? in other words, if you have enough conviction to assign parametric design an "ism" as in "modern-ism", what is "parametricism's" equivalent to the ribbon window?
The contribution may not necessarily be an aesthetic or formal element, but instead a change in methodology or project delivery. I think the ability to create mass customization on the scale of architecture would result in infinite variables that would be difficult to identify as the element that defined a movement. Parametricism has the ability to vertically integrate design and construction. This change will leave many traditional architects and contractors wondering how this simple tool left them in the dust.
wurdan, that's a good response. i also thought about mass customization, however i still don't think this movement is quite the paradigm shift that everyone totes. i don't think it's a matter of leaving traditional architects in the dust, but instead will be integrated into a larger body of knowledge. i certainly wouldn't consider it the movement that defined the past decade.
Chup; I'll take all that. I actually loved scripting, loved the precision control and the geometric freedom and surprises. To be honest though, it was the kind of neurotic obsessiveness it bred in me that worries me most. I felt this kind of sugar-high glee, and saw it in my peers, over what it was enabling, formally, that seemed to blind us to everything else. It absorbed so much of my time and attention, fighting the software to give me things I could pretend were economically buildable, this schizophrenic push-pull against standardization, I left the experience with this haunting feeling of "why"? Is the cost-benefit really applying itself to things that matter to real people? All these millions of micro-decisions that are being made for me, are they really producing value? or just a daunting and absurd level of complexity that causes more problems and waste than it solves?
Im worried about the rapidity of it, the seduction and shiny-object instant gratification it allows us to indulge in, that it consumes our time and energy on things that never really connect themselves to real human experience, and draws our attention away from the deeper socially consequential issues we should really be addressing. Im worried it promises efficiency, but in practice produces nothing of the kind. Im worried we should be thinking longer about human experience, taking the time to make these small human decisions and maximizing the visceral impact of each detail of design, not casting these decisions to the wind as we obsess over variables and script functions.
I mean of course, theres no reason we cant do both. I just worry we arent seeing that balance, and are losing focus on the things that really matter.
I would argue that the blob is not an aspect or Parametricism at all but rather the result of NURBS. Parametricism can result in extremely uniform geometries which leads back to my original post about the lack of a formal element. If you think of this as Gen I, Gen II, Gen III, etc., perhaps the blob could be considered a formal element that defines Gen I.
oe, I agree with everything you said. I want to be the person that starts to think about this in a serious way. Hopefully I am on the right track, my portfolio contains my early research.
I think that the movement which defined the past decade would be fantasy. As a whole, the professions avant-garde understood what Gehry pioneered in the 90s and we all started to design in 3d on the computer. The computer allowed for reinterpretation of large scale projects as visualization (and 3d modeling) made describing that kind of complex geometry at a massive scale, a possibility.
I'd say that the defining structures of the decade are those that used this technology in an elegant way.
Santiago Calatrava's Turning Torso
Herzog and Demeuron's Beijing Olympic Stadium
Rem Koolhaas's Seattle Public Library
Diller and Scofidio - Institute of Contemporary Art (Boston)
Norman Foster - Hearst Tower
(many more of course)
Crowning off the decade and starting into the next with the ultimate fantasy structure, the 2700 ft. tall Burj Khalifa (Dubai) by Adrian Smith (formerly of SOM).
What these projects have in common is that they allowed the representation to leave the sketchbook and enter the realm of 'total predictability'. The client could see the end product from every angle before it is constructed. This allowed a great deal of imagination to take place, an illustrator did not have to set up a perspective and do a complete rendering for every niche or corner, the shift enabled design with full disclosure (or what the client perceives to be full disclosure).
This type of design freedom is made much more accessible with parametrics, because if you designed the turning torso and found out six months into construction documents that you need to accomodate a larger mechanical duct because of an addition, the calculation of angles is completed without tedium, and many elements of the structure are automatically re-adjusted. Parametrics made the fantasy world more possible.
We've always had parametrics in a way. The French curve enables a series of curves of similar angle and proportion to be drawn. The same with the compass, or the green circle template. There have always been kits of parts to generate our drawings. These new parametrics are just more dynamic.
BTW, This is a great, civil, archinect discussion.
michaelangelo would have loved to design his cathedral with parametric design, so he can change his molding at any stage and see how it reconfigures the whole dome's configuration or change the the distance between Adam and God @ the creation of adam and see how it affect the curvature of the ceiling^^
Parametric design falling into the traditional form vs function gap: Rhine/Maya/etc scripted architecture (Type A) vs BIM (Type B). For now, Type A.
Type A
The contiguous, bridging, relationship between the gesture of form and the content of code is mutually Mimetic (code follows form (natural: cloud, tree, swarm...etc), (architectural) form follows code). The gap below the bridging transmission of instruction from code to form in realizing the formal design (and vice versa in the initial stage of forming the code) is Analogical, form and code exist on different sides of the analogical mirror; they do not share the same substance but they stand as analogical reflections of each other. Gapped yet bridged. The bridging between both form and content brings about an element of Mimetic inevitability which, when combined with the element of Analogical non-essentialism (since the relationship between form and code is not one owing to shared essence, of content, of material, but rather due to the cross-inscription of reaction and gesture embedded within code and form) causes us, who rely very much on identifying truth in material/essential terms, rather than in gestural terms, to be apprehensive. Which is to say, we judge a Mime, a doppelganger fake, a mocking non-truth, exactly by the combination of an exacting replication of gesture with a complete divergence of material (the Mime’s body differs from that of the Original’s). Therefore, the suspicion we might wield towards Type A design echoes our anxiety (which is the primal base of many horror stories: Frankenstein monster, lab created viruses, self-willed robots, zombies, doppelgangers…etc ) towards the “Otherful” inevitability implied by the transacting replication/reflection and the loss of our intermediacy to alter the relationship between the creating thought and the created artifact; the fear of being excluded as a third party by the code-form-reflexivity. The counter-argument notes that human intermediacy is still intact, albeit non-traditional. The architect no longer controls the process through eccentric disparate interventions at the level of singular gestures on her part to affect parts or even the whole of form, but rather at a “genetic engineering” level that tackles the parts and the whole without drawing such a distinction between the parts and the whole . The architect stretches her ghostly Matrix-like-coding fingers into the very DNA of an architectural being to rearrange, slice, and substitute transitive variables in stages that parallel the traditional design process, to and fro. The difference is, due to these stagings, Mimetic and Analogical, the medium of representation collapses into the medium of design generation. The traditional triadic hierarchical relationship, architect-representation-design, now becomes more egalitarian; the relationship between the latter three necessitates a reciprocity that situates the architect as an enabler and manipulator of the code (rather than its master, whereas traditionally the architect is the immediate master of her own lines) and the code as innately embedded within the form and vice versa. As such, code is not the representation of the resultant form (where traditionally, the sketch is a representation of the possibilities of the resultant form). This also explains why many proponents of parametric design (I’m thinking FOA and Schumacher, especially essential in their pedagogical role) lean on a Marxist-Capitalist combo that sees the architect as only part, an enabler and manipulator, of the larger equation (or larger code) rather than as an artist, a Romantic era-genuis type.
