Those forms of Hernan D.Alonso are relly exciting, like Marcos novak ones. But I would like to know more (even for blobs) bout DATA -DRIVEN Spaces and forms! Do peaople like HernanD.Alonso pay a math-brain and make him calculate an algoritm to make such cells through a path in a math way, can it be simple like this!! Then Novak himself is a mathematicien.
Is Data-driven forms future of Architecture!!!
you mean you actually think these guys can do math? wake up, this stuff is digtial sculpture, pure and simple. no computation required - mayanaise does it for you. it looks smart, but it is really the tool doing the computation not the user. in some cases, there is some intelligence on the users part (NOX, K Chu) - but for the most part it is pretty simple copy-paste toggle control handles, ho-hum.
this new 'data-driven' crap is, as lifeform says for pure visual pleasure. It is digital sculpture and 'data' is a meaning to lend some meaning to the whole useless exercise.
and yes, its going to go out of fashion in the next two years.
First, I want to say that I hate blobs. That's my little disclaimer.
Architecture, inherently, is a formal exercise. The best architects of any generation have pursued new and experimental forms, thereby creating new spatial relationships and experiences - what architecture truly is. Therefore, many seek new ways to reach farther than their minds can imagine. Look at the art movements throughout this century - boundaries were pushed to elevate the entire field, this was always done by creating a new process, which, inevitably, creates a new product.
So here we have architecture, say, about 10 years ago. Decon was at it's height and formal studies were not shy about pushing boundaries. Architect's were using more and more computers, chaos theory was 'new', so it's easy to see how design became focused around complex relationships (strange attractors, self similarity, etc.), and, for some, this meant mathematics.
With the computer, you could create complex formal experiments quickly. Because of the exptreme flexibility, you have to create parameters by which to measure your process, otherwise you'll simply get lost. This can be anything, as with any process, it's up to the designer. For some, formula's and math provided the logical solution.
I agree with sameoldr, to some degree - it is bs, for the most part. But then again, a large part of any process is subject and bs. The problem arises when someone claims that the data is 'real', or that it has more validity over older methods. Imho, that just isn't correct. The designer chooses the formulas, chooses how they are represented, chooses this or that, all of which have an impact on how the design progresses. Ultimately, it is the designer that chooses good or bad, done or not, etc., etc. It's subjective, regardless of how adimant some will be about it being 'scientific'.
But to me that's not the point. The point is: did you create some new? Is your experiment pushing your own thoughts and stimulating new discussions about space? If so, then you've succeeded. Personally, I know I've done some of my best work with these types of pseudo-scientific random-ish/mathematical experiments. It's fun and you would be surprised at how complex the spatial relationships can be - something you, most likely, could not have come up with without these methods.
The HUGE problem, as I see it, is when these experiments are left as experiments. It's great as a graphic experiment and pretty picture, and, indeed, this became a large movement in the graphic world many years after (ironic that the architects come up with it all, then graphic designers take a copy of max and create 'artwork' that sells and makes many people 'stars' with pretty decent carriers).
But when someone like Chu begins to qualify these as something 'real', or that they are architecture, that's when the problems start. Same thing with Lynn and many blobbers - they tryied to make their experiments stand on their own, as architecture, and never tested them against the normal constraints of architecture (materials, gravity, budgets, etc.), when they did, they were disasters.
That's why it all fell apart - too many claims with no substance. But I don't think it's the fault of the process, more so the designers that made the claimes. It's been around for more than 10 years and I see no reason why it's going to go away. If anything, with ever increasing complexity in data systems and analysis, 3D and BIM, it's just going to grow in popularity. Really, there are other fields that are doing 'real' studies like this in 3D to make semi-scientific decisions. As the technologies become more accessible, we'll be incorporating everything from sun diagrams and seismic data, to wind patterns and climate changes.
Personally, I like good formal design. Most can't pull it off, so it's a dangerous endeavor. It's easy to make a decent box, but to come up with a formal building that is successful is very difficult.
At the very least, it's fun and you can make some pretty pics.
