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
A tool is a tool.
Tools, like all technology, they cut both ways: with benefits and disadvantages. They can be used and misused.
I'm not going to try to build a philosophy around any particular tool. A metaphor, maybe, but not an all-encompassing philosophy of anything. That's a fool's task.
^agree. but as a tool there can be some good uses...especially in the more scientific aspects of architecture where data is actually concrete and objective...sun angles, structures, carbon offsetting, etc...likely, the most appropriate and significant applications for this technology are not aesthetic or stylistic ones...
for instance, lets say you have a building in a hot dry climate and you want to maximise daylighting and minimize heat gain...sun angles can be used as a data set to create movable or static louvers that most efficiently let in reflected light with least heat gain...the louver would be parametrically designed to adjust to changing sun angles to always maintain an (x) angle relative to the rays...The facade would not be same on all sides, or if a single side is not perfectly flat...
that is all parametrics is...adjusting a form along a gradient...It allows for a gradual fine tuning that is relational to some data set. It is a mathematic tool that can calculate in seconds what would take us years. If the data is arbitrary then the design will be as well.
The reason it has been exploited as a tool for stylistic nonsense is because the clients are mostly concerned with architecture as PR and Branding... Architecture is becoming less and less about art and science and more and more about PR and advertisement. Some firms probably align more closely with advertising and branding firms.
so 3 choices now: style. language. tool.?
It's a floor wax.
No, it's a dessert topping.
Wait - you're both right! Parametrics is a dessert topping AND a floor wax!
It is clearly all three.
Tools influence style and language. Most "styles" were never conceived of as such, but are borne of a confluence of new tools and new language to describe those tools and techniques. When technological change moved more slowly, these styles were more enduring. When the cultures of antiquity discovered concrete, architectural language moved from the cut stone construction to the vaults, domes, and arches engendered by this new tool. Architectural language evolved to reflect this.
Each new tool came with a new language which was necessarily created to describe the new theoretical and practical spaces opened by these technologies. Cast iron, steel, reinforced concrete, prefabrication and mechanical reproduction all came about due to technological progress, yet they were not typically applied to construction of status-quo buildings, but rather participated in the creation of new forms and typologies to take advantage of these technologies, at the same time giving rise to new language of architectural and artistic movements.
The concept of parametricism (I prefer objectile design as a descriptor or title, but this is Schumacher's thread, I'm just posting in it) is perhaps not yet matched by the practice of parametricism, but that makes it no less exciting. I see it simply as the nexus of computing (internet of things, computation, simulation, advanced process modeling), advanced materials, and changing construction techniques. It is not surprising that most of the people who don't "get" parametricism are mired in the banal existence of mid-level professional practice, just trying to keep their doors open and practicing architecture. This movement is something that is happening in our larger culture, not just in architecture. For architects to bury their heads in the sand and deny this revolution is to cede our right and responsibility to care for the built environment to UX, UI, interaction designers, engineers, and consultants who are all more than happy to push forward where we hesitate to.
It is not surprising that most of the people who don't "get" parametricism are mired in the banal existence of mid-level professional practice, just trying to keep their doors open and practicing architecture
wow, you don't make that sound very heroic. so what are the people who do understand parametrics doing? creating actual innovations in construction materials and methods, or delivering pizzas?
it seems from what i've read from schumacher that a big part of his philosophy starts with the idea that the architect's job is primarily to create form, with other building systems being the responsibility of other consultants. in my experience there are a lot of other more important roles an architect plays when seeing a project through to completion.
in some cases there are better ways of doing things with regards to fabrication, materials, and construction, that have been developed because of the great things computers can do. in design we have energy simulations and photometrics and things like that which help us predict how a building will behave once built. i suppose there was a technological leap in that you see more tilt-up buildings compared to double-Ts now. i don't know if those are considered a part of parametricism, but it is an example of computation being used in the real world by the banal folks who managed to hold onto their jobs working on the design of actual buildings.
i have not seen how that kind of model can be used to generate a building form in a way that works better than what we're doing now. that doesn't mean it won't happen, just that it isn't here yet, but i'll keep an open mind. from what i've seen the buildings that claim to be influenced by parametricism seem to be more difficult to construct and more expensive due to the innovative use of materials, which are ultimately being used in a manner that isn't ideally suited to the way the material behaves (eg, less efficient structure, difficult to get water off the roof, etc.). it seems an experienced human can look at the arbitrary form of a building and think through how the load path will work, how structure will fit in, how water will drain away from the building, all the other mundane things that go into building design.
do you have other concrete examples of where a new construction technique or material was developed due to parametricism?
