Week 10 - Digital Fabrication and Robotics

In architecture today, the constantly evolving nature of digital fabrication and robotics is drastically changing the way in which we create the built environment around us, and Mark Wigley’s eulogy to the mouse explores the ‘power that such a discrete device can have on the human ecosystem, a seamless interface between body and brain that is still only to be dreamt of in architecture’ [1]. In order for the mouse to work it has to be ‘a part of my body and a part of the computer, binding two organisms into one’ [2]. It is a way of ‘linking organic and inorganic circuits’ [3] with simply a thin wire. The mouse as a ‘potent prosthetic’ [4], it ‘sustains a new body able to move in new ways, in new spaces, starting with the sense that one is moving through the seemingly virtual space of the computer’ [5]. This simple gesture of a mouse is changing the people using it and its surroundings. ‘You can be affected by a prosthetic before using it, after using it, or without ever using it’ [6]. There is this notion that ‘to reach out to the world is to simultaneously pull the world inside’ [7]. In the future of architecture and the ever changing role technology is playing, the mouse is playing a key role, ‘systematically reconfiguring our relationships to signals, to circuitry in general, irreversibly expanding the human ecosystem out into the digital environment simultaneously bringing the digital inside the house, the personal space and even the body itself’ [8]. ‘The human would become the prosthetic attachment to the machine organism before a final seamless blending of the two’ [9].

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Wigley, M. (2010). "The Architecture of the Mouse." Architectural Design: EcoRedux: Design Remedies for an Ailing Planet 80(6): 50-57

Week 9 - Materiality

Manufacturing in the architecture and construction industry is rapidly advancing and changing thanks to readily available technologies. ‘The age of mechanical production, of linear processes and the strict division of labour, is rapidly collapsing around us’ [1], quotes Toshiko Mori. Such new technologies as digital modelling ‘enable the user to achieve a degree of precision that previous technologies, predicated primarily on digital drawing creation, have been unable to achieve’ [2]. Discovering new uses of already available materials are offering ‘unparalleled thinness, dynamically changing properties, and functionally gradient compositions’ [3]. With new technology and basically new materials, we are able to ‘conceptualise material interventions - particularly the technology that enables their construction, which presents a fundamental aspect in how we (re)think architecture’ [4]. Basically, ‘the effective digital exchange of information is vital to the realization of the new integrative capacity of architecture’ [5]. Expanding on the material change from the twentieth century, it is ‘now possible to materially realize complex geometric organizational ideas that were previously unattainable’ [6]. For example, ‘concrete, metal, and wood are losing their opacity’ [7]. Litracon of Hungary have recently discovered translucent concrete, challenging the ‘truth and signification of material in architecture’ [8]. Another example is decay, once ‘seen as the enemy in buildings’ [9], now being pursued by many designers in a way that sees the material properties change based on ‘direct response to external and internal stimuli’ [10]. Architecture and design have begun to see the ‘unconventional articulation of conventional materials’ [11]. This allows us to understand the object as possible forms of appearances [12]. The visual and emotional effects of the materiality change is now seen to be just as important as the structural capabilities of the building. As Juhani Pallasmaa said ‘Authentic architectural experiences derive from real or ideated bodily confrontations rather than visually observed entities… The visual image of a door is not an architectural image, for instance, whereas entering and exiting through a door are architectural experiences’ [13].

[1][3][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][13] Kolarevic, B. and K. R. Klinger (2008). Manufacturing/ Material/ Effects. Manufacturing material effects : rethinking design and making in architecture. B. Kolarevic and K. R. Klinger. New York, Routledge: 5-24.

[2]Bernstein, P. G., A. Inc and Y. University (2008). Thinking versus Making: Remediating Design Practice in the Age of Digital Representation. Manufacturing material effects : rethinking design and making in architecture. B. Kolarevic and K. R. Klinger. New York, Routledge: 61-66.

