Archinect
anchor

the ethics of parametricism/emergent architectural thought and reification

May 22 '12 153 Last Comment
t a m m u z
May 22, 12 3:54 am

the below comes pursuant to the Formicis thread

i think, to begin with, one basic question is whether  this sort of work (parametricism/emergence)  is honestly confronting/revealing its place within architectural production and its history. i feel there is a lot that is going on - behind the assumptions of the designers and behind the method's place within the history of architectural thought-  that is not being discussed and, instead, the discussions are generally circumscribed within ahistoric decidedly pseudo-scientific , insiduously pseudo-metaphorical rhetoric. decidedly pseudo-scientific because it professes an objective resonance with the natural systems of the world and insiduously pseudo-metaphorical because the rhetoric stops short of owning up to - and even delighting in, conventionally -  the primarily figurative, "metaphorical", nature of this resonance. this is what is not stated, or understated:  we are not mimicing nature, we are mimicing our understanding of nature and to obliterate the difference between nature and our understanding of it is semiotically an aberration. an aberration that might very well have real consequences that feed back into - and actively deform- nature i.e. what is called (within marxism and philosophy in general) reification.

am i taking a moral stance here.  perhaps. perhaps, mostly i'm interesting in discussing this semiotic "blunder" ethically. after all, when it comes to subverting the semiotics of flesh production and abortion, we are still very likely to revert back to traditional semiotics in making ethical evaluations. why not when it comes to subverting the traditional semiotics of thought, or shall we simply accept this obliteration of difference between what is mutely natural and what is rhetorically artificial, an obliteration between what is fatalistic and what is chosen. keep in mind that the theme here is not cyborgic, it is not about the secularity which we, as designers, must exhibit towards the difference between the natural and the artificial (as we represent the tree and the lamp post equally on paper/screen), it is not about whether we can accept robotics as a facilitator in our life. rather, the concern is that we fabricate a lie and then we believe in it as a truth: i mimic nature as i understand it...therefore, my mimicry is of nature, therefore nature and my mimicry of it are on par with each other, therefore my mimicry has the right to impose on nature just as much as nature has the right to impose on itself.   

this folding of thought on itself contains an implicit aberration that evolves into an ethical one. of course, i understand that our understanding and ethics of the natural and artificial does not exist solely as , to borrow mathematical terms, as a whole number but as a fraction denominated by our understanding of humanity: are we creatures totally of precedent nature or does there subsist within us a unique virtuality that brings about a new unprecedented nature within which the artificial exists naturally and without which, the artificial exists unnaturally.?

 

i r giv up
May 22, 12 7:43 am

another misread of parametricism.

ethics and morals are platonic constructs. completely inadequate tools for having a conversation or drawing conclusions about parametrics/emergence. it lowers the level of the discourse.

t a m m u z
May 22, 12 8:41 am

firstly, i'm not drawing conclusions. its obvious that i'm posing question albeit loaded with some assumptions.

secondly, ethics is not a platonic construct but rather that it includes platonic constructs amongst others. as a branch of early western philosophy, it has other roots swithin stoicism and epicureanism, schools of thoughts that diverge significantly from platonic school although necessarily affected by it amongst others. it has also incorporated elements of all histories since then.

thirdly, i do not see reason to dissociate  these methods from any sense of  underpinning ethics based on a mythical association to anti-platonicism, by whatever other association  linked to non-euclidean geometries. there is a series of associations inherent in your assumption that are actual disconnects , symbolical and conceptual ones.  

fourthly, i have only attempted to delve and analyze the lack of substantiation provided within your response. in actuality, you give no reason to why we should not look at a method of designing that has impact on our life in an ethical manner. also, keep in mind that i have furmished a specific concern above that you have not addressed. your comment, unfortuantely, still has no place in addressing that concern.

25 characters in length
May 22, 12 9:41 am

Let me add another facet (writing here on the fly, so it may not be all too coherent). Besides the mimicry of a myth (so to speak), is not the whole process of getting the 'code' just the way you want it--the continual tests and retests--also something like an inverted (if you will) form of mimicry: "I know what I want it to look like; I just have to find the right parameters." Or, put in a way (hopefully) like above: "I know what nature I want it to look like, but I still have to figure out the right numbers."

In the little bit of parametrics I've dabbled with, using very old (1996) software, I found that using "numbers" that were outside the 'expected' parameters resulted in the most 'novel' results.

A very early example of the 'playing', 2000.

Does it still just boil down to a sophisticated play of/with geometry?

