In mid-April I had posted a note entitled "In Defense of Stars and Icons" on my Facebook page. This was picked up and extensively commented on, here on Archinect. I am thrilled about the lively debate that followed (in which I had participated as ‘parametricist’) and I am happy to get the opportunity to come back to this debate once more in this op-ed.
In my original post I had argued that the concepts of “iconic architecture” and “star architect” do not feature within architectural discourse, but are mass media concepts that translate architectural innovations and reputations into the public domain, and that therefore the recent backlash and tendency by some architects and critics to dismiss stars and icons as superficial is an irrelevant point-scoring that misses the pointed task of critics – to first of all explicate (rather than dismiss) the reputations and inspirational works that command the attention of the discipline and the public. The debate on Archinect was rather lively, picking up on some of the themes I had raised, like the distinction of an architectural discourse internal to the discipline versus architecture’s public reception, and the role of critics as mediators. However, the debate soon expanded to more general and profound questions about architecture’s societal mission, and leading to the expression of political sentiments that indeed go beyond the confines of architectural discourse.
toasteroven says: “He's trying to preserve ZHA's (and his?) brand by telling the critics to give them free advertising.” And, curtkram:
you're [sic] use of 'architect as architect' seems to be used more to alleviate yourself from taking a moral position, or even having morals for that matter. who you are as an architect is the same thing as who you are as a person, and it's your character that defines you both as a person and as an architect. when you design a condo for a client you may not be in a position, as an architect, to solve public housing problems. however, when you give an interview, or write a book, or post something to facebook, that reflects who you are as a person rather than who you are simply as an architect. if the media has given you a bully pulpit, then you aren't stuck to the confines of your client's program, but rather you have a voice that reflects your character as a person. to say climate change or housing or whatever else isn't your concern because your [sic] an architect is a cheap cop-out. if you can't offer a solution because you don't understand the problem, then that's fine, but to say it isn't your concern because of your profession is just wrong. it's everyone's concern, regardless of their profession.
there's nothing wrong with the media or a given prize committee taking under consideration what impact you projects have had on their communities or to consider your character. who you are as an architect is a reflection of who you are as a person, and it would make much more sense for the media to give attention to good people who want to help make the world a better place rather than arbitrary forms.
hard-earned money is just a means to do more work and research (and I find the same spirit prevails with all the “star architects” I know)Rather than responding to the quoted comments I want to begin with saying that both the introduction/critique of my post and most of the comments are welcome occasions for reflection that allow me to refine my thinking and its articulation. I can agree with many (perhaps most) of the comments. Before I pick up on the most interesting points I want to make two general remarks that are meant to clear up and hopefully dispel some misunderstandings that I feel might have stirred misgivings and suspicions where agreement should be possible.
The first general remark concerns the bad faith motives that are attributed to me. I am not sure if this can be overcome but I hope it can. I see myself as an architect and architectural theorist, working and thinking with the same passion, commitment and values I have always brought to my work in architecture since my university days. The success I experienced has not changed this, and my pattern of life in London has not changed much since the time I came here as student. I am certainly not cushioned within a “bubble”. Rather hard-earned money is just a means to do more work and research (and I find the same spirit prevails with all the “star architects” I know). We are no more, nor less eager to promote our work than students or start-ups. In fact, after a certain measure of success has been achieved we can perhaps afford to be more truthful to our real substantive ambitions. Come to work with us to find out, or perhaps come to study with me.
I am able to illustrate my manifestos with some of our work, as I do in my lectures. Still, all our projects fall short in relation to my theoretical agendaThe second general remark concerns the relationship between my theoretical writings and polemics on the one hand, and my work at ZHA on the other. They are related but different. The large number of project opportunities allows us to occasionally match up some of my programmatic research ambitions with real life projects, and thus I might be able to demonstrate (in some of our buildings) a certain aspect of the research. Therefore I am able to illustrate my manifestos with some of our work, as I do in my lectures. Still, all our projects fall short in relation to my theoretical agenda and relative to the speculative design research projects pursued by the AA DRL, or other teaching arenas like Harvard, Yale, and Vienna. (All these academic projects also fall short).
Naturally, I am subject to the same schism between manifesto ambitions and realizations that one finds with every (theoretically-minded) forward-thinking architect. This does not mean that this forward thinking is utopian in the bad sense of delusional. This is just the dynamic of research and innovation in architecture, where a single project usually only delivers a partial contribution to an overall comprehensive agenda of innovation. Therefore, the criticisms that can and should be leveled against our built works should not count as arguments against my position and proposals. I accept many criticism against our results and have my own self-criticisms based on my own agenda and values. (This also comes through in some of my lectures).
Let me now pick up some further points from the debate:I am subject to the same schism between manifesto ambitions and realizations that one finds with every (theoretically-minded) forward-thinking architect.
The introduction of Nicholas Korody's piece argues that “if the general public can’t understand a work of architecture, then perhaps its merits aren’t so great after all.” I largely agree with this statement, but only because it contains the word “perhaps”. We cannot unconditionally make the general public the arbiter of architectural quality for two reasons: firstly, the purpose of a lot of buildings is geared towards a specific (rather than general) user group, and secondly, innovative concepts require an incubation period and the suspension of instant judgement. However, I agree 100%, with the following, without any caveats: “Architecture should not exist only for the propagation of its own discourse. Architecture constructs and instructs lived experience by spacing individuals and objects in relation to one another. Architecture should first and foremost be oriented around this fundamental act, not around the hermeneutics of its own obfuscated rhetoric.” Absolutely! I wish the societal function of architecture pinpointed here would become more explicitly the guiding criterion of all architects’ design efforts.
