I'm not assuming that. I agree, we are biological machines. And it is theoretically possible to replicate our brain power using a computer. But this "assembly", (when or if it ever is to become as advanced as a human brain) would be autonomous and therefore would be able to think, and would not need a lesser machine to make decisions for it. It would make decisions the same way humans have been doing it for the last 200,000 years- by using rational thought and imagination. If a machine was to become autonomous, and equally as intellegent as a human brain, then why would it need a lesser machine for anything more than a tool like a calculator. If we are (as of now) more advanced than a computer, why would we allow this lesser technology to guide our decisions in totality? Why not just use it as a tool.
@fluxbound
Seems like everything is computable in your world. You’re worshipping computation as a god. It is a tool, a method that allows you to do things more conveniently. That is! You’re so entrenched to the assumption that computation is solution to all. You never question why? You only ask how to do things? How will you do for next?
There are a lot of intangible values out there that cannot be re-assembled. The relationship between you and the ones you’re close to. How can you assemble, imitate, compute that?
It is Architecture where human creativity meet those immaterial values. Did your studio professor teach you how to appreciate the aesthetics component of architecture?
autonomy questions lead to discussions of will. basically, autonomy is completely irrelevant. assuming that computational power inevitably results in autonomy is extremely naive. you're not autonomous. there are only degrees of difference between you tapping your fingers on a keyboard, thereby making a machine go vrooom, and the physical events that lead you to draw a line or design a house, and the inevitable, deterministic currents/code powering a computer.
also, as per previously stated... with the adequate data-set, you can train a computer to do anything a human can do; anything. design a house, program a skyscraper, lay out a park. i thought that was settled....
with the adequate data-set, you can train a computer to do anything a human can do
So then why train a computer to do it?
Unless one can create an autonomous computer, you need someone to input the data. If you have an autonomous computer than it is also a thinking computer and is no different than we are. So, why would such an advanced thinking computer use another computer which is incapable of independant thought for anything else than a tool.
We all have biases. You are still putting information into the computer. The information that I put in may be differnet than the information you put in. You first have to decide what is important to put into the computer- that will determine what comes out. If you put in crap you will get crap out. It is a friggin tool.
"Btw, theologians are always one step ahead of the others and they can be ahead of other people because they dare to ask the question WHY? As far I concern, theory are the building blocks of physics world."
I should have said theoretician. You just see what you want to see and skip other parts. But it was my mistake. Good job at sniping people with out of context to feed your ego.
oh look its the guy who preaches about pencil drawing (teetee002) and the guy who runs around in circles on every thread ( jlarch , is that you? oooh no wonder), have fun you two!
seriously don't indulge them, it's best they spend their days in the retirement home. What they say has been said before, let them be clueless it's for the best. They're so on edge theyre doing the Rick Santorum
this thread was derailed from parametrcism a while ago.
You are not qualified to have this discussion, we are not going to spoon feed anything to you. Take a slice of humble pie..... and go out into the world.
the problem is that asking "why?" is a tunneling trap and it's completely irrelevant to what you want to accomplish, especially in design.
the question to ask is "how do people congregate?" or "how does optimization fail us?". "why?" always devolves into questions of intentionality, which in turn devolve into questions of will. which in turn goes into questions of spirituality. most of which is a bunch of babble.
i'm not espousing faith in models, i'm trying to point out that in the end, arguments around authorship, when it comes to computation, are completely irrelevant to discussions of method.
Ah - determinism vs. free will. IMO - Hard-core determinism is corrosive and leads to directly to fatalism - things like joy or happiness or beauty are an illusion, and there's really no point to discovering anything because it's all predetermined. you might as well go kill yourself.
also - only asking questions of "how" is like the shit engineers do. It devolves into only solving discrete problems with absolutely no concern with overall context.
questions of "why" are important because they propel us, they help us draw connections, and they force us to challenge our own beliefs and assumptions - of course they're these never ending "tunneling traps" and can potentially devolve into moral/ethical/religious discussions - but this is where lateral thinking comes from. You lose this, and you lose the capacity to learn.
example: "why does the chicken protect her young?" vs "how does the chicken protect her young?" are very different questions - the latter you're solving a discrete problem of "how" and the former you're looking for a connection - is it for genetic survival? is it hard-wired into her brain? is it God or the flying spaghetti monster speaking directly to her?
If a person’s opinion is different from your opinion does not mean that person is opposing you. It is very simple logic. Para-crowd is clamming themselves as cut above everyone else and yet can’t differentiate the difference.
Architecture is for the people and by the people. The moment you get away from that principle you’re just creating recipe for disaster. I’m not saying you’re not going to be successful or thriving.
What I learn from the thread is that some people who believe that computation is the future do not like to be question by others. They don’t like the question why, because it is not in their comfort zone. You’re programmed to ask the questions how to create cool things, how to replicate what is in nature (sometime successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully), how to justify your proposition, how to retort to those who question your believe, how to draft a new manifesto every other day, how to create new things form inadequate data, how to use the programs without questioning why they are using these programs.
I may have different opinion from you, but it doesn’t mean I’m stuck to replication of Palladio works. Actually I’m quite irritated to see replication of classicism. There are literally thousands of architects who can’t differentiate Bramante form Bernini. What a tragic! Because they didn't question why they're learning history, and they more interested in how to get better grade. You can define your existence by learning history and humanity aspect of the architecture. Technology comes and goes. Dumo at Florence may be God’s work at that time, in terms of technological achievement not so much for now.
I would love to know how many of these cool people try to type in a line of programming language in Notepad ++. How many of these people started with “ Hello World”. I can assure that you will be surprised. A lot of folks out there are incessantly spawning out the words computer, technology, data, scripting, and computing don’t have a clue about the things what they are doing. Doing a few cool things on Grasshopper doesn’t mean you’re invincible. You’re just working on the platform that others created for you. You can only be as good as these program writers allow you. Yike! Shouldn’t you be in control of what you’re doing? Did people question why they are scripting ?