Now, the relationship between form and itself, intra-formality in Type-A, is openly Synecdochic . What is part and what is whole in the form is merely a choice of temporal closure, rather than spatial closure: when does the code cease rather than where/how do you complete the form…moreover, the part refers to the whole, the whole refers to the part, and both refer to an infinite code-similar (in place of self-similar, since the very changes of the self, in the guise of form, is ) universe… or paraverse? ). As stated above and contrasting with traditional design, parametric form is not an overall accumulation of gestural eccentricities but the programmed variable sequencing of similarity through the law of the scape.
oe, I hear you that all the scripting in the world can't encompass the emotional response of a person to a material object (at least I think that's what you're saying) and that's why parametrics is (are?) just yet one more tool for a good designer - using a human brain as a computer - to use.
On the other hand, people are infinitely adaptable, and I, with many others, can be so beguiled by a beautiful form brought about by scripting that I'm willing to give up some usability function to enjoy the aesthetic function. I do this, as do my clients, all the time: for example, having to take one more step to get the toaster out of the cabinet allows the cabinets to be symmetrical around the window, and the owner adjusts.
From Fondue's post: ...the relationship between the latter three necessitates a reciprocity that situates the architect as an enabler and manipulator of the code (rather than its master, whereas traditionally the architect is the immediate master of her own lines) and the code as innately embedded within the form and vice versa.
I've said this many, many times here, but I've always seen my role as architect as an enabler and manipulator of construction materials - be it computation processes or materials, there are limits within which we are privileged to work.
Totally. If this is what it is Im all down with it. All too often though thats not what Im seeing. Offices that invest in it, and the designs they produce, are completely consumed by it. They spend so much time and energy and with their head in code they never take it out. And because 98% of what all those work-hours produce is laughably overcomplicated and expensive to actually construct, it effectively becomes paper architecture. Except without the self-awareness that makes paper architecture interesting.
On the other hand, people are infinitely adaptable, and I, with many others, can be so beguiled by a beautiful form brought about by scripting that I'm willing to give up some usability function to enjoy the aesthetic function. I do this, as do my clients, all the time: for example, having to take one more step to get the toaster out of the cabinet allows the cabinets to be symmetrical around the window, and the owner adjusts.
So if Im arguing for "?", Im arguing against this. I dont want to beguile people into accepting cosmetic trivialities and waste that dont impact their quality of life. I think the mention of Michaelangelo is a pretty telling precedent. Michaelangelo bankrupted the wealthiest institution in europe with that damned thing. If Im going to invest in luxuries, I want them to be sensory luxuries, social luxuries, experiences that are more persistent and pervasive than the half-second tingle of "oh thats nice." Im all for people adjusting, the mutual influence of people and a lived-in space, but Id rather focus in on that and play with it directly than use it as a catch-all excuse for "well, we didnt really think about that." Im arguing for spending the majority of our time thinking about culture, human idiosyncrasies, the way bodies respond to material and experience. If I want to extend vertical thinking to something, its how economics and design and production can be streamlined for that. If youre going to spend money, spend it on people!
And Im certainly not arguing scripting cant assist in that, (though, considering the enormous gap in real data on these kinds of complex meaningful relationships, it will be enormously difficult), just that we should be wary of letting our pretty little monster taking over. People need to stop thinking about it as the central medium and end-all-be-all saviour of design, and start thinking of it more like we think of sustainability, or systems design, or sketching, a small facet of design that you just do.
I dont think its any surprise our profession has lost value, that people think of us as a bunch of out-to-lunch prima donnas. We arent actually doing anything. Not anything that matters to people in a lasting way at anyway. And so far, I dont think this helps.
oe At what point in the above description does a person get a home?
at no point. i don't have to include a consideration of every point, however significant it might strike me or you. my interest was to tackle the mentality behind one form of parametric design. that simple. and it does not mean that the discourse can't be expanded to address such a question as yours. but, knowing the way you think oe, i venture that you were using that question as not-so-covert criticism of my failing to recognize and address, what you deem to be, the most important question. quite simpley, that was not my concern. now you can pin me up on your crucifix for failing to be as moral a creature as you.
liberty bell,
i'm not talking about your venerated cabinets and carpenters sweetheart, but about an early stage of design where one is either dictated by certain form generating parameters or not. in parametric design, the intuitive leap from gesture to form typical of early morphosis, for instance, would not be possible unless the coding is perhaps so complex to the point of being unrecognizable, i.e. seemingly intuitive. but typically, formally parametric design bears a self-replicating counterintuitive formal insignia...one can tell it looks parametric in that the harmony of formal transitions are predicated. there is no eccentricity in the design.
furthermore, i am not criticizing either the pre-parametric or the parametric ways of working, but more humbly attempting to sieve out some underlying assumptions (i noted an argument and a counterargument) and perhaps certain kernels carried over from a wider forest of influence.
oe I dont think its any surprise our profession has lost value, that people think of us as a bunch of out-to-lunch prima donnas. We arent actually doing anything. Not anything that matters to people
then go fucking do something instead of nagging and criticizing people for having their thoughts rather than the ones you want them to have and yet, telling from your nag, can't formulate or actualize.