[4] Menges, A. (2011). Intergral Formation and Materialisation: Computational Form and Material Gesault. Computational design thinking AD reader. A. Menges and S. Ahlquist. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons: 198-210.

[12] Trummer, P. (2011). Associative Design: From Type to Population. Computational design thinking AD reader. A. Menges and S. Ahlquist. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons: 179-197.

Week 8 - Visualisation and the Image

In the 90’s there began to be a paradigm shift from the mechanic to the electronic. This has challenged the way in which architecture is perceived because it ‘defines reality in terms of media and simulation; it values appearance over existence, what can be seen over what is’ [1]. Eisenman begins to talk about the theory of folding, which may provide a ‘new strategy for dislocating vision’ [2]. It builds on the notion of differentiating between what is interior and exterior and by ‘weakening the notational correspondence between drawing and building’ [3]. The vision of architecture changed through one point perspective of the theological and theocentric paradigm shift to the anthropomorphic and anthropocentric views, whereby ‘perspective became the vehicle by which anthropocentric vision crystallised itself in architecture’ [4]. In the Questions of Representation Alberto Perez-Gomez writes ‘the digital Avant Garde has degenerated into a banal mannerism, producing homogenous results with little regard for cultural contexts’ [5]. He argues that even though perspective became a common role in the architecture practise, it ‘remained restricted to the creation of an illusion, qualitatively distinct from the constructed reality of the world’ [6]. Even Walter Benjamin stated that ‘even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: time and space’ [7]. What is interesting however is how ‘mechanical reproduction of art changes the masses’ [8]. ‘The progressive reaction is characterized by the direct, intimate fusion of visual and emotional enjoyment by the public’ [9]. Buildings themselves are ‘appropriated in a twofold manner: by use and by perception’ [10], and are ‘gradually mastered by habit, and not by contemplation alone’ [11].

[1][2][3][4]             Eisenman, P. (2013). Architecture After the Age of Printing. AD Reader: The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012. M. Carpo. Chichester, Wiley: 15-22.

[5][6]                     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: 11-22.

[7][8][9][10][11]     Benjamin, W. (1936). "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction."

Week 7 - BIM and New Technologies in Practice

Phil Bernstein is a positive advocate for BIM and IPD, in ‘an attempt to address the diversive organisational structure of the AEC industry’ [1]. As BIM is becoming an important part of the architecture industry, we are seeing a shift in the way buildings are conceived and delivered. Using BIM we are able to ‘address procedural problems’ [2], however Berstein is ‘encouraging architects to capitalise and expand on this development to address design concerns’ [3]. On the other hand, by doing this it is possible that ‘the distinction between designing the design and designing the design process becomes less evident’ [4].

BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins follows on this with ‘a reality check between an idealistic view on BIM and the way it is currently applied’ [5]. One example is the idea of ‘Technoentricity – a focus on software instead of design culture’ [6]. Many people see BIM as a new and improved version of CAD, which helped in carrying out drawing at ‘higher speed, accuracy and for photo-realistic visualisation’ [7] which is still possible, however the idea of using BIM should be perceived as a tool that allows an ‘entire process change that impacts nearly all activities related to the planning, delivery and operation of buildings on a social, a business and even a political level’ [8].

In finding the balance of design and drawing with computer technology, the ‘pareto-efficient designs’ [9] were determined by the ‘set of best performing arrangements’ [10], as described by David Benjamin in Beyond Efficiency.  Although not originally developed to describe design, in can be attributed to many design fields. These ‘pareto-efficient designs’ [11] ultimately could provide one set of designs, ‘that could be understood as the exact location where computation meets design- as well as where computation meets society, politics, and even culture’ [12].

[1][2][3][4]         Marble, S. (2012). BIM 2.0. Digital workflows in architecture: designing design -- designing assembly -- designing industry. S. Marble. Basel, Birkhäuser: 72- 73.