I do understand that a lot of folks are trying really hard to understand things fundamentally. I can respect to those but for the majority of the charlatan, I’ll say, take a nap. From the day one, I didn’t say anywhere that I’m oppose to new technology or I’m not an anti-prarmetric. I’ve been questioning the feasibility in the future, and relationship to the architecture that we know (used to know). I’m surely disappointed to see the stereo typical ill-judged conclusion of those who question new technology must be from retirement home. I’m not sure that bitterness is rooted in your past experiences or not.
There was a time 1987 - when we had to rite our own C code to create parametric models - The parametric system was only as good as we were programmers/mathematicians -
Ok tell me if I’m wrong . You’re essentially saying that today architects can do parametric things without understanding the underlying factors as opposed to programmers and mathematicians do.
So isn’t that essentially utilizing it just as a tool rather than a subject, filed, knowledge, or methodology to explore? It is almost equal to the way F.G using technology from plane making.
No- Architects need to understand the underlying rules of geometry and programming in addition to architecture - "Architecture is about the form of knowledge" - Bernard Tschumi -
I didn't have to to look at all of your snide at my writing. But I just want you to know English is not my native language and it will never be. I do understand that fluency in English language is very important to engage with people from different backgrounds. Lack of proper English language didn't make Toyo Ito a lesser architect. I don't think it should be a deterrent from stating what you think or what you believe. I'm just trying to type these from my job. So yes from tight time frame make it even worse. Thanks for your encouragement to go to grammar school. Should I go to the Victorian grammar school from Charles Dickens' novels as I'm close to be at retirement home?
Ah - determinism vs. free will. IMO - Hard-core determinism is corrosive and leads to directly to fatalism - things like joy or happiness or beauty are an illusion, and there's really no point to discovering anything because it's all predetermined. you might as well go kill yourself.
simplistic to the point of either being naive or disingenuous. determinism pretty much leads to embracing process as life. what do i have to look forward to? well, this awesome slice of cantaloupe.
do you seriously want to argue that you're not made of atoms? sorry, sir, that's bordering on delusional..
also - only asking questions of "how" is like the shit engineers do. It devolves into only solving discrete problems with absolutely no concern with overall context.
you've obviously never programmed in a serious way.
questions of "why" are important because they propel us, they help us draw connections, and they force us to challenge our own beliefs and assumptions - of course they're these never ending "tunneling traps" and can potentially devolve into moral/ethical/religious discussions - but this is where lateral thinking comes from. You lose this, and you lose the capacity to learn.
so much empty rhetoric here. stop bullshitting. this is not architecture school. this is not a studio crit.
example: "why does the chicken protect her young?" vs "how does the chicken protect her young?" are very different questions - the latter you're solving a discrete problem of "how" and the former you're looking for a connection - is it for genetic survival? is it hard-wired into her brain? is it God or the flying spaghetti monster speaking directly to her?
This debate is getting annoying. Fluxbound L.K, you are missing the main point of the argument. All I am saying is that any ism is limiting. Capitalism, classicism, conservatism, modernism, etc..... There is no ism that can by itself solve problems. Yes, we can take bits and pieces from here and there, but to buy into anything in totality limits ones ability to solve problems and think outside the box. Your quickness to knock people with different ideas is proff of that.
at any rate, 5 years from now, it will be expected that we are proficient with parametric design - Today's BIM wits that don't "upgrade" will be permanently cast aside into long term unemployment - Parametric ism is survival in architecture - it is a tool - It's how I got hired at a major architecture firm - I knew how to write VB NET to work on the Revit API - Some offices want Grasshopper experience - this was 4 years ago -
It can give you more control, get you a job, it brings a lot to academic debate.
There is no ism that can by itself solve problems.
not true, your arguments are full of holes. At any given point certain ideologies solve major problems, there is no use whining about progress unless you can positively contribute.
I dont understand why the peanut gallery is so hung up on the "why?"
There are plenty of applications where the why is answered.
zen "at any rate, 5 years from now, it will be expected that we are proficient with parametric design - Today's BIM wits that don't "upgrade" will be permanently cast aside into long term unemployment - Parametric ism is survival in architecture - it is a tool - It's how I got hired at a major architecture firm - I knew how to write VB NET to work on the Revit API"
You're just a cog in the machine man. The bigwigs still only use Exchange. Maybe Word and Excel.
One thing that comes out of this thread is that Parametric people are nasty, spiteful little things. Not good.
Comrade Stalin might also say if you can’t contribute positive things into socialist republic stop whining. Gulag has an open door for you.
Welcome to 21st century Republic of Parametricism where no questing is allowed! You can start seeing that in some statements like” nothing wrong with spaceship architecture, I think it is ok to do that type of architecture.” People start to fear that they will be denounced if they expressed their opinions and thoughts. I don’t want to see holy parametric inquisition which is going to condemn to those who expressed their reservation.
Modern-ISM worked out a bit too well.
When did asking question why become a sin?
I have no doubt about this statement “Parametric ism is survival in architecture - it is a tool .“ It should not stop people from question about Parametricism, the role of Parametric in architecture. the trajectory of Parametric ism.
Sure - the designers need to think about the big questions to better aim us production types in the right direction - the designers ask why - I ask how - I am not supposed to ask big questions -
determinism pretty much leads to embracing process as life. what do i have to look forward to? well, this awesome slice of cantaloupe.
Perfect example of a discrete problem. Would a determinist wonder where that slice of cantaloupe came from? You've made an assumption about where determinism "leads to." I also made an assumption about where determinism "leads to." You haven't proven or disproven either belief.
do you seriously want to argue that you're not made of atoms?
