You prove more and more that you know less and less. Was no one's reply to your first comment not enough to get you to realize there is no need for your conduct? Perhaps you should post again so you look a bit more attention craving and immature.
Oh wait you did...
I am a student attending a university and recently gained a vocabulary in Grasshopper, kangaroo, etc. If you don't understand the benefits of using parametrics or scripting in an architectural (especially in an school setting with a deadline) setting than you are ignorant.
I'm sure you have used revit in your work, it too can be dubbed 'parametric' ; change the design of one wall, and the whole building's shape will ultimately change.
Pretty much any design or architecture is parametric. Everything is based upon dimensions, layouts, and numbers. One thing that you are guaranteed with any project, is that it will ultimately have parameters.
No one cares for your immature conduct dealing with a simple inquiry on a community based forum. I simply wanted a light read on the topic, and your attempt to put me down was not only a failure, but you managed make yourself look immature and unprofessional.
Sebastian, check the falling authors: patrick schumacher, michael hensel, achim menges and greg lynn (the latter, i feel, has a different tangent altogether even if they band up to promote digital/parametric design).
Very familiar with these guys, but I will look into some of their publications.
Have been reading Thom Mayne's recent book 'Combinatory Urbanism', alot of his architectural theory is based a belief that utilizes parametric frameworks. The urban fabric is a complex integration of forces rather than a single stagnant object...
You might also wish to refer to work and text by FOA, UN Studio, Reiser Umemoto etc who are not narrowly circumscribed by the term parametricism but there is certainly an overlap.
Of all the above, i believe the most interesting and intelligent idealogue of the lot is patrick schumacher. Consequentiality i believe his discourse veers to the most flawed and the most intellectually distateful (to my taste).
Darn...i could have believed Mayne was an anti-parametricist.
Oh - you're a student attending a university. I'm sorry. I thought that you might have an open, inquiring mind, eager to challenenge assumptions. My mistake. Don't bother reading the posted links. Your cup is already full.
Oh and @t a m m u z , he is not interested with the conversation about parametricism, its just that parameters are sometimes needed in order to map the complex behavior of collective form. The idea that there are different results between a single output, and two..
t a m m u z. I like your comment about FOA, UN Studio, and Reiser Umemoto. I am much more appreciative of the work done at the fringe of parametrics than the work done at it's core.... Wasn't there a pretty hefty discussion on Archinect about Schumacher where he actually joined in?
^ Linked above. Not sure how much is attributable to language barriers - probably very little judging by the vocabulary - but before the usual suspects monopolized the thread it was apparent that the emporer had no clothes.
if you want to be a passable architect, you really need to get rid of the flowery bullshit language. why are you lumping people like un studio, foa, etc. into 'parametricism' if they aren't 'parametric?' let them self-identify. maybe un studio, foa, etc. don't even like ZHA.
you've already defined everything that has parameters as 'parametric' and said everything has parameters. so everything is parametric? then just call it 'everything.' look for a book that includes 'everything' on architecture. it seems to me that by putting yourself into the 'parametric' box, you're essentially closing yourself off from all the useful things you could be learning about that could turn you in to a better architect.
unless it's your goal to not be a passable architect. if that's the case, what are you going to do with a parametric/algorithmic landscape?
Here is a parametric idea. Design a building that doesn't leak and one that doesn't explode the car parked across the street by focusing the sun's rays. You will be way ahead of Frank Gehry.
"You've already defined everything that has parameters as 'parametric' and said everything has parameters. so everything is parametric? then just call it 'everything.' look for a book that includes 'everything' on architecture. it seems to me that by putting yourself into the 'parametric' box, you're essentially closing yourself off from all the useful things you could be learning about that could turn you in to a better architect."
Why are you three being such jerks? Just because the dude expressed interest in parametric design doesn't necessarily mean that's all he's interested in, and even if it is, what's the harm in that?
His interests don't have to affect you at all, butyou're acting like he has wronged you just by asking a completely valid and innocuous question.
When one reads the foa's phylogenesis, un studio's mobile forces and fold, reisner umemoto's atlas of novel techniques along with parametricist and emergent design texts, it'll be clear that there is a lot of common ground and overlap of vocabulary and culture. OP also included categories beyond strict parametricism. Merely seeing these architects as segregated architects will overlook a common culture and heritage. In fact, it would do parametricism a favour to locate it within wider sensibilities ... the danger is in serving schumacher, for instance, as a sole exponent. I also have foa, unsudio, reisner umemoto and (i believe) greg lyns collaboration on the world trade center proposal.
Best publication of Parametric design
What are some good reads dealing with:
-Parametric Design
-Digital Fabrication
-Algorithmic Landscapes
-Landscape Urbanism
-Parametric Urbanism
ETC!
Let me know thanks!
Drink much Kool-Aid?
Here are some links for you:
Architectural Quackery At Its Finest: Parametricism
Parametric smackdown: Patrik Schumacher and Reinhold Martin debate at CalArts conference
Is this a parametric sink or a urinal?
You prove more and more that you know less and less. Was no one's reply to your first comment not enough to get you to realize there is no need for your conduct? Perhaps you should post again so you look a bit more attention craving and immature.
