WK 10 Readings

Wigley’s ‘The Architecture of the Mouse’ explores the notion of a blurred integration from analogue to digital, as stated in his opening statement; “The mouse is a potent prosthetic. When placed in front of our desktop we do not even have to think consciously about reaching for it.”¹ This unconscious decision is what defines the transition, we are seamlessly transitioning ourselves in architecture, moving away further from analogue techniques and picking up digital tools. However, they are no longer becoming foreign object, but muscle memory between our body and brain.

As our digital tools develop, the technology and physical capabilities of the architect and designer also advance. Computational technologies such as CAD and CAM software are the mere beginning, we have moved on to digital fabrication, robotic aid all the way to complete robotic fabrication. “One no longer needs to move towards an interface… The interface is already well inside our reach…”²

“The daily dive into the computer is not a leap from analogue to digital or from real to simulation, but a choreographed blurring of the two…”³ We are not becoming the ‘pencil’ to the technology at hand, rather we blending in with it, bringing our knowledge and applying it with the digital tools we have to create an integrated experience. Wigley fears that the point where we finally seamlessly blend into the digital is where “The human would become the prosthetic attachment to the machine organism…”⁴ rather than the mouse being the prosthetic attachment as it is now.

We as users are still in control of what is happening, robotics is still being heavily explored, developing with assisting us as designers and fabricators, not creating and imagining designs of buildings and structures. We still have a long way to go to see what the machine can offer to architects and designers, the boundaries are merely being touched.

1.       Wigley, M. (2010). The Architecture of the Mouse. Architectural Design, 80(6), p.50

2.       Wigley, M. (2010). The Architecture of the Mouse. Architectural Design, 80(6), p.51

3.       Wigley, M. (2010). The Architecture of the Mouse. Architectural Design, 80(6), p.52

4.       Wigley, M. (2010). The Architecture of the Mouse. Architectural Design, 80(6), p.54

WK 9 Readings

The way we perceive materiality in architecture has changed drastically over the years, evolving from simple building materials and decoration to ‘smart materials’ displaying dynamic function and abilities, becoming both structure and a feature. 

In Kolareivc & Klingers ‘Manufacturing/Material/Effects’ materiality, in conjunction with new digital techniques, explores new possibilities of previously unattainable complex geometric organizational ideas. “Furthermore, in a paradoxical way, the new techniques and methods of digitally enabled making are reaffirming the long forgotten notions of craft, resulting from a desire to extract intrinsic qualities of material and deploy them for particular effect”¹ These new materials are being used in the most unexpected ways, creating new structural designs and techniques, reversing the norm, e.g. glass used in compression and stone in tension as shown by the work of Front Inc. and Jeanne Gang’s Marble Curtain installation. These ‘mutations’ of materiality open up a broad network of possibilities, combined with the digital tools available, designs become subject to an almost sure possibility, only now limited by the imagination and creativity of the designer. 

Trummer takes a morphogenetic approach to the evolution of these materials, in ‘Associative Design’ he states, “While variation is a key component in this, it is only realized as a necessitated repercussion to the dynamic nature of context (environments).”² Looking at natural and organic formations, such as population thinking in biology, he points out how multiple organisms are virtually identical but all evolve into their unique organism, adapted to their surroundings. Essentially, these materials will have to withstand the means of Darwin’s Natural Selection, evolving and morphing over the course of time, developing into greater materials that may be used in architecture.

1.       Kolarevic, B. and Klinger, K. (2008). Manufacturing Material Effects. New York: Routledge. p.7

2.       Trummer, P. (2011). Associative Design: From Type to Population. Computational design thinking. A. Menges and S. Ahlquist. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons. P.179

WK 8 Readings

Alberto Perez-Gomez’ ‘Questions of representation’ takes a rather drastic approach to the introduction of digital media and tools in architecture. Rather than looking at the positive aspects these tools offer, he heavily criticizes its integration in the built environment, saying “The digital ‘Avant-grade’ has degenerated into a banal mannerism, producing homogeneous results with little regard for cultural contexts all over the world.”¹

He reflects back upon rudimentary methods of architecture and construction, stating, “Since the inception of Western architecture in classical Greece, the architect has not ‘made’ buildings; rather, he or she has made the mediating artefacts that make significant buildings possible… and that these artifacts have changed throughout history.”² These artifacts would be not only drawings but the methods used, going through the history and evolution of architecture.

The initial methods were very geometrical, following geometric rules and systematic approaches. This led forward to maturation, resulting in less systematized drawings and buildings during the Renaissance. By the 15^th century, architecture came to be understood as a liberal art, conceived as, bi-dimensional orthogonal projections, providing a new mathematical and geometrical rationalization.