.. so I might have removed the 'hehe' before those other posts had entered in. Sorry to be so cute. This is a debate man. I havent argued against using parametric design, Ive been arguing its hype doesnt scale to its real usefulness. If you disagree, then argue it! Offer evidence! Describe how it can solve these problems, or how the advantages of it supersedes them. I want to believe! I just dont see it.
are you mindless or being assholic? i am arguing neither for nor against its usefulness. indeed, i am not arguing at all. if you wish to know what i did, read above.
, Im not trying to harass you man. This is a thread called "Parametricism vs. ?", that starts with a discussion summary that states "Patrick was formally championing "Parametricism" as the new pervasive era of design, while Roche exposed his surreal, phenomenological Deluzean dreams." That kind of implies a debate. Forgive me if I assumed from your comments you agreed with the former.
I imagine a world someday where architects sit in little cubicles and spend their days typing in data...500sf for this room, 1200sf for that....then when all the data has been entered the computer spits out a dozen or so different designs for you to choose from.
Did I really switch from computer science to architecture for this?
Now mind you, I don't really understand parametrics at all.
I'd like to comment on this debate, but don't really feel I understand parametricism well enough to have an opinion on it. I mean, I think I support the concept in general, and am in favour of many ideas championed by the ideology, but as I said, don't fully understand what it is, or how exactly it creates/informs design.
Where/how can I learn more about these tools and how they are used, in order to apply them myself. I regularly search the internet for articles and have also read Pamphlet Architecture 27: Tooling, and am finishing up Atlas of Novel Tectonics. I still, however, can't comprehend how one applies any given 'parametric' tool to generate form. I.e. given a design project, what is the role of parametric software and scripting, and at what point does the designer employ it? Is it simply a way to run through many iterations of an idea already conceived by the designer, only reducing the workload of calculating and optimizing, or is there in fact a generative capacity to the technology as well?
Perhaps someone can describe, in (some) detail, the process that went into a specific project?
Also, when referring to these parametric tools, what specifically is everyone talking about. It seems as though BIM tools like Revit fit into this category, though it seems quite distinct from something like Processing or SmartGeometry. I don't profess to know much about any of these programs, but I'm just wondering if they are all considered parametric tools. What are some other examples. To the people that consider themselves as having used parametric approaches or techniques: what aspect of the project do you consider parametric (e.g. did you use Revit, did you perform transformative operations with 3D software, did you have parts CNC machined, etc.)?
Sorry for my ignorance, and going somewhat off topic, but it seems as though a number of people don't fully understand what parametricism is, or how it manifests itself in the design process.
Fondue , thanks for your exegesis. Cant wait to read "Type B". We see you know this topic well.
I see my introduction supposes a debate, but to clarify, the common thread amongst many contemporary digital Architects and all the folks at this conference is that they are some how involved in supporting and/ or critiquing the so called movement of "parametrics". Everyone is respectively looking for more meaning in it. Without belaboring the definitions too much here...because I think we know what we are dealing with mostly.......I was hoping to see if there was a new dimensnion evolving that Roche's work seems to hint at.
I think the important thing François Roche brings to the discussion isn't antithetical to Parametricism, so much as it inclusive of semiotic and surrealist readings possible of scripting. He works with Fornes, so he could be called a Parametricist/ scripter as well. Even, I dare say that he almost suggests a definitive 'digital avant garde'. Which at least lifts the discourse above scripting as technique,
Admittedly, I don't really have the vocabulary many of you do about the subject. What I do know is that I shameless watch sites like:
Although I do salivate over the digital refinement of many of these selected projects. I also appreciate the curatorial finesse of the site. I see a valid contemporaniety and autonomy of a new era od design when I see these images.
If we look to Philip Johnson's manuevers with the International Style ( publication) and then like 50 yrs later with Decon (via an Exposition)...we see how we instrumental in engineering Architectural Theories (to his benefit). Schumaker is pulling a similar stunt, I think, by standing inf ront of so much imagery of derivatives of scripting and "parametricism". Just see his latest work titled:
"Parametricism - A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design " in the most recent AD mag. http://www.patrikschumacher.com/
Bataille also seems to be an important thinker for him.
i don't pretend to truly understand how architects can ''harness" bataille... unless, thematically resonant, they're maybe converting a brothel into a church or vice versa. he's one of the least " architectural" thinkers i've come across. a very particular ambience, his, rather than a spatio-temporal-centric philosophy per se; perhaps to add intellectual-fatale (a lot of bataille's is romantic and intuitive, morbid and sensitive) allure to their agenda. and how does his writings relate to parmatricism? 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.
actually i rethought this 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? which sounds stupid in context and is not at all a paradox.
what i should have meant to say was: the paradox of creating a forest of form: the complexity of the code must still be well understood, from the designer's stance, just as the complexity of the form is sent spiralling, twirling, dashing..etc..into incomprehensibility.
which makes sense. if schumacher is talking about a modernist's, a machinic, parametricism, fully cast in light..then, from what i understood ff33's description, Roche's version of parametricism is quite romantic, ambiguously twirling its intricate vines into the shadows.
Parametricism vs. ?
Three weeks ago, I attended USC's Intensive Fields conference where Patrick Schumacher [Zaha] sort of "faced off" with François Roche [R&Sie(n)].
http://arch-pubs.usc.edu/INTENSIVEFIELDS/
Patrick was formally championing "Parametricism" as the new pervasive era of design, while Roche exposed his surreal, phenomenological Deluzean dreams. The torrential downpour outside caused so many to leave the lecture early, but late that night, there was this tension in the air that I will never forget. It was as if we were seeing a new and very relevant debate crystallizing. Zellner and Leach provocation's and the way the lectures were curated seemed to pointedly pose the question to the new guard of parametricists and scripters that were there that day (including the likes of Fornes, Reas, and Snooks):
What does all this scripting really mean?