[5][6][7][8]         Holzer, D. (2011). BIM's Seven Deadly Sins. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 9(4), pp.463-480.

[9][10][11][12] Benjamin, D. (2012). Beyond Efficiency. Digital workflows in architecture: designing design -- designing assembly -- designing industry. S. Marble. Basel, Birkhäuser: 14-25.

Week 2 - Design to Production

Digital information technology today is an ‘essential agent of innovation[1]’, whereby software is the key to managing ‘complexly articulated designs[2]’ and where models aid the ‘exchange of information[3]’. The algorithms associated with many CAD programs support the breakdown of ‘complex strategies[4]’, however ‘human reasoning still governs the selection of appropriate input parameters[5]’. When CAD software was introduced along with Splines and Blobs, ‘standard detail drawings[6]’ were being replaced because of designs that incorporated ‘non-regular shapes[7]’, and therefore ‘every panel and every joint had a slightly different geometry[8]’.  Before long, designers had to ‘come up with unambiguous, well-defined, formal descriptions, syntactically correct to the last semicolon[9]’. Parametric modelling appears to make the designing process a lot easier, however ‘both descriptions (algorithms and a set of drawings) define the same degree of complexity, only in different languages[10]’. The introduction of digital information technology and modelling makes the design through building stage less ‘time-consuming and error-prone[11]’. With digital information influencing contemporary architecture today, the relationship between construction and architecture that once existed ‘could potentially re-emerge as an unintended but fortunate outcome of the new digital processes of production[12]’. This relationship creates ‘mutually beneficial processes of direct information exchange[13]’, where the ‘digital model becomes the single source of design and production information that is generated … which encodes all the information needed to manufacture and construct the building[14]’.  This digital environment ultimately can ‘provide any information about any qualitative or quantitative aspect of a building under design or construction[15]’. The change that is currently taking place across the architecture and design faculties is ‘inevitable and unavoidable[16]’, there are many obstacles however the ‘rewards are compelling[17]’.

---

[1] Kolarevic, B. and Klinger, K. (2008). Manufacturing material effects. Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture. New York: Routledge. p26

[2] Kolarevic, B. and Klinger, K. (2008). Manufacturing material effects. Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture. New York: Routledge. p26

[3] Kolarevic, B. and Klinger, K. (2008). Manufacturing material effects. Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture. New York: Routledge. p26

[4] Kolarevic, B. and Klinger, K. (2008). Manufacturing material effects. Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture. New York: Routledge. p27

[5] Kolarevic, B. and Klinger, K. (2008). Manufacturing material effects. Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture. New York: Routledge. p27

[6] Scheurer, F. (2014). Materialising Complexity. Theories of the digital in architecture. R. Oxman and R. Oxman: p89

[7] Scheurer, F. (2014). Materialising Complexity. Theories of the digital in architecture. R. Oxman and R. Oxman: p89

[8] Scheurer, F. (2014). Materialising Complexity. Theories of the digital in architecture. R. Oxman and R. Oxman: p89

[9] Scheurer, F. (2014). Materialising Complexity. Theories of the digital in architecture. R. Oxman and R. Oxman: p89

[10] Scheurer, F. (2014). Materialising Complexity. Theories of the digital in architecture. R. Oxman and R. Oxman: p91

[11] Kolarevic, B. (2003). Information Master Builders. Architecture in the digital age : design and manufacturing. B. Kolarevic. New York, NY, Spon p 69

[12] Kolarevic, B. (2003). Information Master Builders. Architecture in the digital age : design and manufacturing. B. Kolarevic. New York, NY, Spon p 69

[13] Kolarevic, B. (2003). Information Master Builders. Architecture in the digital age : design and manufacturing. B. Kolarevic. New York, NY, Spon p 71

[14] Kolarevic, B. (2003). Information Master Builders. Architecture in the digital age : design and manufacturing. B. Kolarevic. New York, NY, Spon p 71-72