Unfalsifiable statement. Also not what I'm arguing. I'm talking about learning processes and cognitive development - which is what I thought we were discussing (for those of you following along - this relates to parametricism/computation because it relates to how we understand and design systems).
you're wasting your time.
Perhaps. But you're the one who is resorting to personal attacks.
I dont understand why the peanut gallery is so hung up on the "why?"
There are plenty of applications where the why is answered.
"parametricism is not a tool"
"Why" is always subjective. Computer programs and math are always objective. Art is always subjective. Art is about "why" craft is about "how." We always need both, but without the initial intent of asking "why" we have craft without purpose. We get pure form. Pure form is not art unless the intent is pure form for the purpose or creating a message.
Can a computer create art? I would say yes, but it is only art because of the subjective nature of its programmer and the intent of the programmer to do so in the first place. Art and architecture are all about communicating some idea while solving some problem. We have to define the problem and ask why its a problem. The form is just the delivery method of that idea or solution, the tool is the bridge between the intent and the formal manifestation of that idea. Nothing can be created without intent, and therefore nothing is objective. If nothing is objective, then nothing can be created without first asking "why". If that's the case, then the user precedes the machine rendering it a tool or method. Adding an ism after a method is silly. It's like saying canvasism, granitesculpturism, hubbletelescopeism, calculusism, algebraism....
Embrace it as a tool instead of a god and it has alot of potential. You tech guys are so angry. Go pet a puppy or something and take a break from the cmoputer.
On subjective and objective beauty, or why computers can’t create art
"Everyone wants to be beautiful. Yet, we are told, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If that’s the case, can you crowdsource beauty? If, say, 9/10 people prefer thin people, is it possible to be beautiful and be fat? Only in the eyes of ten per cent of the population. A small number, but still a significant minority.
Perhaps you need to find a set of objective standards that everyone can agree on. Some people like tall people, some people like short people, some people like blonde people, et cetera — but perhaps we come closest to agreement in the following statement: there is beauty in symmetry.
From art and architecture to the human face, people feel more “comfortable” with symmetrical designs. It’s partly instinctive: we’re hard-wired to find people with good genetic material attractive, and symmetry is the most obvious sign of good, strong, healthy DNA. (Consider the reverse stereotype: the slack-jawed yokel of redneck myth is patently depicted as unsymmetrical and considered universally unattractive). But is it a true judge of beauty? I think not.
Anaface is a computer program which claims to do just this – judge your attractiveness by the symmetry of your face. It is of course wrong. You can’t judge beauty on symmetry. I happen to have a very symmetrical face. However, I’m fairly average. I scored almost twice as high on Anaface’s test as a friend of mine who’s a professional model. Symmetry, it seems, is no great judge.
In fact, perfectly symmetrical features are bland and characterless – I’d never cut it as a model because my face doesn’t have “character”. So what do you do? Do you reprogram the computer to understand that some asymmetrical faces are beautiful (because they have character) while others aren’t?
Computers can’t handle variance without record to mathematical equations. Computers are essentially binary – on or off, yes or no, all or nothing. Computers seek veracity — they’re problem solvers, literally. You could plug an equation for “variance based on asymmetry” into a computer but in doing so you have introduced an element of subjectivity rather than objectivity (based on one person’s personal perception, or on crowdsourcing, etc) into the formula, and computers alone will never be able to do this. A computer, in short, cannot make judgements about beauty.
And that is why computers will never be able to make meaningful art.
There is no objective truth in beauty. Charles Bronson, for example, was considered handsome – despite his unconventional, weatherbeaten looks. What do we tell the computer? Well, we can only tell it that some people find weatherbeaten faces attractive some of the time. The computer is confused. You feed it a picture of Charles Bronson and tell it that sort of face is attractive to some people, therefore the computer gives it a score of “above average”. Then you feed the computer a similar picture of someone, say, an old fisherman who’s been exposed to the open seas for two or three decades. Is he attractive? Based on the new information you’ve fed the computer, yes. The computer is incapable of making the same “judgment call” we as humans are.
It’s not simply a matter of updating the formula, either. Adding further exceptions, refining the formula to include fishermen, all other types of weatherbeaten / asymmetrical faces etc — the most the computer will ever be able to reply is that there is variance. ie, some people find this sort of face attractive, others don’t. And as for why some types of weatherbeaten / asymmetrical faces are attractive and others aren’t… how can the computer tell? A scar on one side of the face might be considered attractive by some people because it makes the person look dangerous. But others might be repulsed. Again, the most the computer can say is that there is variance. There is no “objective truth in beauty”.
Mathematics and art don’t match.
If you ask the computer what it thinks, it doesn’t have an answer except recourse to mathematics, ie “I have been shown a photo of a weatherbeaten face a little like Charles Bronson and there is a 50% chance that this face is attractive” — in order for the computer to say yes or no, you would have to program it to either like or dislike asymmetrical / weatherbeaten faces. A computer cannot simply decide if it likes a symmetrical face or a weatherbeaten one until you tell it.
Consider Shakespeare’s famous love sonnet, ‘my mistress eyes are nothing like the sun’ — in which he goes on to explain that the object of his affections is unappealing by conventional standards, but he loves her and finds her attractive. By objective standards he is wrong. But art, like beauty, is not held to objective standards.
This is why computers cannot be good artists. They have no perception of beauty. If you fed a computer every Rembrandt, Picasso, Poussin and Pollock, and told it to extrapolate from that what’s beautiful and create art based on that, you’d come up with a nightmare splattering of nothing.