In my words: the societal function of architecture is the (innovative) spatial ordering of social processes and the framing of social interaction. In my writings, I am tirelessly pushing this point, and my current design research agenda is centered on the question of how to operationalize this within the design process. My idea focuses on architecture’s communicative capacity, calling for architectural semiotics to be re-established as agent-based and parametric. This can be done through the use of generalized crowd modeling (“life-process modeling”) to explore how agents under certain behavioral scripts can be systematized through information-rich environments.the societal function of architecture is the (innovative) spatial ordering of social processes and the framing of social interaction
I have been working, writing and lecturing on this extensively in recent years. I mention this here to indicate that what might look like “obfuscating theoretical rhetoric” (which indeed pollutes our discipline and which is being falsely attributed to me) is in fact instrumental in guiding architectural design towards better addressing its specific core competency and societal function. Here too, suspension of disbelief and a certain degree of tolerance is required to give space to the (always vulnerable) attempts at innovation. I am certainly not asking for a carte blanche; I am insisting that the discipline in general (and parametricism in particular) has to increase its exposure to criticism, including self-criticism. Parametricism’s incubation period is over. And architecture’s search for an answer to the crisis of modernism must come to an actionable (interim) conclusion.
This is the background of my earlier Facebook post against “anything goes” pluralism and multi-culti over-tolerance: “Permanent pluralism of styles = architectural stagnation →→ zero tolerance for architectural backwardness”. That this polemic might indeed still be pertinent is illustrated in the comments stream where Orhan Ayyüce articulates the very attitude I am attacking: “I am truly liking the "Whatever" period of architecture. It is a time of no rights no wrongs.” I argue that the 1980s were a period where “anything goes” was temporarily necessary to brainstorm our way out of the confusion after modernism’s collapse. It’s no longer productive at a time when the results of this extended brainstorming era are ready to be expanded, refined and implemented.
I am insisting that the discipline in general (and parametricism in particular) has to increase its exposure to criticism, including self-criticism.So, given my eagerness to innovate and upgrade architecture’s societal efficacy, I do not agree with Nicholas Korody’s characterization: “Schumacher seems to maintain rather outdated and elitist aspects of architecture, particularly its self-isolating tendencies.” What needs to be grasped is that an evolved, self-referencing discourse, by specialized disciplinary experts, is a precondition for architecture’s (all the more) effective engagement with the world, not a sign of permanent self-isolation. The charge of “elitism” rarely points into a productive direction. Arrogance needs to be avoided, but if the inverse of “elitism” implies the participation of everybody in everything, multi-culti pluralism, the rejection of leadership etc. then I say: let’s sweep this paralyzing PC nonsense out of our way. I was thankful to find some resonance for my anti-PC crusade (as I pushed in other Facebook posts) in the comments posted here: “half the time the criteria is super PC and half the time it's some anti starchitect creed. Pritzker is being forced into the political rage machine. So we went from a focus on building craft to saving the world from sexism, poverty, crime and hate in about 30 seconds as if building itself wasn't an humanistic endeavor on its own” (Lightperson).
Here is another comment that charges me with elitism, and suggests that my discourse is no longer up to date. “The argument is not that starchitecture fails to solve the worlds problems, but rather that it furthers them by glorifying the might of the elitists that are at the root of many of these problems. Its part of the problem … If you do work that acts as PR and even propaganda for the elitist you should expect backlash from the "peasants". Its the reality of the post 2008 world...the zeigeist IS to resist the forces of corporatism. the only "avante garde" thing one can do in this era is to resist and redirect the forces of elitism so I do not consider most starchitecture as "avante garde." Patrick frames his argument with the assumption that he is "forward" and the rest of us are "behind" but in reality his work is more of the same pre 2008 bullshit” (jla-x).
The comment points to a intellectual and political trend shift in architecture after 2008, that has led me to talk about the “crisis of parametricism”, and points to the need to shift gears into a new phase of design research focused on social functionality, under the banner of “Parametricism 2.0”. The economic crisis and long stagnation in the advanced economies did indeed take some of the steam out of our movement and led a new generation of architects and students to doubt the pertinence of our work and preoccupations. I have acknowledged parametricism has matured and can now take on serious, relevant work. The days of adolescent muscle-flexing are overthis (in recent lectures and writings) and have been trying to put pressure on the movement to deepen its agenda and to gear up to make a real impact. Parametricism 2.0 implies that parametricism has matured and can now take on serious, relevant work. The days of adolescent muscle-flexing are over – the real work has to begin, both in terms of serious research and in terms of realized projects that excel in social (as well as in technical) functionality.
We need to aim seriously to move from unbuilt and built manifestos pointing to future potentials, to competitive realizations of these potentials (I am currently editing an issue of AD to present this agenda with a group of like-minded colleagues). To say that parametricism (and the tooled-up pursuit of a dense, legible urban/architectural translation of complex social processes and institutions) should be over because of the recent economic slowdown and mood swing is fallacious. Going back to (modernist?) basics is not an option. World civilization has evolved irreversibly, from Fordism to Post-Fordism. For me, there is no doubt that parametricism entails architecture’s (computationally empowered) answer to our (computationally empowered) contemporary civilization. The last few years did not change this fundamental trajectory. The above comment got one fundamental intuition right: avant-garde architecture is nothing if it does not anticipate/adapt to historical trends. The crux here is to analyse and appraise the historical politico-economic situation. This is a key task for architectural theorists. This does not imply that architects and architectural theorists are called upon to enter the political debate, and certainly not with their design work (see my Facebook post and article, "Architecture and Politics: Dissecting the Pretense of Political Architecture”). My appraisal of the current situation is that computationally-empowered knowledge and the networked society continues (at a slower pace) its Post-Fordist socio-economic restructuring along broadly neo-liberal lines, largely undeterred by the intellectual mood swing alluded to by the above comment.there is no doubt that parametricism entails architecture’s (computationally empowered) answer to our (computationally empowered) contemporary civilization.