I think everyone on all sides of the debate looked to De Landa numerous times for an unequivocal nod of approval, but the debate was only further nuanced by the weight of so many powerful intellects. Conspicuously absent ( but listed on the bill) were Lynn and Hernan.
I myself am not entirely able to frame the entire discussion here...but am merely trying to learn more....and hope to see if anyone else attended and/or cares to help elaboate on their own stance on Parametricism /Scripting/Algorithmic as a valid and predominant phase of evolution of Architecture (as Schumacher would have you confirm):
...or is it something else....
Some, like Kwitner and Jason Payne, have have lumped scripters into the "third generation" of digital designers, and have suggested an inevitable deflation of the popularity of scripting and the parametricism for reasons such as a general lack of semiotics and ideation in much of the work.
Any thoughts?
Sounds like a very interesting discussion.
I think that parametrics are definitely the way of the future, though the technology is still in its infancy nearly fifty years after early building information modeling technology was developed.
The problem is that right now, as in the past, there is not a system in place that can take my design and make it 'transparently parametric'.
There are great possibilities for pragmatic applications in scripting, such as determining optimum placement for photo-voltaics or operable windows for passive ventilation. But, as it is right now, the available options (maya + python, rhino + grasshopper) are too HEAVY and unintuitive to spark the market into adopting the technology.
Firms like Hadid's need a staff of programmer/designers which will certainly be the great hybrid architectural position of the coming decade, but will eventually be phased out as their knowledge is coded into simplified graphical user interfaces.
What will drive the evolution?
There is the carrot of "If I can draw a 'wall assembly' and specify the studs, structural loads, finishes, shape... and out comes a wall section which is already detailed with keynotes, I'm in good shape."
Another possibility is that rapid prototype construction becomes so streamlined that ordering a custom door handle or railing is just as costly as running down to Home Depot.
Until either of these things happen, Scripting is wet-dream neo-baroque awesomeness relegated to classrooms and the ultra-wealthy.
IMO :
Scripting + Intuitive Interface + Hard Data = The Future
To me saying parametrics will save architecture is kind of like saying artificial intelligence will save humanity. Yea, maybe. Or maybe it will erase architecture. Either way it isnt going to happen for 50 years.
I actually love the work, I love the ideas. I think though theres a kind of irrational over-exuberance about it that isnt really addressing some staggering challenges. So far Ive seen it achieve almost nothing beyond some pretty fanciful (and ludicrously expensive) formal novelties.
The first challenge is this:
Another possibility is that rapid prototype construction becomes so streamlined that ordering a custom door handle or railing is just as costly as running down to Home Depot.
The day I can order a custom toaster or iphone for the same price as I can pick one up at wall mart, I'll believe this is possible. Youre talking about the end of economies of scale, one of the most important underlying principles in all production and economics on earth. The trouble is, and anyone whose used a CNC mill will know this, every time a production component changes, time, energy, and money is consumed. This isnt trivial, especially when youre forcing minute formal alterations to every physical component a building is composed of. No matter how fancy your little robots are, youre talking about fundamental time and energy costs that are orders of magnitude higher than any form of mass production. Worse perhaps, is beyond time and energy, youre adding orders of magnitude increases in moving parts, wear on production systems, and opportunities for failure both during manufacture and in the final building. That means endless inspectors, quality controls, and repair challenges for anyone producing these things. Not to mention liability.
Im not saying the tools arent useful, just that we should be honest with ourselves about what the real limitations are. To me, for the foreseeable future, the genuine economic usefulness of this stuff is going to remain fairly limited.
The second major challenge I see is this:
Scripting + Intuitive Interface + Hard Data = The Future
This, is hard. Life is more than just complicated, its fucking unimaginable. I frankly havent seen anyone even start to think about this in a serious way. Sure, you can calculate out simple things like solar panel angles or how to cram the largest number of cubicles into a space, but that tells you almost nothing about what architecture really is, or what humans actually experience in space. At least cognitive scientists know enough about what theyre studying to admit they havent a fucking clue whats going on. I see no such awareness in the field of architecture. The truth is, and I think this is obvious, that efficiently accommodating human behavior and perception is the central function architecture fills, and there is essentially no data whatsoever on how to go about that. Any strait faced environmental psychologist will admit as much. So again, maybe. In 50 years, we'll have scratched enough of the surface to plug things into a computer and get something coherent back out, but for the foreseeable future these are pretty minor tools assisting within a much larger framework of hopefully thoughtful investigation into how to frame living space.
But who knows? Maybe even minor insights from environmental psychology will break into enormous innovations and advances. In a practical sense though, I personally wouldnt bet on it beating out good old fashioned common sense and creativity any time soon.
Anyway. Sorry for all the cold water. I didnt hear the lecture but I imagine that puts me in the roche camp?
i don't dismiss parametricism on any ideological grounds since that was never the intention, but my hope was that parametricism would result in the proliferation of knowledge production by allowing architects to experiment more efficiently, but all i have seen is morbid redundancy using scripting language developed over 20 years ago. has anything changed in the past year i have been out of school?
I think "parametricism" is being lumped into this greater complaint against starchitecture (brand-name architecture) and the excesses of the past decade because it was the tool of choice.
computation is power
practically speaking, before parametric, say we took 100 steps to build a model, if we want to change any steps inbetween, we have to repeat the 100 steps again...
now its juz a click of a button,
i dun see why there is all this resentment about this very useful tool and mostly come from the ppl who doesn't know how to use... strange...
the resentment comes because by calling it "parametric" we prove we are illiterate in early 20th century science. And by fetishizing it, we look more akin to our colonial subjects than the colonial overseers we once were.
What if people get bored with it. If everything is scripted and parametric and neo-baroque, and you can make quick changes with the click of a button. It is paralyzing when everything is possible.