If you tell an “art producing” computer to imitate one of those styles, it is merely a very clever photocopier. A computer decides on mathematical formula what is or isn’t beautiful. It can either say yes or no based on preprogrammed criteria, or it can tell you what the variance is, what the likelihood that certain types of people will find certain types of art appealing. This is not an adequate.
The creation of new art cannot be based on formulaic analysis of what people have found attractive in the past.
We cannot simply deconstruct what has gone before, evaluate its attractiveness, and create new art based on that.
This method might be a good way of creating, say, Ikea prints, but it’s not art. Art, like beauty, requires a subjective element. Let us say that a vandal throws a tin of black paint over the Mona Lisa. Let us then say that vandal is a currently respected but controversial artist, someone like Banksy or Damien Hirst. The art community is divided. 90% say it’s a travesty and our artist / vandal should be locked up. But 10% say that it’s a powerful statement about the nature of art, that it’s an act of iconoclasm and should be praised. Those 10% may have radical political ideas, for example — that make them differ from the other 90%. Of those 10%, 5% would leave Mona Lisa as she is, covered in black paint, hanging for all to see. The other 5% believe that, point having been made, the painting should be restored.
Feed this information into our computer busily churning out brilliantly made (from a technical perspective) oil paintings to sell at Ikea. It will continue to make 90% of its output as it was. But from now on, it has a difficult decision. Should it make 10% of its new canvases with a big black splodge of paint in the middle? Or should it make 5%? Or should it make none, because 10% of people only consider a black splodge on a painting to be art if that painting happens to be the Mona Lisa?
The answer is probably the latter. It’s very unlikely that anyone will find black splodges attractive except by reference to famous artworks. But some might. It may become a counter-cultural symbol for people with radical political ideas. The black splodge could be imbued with meaning. Having a black splodge on your paintings may become iconic as a Marxist symbol. It’s unlikely, but possible. And a computer cannot adjust to this new fact until it has again been programmed, until the formula for artwork has been updated. Again, a computer cannot lead, cannot make new ideas. It can only copy what people do, what the general consensus becomes, and follow.
Computers are problem solvers, not artists. Computers do not create, they copy. Computers cannot account for subjective beauty.
My example of the Mona Lisa was there for a reason. As was the mention of Banksy. One of Banksy’s oldest works, the “Mild West” mural in Bristol, was vandalised in just this way, with a tin of red paint streaked from side to side. It was done as a political statement, not as an act of vandalism, by a group that disagrees with graffiti as it is an inappropriate use of public space. The council restored the “artwork” — why? If it was an ordinary graffiti artist, the council would be painting over the mural itself. The “is it graffiti / is it art?” debate is entirely subjective. You cannot ask a computer what it thinks, because it cannot tell you until you have first told it. The most it can tell you is that there is variance.
So the computer churns out lots of different types of artwork based on this variance formula, based on what it thinks certain people will like. It doesn’t produce art, it is a photocopier. It is a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters, and it may eventually churn out something that some people find beautiful. But it isn’t an artist. It doesn’t have an artistic vision. It doesn’t imbue its artworks with meaning. The same is exactly true of a computer that generates poetry, novels or music. Art is imbued with meaning when an artist makes a subjective decision and applies that to his work. A computer cannot do that because it cannot be subjective, it either accounts for variance or makes a decision based on what is random, based on a flip of a coin.
Computers only follow, they never lead, and they never create anything that is new. For these reasons, computers will never replace the role of the artist / creative in anything but a technical sense. They can create a fine copy, but they can’t create fine art."
Computation wizzards in other fields are usually armed with poor hygene and lack of any social skills. Can't speak for the former, but you guys really nail the social skills stereotype.
Time for timeout T
I think it will be good time for all of us to not have this conversation/engagement/debate/indulgence for at least one day. I’m glad that someone started this thread in the first place.
It has been well known fact that this topic is one of the most polarizing one in architecture world. In past I tried to not to step into any of these conversations as I felt that the environment is filled with fume of emotional and intellectual toxic. I thought it wasn’t the case anymore. But it still is.
I hope we can continue the meaningful conversation with level-headed way.
Hope you all can have great weekend!
P.S anyone going to baseball game? It seems like really good time to go to ballpark and eat some greasy overpriced food. Haha
@jla-x
If everyone is on the same page or on the same wave length, we won’t have this conversation. I think it is better to talk to people with different opinions than talk about these people. I do appreciate your time you put into this conversation.
.. we'll always have opposing forces clashing, most people fear and ridicule something they don't really know about. Browsing through grasshopper3d.com and looking up Parametric architecture in wikipedia does not entitle people to hand in extensive opinions about the subject matter.
This is for everyone participating in this thread. Just sayin.
fluxbound, I hope all your reponses are automated responses, released by a robot answering in your honor, and basing the response on your responses in the past
... the reality is that architectural spaces on this planet are inhabited by people, and are made by people, and for people. Taking a program and statistical analysis for the only reason for design for HIGHLY personal spaces seems ... alien and robotic. Reducing the many facets of architecture, art, science, sociology, real estate, land use policy, ecology, ect. to just parametrics seems void. Even placing on all these facets into a database and calling this architecture is absurd ... architecture is design, at its most basic sense, an requires a personal view and experience to make it that.
Is the world ready for Parametric/ Morphogenetic Architecture?
Questions of quality and value cannot be computed.
Incorrect. You're assuming that you're some sort of divine assembly that can do this. If you can do it, a physical assembly can do it, no exceptions.
I'm not assuming that. I agree, we are biological machines. And it is theoretically possible to replicate our brain power using a computer. But this "assembly", (when or if it ever is to become as advanced as a human brain) would be autonomous and therefore would be able to think, and would not need a lesser machine to make decisions for it. It would make decisions the same way humans have been doing it for the last 200,000 years- by using rational thought and imagination. If a machine was to become autonomous, and equally as intellegent as a human brain, then why would it need a lesser machine for anything more than a tool like a calculator. If we are (as of now) more advanced than a computer, why would we allow this lesser technology to guide our decisions in totality? Why not just use it as a tool.
