The Topic Statement was: Parametricism - is that the way the world should go? Ask Zaha or Patrik ...
JS – Mr. Justin Smith
HB – Mr. Herman Boon
BC – Mr. Bradley Curnow
JS: is it ethical? :-P
HB: i'm confused :P
JS: its the computer generating form. granted, the parameters are set by you, but in the end its shaped by the computers? ur sitting like 5m away from me, we could talk face to face... but that would deny fb the pleasure..
BC: It's an interesting tool no doubt, and one which will surely be exploited to take care of the bottom line. As for its potential to create great architecture... the magnitude of that will depend on the skill of the architect who defines the parametric... no?
Given that computers deal in 1's and 0's and can't even begin to grasp the esoteric qualities that architects try to grapple with, architecturally speaking it's probably pretty useless, unless you're 'designing' fuel cell exchange depots for the latest line of Hitachi autonomous robots.
So, now that I've dutifully fulfilled my role as an energetic young architecture student and contributed to 'interesting and stimulating' architectural debate, I will now return to the rest of my semi-relaxing hiatus and will see you all next year :D
Kind regards,
BC
HB: The utopian thought of an architect has to be implemented into a newly defined parametric system in which form generated with the aid of computer = ethical. While parameters must be set with the notion of creating a better place for human and nature which allows co-existence despite the uniqueness of spiritual sensation of human beings, we as architects have to pursuit such goal before population reach its peak where civilisation starting to decline and human existence are in danger. I always believe advanced natural disaster such as virus and super climate change comes way before technology. There will be a point where time doesn't allow us to develop such technique before the crisis killing us all.
Big thought, big dream, as we always do.
Really appreciate both of your thoughts.
Cheers
JS: interesting suppositions.
my rebuttal:
mr boon- from our conversation from the previous night i summarised that you’re issues with computer based design came from the fact that computers were being used as a generative tool, rather than a tool to communicate a preconceived idea. the computer generated architecture would be unethical, as it wasn't manifested by human thought.
at what point does fleshing out an idea with the aid of a computer become generating ideas from the computer? is the combination of both ethical? and to what degree? does it really matter?
specifically regarding parametric architecture, we are in a sense creating a system of data entry and logic. the computer gathers the data which we specify and re-arranges/creates accordingly (in a sense similar to our own design methodologies, but probably much more specifically). are we not becoming something more akin to software engineers?.. or does our selection of inputs (i.e. in- and ex-clusion) constitute [architectural] design... will the form be a product of humans and therefore by your definition be ethical? or a product of the computer..?
also- nothing will save us from mother nature. she is always one step ahead. better medicine comes with more resilient viral strains etc. its like a balancing factor. we just have to make sure we don’t reach the critical mass. the effects of overpopulation can probably be nullified to a certain extent by technologies and therefore advancements in architecture, but its my guess that instead of creating a solution were just raising the critical mass. eventually the bar wont be able to raise any higher.
ethics makes my head spin,
i should really get some sleep...
HB: mr smith: very refreshing thought. I agree on all aspects. Maybe I should answer the first question and the rest we could talk face to face before making this as a discussion board.
"at point does fleshing out an idea with the aid of a computer become generating ideas from the computer? is the combination of both ethical? and to what degree?" It certainly does matter as there is a fine line between "you draw your first line with pencil" and "you draw your first spline with autocad". I think the point is rather obvious in the sense that we start off with a thought and that thought is visaulisable. What I emphasize is just a "thought" thought, not an outcome. Whenever you reach to a point of abstraction or unvisualisable "thought", you acquire advanced technology to aid you. From there, I disagree on using computer to generate the very first idea. But I do believe that with the aid of computer you can generate more ideas out of the first which do not supersede the original.
-end of conversation-
So what do you think about parametricism? It is definitely a trend yet not a style to digital architecture. We are now at the transitional point where digital architecture (if that can be defined) is shaping its way out in this Modern era. Sooner or later, digital architecture will become a new movement (good or bad). Let's see how the world is gonna change.
No comments:
Post a Comment