Oh wait you did...
I am a student attending a university and recently gained a vocabulary in Grasshopper, kangaroo, etc. If you don't understand the benefits of using parametrics or scripting in an architectural (especially in an school setting with a deadline) setting than you are ignorant.
I'm sure you have used revit in your work, it too can be dubbed 'parametric' ; change the design of one wall, and the whole building's shape will ultimately change.
Pretty much any design or architecture is parametric. Everything is based upon dimensions, layouts, and numbers. One thing that you are guaranteed with any project, is that it will ultimately have parameters.
No one cares for your immature conduct dealing with a simple inquiry on a community based forum. I simply wanted a light read on the topic, and your attempt to put me down was not only a failure, but you managed make yourself look immature and unprofessional.
Good day,
Sebastian
Sebastian, check the falling authors: patrick schumacher, michael hensel, achim menges and greg lynn (the latter, i feel, has a different tangent altogether even if they band up to promote digital/parametric design).
Good luck
Very familiar with these guys, but I will look into some of their publications.
Have been reading Thom Mayne's recent book 'Combinatory Urbanism', alot of his architectural theory is based a belief that utilizes parametric frameworks. The urban fabric is a complex integration of forces rather than a single stagnant object...
Any feelings on this Detail issue?
http://shop.detail.de/row_e/einzelhefte/english-edition/jahrgang2010-1/detail-english-4-2010-analogue-and-digital.html
You might also wish to refer to work and text by FOA, UN Studio, Reiser Umemoto etc who are not narrowly circumscribed by the term parametricism but there is certainly an overlap.
Of all the above, i believe the most interesting and intelligent idealogue of the lot is patrick schumacher. Consequentiality i believe his discourse veers to the most flawed and the most intellectually distateful (to my taste).
Darn...i could have believed Mayne was an anti-parametricist.
Oh - you're a student attending a university. I'm sorry. I thought that you might have an open, inquiring mind, eager to challenenge assumptions. My mistake. Don't bother reading the posted links. Your cup is already full.
Congratulations on your new vocabulary.
I did check out both links, and please, please don't bother making it look like that's what you intended, you're not fooling anyone!
p.s. i checked out your website...
Oh and @t a m m u z , he is not interested with the conversation about parametricism, its just that parameters are sometimes needed in order to map the complex behavior of collective form. The idea that there are different results between a single output, and two..
"You prove more and more that you know less and less." But 'less is more', isn't it? More or less.
The pattern issue of ADD.
t a m m u z. I like your comment about FOA, UN Studio, and Reiser Umemoto. I am much more appreciative of the work done at the fringe of parametrics than the work done at it's core.... Wasn't there a pretty hefty discussion on Archinect about Schumacher where he actually joined in?
^ Linked above. Not sure how much is attributable to language barriers - probably very little judging by the vocabulary - but before the usual suspects monopolized the thread it was apparent that the emporer had no clothes.
if you want to be a passable architect, you really need to get rid of the flowery bullshit language. why are you lumping people like un studio, foa, etc. into 'parametricism' if they aren't 'parametric?' let them self-identify. maybe un studio, foa, etc. don't even like ZHA.
you've already defined everything that has parameters as 'parametric' and said everything has parameters. so everything is parametric? then just call it 'everything.' look for a book that includes 'everything' on architecture. it seems to me that by putting yourself into the 'parametric' box, you're essentially closing yourself off from all the useful things you could be learning about that could turn you in to a better architect.
unless it's your goal to not be a passable architect. if that's the case, what are you going to do with a parametric/algorithmic landscape?
Oh, I must have missed that Miles.
^ ADD = attention deficit disorder
Here is a parametric idea. Design a building that doesn't leak and one that doesn't explode the car parked across the street by focusing the sun's rays. You will be way ahead of Frank Gehry.
"You've already defined everything that has parameters as 'parametric' and said everything has parameters. so everything is parametric? then just call it 'everything.' look for a book that includes 'everything' on architecture. it seems to me that by putting yourself into the 'parametric' box, you're essentially closing yourself off from all the useful things you could be learning about that could turn you in to a better architect."
Drink much Kool Aid?
@milesjaffe @curtkram @volunteer
Why are you three being such jerks? Just because the dude expressed interest in parametric design doesn't necessarily mean that's all he's interested in, and even if it is, what's the harm in that?
His interests don't have to affect you at all, but you're acting like he has wronged you just by asking a completely valid and innocuous question.
When one reads the foa's phylogenesis, un studio's mobile forces and fold, reisner umemoto's atlas of novel techniques along with parametricist and emergent design texts, it'll be clear that there is a lot of common ground and overlap of vocabulary and culture. OP also included categories beyond strict parametricism. Merely seeing these architects as segregated architects will overlook a common culture and heritage. In fact, it would do parametricism a favour to locate it within wider sensibilities ... the danger is in serving schumacher, for instance, as a sole exponent. I also have foa, unsudio, reisner umemoto and (i believe) greg lyns collaboration on the world trade center proposal.
(Continued) in mind.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.