@fluxbound
Seems like everything is computable in your world. You’re worshipping computation as a god. It is a tool, a method that allows you to do things more conveniently. That is! You’re so entrenched to the assumption that computation is solution to all. You never question why? You only ask how to do things? How will you do for next?
There are a lot of intangible values out there that cannot be re-assembled. The relationship between you and the ones you’re close to. How can you assemble, imitate, compute that?
It is Architecture where human creativity meet those immaterial values. Did your studio professor teach you how to appreciate the aesthetics component of architecture?
autonomy questions lead to discussions of will. basically, autonomy is completely irrelevant. assuming that computational power inevitably results in autonomy is extremely naive. you're not autonomous. there are only degrees of difference between you tapping your fingers on a keyboard, thereby making a machine go vrooom, and the physical events that lead you to draw a line or design a house, and the inevitable, deterministic currents/code powering a computer.
also, as per previously stated... with the adequate data-set, you can train a computer to do anything a human can do; anything. design a house, program a skyscraper, lay out a park. i thought that was settled....
@Tee: I'm not indulging you anymore. You're full of crap. 3 posts ago, you told me that theologians were ahead of everybody else. Here's a chair
_./
Sit down, while the semi-adults speak.
fluxbound, I don't think you get it.
with the adequate data-set, you can train a computer to do anything a human can do
So then why train a computer to do it?
Unless one can create an autonomous computer, you need someone to input the data. If you have an autonomous computer than it is also a thinking computer and is no different than we are. So, why would such an advanced thinking computer use another computer which is incapable of independant thought for anything else than a tool.
We all have biases. You are still putting information into the computer. The information that I put in may be differnet than the information you put in. You first have to decide what is important to put into the computer- that will determine what comes out. If you put in crap you will get crap out. It is a friggin tool.
"Btw, theologians are always one step ahead of the others and they can be ahead of other people because they dare to ask the question WHY? As far I concern, theory are the building blocks of physics world."
I should have said theoretician. You just see what you want to see and skip other parts. But it was my mistake. Good job at sniping people with out of context to feed your ego.
Its not a tool
oh look its the guy who preaches about pencil drawing (teetee002) and the guy who runs around in circles on every thread ( jlarch , is that you? oooh no wonder), have fun you two!
seriously don't indulge them, it's best they spend their days in the retirement home. What they say has been said before, let them be clueless it's for the best. They're so on edge theyre doing the Rick Santorum
oww sorry I offended your religion.
Umm actually no thats not me. I am only 31. jla are my initials....I am going to change my screen name don't want to be associated with that crap.
Also, why does everyone assume that a crit of anything new is conservative?
I am 100% not a conservative.
You guys are so sensitive when it comes to parametricism. Parametrics is cool parametricism seems to be some kind of cult .
Do not question parametricism!
this thread was derailed from parametrcism a while ago.
You are not qualified to have this discussion, we are not going to spoon feed anything to you. Take a slice of humble pie..... and go out into the world.
You and your friends are just being Luddites
I'm with LK at this point.
I'm bowing out. JL, you have no idea what you're talking about. Go read more. Tee, you should spend some time in grammar school.
the problem is that asking "why?" is a tunneling trap and it's completely irrelevant to what you want to accomplish, especially in design.
the question to ask is "how do people congregate?" or "how does optimization fail us?". "why?" always devolves into questions of intentionality, which in turn devolve into questions of will. which in turn goes into questions of spirituality. most of which is a bunch of babble.
i'm not espousing faith in models, i'm trying to point out that in the end, arguments around authorship, when it comes to computation, are completely irrelevant to discussions of method.
Ah - determinism vs. free will. IMO - Hard-core determinism is corrosive and leads to directly to fatalism - things like joy or happiness or beauty are an illusion, and there's really no point to discovering anything because it's all predetermined. you might as well go kill yourself.
also - only asking questions of "how" is like the shit engineers do. It devolves into only solving discrete problems with absolutely no concern with overall context.
questions of "why" are important because they propel us, they help us draw connections, and they force us to challenge our own beliefs and assumptions - of course they're these never ending "tunneling traps" and can potentially devolve into moral/ethical/religious discussions - but this is where lateral thinking comes from. You lose this, and you lose the capacity to learn.
example: "why does the chicken protect her young?" vs "how does the chicken protect her young?" are very different questions - the latter you're solving a discrete problem of "how" and the former you're looking for a connection - is it for genetic survival? is it hard-wired into her brain? is it God or the flying spaghetti monster speaking directly to her?
If a person’s opinion is different from your opinion does not mean that person is opposing you. It is very simple logic. Para-crowd is clamming themselves as cut above everyone else and yet can’t differentiate the difference.
Architecture is for the people and by the people. The moment you get away from that principle you’re just creating recipe for disaster. I’m not saying you’re not going to be successful or thriving.
What I learn from the thread is that some people who believe that computation is the future do not like to be question by others. They don’t like the question why, because it is not in their comfort zone. You’re programmed to ask the questions how to create cool things, how to replicate what is in nature (sometime successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully), how to justify your proposition, how to retort to those who question your believe, how to draft a new manifesto every other day, how to create new things form inadequate data, how to use the programs without questioning why they are using these programs.
I may have different opinion from you, but it doesn’t mean I’m stuck to replication of Palladio works. Actually I’m quite irritated to see replication of classicism. There are literally thousands of architects who can’t differentiate Bramante form Bernini. What a tragic! Because they didn't question why they're learning history, and they more interested in how to get better grade. You can define your existence by learning history and humanity aspect of the architecture. Technology comes and goes. Dumo at Florence may be God’s work at that time, in terms of technological achievement not so much for now.