And adding the 'unexpected' thinking, imagine the image above as the 2-dimentional 'grid' plan of a city. It's like actually stepping out of the mimicry.

 

i r giv up
May 22, 12 10:30 am

"ethics is not a platonic construct "

 

bullshit.

25 characters in length
May 22, 12 10:52 am

 

noubtree, what do you see as the adequate tools for having a conversation or drawing conclusions about parametrics/emergence?

 

i r giv up
May 22, 12 12:01 pm

process.

intentionality, ethics, and all of that crap has been dead for 15 years. if you're still quoting crap about that, you need to read a bit more and think a little bit more.

i r giv up
May 22, 12 12:01 pm

process.

intentionality, ethics, all of that crap has been dead for 15 years. if you're still quoting crap about that, you need to read a bit more and think a little bit more.

25 characters in length
May 22, 12 12:40 pm

 

tammuz is talking about a process that is otherwise not discussed. In terms of ethicality, what tammuz is suggesting is that the process that is said to be used is not  what is actually being done. In a sense, tammuz is asking whether the practitioners of "parametricism/emergent architecture" are being true to themselves, and in turn being true to the rest of the architectural community. Does not being untrue to oneself and the community at large harbor an ethical dilemma?

To just say "process" does not appear to be an adequate tool for having a conversation or drawing conclusions about parametrics/emergence. Read a bit more what? And think a bit more about what?

 

i r giv up
May 22, 12 1:24 pm

the truthiness (yup) of the practitioner is completely irrelevant to process, parametrics or emergence.

once more, reverting to a discussion of ethics is a cop out. it is just an easy way to impose an arbitrary value judgement on something that just is. you just blatantly did so in less than 5 sentences. that's where tammuz  was headed, too.

[[insert monthly discussion about intentionality here, because i'm too lazy to copy-paste]]

 

 

also, mimicry = as huge a platonic construct as there can ever be.

can we please stop this now? i mean.. i can see where this is headed from miles away. if you can't see it, well, yeah... i'll keep this post clean-ish.

toasteroven
May 22, 12 2:31 pm

@history - noubtree is incapable of empathy (as empathy requires belief in free will).  You're not going to get anywhere with him.  I'm not sure he realizes just how abhorrent he's making parametricist/determinist ideology seem to the rest of us - probably because he's unable to understand how he sounds to people who still believe in things like ethics, morals, free will, love...

 

However - I think his desire to argue against "misconceptions of 'parametricism'" shows that he has a vested interest in this particular dogma - a true determinist wouldn't care so much what a bunch of random people on the internet thinks.

 

@noubtree:  yes - you are being dogmatic. It is easy to impose an arbitrary  value judgement on something that just is.  Sounds an awful lot like religion to me.

i r giv up
May 22, 12 2:42 pm

huh? how does empathy require free will? ever heard of mirror neurons? they're pretty awesome.

 

--

 

"ethics, morals, free will, love..." huh? none of those things require "belief" unless you're too lazy to take the time to understand them.

 

--

"a true determinist wouldn't care so much what a bunch of random people on the internet thinks."

are you retarded? how is my amusement incompatible with being a determinist?

25 characters in length
May 22, 12 2:55 pm

 

noubtree, then what is relavent to process, parametrics or emergence?

For me personally, ethicality is not an issue because I'll freely admit to using "parametrics" just to see what geometries might emmerge, especially by stepping outside of the "expected" process.

Do you perhaps see 'process' and 'design', with regard to parametrics/emergence, as the same thing?

 

i r giv up
May 22, 12 3:18 pm

@history: last question = spot on. yes. correct.

t a m m u z
May 22, 12 3:30 pm

history repeats itself, yes thanks for putting it quite succinctly.

 

your usage of parametricism, per your 1st post and sketches, has altogether a different purpose, a suggestive  one then, possibly re-interperative one when deliberated and well placed ( i meant should it resonate contextually),and therefore is not of the same breed as the usage founded on emergent metaphors. i would even say that you wouldn't  be stepping out of mimicry anyway since you were not really in it to begin with.

another question: do you think that the reaction against a referential-discursive practice of architecture (and specifically against eisenman) resulted in a pathology founded on the denial of the role of the reference within architecture that we witness within the rhetoric of emergent parametricism, and more widely, within the current strains of materialist architectural thought?

i r giv up
May 22, 12 3:39 pm

no. you don't get sick from words, wordboy.

Rusty!
May 22, 12 4:59 pm

Another thread in which champions of parametricism come off as angry assholes.