I agere with trace and lifeform on this. Still, I do find these forms intriguing. Blobchitecture and GenSys/Algorythmic studies have been the prevalent process for a few of the instructors at the school I work at. Some came from SCI_Arc, some from Columbia. I was asked to be on a jury for a studio working on upcoming UIA 2005 competition.
The process most students used had something to do with DOL systems, L systems, or a personal rule based process.
Personally, I was really reaching so see a glimpse of success. Out of 15 students, only 2 or 3 had a cohesive process from the beginning to the end. Most other students drowned in their own messes. I was astonished to see one students program which was to create "endangered species awareness centers" in the biomes of these endangered species!' I had never seen such crap. The worst part about it is that this kid had been boasting about how cool his boards were, and his for was so cool. It was the worst piece of crap ever, and the jury laced into him.
Always when I am looking at this stuff, I see a potential. If someone were to utilize these methods as tools instead of a solution, we might see something else than just pretty pictures.
wisof - I agree. I, too, find it all very interesting. I've always thought that even blobitecture had possibilities, it's just that the designs always stop at a pretty Maya-esque rendering (you know, semi transparent, usually purple, plastic like materiality - seductive for sure). If they had just gone one step farther and begin to test the ideas within 3D, going closer to reality (the technology and 3D was certainly there, but I am always surprised at how many use Maya for years and never learn to render). It's all about testing your theories against real critiria, otherwise it just gets lost in graphics and bs.
I think that there are those that are experimenting and creating real solutions. Mayne comes to mind, and perhaps Hadid, where both experiment with formal relationships (real 'space'), usually without scale, and then test, experiment, test, etc.
When someone gets so seduced by their abstract 3D that they are afraid of making it real, that's where the problem has always been (I can recall in undergrad profs saying 'don't make your model too perfect [that's a real model] because you won't want to change anything").
There are those that are doing experimental things in 3D, but the successful ones show us the end result instead of promoting the process as a solution unto itself.
agreed. Another issue I have wth this process is the post-programming that I have seen occur. I see it more with gensys/algorhythms than with blobs (I think this is because the blobs I have seen are reacting to programmatic constraints).
Usually what I see is a gross injection of program into the generated forms. This is where I really see this process, and usually the entirety of the project break down. Seems students spend the semester figuring out the process, and then in the last week they shove a program in there. I have rarely seen the program affect the code which generates the form in these undergraduate works. I think there are some examples out there of work that deals with these issues.
I particularly thought this upcoming UIA competition had some potential for these processes as some of the competition deals with spaces in extreme environments which can be easily reprogrammed, and perhaps in several sites around the world. (I think there is also a fabrication aspect to the comp) What I really wanted to see is how the code changed the forms from site to site, but no one did that. They had enough to make one form, on one site, yet imply that the forms will change globally. That just is not enough for me. I think the students still have some time to submit their boards, so they are taking the imput and changing things a bit before the final submission.
Sounds pretty cool. I'd love to get involved with some sort of critique of students work. It's been a long time since I was surrounded by the purely (albeit naive) creative energy and I miss it. Perhaps one of these days I'll see about some sort of volunteer-guest critique, but it does take some kind of devotion that I just don't have time for now (and certainly not teaching an entire class).
I'd love to see some of their work, is it online anywhere?
actually, trace, it is online, I actually set up the webserver for them to use, but have not touched it in a while. It is still up, but I cannot remember their page name. will look at it tomorrow when I am by the server. this was the first test run at an "all-digital" studio. Our school is running into space and pedagogy issues. Basically the studio all CAD (formZ, Maya, 3DS + DOL tools, l-systems, etc) with access to fabrication tools. But I think it is going the way of the "paperless" office. I think it is an interesting idea, but it is obvious these students printed their asses off.
It was so interesting reading all those thoughts, guess Trace is a fan of Marcos Novak and the old theory of expanding limits of human minds and I think that's a high goal to achieve(for the best of humanity). I simply adore the whole experimental process and even my strong desire to see those algorythmic-generated-forms real, I only found much theorical stuff after every virtual architecture and really less built. Something I known built out there (out of sculptural/architectural/installation-form exhibitions in mini scale) is the Fresh water pavillion of the NOX & Lars Spuybroek architects, and the Kas Oosterhuis ONL architects Salt water pavillion, both in Netherlands.