This movement is something that is happening in our larger culture, not just in architecture.
As if that is necessarily a good thing.
For architects to bury their heads in the sand and deny this revolution is to cede our right and responsibility to care for the built environment to UX, UI, interaction designers, engineers, and consultants who are all more than happy to push forward where we hesitate to.
The profession is in deep, deep trouble when people start talking about architecture with language of web design.
wow, you don't make that sound very heroic. so what are the people who do understand parametrics doing? creating actual innovations in construction materials and methods, or delivering pizzas?
It is split (not at all evenly) between people who are working on the cutting-edge of how buildings are built, and those who are yes, delivering pizzas or serving coffee, although I would say they don't really understand the possibilities of parametric design - it takes practice and experience working on those types of projects to do so. There is nothing wrong with working on buildings through the old paradigm. For the vast majority, it is the only way to make a living - I did not mean to imply otherwise.
If you read my last post in this thread, I definitely make a case for the use of computational design on isolated problems. Computation, parametrics, simulation, etc, are what makes energy and photgrammetric simulations possible, and moreover, useful.
i don't know if those are considered a part of parametricism, but it is an example of computation being used in the real world by the banal folks who managed to hold onto their jobs working on the design of actual buildings.
Maybe not parametricism - at least not as it fits in with Schumacher's idea of an Autopoeisis in architecture, but I would say this is computational design and simulation operating at a small scale on an isolated problem. I would distinguish that from "parametricism" in that parametricism strives to link many instances of computational design together to create large-scale intelligent networks with emergent properties.
it seems an experienced human can look at the arbitrary form of a building and think through how the load path will work, how structure will fit in, how water will drain away from the building, all the other mundane things that go into building design.
Even the most simple building requires some assumptions to be made for this to be possible. A truly "parametric" - environmental, material, and social parameter-driven architecture would start with no assumptions, but look at the specific concerns that make a buildings work, from material sizing to labor costs to solar orientation, wind, light, user, etc, and link all of these elements together to create a building which operates holistically in a unified way.
I don't think we are there yet with the sort of "parametric" architecture ZHA and others are practicing. This is partly due to building technology not catching up to our abilities to generate form, and partly due to our a-priori desire to investigate the boundaries of formal possibilities when a rectilinear building might better suit the technological context. This is somewhat disingenous, as it undermines the larger cultural and social possibilities of parametric design, but I believe it is somewhat necessary as architecture is in a transitional period, and this kind of experimentation helps to push the profession forward.
do you have other concrete examples of where a new construction technique or material was developed due to parametricism?
Computational design, yes, "parametricism" as I defined it above, has few examples. The way Amazon runs their logistics network, allowing algorithms to constantly influence and adjust every aspect of its supply chain, stock, employee hours, etc, is probably the closest example I could give you.
The profession is in deep, deep trouble when people start talking about architecture with language of web design.
You are right, it is. But that's what you get when small-scale practitioners who constitute a majority of architects in the US ignore that trends in technology and social connectivity shaping our society. Do you think that "smart homes" should be designed and planned by technology companies and UX/UI designers, or should these concepts be integrated by architects?
If we expect architects to truly be the owner of building projects, they better step up their knowledge many times, because these other engineers are running circles around us.
First they design web-pages, then they design apps, then hardware, then larger hardware, entertainment systems, smart home systems, etc. Do you see how small the jump is from where we are now to having a UX/UI designer do an entire room, or an entire home, or an entire urban plan with considerations for technological integration, wayfinding, zoning, density planning, etc?
All because they are approaching the problem from a computer science angle, where anything is possible, measurable, associative (parametric) and connected while we are struggling to differentiate our asses from our elbows.
social parameter-driven architecture
Isn't that what developers do?
ignore that trends in technology and social connectivity shaping our society
You might want to consider where these technological trends originate and what's driving them. Or if they are inherently good or beneficial in some way and to whom, and what the consequences are, etc.
environmental, material, and social parameter-driven architecture
taking part of a sentence out of context is petty, Miles.