Since jla-x’s comment goes beyond mere trend analysis and shows its own political colors, I am tempted to show mine, thus going beyond the bounds of the architectural theorist’s role. To characterize the (pre-and-post-2008) neo-liberal trajectory as “elitist” is not helpful, because the (in my view, all too cautious) unleashing of market processes was cracking up rather than further entrenching established elites. Real capitalism is (should be!) a profit and loss system that delivers innovation via permanent revolution and creative destruction. In a truly capitalist economy (without state guarantees and subsidies) capital needs to be innovatively employed and reinvested (with imagination and courage) to expand or even be preserved. Those who fail lose their capital and decision making role to those who succeed. In my view, the excesses of the financial system can be traced back to the political brakes on the market dynamism (ongoing interventionism, regulations, guarantees, bailouts, subsidies etc.) rather than to this (self-cleansing) dynamism itself. The rearguard political interventionism, which is the root cause of the crisis, has unfortunately been strengthened by it, blocking self-regulation and leading to stagnation and further crisis-prone imbalances. However, none of this implies a fundamental shift in the historical trajectory of Post-Fordism. It just implies a (counter-productive) slowdown.
My own political opinion since 2008 has indeed become radicalized in the direction of libertarianism. Although I believe that parametricism is congenial to this outlook, parametricism is inherently apolitical/non-partisan, and its historical validity does not hinge on the prospect that my political hopes materialize. Just as modernism was able to translate Fordism under both capitalist and socialist political regimes, it did not necessarily mean that modernism was either inherently capitalist or socialist. Post-Fordist network society (with parametricism as its most congenial urban/architectural style) can evolve and flourish in various political guises, although I have come to believe that libertarianism might be its most effective and congenial political vehicle.
I am making my political opinion public here, because I feel that political ideologies (with their respective perspectives, sympathies and antipathies) are at the root of a lot of the bad faith and backlash I received in the comments. So, I won’t be able to address these disagreements with more architectural arguments, and can only spar on political terms. Some examples: “Wake up - globalization is simply a tool to make the rich richer and everyone else a slave. parametricism is inherently apolitical/non-partisan, and its historical validity does not hinge on the prospect that my political hopes materialize.Sustainable communities are where it's at, and they are exactly what globalization is trying to destroy so they can squeeze every last bloody penny out of everything. Schumacher is selling his global brand to power. He's powerless to change anything because real people and their concerns don't exist for him. He's living in a bubble - look at Hadid's client list. That's who he is sucking up to” (Miles Jaffe). I don’t distinguish between real and unreal people. It’s impossible to bridge this within architectural discourse. So I started to argue politically in my comments too. But to not much avail. I responded with “The rejection of neo-liberalism is the rejection of our times and of the societal conditions underlying the gains in innovative, entrepreneurial dynamism, productivity and prosperity that were achieved. The rejection and hatred of elites entails a similar practical contradiction, it is effectively the rejection of high performers, of those who do most for us. … Its like all those people hating google because it is a “powerful corporation” while relying 100 times per day on their free service.”
Miles Jaffe responded to my comment without being moved in the slightest: “Gains at what cost? The problems we face today largely stem from neoliberalism. I find it insulting that Schumacher, the self-styled avant-garde, is simply just a toady for the status quo.”
Our differences here are foremost political. I don’t think that the phrase “status quo” is helpful when the liberalisation of a global market dynamism implies that, as Marx had already understood, all that is solid melts into air. And most importantly: I don’t think that neo-liberalism is the problem, nor do I think that socialism is the solution. Going back is never a viable solution. The problem is that neo-liberalism is not liberal enough and indeed remains a variant of state interventionism, exploited by rent-seeking business interests. What I would like to agitate for – in my capacity as a politically-minded citizen (and not as architect and architectural theorist, despite curtkram’s passionate plea against such compartmentalization) – is the roll back of state-centralized power (and thus the draining of the paralysing and dangerous crony-capitalist swamp) in favour of a move towards an anarcho-capitalist, creativity-unleashing, entrepreneurial society. Let a million Post-Fordist and parametric flowers bloom!
90 Comments
If the media is supposed to be the mediator between academic discourse and the public, it is failing. The mediators of today seem to be the worst kind of cronies with little knowledge of the field (architecture is perhaps the only field where experts are not valued as opinionaters). So we choose between link bait fake debates and the Buzzfeeding of media. Which Building is the worst? Who is the most sexist?
Little of this has to do with the real effects of buildings on the world. Much of the critique of ZHAs work takes place in the political arena--whether its occupants enjoy it or to what degree it's successful is left to guesswork by critics with agendas one way or another. So we get to chose between politically correct, dubiously funded, self promoting critics, or any number of mind numbing architecture porn Or clickbait sites.
We need something different!
just more Kanye wanting to be Yeezus
Quondam, I imagine the reason that some projects fall short is that some clients fall short, and you can't wait for the perfect client, you have to move forward, and GEMO.
Patrik thanks for continuing to patiently clarify your position, which is clearly also evolving as a consequence of the many critiques that you are receiving, even though most of those critiques appear to be generated as knee-jerk reactions to buzzwords, largely uninformed about your very well publicized positions, and frequently so corrosive as to lead one to marvel at your willingness to engage them!