From this point on, perspective was questioned; parallel lines, vanishing points and other optic illusions were experimented with, envisioned with seeking a true perspective of structures. Only during the 17^th century, perspective became a generative idea in architecture.

Bringing ourselves forward, Perez-Gomez believes the digital tools are not “the equivalent of a pencil or a chisel that could easily allow one to transcend reduction”³. Although, the quick manipulation of viewpoints and perspectives are appealing, it is just that, a faster pencil. In saying so, he fears the results of these digital drawings which aim to create ‘complex natural orders’ remain disappointing.

“While descriptive geometry attempted a precise coincidence between the representation and the object, modern art remained fascinated by the enigmatic distance between the reality of the world and its projection.”⁴ Essentially, descriptive geometry aimed to be a more literal and logical approach in visually mimicking an object, whilst modern art employs a less empirical method, yet maintains the aim of depiction. 

1.       Perez-Gomez, A. (2007). Questions of representation: the poetic origin of architecture. “From models to drawings: imagination and representation in architecture”. M. Frascari, J. Hale and B. Starkey. London; New York, Routledge. p 12

2.       Perez-Gomez, A. (2007). Questions of representation: the poetic origin of architecture. “From models to drawings: imagination and representation in architecture”. M. Frascari, J. Hale and B. Starkey. London; New York, Routledge. p 13

3.       Perez-Gomez, A. (2007). Questions of representation: the poetic origin of architecture. “From models to drawings: imagination and representation in architecture”. M. Frascari, J. Hale and B. Starkey. London; New York, Routledge. p 22

4.       Perez-Gomez, A. (2007). Questions of representation: the poetic origin of architecture. “From models to drawings: imagination and representation in architecture”. M. Frascari, J. Hale and B. Starkey. London; New York, Routledge. p 22

WK 7 Readings

Scott Marble’s ‘BIM 2.0’ highlights concerns and worries of the implication of BIM (Building Information Software) and IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) in relation to the relation between architects, builders and owners. Marble states “With the growing integration of design, production and project management into a single digital workflow, the distinction between designing the design and designing the design process becomes less evident”¹ To further elaborate, while the models created by architects possess large potential to the entirety of the design process, essentially becoming a host of ‘meta-design’ it also takes away from the status of the architect.

BIM aims to simplify the ease of translation between all parties involved with the structure/building, offering the ability to display detailed building descriptions, useful in the process design stage but may hinder the building design, resulting in a rather bland and boring building. It is for this reason we can look at Reiser Umenmoto on his work, 014 project, where rather than letting the digital tools generate the design, he has gone to great lengths to over engineer the exterior shell, allowing for design flexibility without affecting the integrity of the structure. The challenge now is to see whether this integration of BIM and IPD will become “a threat or an opportunity”² to architects.

‘BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins’ by Dominik Holzer, exposes prevailing problems apparent in the use of BIM design practices. The sins are: Technocentricity, Ambiguity, Elision, Hypocrisy, Delusion, Diffidence and Monodisciplinarity. Expanding upon all of these, Holzer brings to light each issue on its own scale however, these ‘sins’ are not insurmountable. “With BIM capabilities becoming broader, BIM users witness the challenges associated with its implementation becoming broader as well. The seven sins of BIM implementation… can present significant impediments in its uptake. At the same time, none of the sins are insurmountable.”³

It is simply technological errors in most cases, where BIM poses as a ‘foreign’ tool, being integrated and poorly misconceived in its application to architectural design. It will merely take a matter of time before these ‘sins’ are ironed out, then, the true collaboration and power of BIM will be utilized. 

1.         Marble, S. (2012). Digital workflows in architecture. Basel, Birkhäuser. p.72
2.         Marble, S. (2012). Digital workflows in architecture. Basel, Birkhäuser. p.73
3.        Holzer, D. (2011). BIM's Seven Deadly Sins. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 9(4), p.478

WK 2 Readings

Klinger’s ‘Information Exchange in Designing and Making Architecture’ deepens the relation between technology and architecture, expressing how the two are closely related, almost symbiotic to one another, as one grows and changes so does the other, “… some day the one will be the expression of the other.” ¹

Continuing on, it is clear that the technological change has sparked new ideas and designs in architecture, playing a crucial role in the future of architecture. Software further enables architects to create and develop complex forms, expanding their repertoire of possibilities made possible. Architects are able to further analysis, simulate and fabricate using 3d models, containing dense amounts of information, compacted within the digital file.

Kolarevic speaks closely as he expands upon the changes that the digital has had on architecture, talking about ‘experimental architects’ and ‘blobby’ architecture. In the process, architects should become integrated with said software, allowing them to become the ‘information master builders’, allowing for emerging architects to freely express their visions and designs.