You might want to consider where these technological trends originate and what's driving them. Or if they are inherently good or beneficial in some way and to whom, and what the consequences are, etc.
I have considered them extensively, but I would like to hear why you discount them.
^ I addressed the part that needed addressing. The second bit was out of context, too.
I have considered them extensively, but I would like to hear why you discount them.
For one thing, tech trends are driven by corporate finance and industry for profit and little else. For another there has been a significant loss of basic intelligence that I find attributable to tech "culture". And another - as stated above - tech always cuts both ways.
All because they are approaching the problem from a computer science angle, where anything is possible, measurable, associative (parametric) and connected
Your model of the virtual world is not reality - it is an illusion of it. If cars performed with the same reliability as computers nobody would ever drive again.
while we are struggling to differentiate our asses from our elbows.
Speak for yourself. If you spent less time in virtual reality you probably wouldn't have so much trouble with that.
cars are run by computers now
while searching on Abebooks for Schumacher books including the word "Autopoiesis" a name popped up I recognized - Francisco J. Varela a co- author to one my current interests "the embodied mind" written with Evan Thompson who I am also really into at the moment - time willing. too much architecting...........anyway now I am really excited to get my Schumacher books in the mail and compare. A journal i ordered on Varela notes in the forward the following - "......Autopoiesis (in the book Autopoiesis and Cognition), they define the living system as an organizationally closed system of self-production, and cognition as the operation of that system."......my suspicions of Parameterics as AI may have a real source.....
the journal "Cybernetics & Human Knowlwdge: a journal of second-order cybernetics autopoiesis and cyber-semiotics"...............related - https://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/constructing-a-reality/
must have not been looking for this word in the past - autopoiesis......... another definition from same journal -"autopoiesis, the idea that biological as well as cognitive systems can be understood as ongoing self-creating processes that define their own identity by conserving their structure while exchanging enegry and information with the environment,with which they share a structural coupling.".........still waiting on Schumacher's books to compare.
more on autopoiesis - from Mind in Life by Evan Thompson (p.98)
"A cell is a thermodynamically open system, continually exchanging matter and energy with its environment. Some molecules are imported through the membrane and participate in processes inside the cell, whereas other molecules are excreted as waste. Throughout this exchange, the cell produces a host of substances that both remain within the cell (thanks to the membrane) and participate in those very same production processes. In other words, a cell produces its own components, which in turn produce it, in an ongoing circular process. The word "autopoiesis" was coined to name this kind of continual self-production. A cell is a self-producing or autopoietic unity. Systems that do not produce themselves, are said to be allopoietic." ......
"Maturana and Varela also distinguish autopoietic systems from heteropoietic ones, which are allopoietic systems that arise in the realm of human design, such as cars and digital computers. Maturana and Varela's fundamental proposition is that living systems are autopoietic or have an autopoietic organization. They are organized in such a way that their constituent processes produce the components necessary for the continuance of those same processes."
self organizing living systems that ensure their own duration. How could this possibly fall into 'style'. I'm assuming Schumacher borrowed Autopoiesis from Biology/Neuroscience and based on above maybe the term that should be used is heteropoietic...
Schumacher books in the mail, order canceled and re-ordered so I can't answer my own questions yet, but anyone could chime in if they like....
^ A fool and his money are soon parted.
Miles, your continual failure to deliver any meaningful discourse on any part of this site is utterly disappointing, if not surprising.
Chris, Interesting finds, I will have to look into these sources more. I have always understood what Schumacher is proposing as a sort of self-organizational design intelligence, but had never made the connection with an AI.
Maybe I am stuck in an older mode of philosophical and spatial arguments where these sorts of systems are the self-emergent product of chaotic processes. (Derrida > Deleuze > De Landa, et al) I guess my lack of understanding stems from the question: "How does an autopoietic system start?"