Lightperson, your implied definition of the word “political” is the crux of the point I want to make, and your comment clearly reflects the fact that you are not familiar Schumacher’s position on the issue of politics in architecture. He has written extensively in various contexts, and especially in the article “Architecture and Politics: Dissecting the Pretense of Political Architecture” (which is largely excerpted from his treatise The Autopoiesis of Architecture) that not every social interaction is political in a macro sense in which power is the medium of exchange. In fact, most day-to-day interactions are decidedly devoid of such (macro) political content, although some (or even most) interactions can perhaps be said to be the communications of micro-politics, which are inherently non-political in that they are manifestations of local and highly particular interactions; as such they do not produce the kinds of power structures and struggles that most of Schumacher’s political critics berate him for not resolving. But in order to acknowledge that this distinction is a very key element of Schumacher’s well-publicized views, you would have to look much closer at his extensive and highly refined (meaning thoroughly worked through) writings, and further, to be informed of the fact that Schumacher’s own evolution took him very far into the realm of political activism, much further than most ordinary citizens, starting very long ago. I agree with Schumacher’s assessment that ARCHITECTS DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OR EXPERTISE TO SOLVE POLITICAL PROBLEMS. This does not render architects inherently apathetic or ignorant; it just means that we are all limited in the range of expertise we can realistically attain in a lifetime. It is instructive to test my claim through a thought experiment on the absurdity of forming a client relationship in which the architect first takes it upon herself to “educate” her client in politically correct views. By politically correct I mean to say here “corrected politics”. While it is quite common to find such utopian efforts in academia, it is a rather sobering wake-up call to reality to realize that nobody engages architects in order to fix their (macro) political problems, any more than anyone hires a plumber to perform heart valve operations!
The critical distinction between “architect” (a specialized professional) and “citizen” (every one of us) is very important here, not because Schumacher is advocating apathetic callousness in the face of political problems, but precisely because so many (academic) architects waste precious time and resources attempting to solve macro political problems within a discourse that is entirely impotent to solve such problems. To reiterate, the absurdity is something akin to going to the dentist to fix your car. It’s not that the dentist is apathetic about cars; it’s simply not a reasonable expectation to ask a specialist in dentistry to fix a car engine! Equally it is an entirely misguided expectation that architects might have the capacity to solve problems in a discipline (politics) that requires honing of skills and long-term commitment to rigorous practice in order to be effective. Sure, it is very important that individual citizens involve themselves in political civic life, but the extent to which one’s involvement has the capacity to make a real impact is just as complex in politics as it is in architecture, and it demands a full time attention, specialization, and a substantial degree of expertise to achieve.
Much lip-service venting passes for political activism, and if in this you mean engagement in the political arena, then sure, we are all “politicians”!
Patrick, Im glad that you wrote this...I think we should all keep the discourse alive.
First, I am not anti-celebrity, anti-parametrics, anti-free market, or anti-ZHA. I am however a passionate environmentalist, maybe a modern transcendentalist at heart. I think this needs to be said for you to fully understand where my argument is rooted before I can address your point. Basically, its rooted in my love for, rather than my hatred against. I should also mention that I am very open to the fact that parametrics can be used for social and environmental good...I have researched parametrics myself, and as any tool, parametrics is not tied to any particular political ideology. My quarrel is not with parametrics, its with the structures of centralized power and wealth, be it public or private, who control the parameters.
The "post 2008" world is not actually any different than the pre-2008 world other than the fact that people began to pay attention to certain issues that they previously ignored. The gap between rich and poor is growing as you know...it's growing in terms of money, and in terms of power. Starchitecture is Grandiose by nature, and it is far from new. Its ability, to reflect values, to represent might, and to further business, is also nothing new. The Cathedral, Temple, etc, has been doing this for a long long time. What makes this recent batch of Grandiose architecture different is that the faith has subsided...We are building Temples to Gods that no one believes in anymore, or at least that no one should believe in, to a system that has failed to grow in a way that can sustain itself into the future and serve the needs of the masses, to industries that rape the earth indiscriminately. So its not that starchitecture in and of itself is "bad" or "wrong" but that it often promotes things that are unsustainable. Starchitects are certainly not "villians" either. Starchitecture is (in my opinion) the death rattle of the modern era, and starchitects are sort of like the physicists that inadvertently helped design the atom bomb. They just loved the opportunity to work on big budget physics..."wait a miniute, whats that?" BOOM!
The architect of the 21st century should not be concerned with a path "towards a new architecture" but rather one towards a new architect. Finding ways to affect the who,what,when, where, and why...rather than just the "what". This is the path I see fit. But Its just my opinion based on my own bias.
i am calling it, if someone has not already beat me to it - Patrik Schumacher first official Architect of the 21st Century..........pretty sure the last few paragraphs are in favor of 'disruptive' forms of business/economics such as AirBnB and Uber, which is quite contradictory to what others presume or often associate with neo-liberalism, at least from a naive political stance, one in which stance is chosen first prior to assessment of situation.....in other words Ronald Reagan as a hipster on 5 cups of espresso is more socially minded than a socialist.....
quandom, Big domes over Google and such.
And, yes a true "free market" in my opinion is the best system, but only if there is a simultanious personal and social "renaissance." The spatial manifestation of this new liberated and decentralised market, with the aid of technology, is where I feel the future should be heading...These Grand buildings are so 20th century.
Interesting how the work of superstidio seems more relevant now than when it was concieved.
Noam Chomsky said, "Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else"
Q, why? Because it doesn't take a tremendous leap, based on what he's written, and I qualified my statement with "perhaps". I could've easily noted, site issues, programmatic constraints, the lack of the "right" political environment - although FIFA/Qatar seemed to offer just the correct kind of environment, so maybe that's what it takes; corruption on global scale.
I will engage with above comments in due time ... but first of all I need to reinstate my own language/meaning that got warped by the copy-edit process:
My idea is to focus on architecture’s communicative capacity via the re-foundation of architectural semiology as agent-based parametric semiology, utilizing a generalized crowd modelling – life process modelling – to explore how agents with frame-dependent behavioural scripts can be coordinated via information-rich environments.