I would love to know how many of these cool people try to type in a line of programming language in Notepad ++. How many of these people started with “ Hello World”. I can assure that you will be surprised. A lot of folks out there are incessantly spawning out the words computer, technology, data, scripting, and computing don’t have a clue about the things what they are doing. Doing a few cool things on Grasshopper doesn’t mean you’re invincible. You’re just working on the platform that others created for you. You can only be as good as these program writers allow you. Yike! Shouldn’t you be in control of what you’re doing? Did people question why they are scripting ?
I do understand that a lot of folks are trying really hard to understand things fundamentally. I can respect to those but for the majority of the charlatan, I’ll say, take a nap. From the day one, I didn’t say anywhere that I’m oppose to new technology or I’m not an anti-prarmetric. I’ve been questioning the feasibility in the future, and relationship to the architecture that we know (used to know). I’m surely disappointed to see the stereo typical ill-judged conclusion of those who question new technology must be from retirement home. I’m not sure that bitterness is rooted in your past experiences or not.
Agree with toasteroven. "Progress" can only happen if we ask why. If we just ask how we may get technological advances, but not neccesarily progress.
There was a time 1987 - when we had to rite our own C code to create parametric models - The parametric system was only as good as we were programmers/mathematicians -
@zenakis
Ok tell me if I’m wrong . You’re essentially saying that today architects can do parametric things without understanding the underlying factors as opposed to programmers and mathematicians do.
So isn’t that essentially utilizing it just as a tool rather than a subject, filed, knowledge, or methodology to explore? It is almost equal to the way F.G using technology from plane making.
No- Architects need to understand the underlying rules of geometry and programming in addition to architecture - "Architecture is about the form of knowledge" - Bernard Tschumi -
@zenakis
Thanks for clarification.
@fluxbound
I didn't have to to look at all of your snide at my writing. But I just want you to know English is not my native language and it will never be. I do understand that fluency in English language is very important to engage with people from different backgrounds. Lack of proper English language didn't make Toyo Ito a lesser architect. I don't think it should be a deterrent from stating what you think or what you believe. I'm just trying to type these from my job. So yes from tight time frame make it even worse. Thanks for your encouragement to go to grammar school. Should I go to the Victorian grammar school from Charles Dickens' novels as I'm close to be at retirement home?
Ah - determinism vs. free will. IMO - Hard-core determinism is corrosive and leads to directly to fatalism - things like joy or happiness or beauty are an illusion, and there's really no point to discovering anything because it's all predetermined. you might as well go kill yourself.
simplistic to the point of either being naive or disingenuous. determinism pretty much leads to embracing process as life. what do i have to look forward to? well, this awesome slice of cantaloupe.
do you seriously want to argue that you're not made of atoms? sorry, sir, that's bordering on delusional..
also - only asking questions of "how" is like the shit engineers do. It devolves into only solving discrete problems with absolutely no concern with overall context.
you've obviously never programmed in a serious way.
questions of "why" are important because they propel us, they help us draw connections, and they force us to challenge our own beliefs and assumptions - of course they're these never ending "tunneling traps" and can potentially devolve into moral/ethical/religious discussions - but this is where lateral thinking comes from. You lose this, and you lose the capacity to learn.
so much empty rhetoric here. stop bullshitting. this is not architecture school. this is not a studio crit.
example: "why does the chicken protect her young?" vs "how does the chicken protect her young?" are very different questions - the latter you're solving a discrete problem of "how" and the former you're looking for a connection - is it for genetic survival? is it hard-wired into her brain? is it God or the flying spaghetti monster speaking directly to her?
you're wasting your time.
This debate is getting annoying. Fluxbound L.K, you are missing the main point of the argument. All I am saying is that any ism is limiting. Capitalism, classicism, conservatism, modernism, etc..... There is no ism that can by itself solve problems. Yes, we can take bits and pieces from here and there, but to buy into anything in totality limits ones ability to solve problems and think outside the box. Your quickness to knock people with different ideas is proff of that.
yeah, cool story.
stop pretending you understand the limits of parametricism though, you don't.
so who won?haha
... Parametricism relies on technological limitations. It will part of our future, architecture and other industries.
But I was asking , what good does it do AT PRESENT?
at any rate, 5 years from now, it will be expected that we are proficient with parametric design - Today's BIM wits that don't "upgrade" will be permanently cast aside into long term unemployment - Parametric ism is survival in architecture - it is a tool - It's how I got hired at a major architecture firm - I knew how to write VB NET to work on the Revit API - Some offices want Grasshopper experience - this was 4 years ago -
It can give you more control, get you a job, it brings a lot to academic debate.
There is no ism that can by itself solve problems.
not true, your arguments are full of holes. At any given point certain ideologies solve major problems, there is no use whining about progress unless you can positively contribute.
I dont understand why the peanut gallery is so hung up on the "why?"
There are plenty of applications where the why is answered.
zen "at any rate, 5 years from now, it will be expected that we are proficient with parametric design - Today's BIM wits that don't "upgrade" will be permanently cast aside into long term unemployment - Parametric ism is survival in architecture - it is a tool - It's how I got hired at a major architecture firm - I knew how to write VB NET to work on the Revit API"
You're just a cog in the machine man. The bigwigs still only use Exchange. Maybe Word and Excel.
One thing that comes out of this thread is that Parametric people are nasty, spiteful little things. Not good.
I am a cog - better to be an employed cog than unemployed -
Comrade Stalin might also say if you can’t contribute positive things into socialist republic stop whining. Gulag has an open door for you.