 

Rhino/grasshoper: side effects include permanent constipation.

i r giv up
May 22, 12 6:12 pm

huge stools son.

Nam HendersonNam Henderson
May 22, 12 7:57 pm

i really hope this isn't true "intentionality, ethics, and all of that crap has been dead for 15 years." if so says something about current generation of architects, no?...

boy in a well
May 22, 12 8:14 pm

 

 

i r giv up
May 22, 12 8:24 pm

no. it doesn't, nam.

boy in a well
May 22, 12 9:25 pm

 

 

 

 

Paulie
May 22, 12 9:54 pm

I don't see much merit in moralizing architectural parametrics or emergence as it distracts one from being productive. The ethical assumptions tend to be very superficial.

are we creatures totally of precedent nature or does there subsist within us a unique virtuality that brings about a new unprecedented nature within which the artificial exists naturally and without which, the artificial exists unnaturally.? -tam

People wish this was so, but humans are creatures of a selfish nature and selfish genes. Between survival and environment, survival always wins or at least dies trying. Balancing acts lead to postnaturalism at best, an artificial endeavor. There is nothing more artifical-bound than humans.

Paulie
May 22, 12 10:19 pm

Also, there is not such thing as "nature". The sentimental idea of nature is outdated Romanticist propaganda.

i r giv up
May 22, 12 10:53 pm

whatever dude, toasteroven told me that this skyscraper was made of magical unicorn blood.

completely unnatural.

/sarcastic agreement.

design
May 22, 12 11:39 pm

!!!!

Donna SinkDonna Sink
May 23, 12 12:25 am

...intentionality, ethics, and all of that crap has been dead for 15 years...

But desire isn't dead.  And lots of people desire ethics and intentionality.

Once again Calvin says it best: Usually, if you're calling any shots at all, you're not eating worms.

t a m m u z
May 23, 12 1:38 am

Paulie, you do choose to follow a process, correct? you could, after all, follow - for instance- an alternative and indentifiably minimalist-modernist process (which is still relevant in the world and is the trajectory for many) of designing (or would you dispute it as a non-process within your understanding) that is even counter-parametric [that would be an interesting topic: approaching minimalism as a disruptive field of operation rather than a unified one per parametric design] should you choose. why do (or would)  you choose this method of processing? it is because you have belief in its relevance in some way, correct? why is it relevant to you as a designer and to the community of users (and i do recognize there are different/distinct groups of users depending on the nature of this design (i.e. digital/speculative or an eventual 3d printed ornament or industrial product or a building...etc).

I do wish to, again, underline that my concern was not to tackle parametricism at large but specifically that breed of parametricism that seeks to function as an analogy of nature and , from outside, presents itself as a deterministic extention of nature. i would also put forward that whoever is criticizing my usage of nature might be appeased if i simply replace it with the word ecology since that word doesn't posit an opposition between the natural and the artificial.  i still prefer to use the word nature perhaps for those two reasons.

the first is that the word "ecology" has been harmonized already with the tract of thought being questioned (and by using it it, i would be "begging teh question" - is taht the right term?)...i prefer to use the word "nature" because we (and by we, i mean the larger cross-section of humanity- not a small clique of designers), generally, live in a period where we have a lot of anxiety over what is natural and artificial, over the waning of the natural environment and the impact on our health.

the second is that ecology is a taming of the environment by the subject's awareness, whereas nature, as a mental construct, includes  everything within it, including consciousness, that exists -paradoxically- aside and without consciousness.

as such, nature expresses a sense of the known and simultaneously the unknowable and, in my opinion, is truer to how we - in our literature, music, art, and the daily ongoings of our life- still view ourselves and our mortality.

i think i'm getting to a wider conjecture here and it is this: emergent parametricism  closes a circle of denial. it starts with validating itself as a natural system based on an analogy whose figurative contigency it does not recognize and ends up devalidating nature based on an indexical determinism whose contingency it does not recognize.