Ken I have never considered Chomsky more than a linguist...the possible alternates like this "liberterian socialism"reads a bit naive and frankly ignorant of the very 'language' any counter culture should speak to cause any change - capital. anarcho-syndicalism flat out denies it and apparently denies even the notion of a ruling working class as suggested by communism. i find it very odd that a 'linguist' who essentially explained much of language is a priori, genetic,etc....would deny the language of most, if not all, political systems, clearly inherent to human nature. Private property and power. Unless complete anarchy is the only goal - which is equally inneffective and distorted as bad decision making power coming from a capitalist elite. if we are talking workers taking control of their work place, then 'disruptive' models of business indeed deliver this to some degree . the irony,possibly, is these disruptive models disrupt organized institutions including worker unions which are there to essentially ensure living standards of the worker are maintained........either the authority of your conditions comes from social groups (elected or agreed upon co-ops) via simple laws, statutes, and philosophy or indirectly through capital from varying sources often NOT competing for the same end game. you can choose direct control of your conditions based on agreed upon moral terms, which are subjective or you can agree to some quality free denominator such as 'capital' to be an exchangable indicator of freedom and wages. the problem is that NOW a quantity has become a presumed maximum quality of life and even a presumed purpose of life. what architecture can offer especially through parametrics, i suppose, given the computation notion - what it offers is a translation of a purely quality free denominator Capital into a quality of existence by manipulation of program, space, and form. i suggest as architects we start there. making places and spaces with the agreed upon exchange object - capital, to create better places and space....as Schumacher noted Marx understanding- and i am suggesting the inverse - turn all that is air back into something solid: architecture can do that.
Although the above is a clear .. its too condensed to be readily understood ...so its just a teaser to inspire a closer look .... look here: https://www.academia.edu/11854530/Parametric_Semiology_The_Design_of_Information_Rich_Environments
to jla-x ... I enjoy to read your pro-market sentiment ... freedom for entrepreneurial experimentation, disruptive innovations, breaking up the crony-capitalist cartells ... its an important starting point ... I would like to design into and densify the urban districts where a vibrant start up culture flourishes together with large corporations like google ... this is exactly the kind of task where parametricism can demonstrate its superiority, its vitality, its economy ... and most importantly its ability to simultaneously enhance the built environment's complexity and legibility, the built environment's information richness and communicative capacity on which its social functionality depends
Don't be so negative quondam. This is what Patrik is getting at, I think.
My idea is to focus on architecture’s communicative capacity via the re-foundation of architectural semiology as agent-based parametric semiology, utilizing a generalized crowd modelling – life process modelling – to explore how agents with frame-dependent behavioural scripts can be coordinated via information-rich environments.
He would like to make his architecture speak through computer generated architectural symbols that people understand. It's all about 'coordinating agents'. In other words, he wants to be understood, which is why he explains things so thoroughly.
life process modelling – to explore how agents with frame-dependent behavioural scripts can be coordinated via information-rich environments.
Again, the problem with this version of parametricism seems to be another version of the Joshua Prince-Ramus version of "hyper-rationalism" defining the form of the building. And yet this all seems like we are describing the research phase of design as being the generator of design. Why is it that every designer will come out with a different version of a project from these variables? It still seems like the human agency and experience is the defining factor.... because architecture is for humans, a human (expert) being is still the key ingredient. In today's data obsessed tech world, it seems like architecture should be pushing back against this kind of rational approach--using data but realizing its limits. Data can't tell you what a cathedral sounds like or what a building feels like.
It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them -Steve Jobs
"...architecture is for humans, a human (expert) being is still the key ingredient."
100% agree with your assessment. Regardless of one's education, the human is the expert.
Unless that human is a derivative huckster like Bjarke Ingels.....
I agree with the Steve Jobs quote ... and like a healthy dose of scepticism in the face of quasi-scientific rationality claims ... we need intuitive control but intuition has its limits when it comes to complex situations which require quantitative as well as qualitative appraisal ... so I believe that the research frontier is the analytic penetration, optimisation and operationalization of intuitive capacities, judgements etc. ... I think is possible ... AI research and development can be a model here ... so anti-rationalism won't do !
I agree that anti-rationalism won't do, but at the same time reflect on trying to bring art to technology. Why is it that the more diagrams and "rationalism" has led to ever more lacking quality in architecture, now we just get to stack meaningless volumes a la BIG
Patrik, everything is a political act. Your Facebook post, acceptance (or rejection – have you ever?) of commissions, the products you buy – every action you take has an effect well beyond itself. Thus to dismiss criticism because you view it as political is a disingenuous but convenient dodge.
On the subject of disingenuity, you’ve taken my comments out of context to make them appear political and thus out of context with the defense of your position. In fact my comment about globalization was a direct response to your statement that a retreat from specialization and globalization would severely damage productivity.
What is productivity? Is it using 6,000 tons of steel in the London Aquatics Centre roof? Is it building ever more, ever bigger, ever more expensive buildings for the elite, who are the only ones who can afford them under global neoliberalism (really crony-capitalism)? These are the people you call high-performers – those who do the most for us, and who arguably don't. For example Steve Jobs never paid taxes, Apple utilizes virtual slave labor, etc.
Global society is crumbling at an ever increasing pace, largely due to neoliberal (and libertarian) policies of privatization, deregulation, so-called “free” trade dominated by global financial interests and high-performers. Meanwhile you – working for one of the most recognized architects in the world, standing on a global stage with millions eagerly tuned in - squander your opportunity with a cry of helplessness (we architects as architects can do NOTHING about THESE things ... ) and the obfuscating theoretical rhetoric of parametricism.