Welcome to 21st century Republic of Parametricism where no questing is allowed! You can start seeing that in some statements like” nothing wrong with spaceship architecture, I think it is ok to do that type of architecture.” People start to fear that they will be denounced if they expressed their opinions and thoughts. I don’t want to see holy parametric inquisition which is going to condemn to those who expressed their reservation.
Modern-ISM worked out a bit too well.
When did asking question why become a sin?
I have no doubt about this statement “Parametric ism is survival in architecture - it is a tool .“ It should not stop people from question about Parametricism, the role of Parametric in architecture. the trajectory of Parametric ism.
Sure - the designers need to think about the big questions to better aim us production types in the right direction - the designers ask why - I ask how - I am not supposed to ask big questions -
determinism pretty much leads to embracing process as life. what do i have to look forward to? well, this awesome slice of cantaloupe.
Perfect example of a discrete problem. Would a determinist wonder where that slice of cantaloupe came from? You've made an assumption about where determinism "leads to." I also made an assumption about where determinism "leads to." You haven't proven or disproven either belief.
do you seriously want to argue that you're not made of atoms?
Unfalsifiable statement. Also not what I'm arguing. I'm talking about learning processes and cognitive development - which is what I thought we were discussing (for those of you following along - this relates to parametricism/computation because it relates to how we understand and design systems).
you're wasting your time.
Perhaps. But you're the one who is resorting to personal attacks.
Or why is the universe shaped like a toroid?
Or Why some black holes are so immense? Is that few of the purposes of existence of astronomy?
I dont understand why the peanut gallery is so hung up on the "why?"
There are plenty of applications where the why is answered.
"parametricism is not a tool"
"Why" is always subjective. Computer programs and math are always objective. Art is always subjective. Art is about "why" craft is about "how." We always need both, but without the initial intent of asking "why" we have craft without purpose. We get pure form. Pure form is not art unless the intent is pure form for the purpose or creating a message.
Can a computer create art? I would say yes, but it is only art because of the subjective nature of its programmer and the intent of the programmer to do so in the first place. Art and architecture are all about communicating some idea while solving some problem. We have to define the problem and ask why its a problem. The form is just the delivery method of that idea or solution, the tool is the bridge between the intent and the formal manifestation of that idea. Nothing can be created without intent, and therefore nothing is objective. If nothing is objective, then nothing can be created without first asking "why". If that's the case, then the user precedes the machine rendering it a tool or method. Adding an ism after a method is silly. It's like saying canvasism, granitesculpturism, hubbletelescopeism, calculusism, algebraism....
Embrace it as a tool instead of a god and it has alot of potential. You tech guys are so angry. Go pet a puppy or something and take a break from the cmoputer.
Computer programs and math are always objective.
i stopped reading here. you're wrong and you have no idea what you're talking about.
An article I found
On subjective and objective beauty, or why computers can’t create art
"Everyone wants to be beautiful. Yet, we are told, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If that’s the case, can you crowdsource beauty? If, say, 9/10 people prefer thin people, is it possible to be beautiful and be fat? Only in the eyes of ten per cent of the population. A small number, but still a significant minority.
Perhaps you need to find a set of objective standards that everyone can agree on. Some people like tall people, some people like short people, some people like blonde people, et cetera — but perhaps we come closest to agreement in the following statement: there is beauty in symmetry.
From art and architecture to the human face, people feel more “comfortable” with symmetrical designs. It’s partly instinctive: we’re hard-wired to find people with good genetic material attractive, and symmetry is the most obvious sign of good, strong, healthy DNA. (Consider the reverse stereotype: the slack-jawed yokel of redneck myth is patently depicted as unsymmetrical and considered universally unattractive). But is it a true judge of beauty? I think not.
Anaface is a computer program which claims to do just this – judge your attractiveness by the symmetry of your face. It is of course wrong. You can’t judge beauty on symmetry. I happen to have a very symmetrical face. However, I’m fairly average. I scored almost twice as high on Anaface’s test as a friend of mine who’s a professional model. Symmetry, it seems, is no great judge.
In fact, perfectly symmetrical features are bland and characterless – I’d never cut it as a model because my face doesn’t have “character”. So what do you do? Do you reprogram the computer to understand that some asymmetrical faces are beautiful (because they have character) while others aren’t?
Computers can’t handle variance without record to mathematical equations. Computers are essentially binary – on or off, yes or no, all or nothing. Computers seek veracity — they’re problem solvers, literally. You could plug an equation for “variance based on asymmetry” into a computer but in doing so you have introduced an element of subjectivity rather than objectivity (based on one person’s personal perception, or on crowdsourcing, etc) into the formula, and computers alone will never be able to do this. A computer, in short, cannot make judgements about beauty.
And that is why computers will never be able to make meaningful art.
There is no objective truth in beauty. Charles Bronson, for example, was considered handsome – despite his unconventional, weatherbeaten looks. What do we tell the computer? Well, we can only tell it that some people find weatherbeaten faces attractive some of the time. The computer is confused. You feed it a picture of Charles Bronson and tell it that sort of face is attractive to some people, therefore the computer gives it a score of “above average”. Then you feed the computer a similar picture of someone, say, an old fisherman who’s been exposed to the open seas for two or three decades. Is he attractive? Based on the new information you’ve fed the computer, yes. The computer is incapable of making the same “judgment call” we as humans are.
It’s not simply a matter of updating the formula, either. Adding further exceptions, refining the formula to include fishermen, all other types of weatherbeaten / asymmetrical faces etc — the most the computer will ever be able to reply is that there is variance. ie, some people find this sort of face attractive, others don’t. And as for why some types of weatherbeaten / asymmetrical faces are attractive and others aren’t… how can the computer tell? A scar on one side of the face might be considered attractive by some people because it makes the person look dangerous. But others might be repulsed. Again, the most the computer can say is that there is variance. There is no “objective truth in beauty”.