[15] Kolarevic, B. (2003). Information Master Builders. Architecture in the digital age : design and manufacturing. B. Kolarevic. New York, NY, Spon p 72

[16] Kolarevic, B. (2003). Information Master Builders. Architecture in the digital age : design and manufacturing. B. Kolarevic. New York, NY, Spon p 74

[17] Kolarevic, B. (2003). Information Master Builders. Architecture in the digital age : design and manufacturing. B. Kolarevic. New York, NY, Spon p 74

Two and Five Minute Sketching Around Campus

Week 1 - Analogue to Digital

In the Twenty First Century, we are seeing more paperless studios across the world, with architects moving towards computer aided design over the more traditional methods of using paper. Before the fourteenth century when paper was introduced into the architecture industry, architectural drawings were created on ‘papyrus and parchment[1]’, but were ‘merely replicas of the paperless drawings taking place on construction sites[2]’.  Interestingly enough, Architecture had ‘begun as a paperless practice[3]’ and paper itself has ‘kept its position as one of the most significant technological presences in the building and design industry[4]’. ‘The use of paper had accomplished the move from an interpretation of architectural projects based on analogical expressions to the virtues of analogical manifestations[5]’. In the years after, the architectural draftsmen’s drawings ‘evolved into a document of legal status and restricted content[6]’.  A revolutionary change occurred in the late twentieth century whereby the ‘drawing was no longer a static document, but an evolving bank of parametric data[7]’. With this came a view of the fabrication process, and following the Industrial Revolution, ‘skills became more consistent, specialised and factory based[8]. Although these skills were in high demand at the time, by the twenty first century there was a ‘shift away from specialisation to a world that recognises the virtue of hybrid skills[9].  The evolution of digital fabrication enabled a change that gave the architect the ‘ability to export geometric and binary data in the appropriate format within the software package[10]’. This provided the means to ‘fabricate customised objects of a complexity that would have been prohibitively difficult or costly to make in the past[11]’. Throughout this progression models were often made for ‘descriptive, predictive, exploratory or planning purposes[12]’, often addressing three questions, ‘what was the model made for; what the model was made of; and how the model engaged with time[13]’. There are many ways to witness the process of a model, and all too often the ‘building is projected as a scaled-up version of the architect’s model[14]’, rather than a process of ‘modelling the building[15]’. The twenty first century appears to be turning to CAD to further designs and bridge the gap between many disciplines within the design industry, however, the use of earlier tools and equipment within the industry still play an important role for designers.

---

[1] Frascari, M., Hale, J. and Starkey, B. (2007). From models to drawings. London: Routledge. p25

[2] Frascari, M., Hale, J. and Starkey, B. (2007). From models to drawings. London: Routledge. p25

[3] Frascari, M., Hale, J. and Starkey, B. (2007). From models to drawings. London: Routledge. p27

[4] Frascari, M., Hale, J. and Starkey, B. (2007). From models to drawings. London: Routledge. p24

[5] Frascari, M., Hale, J. and Starkey, B. (2007). From models to drawings. London: Routledge. p27

[6] Sheil, B. (2005). Transgression from drawing to making. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(01), p22

[7] Sheil, B. (2005). Transgression from drawing to making. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(01), p23

[8] Sheil, B. (2005). Transgression from drawing to making. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(01), p24

[9] Sheil, B. (2005). Transgression from drawing to making. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(01), p24

[10] Sheil, B. (2005). Transgression from drawing to making. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(01), p24

[11] Sheil, B. (2005). Transgression from drawing to making. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(01), p24

[12] Starkey, B. (2005). Architectural models: material, intellectual, spiritual. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(3-4), p265

[13] Starkey, B. (2005). Architectural models: material, intellectual, spiritual. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(3-4), p.265

[14] Starkey, B. (2005). Architectural models: material, intellectual, spiritual. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(3-4), p.271

[15] Starkey, B. (2005). Architectural models: material, intellectual, spiritual. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(3-4), p.271