Which, according to Peter Buchanan (Empty gestures: Starchitecture's Swan Song):
ignores and exacerbates the urgent challenges of our time, such as the environmental crisis and the need to reintegrate ruptured urban fabric. Instead it is a perfect example of what Marshall McLuhan aptly termed a sunset effect, an exaggerated caricature of now obsolete characteristics of a waning era. Parametricism and icons exacerbate rather than solve the main failings of modern architecture, and not only because they are energy-profligate, anti-urban, stand-alone buildings that fail to define urban space and defy relationship with other buildings and humans.
Anti-rationalization will certainly not do, but it is rationalization, or the scientific method, that is finally shedding light on those aspects of our 'intuitive' mind that eluded those who rest everything on the quantifiable. How and why we respond to certain environments and the myriad of variables that come into play shouldn't discourage quantification, but we've learned enough to know that those who claim the mantle of "the most rational", at least in architectural terms, are selling snake oil. The inability to allow for intuition and common experience to inform the experience of architecture betrays a fear of emotions, which isn't very rational.
Everyone is implicated in capitalism, all of our hands are dirty, even Miles Jaffe. Seems like sustainability is also about how much
buildings are loved, not just some quantifiable data. Instead of a holier than thou attitude, we recognize our politics are imperfect but ultimately pragmatic and mutating.
I'm even willing to accept the buildings by branding-development firms like BIG if people love them, but they are just too cheap and junky looking. They seem like the true devotes of rationalism more than ZHA
we recognize our politics are imperfect but ultimately pragmatic and mutating
Yes I agree. A political or architectural manifesto cannot be rooted in some blank slate scenario, it must be rooted in the reality and chaos of whatever system exists, and ours happens to be capitalism. Like any form of art, architecture is not authoritative, or submissive, is it suggestive, which is why it is often used to serve as propaganda and PR, and does so effectively. The architect of tomorrow will figure out how liberate control of the architectures content to the masses as the internet did with media...To liberate architecture from the cold clutch of big corportations and the super rich, and to democratize architecture in a way never really seen before in human history...Typology and urban form can become malleable. But, to have control within a capitalist system one needs to control capital...That is first and foremost. To use capital that is centralized in the hands of a few overlords is not a solution...It's what we have now...So maybe some way to pool capital and use strength in numbers to shape space in a "good" direction...crowd sourcing is a start...But the society at large will only be as "good" as the heart of each individual, and an averaged result may be less "good" than we expect, and will represent those with more change to spare, so imo the better solution is the fragmentation of spatial control...Which basically comes down to the division of the grid into smaller and more accessible units where land ownership and individuals can manifest on a more human scale and use their space for economic gains...to create a matrix of true free market capitalism...Almost like a Market where small individual spaces are individually controlled, but together create a whole..a true representation of the populous...Of course as one gains wealth they will gain space, which will result in some larger than others, but the framework will allow for greater competition and a less static end-game.
Daniela you should go wash up, there's some brown stuff on you nose.
Miles, reading that paragraph by Buchanan out of context I would suggest it's pretty off base and I see a lot of commentary here or criticism of Parametricism based solely on lack of understanding or outright denial of anything 'computational', which is just as naive and ignorant as denying Capital altogether and claiming some type of full-on Anarchy as the only solution to whatever....
So ,I figured why not quote a mathematician circa 1937, as an example of how computational could be socially intended...I mean what would a mathematician know about social change via some language, right?
"A system of language that would be purified of rhetoric, subjective, demagogic and in general of deceptively emotional admixtures would be of general human importance mainly because it would make possible a more adequate formulation of social purposes and thereby set bounds to the fatal influence which the personal motives and aims of eloquent politicians have upon the destiny of nations and of individuals. In order to actualize such a system of language more is needed than purely scientific analysis and critical study of language, namely in the first place the choice and creation of words for basic immaterial notions, which can serve as elements for the construction of a more indicative language, suitable to express general mental values and human emotions of fraternity and solidarity. It will be impossible to choose or to create those words merely by a systematic method, but it will require the individual devotion of persons with a disposition to pure sentiment and pure volition, guided by the desire of understanding which results from the demand of social reform." - L.E.J. Brouwer
Kind of think this may be in some way shape or form similar to what Patrik Schumacher may be saying, when he says (from 2 posts above) -
My idea is to focus on architecture’s communicative capacity via the re-foundation of architectural semiology as agent-based parametric semiology, utilizing a generalized crowd modelling – life process modelling – to explore how agents with frame-dependent behavioural scripts can be coordinated via information-rich environments.
+
I would like to design into and densify the urban districts where a vibrant start up culture flourishes together with large corporations like google ... this is exactly the kind of task where parametricism can demonstrate its superiority, its vitality, its economy ... and most importantly its ability to simultaneously enhance the built environment's complexity and legibility, the built environment's information richness and communicative capacity on which its social functionality depends
^ Word salad. What kind of dressing goes with that?
I believe this bottle is for you Miles \/
or
your choice, probably both do well with word salads for your taste, if that's how the salad appears, no?
Which one is more superior, vital, economical?
I was referring to PS, not you.
no worries Miles, I take this challenge of deciphering the word salad...I speak Denglish (although Schumacher is quite the inverse - there are no run-ons or fragments auf Deutsch)
PS - My idea is to focus on architecture’s communicative capacity via the re-foundation of architectural semiology as agent-based parametric semiology, utilizing a generalized crowd modelling – life process modelling – to explore how agents with frame-dependent behavioural scripts can be coordinated via information-rich environments.
translation - I want to focus on the foundation of architecture's language in the context of the information age. I propose another method and system of representations for communicating the language of architecture. This proposed language is called parametrics. Agents are intelligent occupants in architecture. Each agent presents behavioral tendencies that can be scripted. The agents life process is scripted much like actors in a play or movie. These agents in a group further exhibit higher order processes when acting in unison. Crowds can become agents in architecture and exhibit clear behavioral patterns. The environment around us is full of information. Today, Google and the likes can record this data in a useful format for parametrics. I would like to explore the agent's behaviors in architecture with parametrics.