Is there any way in which a space, devoid of external action or influence gives rise to life (an autpoietic system)? I would say that is a definite no, based on the laws of thermodynamics. At some point, every closed system lacking a-priori organization will require some type of external input, making every system, even life, a result of allopoietic processes, at least in initiation. This is where I get hung up with Schumacher's argument - we do not yet know enough to design the perfect architectural intelligence. We lack sufficient technical, material, and computational technology and expertise when the type of organizational intelligence he describes requires all three in order to give rise to a self-sustaining and organizing whole.
Miles is the same guy who posts his negative finds on a really good project by his father - 565 Fifth Ave. on the Norman Jaffe website...Which by the way I think was way ahead of its time with subtle moves on the projecting glass and been walking by it a lot lately, really well designed building....(on my book shelf for Miles have a copy of a set of Michael Graves house drawings - proof ....)
Archanoymous - "How does an autopoietic system start?"
This is really good question. I would suggest since we have similar philosophical backgrounds here - Via Derrida/Deleuze/Husserl basically the origin of anything amounts to myth in place of 'nothing'. Tradition or Play (Huizinga) and rituals....so the hearth, fireplace, etc...Dwelling via Heidegger and go from there. Everything is a myth, including Geometry (in short). then go Tschumi via Derrida for Event City or consider a BIG project the origin of something unexpected and yet to come.
from back of volume II of "The Autopoiesis of Architecture" - "Autopoiesis comes from the Greek and means literally self-production; it was first adopted in biology in the 1970s to describe essential characteristics of life a circular self-organizing system and has since been transposed into a theory of social systems." [Delanda's A New Philosophy of Society is worth a read]
so the words:
Poïesis (Ancient Greek: ποίησις) is etymologically derived from the ancient term ποιέω, which means "to make".
Allopoiesis is the process whereby a system produces something other than the system itself.
Heteropoiesis Charactericstic of a system or artefact designed by men, with some purpose. (IESC) They are not self-reproducing, neither as a whole, nor as to their components. Machines in general are heteropoietic. (IESC) the space of human design. (Maturana and Varela, 1979) (PC, EA)… they are not autopoietic. (EA)
I picture Shoemuncher's AI in the form of CyberDyne Systems.
We all know what happened when SkyNet went live.
haha Miles
you've been warned Henry Rollins on Technology
how is geometry a myth? Its a mathematical reality...its sacredness may be a myth but the math itself is discovered not invented...even if one believes in a biocentric universe (which I tend to think is a very possible senario)...geometry is as fundamental and "real" as physics...
also...all of nature is autopoises...from chemistry to geology to molecular biology to cosmology...physics is the "parameter" that guides it...I guess my question is....what is the difference between us as a medium between 0 and making and some computer system...even if the AI becomes intellectually superior whould that not inevitably breed things like self doubt, bias, neurosis...?
jla-x the argument off the top of my head is this. It's Galileo's fault. Do we see the world geometrically a priori, or is the world geometrical?....and why is all of science based on one Sense - Sight. Think about it. The way something smells, sounds, etc...for it to be scientific proof in any form it must end as a proof via the sense of sight and geometrically or mathematically to be accepted as true, etc...I am not agreeing or disagreeing...
what is the difference between us as a medium between 0 and making and some computer system...even if the AI becomes intellectually superior would that not inevitably breed things like self doubt, bias, neurosis...?
the origin of a myth. take Religion as an example, true or not, the system has shaped the world dramatically. Who made who?
jeez Teeter you're such a nerdy douche, you ever been laid?
I'll tell you what 'autopoiesis' is....you walk into a bar and you create a culture of chicks diggin' you. the secret is to bounce a ball.
back in my Kansas U. days, I know you went to school there, those tall fucks in sweats and their KUID's around their necks would just cut all of us in line and walk right in to the club... and every bimbo from sorority alpha to sorority omega would just offer themselves to the gods of ball bouncing.
is schumacher the Dirk Nowitzki of architeture?
god damnit you were born in Braunschweig show a Wurzburg kid some respect....
oh wait, the shoe maker is from Bonn....Bonn?!?! Bonn!?!?!
gleichweiss...wass auch immer....over it
Dirk bounces, the shoe maker, well not sure he's a baller yet.
is schumacher the Dirk Nowitzki of architeture?