mespellrong
May 23, 12 1:57 am

Holy crud Donna finally comes out as a Calvinist! I also like the lol kitten philologer. Re: being productive, Paulie, such a thing is surely a matter of perspective, especially these days. I'm willing to bet, however, that in simple economic terms even poor little Ethics beats parametrics for sheer economic productivity in the US by at least an order of magnitude. And since the major architecture news venues are recycling parametric projects from a decade ago to show buit work, well, there isn't much nice to say there, so I'll say nothing at all. You can call him old-school, but Nam is right -- the biggest commodity an architect has is her integrity, and the majority of people who can afford to pay an architect are actually looking at you for that quality. So you can trash talk about your wolframseque-wired-magazine-mondo-2000-poor-understanding-or-science all you want, and then you can go back to your script-kiddie video games. That really is the point, so, to the OP, I think you are on to something here. Let me suggest the following: your argument hinges on 1) what you really mean by figuration, and 2) your commitment to whether or not it is merely a moral argument, or making a case for it as ethical, or Marxist. You should know that the only act of reification here so far has been your elission of those modes of being. You also lost me when you claimed that your argument is not "cyborgic" -- unless you were trying to make some cheap claim that the dialogue you are interested in is not post-modernist. If so, bull. The pleasure of postmodern thought generally derives from the folding of unlike likenesses together to reveal something uncanny, which you have done -- with remarkable brevity. I'd like to see more. Re: mimicry & metaphors, Michael Taussig and George Lakoff (the early works). Re: Your "nature" problem Georgio Agamben.

t a m m u z
May 23, 12 2:40 am

this is the first time i've been accused of brevity here :o)

1) figurative: http://languagearts.mrdonn.org/figurative.html

2) ethical is a matter of practice - so i apply the term to such a practice of design. moral (and i did say, perhaps) applies to my stance as an admittance. i'm more interested in discussing the topic than overstating a moral stance but still, with one's choice to accept and reject, there would be an involvement of a certain moral. but i'm not consciously launching it from the standpoint of a particular school of thought (marxist or otherwise).

re:: "cyborgic": the theme is not the functional unity of the natural and artificial but rather the conceptual obscuration between that which is represented and its representation. admittedly, there has been an introduction and development of other dimensions in the (relevant) discussions. i am fully aware of the influence of post-modernism on my thoughts and on others' thoughts; i don't think you need to accuse me of making a cheap claim...however you evaluate its expense.

re: reification: i think the sentence is rather obvious "we are not mimicing nature, we are mimicing our understanding of nature and to obliterate the difference between nature and our understanding of it is semiotically an aberration. an aberration that might very well have real consequences that feed back into - and actively deform- nature i.e. what is called (within marxism and philosophy in general) reification."

of course, i see that ideologically prescriptive  and self-assured ideological system of design could be accused of the same.

personally, i don't see much of the uncanny here. i can see there is the possibility of denial, dishonesty to oneself and then to others (per history repeats itself's post), ideologies than don't wish to identify themselves as ideologies. i think, if i can put it in a traditional way, its possibly about ethical shortcomings  that are being made. but, in case you disagree, kindly clarify.  

Paulie
May 23, 12 3:40 am

Ok so you are really hinting at the biological formalism that many are skeptical of. I think nevertheless that strain of work is more ethical than anything LEED can come up with, at least theoretically. Like noubtree mentioned in another thread:  "while the lack of research depth and rigor when developing forms is definitely worthy of a discussion, defaulting into shiny white modernist boxes................"       I'm inclined to say no thanks to the white boxes too, amazing times are ahead and architecture's naive take on science has helped raise much discussion in that regard. Today's white boxes don't solve anything and it is counter-productive to start off with them.

It's great you mentioned ecology. There is a lot of merit in the green movement, but much of it (and its perception of "nature")  is exposed as a mirage when it has to face off with growth and the existence of people. Its a quality of life concern, while its good for the time being its not the bigger picture. Some would even argue that vegetarianism is a form of technophobia, and Zizek would say we should become more artificial.

 

as such, nature expresses a sense of the known and simultaneously the unknowable and, in my opinion, is truer to how we - in our literature, music, art, and the daily ongoings of our life- still view ourselves and our mortality.

I really don't agree with this outlook. While it can ring true for those that grow tired of searching, the biggest problem with this kind of belief is that people become so content with it, they no longer see a reason to ask anything

Paulie
May 23, 12 3:58 am

@mespell

in simple economic terms even poor little Ethics beats parametrics for sheer economic productivity in the US by at least an order of magnitude.
If you're refering to architectural practice, I think the two play off each other. But if you want them to compete, i don't see the point.

 the biggest commodity an architect has is her integrity,
is that your excuse to disregard parametrics mespell? If so, it won't be surprising to see you go out of business one day.

Paulie
May 23, 12 4:05 am

I'll also add, ethics and intentions can be defined thru parameters.

metal
May 23, 12 5:15 am

@tammuz
"we are not mimicing nature, we are mimicing our understanding of nature and to obliterate the difference between nature and our understanding of it is semiotically an aberration. an aberration that might very well have real consequences that feed back into - and actively deform- nature i.e. what is called (within marxism and philosophy in general) reification."