PS- I would like to design into and densify the urban districts where a vibrant start up culture flourishes together with large corporations like google ... this is exactly the kind of task where parametricism can demonstrate its superiority, its vitality, its economy ... and most importantly its ability to simultaneously enhance the built environment's complexity and legibility, the built environment's information richness and communicative capacity on which its social functionality depends
translation - I believe parametrics can be embedded into the urban context. The embedment of parametrics into our urban context will ensure that both lower and higher orders of cultural entities will coexist and maintain a vibrant community together through the creation of architecture by parametrics. This information rich environment was meant for parametrics. Parametrics in this environment is superior, vital, and economical. Parametrics will enhance the built environment. This enhancement is parametric's social function and in the context of responding to Jla-x, this enhancement to the built environment is Parametrics method for social reform.
Miles, how did I do?
All this time I was under the delusion that the language of architecture was wood, stone and glass.
Alas, a wasted life.
semiology ... yawn. i like architecture better as the graph asymptotically approaches not-semiology.
Miles...I would suggest that although the physical language of architecture is indeed wood, stone, and glass; no material lends itself to digital computaional modeling directly - obviosly. Analogue calculations can not be perfomed wih these materials as intended,although arguebly if you are a 'traditional architect' the very act of design through proportions is the "analogue architecture" calculation.....I think Libeskind tried this with memory machines (google: lebbeus woods blog libeskind analogue memory games....) but Libeskind is not a traditional architect...........Therefore,in very simple English - the materials must be represented by symbols. Just like language needs symbolic letters combined to form words combined to form sentences, etc .....Much like a drawing in which a dashed line indicates something hidden the materials need an abstracted term to represent them. For example: "16 square feet of 3/4" thick stone" is a represention of - you guessed it - a real physical object that is 16 square feet of 3/4 thick stone...............the physical is abstracted, modelled and computed in the virtual, and then returns physical after its reformulation. This is what basic architectural practice is - draw then design then draw etc..........Miles that was my response to the materials point, I am not so certain Parametrics deals with materials that way and based on my translations above, the materials may just be assumed, or parametrics as Schumacher suggests is mainly dealing with programmatic issues such a functions based on behaviors and has not quite entered the preferred language of architects - materials, lighting, etc....
Chris and Miles, in our interview with Autodesk at the AIA Convention (podcast #30) they seemed to be saying that computation that includes the material properties is underway already. I mean, structural engineers do this, right?
Are you saying Parametricism as a style isn't interested in structural material analysis? It seems to me Parametricism is willing to take on ALL possible inputs, everything from how solar heat gain deflection changes over the life of the cladding's color fade down to the emotional state of the users of the building. This last sounds far-fetched, but AI is being used already to analyze and create a database of emotional responses in soldiers with PTSD.
Thanks for stopping by Patrik! Always good to have someone attempt an intelligent discussion. I apologize in advance for typos and using 'you're' in the wrong places.
so you have a theory or manifesto, and you try to achieve this theory through practice but fall short what with real life being not ideal or whatever.
but your projects are all fairly big budget, essentially iconic or monumental buildings intended to attract attention. i'd like to hear more about how this parametric theory would apply to the buildings i might work on, the more mundane street level stuff where someone is just trying to run a business. it's important to design a square building because materials are square. unless you can come up with a new fabrication, new material, new way to transport said material to the site, etc. which would be great, but as it stands currently blobitechture is not an option regardless of how awesome the form is or how parametrically perfect it is, or even how well the building would function as a blob.
i would use amazon as an example, since there is a ton of stuff coming into and going out of their warehousing facilities, and i'm pretty sure their tracking software and logistics is something amazing to behold. as far as i understand, amazon is among the leading edge of parametrics (if i understand parametrics right, though for them it's logistics rather than form), but their perfect building is a big concrete box.
also could parametricism relate to taco bell? things are probably different on my side of the pond, but taco bell has become a fairly generic example of shitty architecture. it's inexpensive, it's not designed with the intent of lasting more than 30 years at the most (for all i know they have a 5 year lease, so maybe they fall apart that quick). It's an inexpensive place for people to fabricate and sell tacos. it's also a very common building type which people hire architects to design.
Donna not sure if the style question is for me or Miles. BUT it is not a style by my definition.
Kind of like the Emporer's new clothes.
Daniela, thanks for explaining my reasoning about the relationship between architecture and politics ... very helpful. However, rather than only emphasizing the respective specialization in terms of the player's skills, experience etc., I emphasize even more that architecture and politics are two incommensurable function system (discourse-practices), each with its own societal function, criteria of success, and each with its own unique medium of communication. Architecture communicates (and frames all other communications) in the medium of space, while politics communicates (and frames all other communications) via the medium of power, i.e. with the police force always in the background as ultimate backstop. Architectural projects can not count as a contribution to the political discourse or political power-play, i.e. they can not count as political agitation, negotiation etc., even if the architect is well-versed in politics. Of course, a designed building can become a political issue. But only if a politician or political party makes it a political issue within the political system. Also: an architect can be hired by a political leader to make a political statement. But note that the politician's institutional position is the precondition for this ... and that the political statement will be attributed to the political leader, never to the architect. An architect who tries to use his design as a political statement ends up creating a weird gesture that might get some resonance in the art system or within architecture's avant-garde discourse, but it would certainly not be taken seriously as political communication.