Is it progress that there are hundreds of cereals available, or you're just wasting time and can't choose and end up with the one you always have?
What if clients want something different than parametrics, if all is parametric the one handcrafted project stands out.
But if you look at the projects R&Sie produce against what Hadid's studio comes up with, R&Sie is way ahead, at least they don't repeat themselves all the time and really conceptually challenge each project. Remember "Dustyrelief" or "Aqua Alta", man those projects blew me away when I stumbled upon their monograph some years ago.
"Parametric design" is a tool for optimization, I don't understand how it could be a tool for "design" - design being the process of making choices and decisions about values and priorities.
It's a tool, people. Not something that in itself can produce meaning.
Helsinki is right. One must design and organize the parametric procedure. understand the extensive and intensive pressures. then one has designed a system which can produce a series of
"if all is parametric the one handcrafted project stands out"
If all is parametric all is handcrafted. There is not an either or. It is more a relationship of time and iteration that has been sped up and stored. We designed through iteration in the past - it was just lost as a purely linear pursuit. Now the non-linear aspect of the process, the parametric element, has been isolated and optimized to specific needs, goals, aims, etc.
I suspect most issues with parametrics come from a largely ignorant view and understanding of its meaning and application.
I also think the criticism of parametricism has more to do with the pedagogy of architecture and it's integration into curricula rather than whether or not it's worthwhile as a "movement."
in academia, it should be: "how do we use these tools in a way that doesn't distract from the development of the students as designers and architects.
IMO - the real issue is that when profs introduce unfamiliar tools with a steep learning curve (especially in some programs where they expect the students to learn the tools on their own) the studio becomes more about learning the tools than it is about learning design. Instead of recognizing their own failures in teaching, they criticize the tools for being a distraction.
There is also the chasm between parametrically defined forms (those that are not able to be well-defined by nonparametric means of drawing communication) that are nonetheless mute about their composition, construction, layers and details...
...versus the parametrically "informed" (information-imbued) designs that have all sorts of data but are mute as to what governs their geometry.
What loremipsum's post raises is whether construction-based hard data can be used to govern or determine the parametrics therein.
Was this part of the discussion at all?
So I'll confess, In the last two years in professional work Ive used this stuff exactly twice. There just werent the resources to take advantage of it in a way that made much sense. But I spent a good amount of time in it in my last two years at school. So I'll certainly admit I may fallen behind the curve, but Im not making these criticisms out of total ignorance. I agree, wholeheartedly, its a tool. Id argue its not really even that useful a tool, that claims of its near-term practical usefulness is grossly overstated, that its essentially at this point a luxurious aesthetic novelty. But "its a tool" is not the kind of claim being made by many^. Theres this hysteria and obsession with it in some circles, claiming 'Its the future', and 'It will change everything', that just doesnt seem to acknowledge the enormous technical hurdles it faces before it can become as powerful as they imagine it can be.
Anyone wanna take a step out to guess what the "?" will be?
All BIM is parametric and I would argue that it is definitely growing in use...as opposed to it being used less and less.
There has also been a huge leaps in mathematic translation and adaptation which could also be argued as a parametric element. Basically it is those things that allow for variables to be constructed into the design for all sorts of elements - the use is up to you.
I would argue those saying it is the future are more siding with the notion that computational tools will more and more infiltrate our deisign and manufacturing processes...these tools are not merely to allow for making aesthetic novelty...that is merely the academic result in the sphere of semesters and budgets of students. There have been a plethora of new works developed in the last 10 years largely made possible due to computational and parametric flexibility throughout the design and manufacturing process. SHoP would be one such group.
I do agree though that others that preach these notions, say Hernan Diaz Alonzo, have not resolved the construction and production out of the machines who speak in the same mathematical tool language. He instead has had to fallback on handicraft from the film and theatre industry to finish off his work. But to his credit someone has to set some goals out of reach of attainment so that there is a trajectory for which to imagine.
You could also argue that parametrics starts in architecture with the search for ratios and proportions that held true outside of any individual form. such as pie * radius squared being a symbol of a circle vs. a specific single rational circle.
fibonacci, etc are all parametric examples and computation is why I believe you are seeing the excitement in the use. People today can conceptualize, write a program and get data back as real data in ways never imagined. If that doesn't excite you then you are not using your imagination enough. Gives me all the reason to never sleep. I love the stuff.
I do find that many who have issues with parametrics do not like programming at all, or, they have a particular distaste for a specific type of use, i.e. pure aesthetics.
I find those issues to be not against parametrics though, but a bigger question of aesthetics vs. everything. Material aesthetics can be just as blase. Granite counter top anyone? But a counter top manufacturer may love the parametric software that nests many projects at once into a single cut sheet that is then fed to a robot that cuts 5 projects at once saving time, material, etc...I think that the tools are actually being underestimated.
i think helsinki makes a great point about whether parametricism is a tool for optimization or for design, and i agree it is certainly a great tool for the former and will certainly change the way we practice architecture (money or no money). however, i am trying to separate from this debate and pose the question, "what have we learned from it?"
i have seen numerous case studies of how parametric design was implemented to optimize a predetermined or pre-designed building sytem e.g. norman foster's british museum, but where is the true design innovation? in other words, if you have enough conviction to assign parametric design an "ism" as in "modern-ism", what is "parametricism's" equivalent to the ribbon window?
The contribution may not necessarily be an aesthetic or formal element, but instead a change in methodology or project delivery. I think the ability to create mass customization on the scale of architecture would result in infinite variables that would be difficult to identify as the element that defined a movement. Parametricism has the ability to vertically integrate design and construction. This change will leave many traditional architects and contractors wondering how this simple tool left them in the dust.
wurdan, that's a good response. i also thought about mass customization, however i still don't think this movement is quite the paradigm shift that everyone totes. i don't think it's a matter of leaving traditional architects in the dust, but instead will be integrated into a larger body of knowledge. i certainly wouldn't consider it the movement that defined the past decade.
dot - the blob.