The digital information that could be used in fabrication and construction soon eliminated the “time consuming and error-prone production of drawings…” This information essentially, reestablishes the lost link between architecture and construction via the means of these new digital processes. From this, architects are able to metaphorically become the builder by digitally producing the required information to manufacture and construct said buildings in superior presentations than what was currently available.

1.       Kolarevic, B. and Klinger, K. (2008). Manufacturing material effects. New York: Routledge. p.26

2.       Kolarevic, B. 'Information Master Builders' in Architecture in the digital age, 2003, New York, NY, Spon Press. p.88

WK 1 Readings

Kolarevic's, 'Information Master Builders', expresses his will for architects to become 'information master builders', "In the future, being an architect will also mean being a builder..."¹, highlighting how master builders & masons were in charge of all aspects of buildings, "They had the central, most powerful position in the production of buildings, stemming from their mastery of the material and its means of production"².

The tools used by architects defined their relationship to their designs and buildings, compasses, pencils, straight-edges & T-squares showed their relationship to rectilinear buildings, continuing on to describe the struggle architects face representing the digital tools at their disposal. The "experimental architects had to find contractors and fabricators capable of digitally-driven production..."³ The integration of CAM (Computer-aided manufacturing) revealed the time consumption and error-prone production of drawings as well as allowing architects to produce scale models almost instantly.  By becoming 'Information Master Builders', emerging architects are allowed freedom and expression of creativity as well as productivity.

William's 'Design Worlds and Fabrication Machines' deconstructs the methods of CAD modeling, breaking it down to fundamentally grids and arrays, using a repetitive parametric code to finalise the model, allowing a modeler to "put a relatively small amount of information in to get a much larger amount of information out."⁴

 Sheil’s ‘Transgression from drawing to making’ follows what Kolarevic was saying, “drawings of the pre-digital era were made with tools that had altered little through centuries of use: the compass, the ruler, the set square, the pen, and so on.”⁵ and “…architects’ face to face contact with craftsmen and builders became less frequent, non-verbal and less collaborative…”⁶

Technology has advanced to the point where digital fabrication technologies (CAD/ CAM) allow the architect to redefine him/herself as the master builder, injecting the information into ones design, being able to communicate with the builder, client, creating exact geometric components and designs, exploring new ideas and creativity.

   1.       Kolarevic, B. 'Information Master Builders' in Architecture in the digital age, 2003, New York, NY, Spon Press. p.88

   2.       Kolarevic, B. 'Information Master Builders' in Architecture in the digital age, 2003, New York, NY, Spon Press. p.89

   3.       Kolarevic, B. 'Information Master Builders' in Architecture in the digital age, 2003, New York, NY, Spon Press. p.88

   4.       Mitchell, W. 'Information Master Builders' in Architecture in the digital age, 2003, New York, NY, Spon Press. p.107

   5.       Sheil, B. ‘Transgression from drawing to making’ in Architectural Research Quarterly 9.1, 2005, p.22

   6.       Sheil, B. ‘Transgression from drawing to making’ in Architectural Research Quarterly 9.1, 2005, p.22

Critical Analysis Final

‘MuscleBody’ by Kas Oosterhuis, implements real time computing through applications, which operate to an input-output latency of seconds, enabling response to stimuli within milli- or microseconds. The project also utilises programmable interactive architecture engaging in future-oriented research to interact between players and object. It responds to specific requests, reconfiguring itself in real-time based on the premise that, interaction can take place only between two active parts, where one active part is the user and the other one is the building. With this technology, MuscleBody is able to alter its shape, degrees of transparency and the sound that it emits in real time via a computer programs calculations which sends corresponding instructions to the structure. Ultimately, MuscleBody is a dynamic hypersurface.

For the project to be dynamic, it must rely on responsive technologies and programming. For the project to exhibit real time behaviour, various motion and sound sensors must be implemented, code programmed and human interactivity required to create the dynamics of this hypersurface. The project itself is literally a hypersurface; Oosterhuis was so heavily involved with hypersurfaces and real time behaviours he created and directs a research group called ‘Hyperbody’, who introduce interactivity in the process of design as well as during the use and maintenance of buildings. A similar project of Oosterhuis’ is the Saltwater Pavilion; it too has real time behaviours, responding to peoples movements via audio, lighting effects and dynamic movement. Not only does the project respond to people within the structure, it responds to outside weather conditions, with its colour and dimming sequences being controlled by data from a maritime board unit.

Real time behaviour implies an additional computational concept; motion kinematics and dynamics, which are motion-based modelling technqieus, such as forward and inverse kinematics and dynamics. Generating design in such environments offers the possibility to simulate the movement of people in order to develop architectural devices responding to this movement.