Nope, because Nowitzki would dunk in your face and then hand you the ball. Shoemuncher just cries about how unfair critics and vaporizes the second he's challenged. Don't except to see him back here again.
olaf -
from Kent Palmer - Autopoietic Meta-theory
"What is wrong with Autopoiesis Theory?
Autopoiesis is a theory proposed by Maturana and Varela in the seventies to help comprehend living systems. Autopoiesis means self production. Living systems are seen as machines that produce themselves. The theory attempts to make clear the anomalous nature of Living Systems that we as living systems observe in our scientific endeavors. Because we are what we observe this introduces some degree of paradox into the formulation of our approach to Autopoietic Systems. This theory has always been notoriously difficult to understand in terms of normal scientific discourse. But until recently I considered the theory sound."
Chris,
I appreciate the response, but I have limited interest in discussing ontology of thought and culture and much more interest in actually determining how such a system starts. If we initiate an autopoeitic system, but then create mythology around that origin, it only obfuscates the underlying logic which the system is based on, making it more difficult to change or alter appropriately.
Any ultimately successful system will be emergent - the unplanned result of interactions between discreet elements (and indeed, this is the foundation for much of the above-mentioned philosopher's work) but I wonder how Schumacher can consolidate all of the different elements out of our control with the desire to achieve a deeper level of logic and understanding in architecture.
Furthermore, if the goal is to transform architecture through the creation of an emergent intelligence, how can we not focus on everything else that determines the way we build - from material sizing standards to types of materials, to human labor.
1.0 - ".... determining how such a system starts."
1.1 however and whenever you determine the start of the system could be considered the equivalent of a final painting as the foundation of the logic from there on out.
2.0 "....consolidate all of the different elements out of our control with the desire to achieve a deeper level of logic and understanding in architecture."
2.1 the painting is in a frame and you the architect choose what information is allowed into the frame that then via interaction of it's own genetic code between its own discreet elements cause emergence.
reminds me a bit of
Nils Barricelli
Nils Barricelli’s 5 Kilobyte Symbiogenesis simulations and ‘molecule shaped numbers’ – A precursor to DNA Computing
finally started reading the Schumacher texts and a lot above is more or less confirmed accurate in the Preface, it appears.........Schumacher clearly notes main intellectual source of theoretical inspiration is Niklas Luhmann (socialogist). from Lumann's wikipedia pages --------"Each system works strictly according to its very own code and has no understanding at all of the way other systems perceive their environment. For example, the economy is all about money, so there is no independent role in the economic system for extraneous aspects such as morals."..........that should answer any questions you may have about 'politics' and 'architecture' (i for one find 'politics' to be for people who prefer not to think, but thats another conversation)
Buddha ordered a hot dog.
The vendor asked how he would like it.
Buddha said, "Make me one with everything."
pretty much Miles....wonder why the media cannot figure these things out, and I do not mean Archinect........... for instance, uneducated journalist asks Zaha about the workers in Qatar. Zaha gives rational answer based on real world circumstances that in essence has a referential body of academic social work that further supports the insurmountable distance or impossobility of communications between two "systems"- politics and architecture................so maybe the journalists do not agree with this observation,but they could at least state as such and then reference a body of intellectual work well beyond their brain capacities as support............its quite embarrassing for people who read and write all day not to be aware of stated thoughts. i do architecure all day and figured this out. its beyond me why the media could not spend 30 minutes to learn what I did above by reading a preface and a wikipedia page............... Maybe such deep thought about reality is beyond the media's capabilities. Maybe the media fears no one will read what they write if it isn't click bait and tabloid style exageration. Maybe like politicians the media are a bunch of single track indoctrinated agenda chasing monkeys? msnbc is just as embarrassing as fox, I mean talk about stupid people having conversations publicly.......morning media rant complete - carry on gossip queens.
The media sells advertising. Content is loaded to serve that purpose. Unless they are selling something else, in which case the necessary content is loaded, which is also advertising. Some people have mastered the art of using the media for self-promotion ... and many haven't, in spite of their (minor) celebrity status.
In the end, Zaha would still be Zaha but without PS, but PS without Zaha would be driving a taxi in Hamburg.
"...PS without Zaha would be driving a taxi in Hamburg."
^ classic.
i always thought politics was the fine art of selling someone gasoline to put out their house fire.
No, a Liberland Cab Driver!
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.