Parametricism as Style
Dear Patrik,
Now I understand Miles Jaffe's attitude (besides the usual) about your work after reading that essay. I had intentionally never read that as I really dislike the word 'style'.
The essay could be viewed in the following ways, starting with what I presume is Miles perspective:
1) You are the father of "Parametricism is the great new style after modernism. Postmodernism and Deconstructivism have been transitional episodes that ushered in this new, long wave of research and innovation." and very proud.
2) The essay and use of 'style' is propaganda to ensure your agenda for further academic research into your endeavors is taken on by more researchers and students.
3) It's a Bjarke Ingels like manuever, take something very complex and dumb it down so the media can understand it and propagate it.
4) The essay and use of 'style' is to support the 'movement' of parametrics. To argue it's historic importance.
5) Redefine the word 'style' within the field of architecture to give it more of a scientific method nuance - "Styles are design research programmes".
Minor note, Sanford Kwinter wrote an essay - I want to say - “La Citta Nuova: Modernity and. Continuity" where he discusses Italian Futurism, noting the FIELD very much the same way you talk about it here - "Modernism was founded on the concept of space. Parametricism differentiates fields. Fields are full, as if filled with a fluid medium."
To be quite frank, I'm a bit disappointed the word 'style' is being used here.
Question: What is the difference between 'style' and 'language'?
Kind Regards,
- Chris
P.S. If you don't mind, put some 'kaugummi in mund' and grab a supersized soda and talk to some us like we 'Mericans....(the German-Englisch is a bit much for some of us)...or I can attempt to translate.
I take issue with your assertion that you are presenting a comprehensive manifesto - The Autopoiesis of Architecture - in that the architecture of autopoiesis - parametricism - computational design - objectile design - et al... fails to reach its complete realization in the physical world due to a distinction between the virtual space these buildings are conceived of in and the imperfect physical world they are built in.
The vast majority of your projects are well-financed work of the best kind - civic, often monumental in scale and iconic in their siting and size in their respective metropoli. Even here, with immense budgets, you cannot collapse the membrane between Virtual and Real to instantiate your idealized building - you must negotiate the material, cultural, and human flows which define reality. How to you propose to continue to collapse this membrane? Is this a problem architects should be interested in? ( I think the answer is a clear yes)
Given that this architecture is incomplete in the most monumental and well-funded settings, how might parametricism address the comparatively pedestrian needs of the vast majority of humanity? These rectangular houses on rectangular blocks built using rectalinear building materials are the habitat of most of the world's population. What does parametricism mean for them?
An alternate interpretation of parametricism would be in the material flows, logistics, and adaptive intelligence present in the global supply chain of entity such as Amazon.com. These practices were mere concepts twenty to thirty years ago - found in the same work as the seed of your architectural autopoeisis - yet they have found a more complete, and perhaps pure expression as logistics flows. Yet, the physical embodiment of this parametric and extremely intelligent system is rectangular trucks moving rectangular boxes in and out of big, rectangular buildings. I would like to understand more about why you think this expression of parametricism has found more acceptance than that in architecture.
Thanks for commenting
(this post extends/ reformats that of poster curtkram above)
Patrik, I would add as reference curtkram and archanonymous questions and examples as possible reason for not calling parametricism a style and much rather a language......styles can separate from language and differenciate themselves from the 'common' language. language can be used by all.............recently for a prospective job with another firm visited a very interesting facility for fashion product delivery on time with brand designer product introduction to mainly madison and fifth ave stores, high end like celine etc....everything was in straight lines granted they adapted into an existing space. my experience as feed warehouse manager in high school was,because pallets were square evertything for efficient logistical reasons was square.......now if packing is best done in squares, the stacking is best done in squares,and therefore the architectural containment is best a big box..........i feel parametrics sells itself short under the 'guise' of 'style'. perhaps claiming it a language is tooo Bombastic? .......again thank you for any time spent responding
OK, I'm officially calling it.
Parametricism is an empty academic exercise, the ultimate incomprehensible archibabble. In one word it is bullshit.
Schumacher's appearances here are a combination of self-promotion and damage control after scathing attacks by critics. He fails to address either the critics or the issues and finds convenient excuses (politics) to dodge responsibility. Substantive challenges to his empty rhetoric are ignored.
Schumacher dropped a deuce in the pool, 20 people poked it with a stick, and his only response was an emphatic Yes! to the sycophant who wallowed in its aroma.
Sure Miles, because your work, academic eminence, and professional standing give you the final word on this issue, right?
Parametricism is not Schumacher and vice-versa. Just because you feel scorned, doesn't make the possibilities of parametric design any less real.
Scorned? Schumacher is the one getting scorned. LOL
In the meantime maybe you can elucidate for us the issues raised here that Patrik wouldn't / couldn't.
Miles, I shoot from the hip and I imagine you do as well.
Neither one of us are world renown and I imagine few people pay that good attention to what either of us say.
Hence, any response, if delivered will have to be approached much differently than a quick blip, as everyone will hold on to his words considerably more than ours.
Public figure vs being an unknown - perception.
Bullshit is bullshit, no matter whose lips it dribbles out of.
This reminds me of a public meeting where I asked the famous architect of a "green" library how three stories of north facing glass was energy efficient.
"I don't have time to get into that here. Come talk to me after the meeting."
I think you've got it backwards, Chris. We consider his words more seriously than he does.
Miles...in my mind based on my understanding mathematics, computers, etc...it doesn't have to be bullshit and could be very valuable, so I am not rushing to judgement.
Let's take Peter Eisenman, highly inefficient with regard to bullshit vs useful theory, but ultimately Eisenman has a few good points I could probably summarize in a Haiku, but they are useful, I just disregard much of him just thinking out loud or trying to impress us with witty bullshit.
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.