Chup; I'll take all that. I actually loved scripting, loved the precision control and the geometric freedom and surprises. To be honest though, it was the kind of neurotic obsessiveness it bred in me that worries me most. I felt this kind of sugar-high glee, and saw it in my peers, over what it was enabling, formally, that seemed to blind us to everything else. It absorbed so much of my time and attention, fighting the software to give me things I could pretend were economically buildable, this schizophrenic push-pull against standardization, I left the experience with this haunting feeling of "why"? Is the cost-benefit really applying itself to things that matter to real people? All these millions of micro-decisions that are being made for me, are they really producing value? or just a daunting and absurd level of complexity that causes more problems and waste than it solves?
Im worried about the rapidity of it, the seduction and shiny-object instant gratification it allows us to indulge in, that it consumes our time and energy on things that never really connect themselves to real human experience, and draws our attention away from the deeper socially consequential issues we should really be addressing. Im worried it promises efficiency, but in practice produces nothing of the kind. Im worried we should be thinking longer about human experience, taking the time to make these small human decisions and maximizing the visceral impact of each detail of design, not casting these decisions to the wind as we obsess over variables and script functions.
I mean of course, theres no reason we cant do both. I just worry we arent seeing that balance, and are losing focus on the things that really matter.
I would argue that the blob is not an aspect or Parametricism at all but rather the result of NURBS. Parametricism can result in extremely uniform geometries which leads back to my original post about the lack of a formal element. If you think of this as Gen I, Gen II, Gen III, etc., perhaps the blob could be considered a formal element that defines Gen I.
Well...
oe, I agree with everything you said. I want to be the person that starts to think about this in a serious way. Hopefully I am on the right track, my portfolio contains my early research.
I think that the movement which defined the past decade would be fantasy. As a whole, the professions avant-garde understood what Gehry pioneered in the 90s and we all started to design in 3d on the computer. The computer allowed for reinterpretation of large scale projects as visualization (and 3d modeling) made describing that kind of complex geometry at a massive scale, a possibility.
I'd say that the defining structures of the decade are those that used this technology in an elegant way.
Santiago Calatrava's Turning Torso
Herzog and Demeuron's Beijing Olympic Stadium
Rem Koolhaas's Seattle Public Library
Diller and Scofidio - Institute of Contemporary Art (Boston)
Norman Foster - Hearst Tower
(many more of course)
Crowning off the decade and starting into the next with the ultimate fantasy structure, the 2700 ft. tall Burj Khalifa (Dubai) by Adrian Smith (formerly of SOM).
What these projects have in common is that they allowed the representation to leave the sketchbook and enter the realm of 'total predictability'. The client could see the end product from every angle before it is constructed. This allowed a great deal of imagination to take place, an illustrator did not have to set up a perspective and do a complete rendering for every niche or corner, the shift enabled design with full disclosure (or what the client perceives to be full disclosure).
This type of design freedom is made much more accessible with parametrics, because if you designed the turning torso and found out six months into construction documents that you need to accomodate a larger mechanical duct because of an addition, the calculation of angles is completed without tedium, and many elements of the structure are automatically re-adjusted. Parametrics made the fantasy world more possible.
We've always had parametrics in a way. The French curve enables a series of curves of similar angle and proportion to be drawn. The same with the compass, or the green circle template. There have always been kits of parts to generate our drawings. These new parametrics are just more dynamic.
BTW, This is a great, civil, archinect discussion.
bones with osteoporosis?
michaelangelo would have loved to design his cathedral with parametric design, so he can change his molding at any stage and see how it reconfigures the whole dome's configuration or change the the distance between Adam and God @ the creation of adam and see how it affect the curvature of the ceiling^^
Parametricism vs. ignorance? may be...
Parametric design falling into the traditional form vs function gap: Rhine/Maya/etc scripted architecture (Type A) vs BIM (Type B). For now, Type A.
Type A
The contiguous, bridging, relationship between the gesture of form and the content of code is mutually Mimetic (code follows form (natural: cloud, tree, swarm...etc), (architectural) form follows code). The gap below the bridging transmission of instruction from code to form in realizing the formal design (and vice versa in the initial stage of forming the code) is Analogical, form and code exist on different sides of the analogical mirror; they do not share the same substance but they stand as analogical reflections of each other. Gapped yet bridged. The bridging between both form and content brings about an element of Mimetic inevitability which, when combined with the element of Analogical non-essentialism (since the relationship between form and code is not one owing to shared essence, of content, of material, but rather due to the cross-inscription of reaction and gesture embedded within code and form) causes us, who rely very much on identifying truth in material/essential terms, rather than in gestural terms, to be apprehensive. Which is to say, we judge a Mime, a doppelganger fake, a mocking non-truth, exactly by the combination of an exacting replication of gesture with a complete divergence of material (the Mime’s body differs from that of the Original’s). Therefore, the suspicion we might wield towards Type A design echoes our anxiety (which is the primal base of many horror stories: Frankenstein monster, lab created viruses, self-willed robots, zombies, doppelgangers…etc ) towards the “Otherful” inevitability implied by the transacting replication/reflection and the loss of our intermediacy to alter the relationship between the creating thought and the created artifact; the fear of being excluded as a third party by the code-form-reflexivity. The counter-argument notes that human intermediacy is still intact, albeit non-traditional. The architect no longer controls the process through eccentric disparate interventions at the level of singular gestures on her part to affect parts or even the whole of form, but rather at a “genetic engineering” level that tackles the parts and the whole without drawing such a distinction between the parts and the whole . The architect stretches her ghostly Matrix-like-coding fingers into the very DNA of an architectural being to rearrange, slice, and substitute transitive variables in stages that parallel the traditional design process, to and fro. The difference is, due to these stagings, Mimetic and Analogical, the medium of representation collapses into the medium of design generation. The traditional triadic hierarchical relationship, architect-representation-design, now becomes more egalitarian; the relationship between the latter three necessitates a reciprocity that situates the architect as an enabler and manipulator of the code (rather than its master, whereas traditionally the architect is the immediate master of her own lines) and the code as innately embedded within the form and vice versa. As such, code is not the representation of the resultant form (where traditionally, the sketch is a representation of the possibilities of the resultant form). This also explains why many proponents of parametric design (I’m thinking FOA and Schumacher, especially essential in their pedagogical role) lean on a Marxist-Capitalist combo that sees the architect as only part, an enabler and manipulator, of the larger equation (or larger code) rather than as an artist, a Romantic era-genuis type.