I think Xefirotarch never buit those architecture before but nevertheless now they are a famous studio , invited in Archilab of Orlean and at the Biennale in Venice(where I got to know them first), and many other experimental-virtual architecture studios have gained a great succes an getting well knowned and appreciated everywhere! So Data-driven architecure is Simple,Cool, Straordinary and Goregous(for those who use it with brain after all forms) and it make your Popularity grow more and more, the strangest the arch-experiments are!!! It's really in Fashion nowadays and I don't think it will just end up a dead branch. The next limit to break is virual-to-real (but I'm not affraid of it) and think what we are experiencing are the basis of a new evolved architecture that will grow into real in the "near" future.
Marcos Novak and the whole of his kind are some kind of little genius, cause not every one can imagine and accept such non-ordinary Alienating spaces like those,and they are special people who do it cleverly.
Sadly I just study in the Faculty of Florence in Italy and you can't even immagine how frustrating it can be that those professors are so close-minded to digital architecture, so AFFRAID of the whole process that look at the whole virtual-thing as a Profanation of classic architecture! We're so happy (at least)some of them do accept Decons!
Yes, it's relly boring studying classical methods of doing architecture while in the world new methods of calculating new spaces are experimented with success (even not built in reality but in virtual spaces).
Well, guess I'm comming to USA to do a master in architecture and meet personally with Marcos Novak(as a friend of mine did in the pre-thesis studying period). But guys for me those terms are new: 3DS + DOL tools, L-systems!?? I use 3ds max and dying to get through the experimental process of algorythmic production of space! What programs should I use? FormZ?? or any other non popular algorythmical prog.
Trace you wrote you had experience this this stuff, please address me somewhere!! And if you have to tell me any site where I can find interesting material related this topic please do and if you prefer sending me anything always related this experiments here is my email: [email protected]
Thnx guys, I'm new here and so happy I found such a open-minded community!!! :-)
DATA-DRIVEN formz
Those forms of Hernan D.Alonso are relly exciting, like Marcos novak ones. But I would like to know more (even for blobs) bout DATA -DRIVEN Spaces and forms! Do peaople like HernanD.Alonso pay a math-brain and make him calculate an algoritm to make such cells through a path in a math way, can it be simple like this!! Then Novak himself is a mathematicien.
Is Data-driven forms future of Architecture!!!
you mean you actually think these guys can do math? wake up, this stuff is digtial sculpture, pure and simple. no computation required - mayanaise does it for you. it looks smart, but it is really the tool doing the computation not the user. in some cases, there is some intelligence on the users part (NOX, K Chu) - but for the most part it is pretty simple copy-paste toggle control handles, ho-hum.
If you want data, here he is:
When did data driven forms/algorithmic architecture etc., first make its debut in the academic setting? What schools?
this new 'data-driven' crap is, as lifeform says for pure visual pleasure. It is digital sculpture and 'data' is a meaning to lend some meaning to the whole useless exercise.
and yes, its going to go out of fashion in the next two years.
any advocates out there?
Sure.
First, I want to say that I hate blobs. That's my little disclaimer.
Architecture, inherently, is a formal exercise. The best architects of any generation have pursued new and experimental forms, thereby creating new spatial relationships and experiences - what architecture truly is. Therefore, many seek new ways to reach farther than their minds can imagine. Look at the art movements throughout this century - boundaries were pushed to elevate the entire field, this was always done by creating a new process, which, inevitably, creates a new product.
So here we have architecture, say, about 10 years ago. Decon was at it's height and formal studies were not shy about pushing boundaries. Architect's were using more and more computers, chaos theory was 'new', so it's easy to see how design became focused around complex relationships (strange attractors, self similarity, etc.), and, for some, this meant mathematics.
With the computer, you could create complex formal experiments quickly. Because of the exptreme flexibility, you have to create parameters by which to measure your process, otherwise you'll simply get lost. This can be anything, as with any process, it's up to the designer. For some, formula's and math provided the logical solution.