You are looking at nature like a hippie from the 60's. We solved it a long time ago. It is no longer something mystical and out of reach.

 

@mespellwrong
Of the two dangerous ideas: "I'll never be an outlier" and "I'll always be an outlier" the latter is much more harmful. The point is there is data which behaves, emerges and generates few outliers. It is better to able to predict the performance of a building than be surprised when it doesn't go according to some personal narrative. 

"And since the major architecture news venues are recycling parametric projects from a decade ago to show buit work,"

Absolutely absurd championing of ignorance, please remove your foil hat. And why the hell are you bringing up postmodernism, no longer relevant or even a real movement.

t a m m u z
May 23, 12 6:41 am

 i'm not discussing nature per se but a common representational understanding of nature. secondly, in no way did i bring up mysticism or subsribe to it. but, you are correct in that  i did imply that it did imply, as a concept, an aspect of unreachability. why so? because it exists between being an object and a subject: we speak of nature as subject to our speech when our very selves and our speech are instances of nature. its unreachability is not mystical  where mystical refers to an unkown lying inhrently outside the realm of knowledge. its unreachability is exactly due to it being at the blinding centre of our knowledge and being. our knowledge thus has to be blind to this tautology. this is not mystical.

again, the intent of my posts are being misinterperated and misaligned really. i'm not approaching this topic through an  essentialist route -although there are essentialist implications-  but rather from , what i find to be more specifically nowadays, a semiotic point of view.

in essence, i don't care whether you subsribe to parametric design or not; i do care to understand why you do so and i care to know how this translates back into the world to alter the relation between things.

 

i r giv up
May 23, 12 9:28 am

your posts rest on bullshit assumptions.

there is no choice.

if you think you chose to design in a certain way, you may as well put on a loin cloth and start worshipping the sun.

25 characters in length
May 23, 12 9:58 am

And adding the 'unexpected' thinking, imagine the image above as the 2-dimentional 'grid' plan of a city. It's like actually stepping out of the mimicry.

What I mean here by "actually stepping out of the mimicry" is that even the image above is a form of mimicry in that it really isn't a bunch of 3-dimensional curved surfaces in space, rather a coherent group of lines that when precieved cause our brain to imagine a  bunch of 3-dimensional curved surfaces in space. To see these lines as a grid plan of a city, however, you really have to adjust your imagination. And I'll say that it is within that act of "adjusting the imagination"  where the crux of design happens.

I also asked, "Does it still just boil down to a sophisticated play of/with geometry?" I'd say that for the most part yes, in that the base is (many) points in space. Algorithms are used to define the surfaces between the (many) points in space. Super-fast computation puts all this sophisticated geometry in flux (and potential manufacture). Script writing, or lets say the process, is here a continual "adjusting of the imagination"--literally continually adjusting the image--and that is why is it now easy to believe that process is indeed also design.

I now wonder if the process/design of parametrics is better described as 'artificial design' because it still lacks the ability to imagine itself differently than how it is programmed to imagine itself.

 

tammuz, as to your other question:

do you think that the reaction against a referential-discursive practice of architecture (and specifically against eisenman) resulted in a pathology founded on the denial of the role of the reference within architecture that we witness within the rhetoric of emergent parametricism, and more widely, within the current strains of materialist architectural thought?

I'd feel more comfortable answering if you clarified or referenced it some examples, and maybe even adjusted it to what I just wrote above. If I undestand your question correctly so far, it hinges on the "pathology founded on the denial of the role of the reference" and it looks like I might think of that more in terms of 'the role of imagination' rather than the adherence to one design ideology or another.

 

jla-x
May 23, 12 11:42 am

You are looking at nature like a hippie from the 60's. We solved it a long time ago. It is no longer something mystical and out of reach.

solved what? 

 

jla-x
May 23, 12 11:45 am

in essence, i don't care whether you subsribe to parametric design or not; i do care to understand why you do so and i care to know how this translates back into the world to alter the relation between things.

Agree!

jla-x
May 23, 12 11:53 am

the math is useless without first wanting to know why the apple fell from the tree.

there is too much focus on the how and not enough on the why.

metal
May 23, 12 1:44 pm

We solved how "nature" works jla-x
there is too much focus on the how and not enough on the why.
What are you going to do all by yourself as an architect? There are not many why's an architect can answer.

in essence, i don't care whether you subsribe to parametric design or not; i do care to understand why you do so and i care to know how this translates back into the world to alter the relation between things.