Now, the relationship between form and itself, intra-formality in Type-A, is openly Synecdochic . What is part and what is whole in the form is merely a choice of temporal closure, rather than spatial closure: when does the code cease rather than where/how do you complete the form…moreover, the part refers to the whole, the whole refers to the part, and both refer to an infinite code-similar (in place of self-similar, since the very changes of the self, in the guise of form, is ) universe… or paraverse? ). As stated above and contrasting with traditional design, parametric form is not an overall accumulation of gestural eccentricities but the programmed variable sequencing of similarity through the law of the scape.
At what point in the above description does a person get a home?
oe, I hear you that all the scripting in the world can't encompass the emotional response of a person to a material object (at least I think that's what you're saying) and that's why parametrics is (are?) just yet one more tool for a good designer - using a human brain as a computer - to use.
On the other hand, people are infinitely adaptable, and I, with many others, can be so beguiled by a beautiful form brought about by scripting that I'm willing to give up some usability function to enjoy the aesthetic function. I do this, as do my clients, all the time: for example, having to take one more step to get the toaster out of the cabinet allows the cabinets to be symmetrical around the window, and the owner adjusts.
From Fondue's post: ...the relationship between the latter three necessitates a reciprocity that situates the architect as an enabler and manipulator of the code (rather than its master, whereas traditionally the architect is the immediate master of her own lines) and the code as innately embedded within the form and vice versa.
I've said this many, many times here, but I've always seen my role as architect as an enabler and manipulator of construction materials - be it computation processes or materials, there are limits within which we are privileged to work.
Totally. If this is what it is Im all down with it. All too often though thats not what Im seeing. Offices that invest in it, and the designs they produce, are completely consumed by it. They spend so much time and energy and with their head in code they never take it out. And because 98% of what all those work-hours produce is laughably overcomplicated and expensive to actually construct, it effectively becomes paper architecture. Except without the self-awareness that makes paper architecture interesting.
On the other hand, people are infinitely adaptable, and I, with many others, can be so beguiled by a beautiful form brought about by scripting that I'm willing to give up some usability function to enjoy the aesthetic function. I do this, as do my clients, all the time: for example, having to take one more step to get the toaster out of the cabinet allows the cabinets to be symmetrical around the window, and the owner adjusts.
So if Im arguing for "?", Im arguing against this. I dont want to beguile people into accepting cosmetic trivialities and waste that dont impact their quality of life. I think the mention of Michaelangelo is a pretty telling precedent. Michaelangelo bankrupted the wealthiest institution in europe with that damned thing. If Im going to invest in luxuries, I want them to be sensory luxuries, social luxuries, experiences that are more persistent and pervasive than the half-second tingle of "oh thats nice." Im all for people adjusting, the mutual influence of people and a lived-in space, but Id rather focus in on that and play with it directly than use it as a catch-all excuse for "well, we didnt really think about that." Im arguing for spending the majority of our time thinking about culture, human idiosyncrasies, the way bodies respond to material and experience. If I want to extend vertical thinking to something, its how economics and design and production can be streamlined for that. If youre going to spend money, spend it on people!
And Im certainly not arguing scripting cant assist in that, (though, considering the enormous gap in real data on these kinds of complex meaningful relationships, it will be enormously difficult), just that we should be wary of letting our pretty little monster taking over. People need to stop thinking about it as the central medium and end-all-be-all saviour of design, and start thinking of it more like we think of sustainability, or systems design, or sketching, a small facet of design that you just do.
I dont think its any surprise our profession has lost value, that people think of us as a bunch of out-to-lunch prima donnas. We arent actually doing anything. Not anything that matters to people in a lasting way at anyway. And so far, I dont think this helps.
oe At what point in the above description does a person get a home?
at no point. i don't have to include a consideration of every point, however significant it might strike me or you. my interest was to tackle the mentality behind one form of parametric design. that simple. and it does not mean that the discourse can't be expanded to address such a question as yours. but, knowing the way you think oe, i venture that you were using that question as not-so-covert criticism of my failing to recognize and address, what you deem to be, the most important question. quite simpley, that was not my concern. now you can pin me up on your crucifix for failing to be as moral a creature as you.
liberty bell,
i'm not talking about your venerated cabinets and carpenters sweetheart, but about an early stage of design where one is either dictated by certain form generating parameters or not. in parametric design, the intuitive leap from gesture to form typical of early morphosis, for instance, would not be possible unless the coding is perhaps so complex to the point of being unrecognizable, i.e. seemingly intuitive. but typically, formally parametric design bears a self-replicating counterintuitive formal insignia...one can tell it looks parametric in that the harmony of formal transitions are predicated. there is no eccentricity in the design.
furthermore, i am not criticizing either the pre-parametric or the parametric ways of working, but more humbly attempting to sieve out some underlying assumptions (i noted an argument and a counterargument) and perhaps certain kernels carried over from a wider forest of influence.
oe At what point in the above description does a person get a home?
at no point. i don't have to include a consideration of
oe I dont think its any surprise our profession has lost value, that people think of us as a bunch of out-to-lunch prima donnas. We arent actually doing anything. Not anything that matters to people
then go fucking do something instead of nagging and criticizing people for having their thoughts rather than the ones you want them to have and yet, telling from your nag, can't formulate or actualize.
...and yet, telling from your nag, ones that you can't formulate or actualize.
hehe dont take it personally Fond. ;) I was being clever, but I my point wasnt that you werent addressing those issues, but that parametricism isnt.
then address parametricism itself in person and don't address me.