I agree with sameoldr, to some degree - it is bs, for the most part. But then again, a large part of any process is subject and bs. The problem arises when someone claims that the data is 'real', or that it has more validity over older methods. Imho, that just isn't correct. The designer chooses the formulas, chooses how they are represented, chooses this or that, all of which have an impact on how the design progresses. Ultimately, it is the designer that chooses good or bad, done or not, etc., etc. It's subjective, regardless of how adimant some will be about it being 'scientific'.
But to me that's not the point. The point is: did you create some new? Is your experiment pushing your own thoughts and stimulating new discussions about space? If so, then you've succeeded. Personally, I know I've done some of my best work with these types of pseudo-scientific random-ish/mathematical experiments. It's fun and you would be surprised at how complex the spatial relationships can be - something you, most likely, could not have come up with without these methods.
The HUGE problem, as I see it, is when these experiments are left as experiments. It's great as a graphic experiment and pretty picture, and, indeed, this became a large movement in the graphic world many years after (ironic that the architects come up with it all, then graphic designers take a copy of max and create 'artwork' that sells and makes many people 'stars' with pretty decent carriers).
But when someone like Chu begins to qualify these as something 'real', or that they are architecture, that's when the problems start. Same thing with Lynn and many blobbers - they tryied to make their experiments stand on their own, as architecture, and never tested them against the normal constraints of architecture (materials, gravity, budgets, etc.), when they did, they were disasters.
That's why it all fell apart - too many claims with no substance. But I don't think it's the fault of the process, more so the designers that made the claimes. It's been around for more than 10 years and I see no reason why it's going to go away. If anything, with ever increasing complexity in data systems and analysis, 3D and BIM, it's just going to grow in popularity. Really, there are other fields that are doing 'real' studies like this in 3D to make semi-scientific decisions. As the technologies become more accessible, we'll be incorporating everything from sun diagrams and seismic data, to wind patterns and climate changes.
Personally, I like good formal design. Most can't pull it off, so it's a dangerous endeavor. It's easy to make a decent box, but to come up with a formal building that is successful is very difficult.
At the very least, it's fun and you can make some pretty pics.
I agere with trace and lifeform on this. Still, I do find these forms intriguing. Blobchitecture and GenSys/Algorythmic studies have been the prevalent process for a few of the instructors at the school I work at. Some came from SCI_Arc, some from Columbia. I was asked to be on a jury for a studio working on upcoming UIA 2005 competition.
The process most students used had something to do with DOL systems, L systems, or a personal rule based process.
Personally, I was really reaching so see a glimpse of success. Out of 15 students, only 2 or 3 had a cohesive process from the beginning to the end. Most other students drowned in their own messes. I was astonished to see one students program which was to create "endangered species awareness centers" in the biomes of these endangered species!' I had never seen such crap. The worst part about it is that this kid had been boasting about how cool his boards were, and his for was so cool. It was the worst piece of crap ever, and the jury laced into him.
Always when I am looking at this stuff, I see a potential. If someone were to utilize these methods as tools instead of a solution, we might see something else than just pretty pictures.
wisof - I agree. I, too, find it all very interesting. I've always thought that even blobitecture had possibilities, it's just that the designs always stop at a pretty Maya-esque rendering (you know, semi transparent, usually purple, plastic like materiality - seductive for sure). If they had just gone one step farther and begin to test the ideas within 3D, going closer to reality (the technology and 3D was certainly there, but I am always surprised at how many use Maya for years and never learn to render). It's all about testing your theories against real critiria, otherwise it just gets lost in graphics and bs.
I think that there are those that are experimenting and creating real solutions. Mayne comes to mind, and perhaps Hadid, where both experiment with formal relationships (real 'space'), usually without scale, and then test, experiment, test, etc.
When someone gets so seduced by their abstract 3D that they are afraid of making it real, that's where the problem has always been (I can recall in undergrad profs saying 'don't make your model too perfect [that's a real model] because you won't want to change anything").
There are those that are doing experimental things in 3D, but the successful ones show us the end result instead of promoting the process as a solution unto itself.
agreed. Another issue I have wth this process is the post-programming that I have seen occur. I see it more with gensys/algorhythms than with blobs (I think this is because the blobs I have seen are reacting to programmatic constraints).
