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