.. so I might have removed the 'hehe' before those other posts had entered in. Sorry to be so cute. This is a debate man. I havent argued against using parametric design, Ive been arguing its hype doesnt scale to its real usefulness. If you disagree, then argue it! Offer evidence! Describe how it can solve these problems, or how the advantages of it supersedes them. I want to believe! I just dont see it.
are you mindless or being assholic? i am arguing neither for nor against its usefulness. indeed, i am not arguing at all. if you wish to know what i did, read above.
, Im not trying to harass you man. This is a thread called "Parametricism vs. ?", that starts with a discussion summary that states "Patrick was formally championing "Parametricism" as the new pervasive era of design, while Roche exposed his surreal, phenomenological Deluzean dreams." That kind of implies a debate. Forgive me if I assumed from your comments you agreed with the former.
Hug it out.
I imagine a world someday where architects sit in little cubicles and spend their days typing in data...500sf for this room, 1200sf for that....then when all the data has been entered the computer spits out a dozen or so different designs for you to choose from.
Did I really switch from computer science to architecture for this?
Now mind you, I don't really understand parametrics at all.
I'd like to comment on this debate, but don't really feel I understand parametricism well enough to have an opinion on it. I mean, I think I support the concept in general, and am in favour of many ideas championed by the ideology, but as I said, don't fully understand what it is, or how exactly it creates/informs design.
Where/how can I learn more about these tools and how they are used, in order to apply them myself. I regularly search the internet for articles and have also read Pamphlet Architecture 27: Tooling, and am finishing up Atlas of Novel Tectonics. I still, however, can't comprehend how one applies any given 'parametric' tool to generate form. I.e. given a design project, what is the role of parametric software and scripting, and at what point does the designer employ it? Is it simply a way to run through many iterations of an idea already conceived by the designer, only reducing the workload of calculating and optimizing, or is there in fact a generative capacity to the technology as well?
Perhaps someone can describe, in (some) detail, the process that went into a specific project?
Also, when referring to these parametric tools, what specifically is everyone talking about. It seems as though BIM tools like Revit fit into this category, though it seems quite distinct from something like Processing or SmartGeometry. I don't profess to know much about any of these programs, but I'm just wondering if they are all considered parametric tools. What are some other examples. To the people that consider themselves as having used parametric approaches or techniques: what aspect of the project do you consider parametric (e.g. did you use Revit, did you perform transformative operations with 3D software, did you have parts CNC machined, etc.)?
Sorry for my ignorance, and going somewhat off topic, but it seems as though a number of people don't fully understand what parametricism is, or how it manifests itself in the design process.
Thanks for any help.
sorry camhard, noone actually knows what parametricsm does
Fondue , thanks for your exegesis. Cant wait to read "Type B". We see you know this topic well.
I see my introduction supposes a debate, but to clarify, the common thread amongst many contemporary digital Architects and all the folks at this conference is that they are some how involved in supporting and/ or critiquing the so called movement of "parametrics". Everyone is respectively looking for more meaning in it. Without belaboring the definitions too much here...because I think we know what we are dealing with mostly.......I was hoping to see if there was a new dimensnion evolving that Roche's work seems to hint at.
I think the important thing François Roche brings to the discussion isn't antithetical to Parametricism, so much as it inclusive of semiotic and surrealist readings possible of scripting. He works with Fornes, so he could be called a Parametricist/ scripter as well. Even, I dare say that he almost suggests a definitive 'digital avant garde'. Which at least lifts the discourse above scripting as technique,
Admittedly, I don't really have the vocabulary many of you do about the subject. What I do know is that I shameless watch sites like:
http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/
Although I do salivate over the digital refinement of many of these selected projects. I also appreciate the curatorial finesse of the site. I see a valid contemporaniety and autonomy of a new era od design when I see these images.
If we look to Philip Johnson's manuevers with the International Style ( publication) and then like 50 yrs later with Decon (via an Exposition)...we see how we instrumental in engineering Architectural Theories (to his benefit). Schumaker is pulling a similar stunt, I think, by standing inf ront of so much imagery of derivatives of scripting and "parametricism". Just see his latest work titled:
"Parametricism - A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design " in the most recent AD mag.
http://www.patrikschumacher.com/
i don't pretend to truly understand how architects can ''harness" bataille... unless, thematically resonant, they're maybe converting a brothel into a church or vice versa. he's one of the least " architectural" thinkers i've come across. a very particular ambience, his, rather than a spatio-temporal-centric philosophy per se; perhaps to add intellectual-fatale (a lot of bataille's is romantic and intuitive, morbid and sensitive) allure to their agenda. and how does his writings relate to parmatricism? 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.
mmmmaybe....
actually i rethought this 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? which sounds stupid in context and is not at all a paradox.
what i should have meant to say was: the paradox of creating a forest of form: the complexity of the code must still be well understood, from the designer's stance, just as the complexity of the form is sent spiralling, twirling, dashing..etc..into incomprehensibility.
which makes sense. if schumacher is talking about a modernist's, a machinic, parametricism, fully cast in light..then, from what i understood ff33's description, Roche's version of parametricism is quite romantic, ambiguously twirling its intricate vines into the shadows.
Hey, fondue...
Look at all these hot European chicks who have absolutely none of the same cultural and aesthetic values.
Look how free they are to express themselves and all of their floral pattern goodness.
Don't you feel like a bitter covered up troll?
You should.
Because you're fucking miserable and as much as you preach that you've go something up your sleeve... you don't.
So... let's just bask in the beauty and freedom of Marc Jacobs spring line.
Omigod... ANKLES!
WHAT SLUTS!
PLEASE... JUST STONE OUT MY EYES NOW!
I CANT HANDLE ALL OF THIS IDOLATRY!
WAIT... I COULD BE A MAN. IT IS NOT MY FAULT.
SET THESE WHORES ON FIRE FOR TEMPTING ME.
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.