Usually what I see is a gross injection of program into the generated forms. This is where I really see this process, and usually the entirety of the project break down. Seems students spend the semester figuring out the process, and then in the last week they shove a program in there. I have rarely seen the program affect the code which generates the form in these undergraduate works. I think there are some examples out there of work that deals with these issues.
I particularly thought this upcoming UIA competition had some potential for these processes as some of the competition deals with spaces in extreme environments which can be easily reprogrammed, and perhaps in several sites around the world. (I think there is also a fabrication aspect to the comp) What I really wanted to see is how the code changed the forms from site to site, but no one did that. They had enough to make one form, on one site, yet imply that the forms will change globally. That just is not enough for me. I think the students still have some time to submit their boards, so they are taking the imput and changing things a bit before the final submission.
Sounds pretty cool. I'd love to get involved with some sort of critique of students work. It's been a long time since I was surrounded by the purely (albeit naive) creative energy and I miss it. Perhaps one of these days I'll see about some sort of volunteer-guest critique, but it does take some kind of devotion that I just don't have time for now (and certainly not teaching an entire class).
I'd love to see some of their work, is it online anywhere?
actually, trace, it is online, I actually set up the webserver for them to use, but have not touched it in a while. It is still up, but I cannot remember their page name. will look at it tomorrow when I am by the server. this was the first test run at an "all-digital" studio. Our school is running into space and pedagogy issues. Basically the studio all CAD (formZ, Maya, 3DS + DOL tools, l-systems, etc) with access to fabrication tools. But I think it is going the way of the "paperless" office. I think it is an interesting idea, but it is obvious these students printed their asses off.
It was so interesting reading all those thoughts, guess Trace is a fan of Marcos Novak and the old theory of expanding limits of human minds and I think that's a high goal to achieve(for the best of humanity). I simply adore the whole experimental process and even my strong desire to see those algorythmic-generated-forms real, I only found much theorical stuff after every virtual architecture and really less built. Something I known built out there (out of sculptural/architectural/installation-form exhibitions in mini scale) is the Fresh water pavillion of the NOX & Lars Spuybroek architects, and the Kas Oosterhuis ONL architects Salt water pavillion, both in Netherlands.
I think Xefirotarch never buit those architecture before but nevertheless now they are a famous studio , invited in Archilab of Orlean and at the Biennale in Venice(where I got to know them first), and many other experimental-virtual architecture studios have gained a great succes an getting well knowned and appreciated everywhere! So Data-driven architecure is Simple,Cool, Straordinary and Goregous(for those who use it with brain after all forms) and it make your Popularity grow more and more, the strangest the arch-experiments are!!! It's really in Fashion nowadays and I don't think it will just end up a dead branch. The next limit to break is virual-to-real (but I'm not affraid of it) and think what we are experiencing are the basis of a new evolved architecture that will grow into real in the "near" future.
Marcos Novak and the whole of his kind are some kind of little genius, cause not every one can imagine and accept such non-ordinary Alienating spaces like those,and they are special people who do it cleverly.
Sadly I just study in the Faculty of Florence in Italy and you can't even immagine how frustrating it can be that those professors are so close-minded to digital architecture, so AFFRAID of the whole process that look at the whole virtual-thing as a Profanation of classic architecture! We're so happy (at least)some of them do accept Decons!
Yes, it's relly boring studying classical methods of doing architecture while in the world new methods of calculating new spaces are experimented with success (even not built in reality but in virtual spaces).
Well, guess I'm comming to USA to do a master in architecture and meet personally with Marcos Novak(as a friend of mine did in the pre-thesis studying period). But guys for me those terms are new: 3DS + DOL tools, L-systems!?? I use 3ds max and dying to get through the experimental process of algorythmic production of space! What programs should I use? FormZ?? or any other non popular algorythmical prog.
Trace you wrote you had experience this this stuff, please address me somewhere!! And if you have to tell me any site where I can find interesting material related this topic please do and if you prefer sending me anything always related this experiments here is my email: [email protected]
Thnx guys, I'm new here and so happy I found such a open-minded community!!! :-)
Hey Trace, Wisof, c'mon, where are you!!! I need your responses, or even from anyone else!
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.