I'm trying to see what we would ultimately get out of this. If your perspective on biomimetics revolves around geometry than Tammuz, history, jla-x, et al. have no thesis.

I agree with what Paulie mentioned, work currently under development falls favorably upon ethics compared to anything LEED can produce. If anything that will be the conclusion of your question tammuz.

@history repeating itself
I now wonder if the process/design of parametrics is better described as 'artificial design' because it still lacks the ability to imagine itself differently than how it is programmed to imagine itself.

No, read up on self-awareness in artificial systems.
You think non-parametrics is natural? people are not natural. People simply negotiate the bridge between technology and the environment.

25 characters in length
May 23, 12 3:38 pm

 

white fang,asking as a potential client for your architectural services:

What does your perspective on biomimetics revolve around? And how does that relate to this library I want to build?

Also, tell me about self-awareness in parametrics.

 

metal
May 23, 12 4:24 pm

If you want a library that is a productive piece of environmental technology, there is no better place to start off than biomimetics.

curtkram
May 23, 12 4:37 pm

Ok, I looked up biomimetics on wikipedia because I wasn't sure. 

You're going to design a library as if it were a biological system.  Biological systems move.  I think that's an important part of biology.  So the form of the building, or it's shape, is not really derived from biological systems.  You're not going to actually grow trees into structures like the elves in Lord of the Rings (they did that right?).  So, since building materials like plywood come in square 4'x8' sheets, and bricks are box-shaped, you're going to stick with box-shaped I assume.  Or you can do loopy blobitecture; we do have the technology if you want.  Whatever.  Form isn't the determining factor for a biomimetic building. 

What is the determining bit would be the moving parts, like the mechanical system.  That actually has to be designed to take air in, distribute it through the building, and exhaust air.  The plumbing system bring in liquids and dispel waste.  Very biomimetic.

Have you considered engineering instead of architecture?  We pretty much always hire consultants for that bit.  Also, it's not cutting edge.  Engineers have been doing that sort of thing for decades (unless you're proposing a better way to design mechanical systems and I just haven't grasped it yet).

As for self awareness, I have no idea why you would ever want a self-aware building.  I'm pretty sure I sort of have an idea of what that means, but beyond a programmable thermostat or the smart-home type stuff, I don't see that being good.  What if my house quit liking me because I yelled at it too much?  What if I had a rough day for whatever reason and want to set the thermostat to 65 for a while instead of 75?  Would I have to take crap from the house?  I'm not even going to start of the private stuff in my house I want to keep private....

Kevin W.Kevin W.
May 23, 12 4:48 pm

biomimetics....BIOMIMETICS??? Hell thats just your fancy book learnin' word for Organic Architecture.....Shit, Frank was doing that a long time ago....I really gotta buck up on my buzzwords.

i r giv up
May 23, 12 4:57 pm

we aren't talking about self-aware buildings.

the reason, i believe, why white fang pointed you that way, is that most of the literature regarding consciousness, sentience and artificial intelligence strongly positions humans and machines in the same continuum. most of the arguments against parametrics that center around human uniqueness were tackled by that same field 20 years ago. this thread is full of such arguments (barcelona pavilion example).

metal
May 23, 12 4:57 pm

@curtkram
Biomimetics don't reject form, its performance and form - performalism, among other things

Also, I think you're over-conventionalizing the subject.
It's edgy for those that still want to espouse plywood,bricks, dated mechanical systems, things that architecture does not have to revolve around. Your perspective results in more and more architects handing out work to engineers.

As for the self-awareness bit....I'll just let you sound silly.

metal
May 23, 12 5:01 pm

noubtree is spot on, Its amazing how many architects don't know about this stuff.

25 characters in length
May 23, 12 5:02 pm

 

white fang, yes I do what a library that is a productive piece of environmental technology, so give me at least three examples of how biomimtics is going to make the library a productive piece of environmental technology.

Otherwise, if I am not interested in the librarybeing a productive piece of environmental technology, does that me I won't be needing bomimetics?

 

And again, can you tell me about self-awareness within the process/design of parametrics?

 

metal
May 23, 12 5:07 pm

Sure, hold on a second while I dump over 50 years of history on this forum just for you and the sun worshippers.

archinect university isn't paying me, so have to get back to work.

i r giv up
May 23, 12 5:07 pm

no, go read.

  • ×Search in:


Please wait... loading
Please wait... loading