Mathematics and art don’t match.
If you ask the computer what it thinks, it doesn’t have an answer except recourse to mathematics, ie “I have been shown a photo of a weatherbeaten face a little like Charles Bronson and there is a 50% chance that this face is attractive” — in order for the computer to say yes or no, you would have to program it to either like or dislike asymmetrical / weatherbeaten faces. A computer cannot simply decide if it likes a symmetrical face or a weatherbeaten one until you tell it.
Consider Shakespeare’s famous love sonnet, ‘my mistress eyes are nothing like the sun’ — in which he goes on to explain that the object of his affections is unappealing by conventional standards, but he loves her and finds her attractive. By objective standards he is wrong. But art, like beauty, is not held to objective standards.
This is why computers cannot be good artists. They have no perception of beauty. If you fed a computer every Rembrandt, Picasso, Poussin and Pollock, and told it to extrapolate from that what’s beautiful and create art based on that, you’d come up with a nightmare splattering of nothing.
If you tell an “art producing” computer to imitate one of those styles, it is merely a very clever photocopier. A computer decides on mathematical formula what is or isn’t beautiful. It can either say yes or no based on preprogrammed criteria, or it can tell you what the variance is, what the likelihood that certain types of people will find certain types of art appealing. This is not an adequate.
The creation of new art cannot be based on formulaic analysis of what people have found attractive in the past.
We cannot simply deconstruct what has gone before, evaluate its attractiveness, and create new art based on that.
This method might be a good way of creating, say, Ikea prints, but it’s not art. Art, like beauty, requires a subjective element. Let us say that a vandal throws a tin of black paint over the Mona Lisa. Let us then say that vandal is a currently respected but controversial artist, someone like Banksy or Damien Hirst. The art community is divided. 90% say it’s a travesty and our artist / vandal should be locked up. But 10% say that it’s a powerful statement about the nature of art, that it’s an act of iconoclasm and should be praised. Those 10% may have radical political ideas, for example — that make them differ from the other 90%. Of those 10%, 5% would leave Mona Lisa as she is, covered in black paint, hanging for all to see. The other 5% believe that, point having been made, the painting should be restored.
Feed this information into our computer busily churning out brilliantly made (from a technical perspective) oil paintings to sell at Ikea. It will continue to make 90% of its output as it was. But from now on, it has a difficult decision. Should it make 10% of its new canvases with a big black splodge of paint in the middle? Or should it make 5%? Or should it make none, because 10% of people only consider a black splodge on a painting to be art if that painting happens to be the Mona Lisa?
The answer is probably the latter. It’s very unlikely that anyone will find black splodges attractive except by reference to famous artworks. But some might. It may become a counter-cultural symbol for people with radical political ideas. The black splodge could be imbued with meaning. Having a black splodge on your paintings may become iconic as a Marxist symbol. It’s unlikely, but possible. And a computer cannot adjust to this new fact until it has again been programmed, until the formula for artwork has been updated. Again, a computer cannot lead, cannot make new ideas. It can only copy what people do, what the general consensus becomes, and follow.
Computers are problem solvers, not artists. Computers do not create, they copy. Computers cannot account for subjective beauty.
My example of the Mona Lisa was there for a reason. As was the mention of Banksy. One of Banksy’s oldest works, the “Mild West” mural in Bristol, was vandalised in just this way, with a tin of red paint streaked from side to side. It was done as a political statement, not as an act of vandalism, by a group that disagrees with graffiti as it is an inappropriate use of public space. The council restored the “artwork” — why? If it was an ordinary graffiti artist, the council would be painting over the mural itself. The “is it graffiti / is it art?” debate is entirely subjective. You cannot ask a computer what it thinks, because it cannot tell you until you have first told it. The most it can tell you is that there is variance.
So the computer churns out lots of different types of artwork based on this variance formula, based on what it thinks certain people will like. It doesn’t produce art, it is a photocopier. It is a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters, and it may eventually churn out something that some people find beautiful. But it isn’t an artist. It doesn’t have an artistic vision. It doesn’t imbue its artworks with meaning. The same is exactly true of a computer that generates poetry, novels or music. Art is imbued with meaning when an artist makes a subjective decision and applies that to his work. A computer cannot do that because it cannot be subjective, it either accounts for variance or makes a decision based on what is random, based on a flip of a coin.
Computers only follow, they never lead, and they never create anything that is new. For these reasons, computers will never replace the role of the artist / creative in anything but a technical sense. They can create a fine copy, but they can’t create fine art."
off-topic buddy
@white fang
What happened to stereo typical old people response? I got a good laugh at it hahahahaha
no it's not. It is exactly the point.
tee002, you and a few others on here are on the same page as me. I guess these folks just don't get it and are not up to the debate.
No its not, you're preaching blind faith in 10 paragraphs.
I'm sorry computation is not working out for you guys, but the only way to change that is to try it out and not give up like Tee002 has.
horrible article.
full of really idiotic statements.
oh, and a dubious source at best.
i mean, the dude's talking about "meaning"... i'm pretty sure science got over that empty hump about 250 years ago...
Computation wizzards in other fields are usually armed with poor hygene and lack of any social skills. Can't speak for the former, but you guys really nail the social skills stereotype.
Future of architecture?
"Welcome to KPF shutup we're computing!"
I think the ego of the Architect has just been replaced with a new reason why people think Architects are over the top blowhards....
In my opinion, Architecture is not science.
The day meaning becomes irrelevant in architecture is the day I stop doing architecture.
Time for timeout T
I think it will be good time for all of us to not have this conversation/engagement/debate/indulgence for at least one day. I’m glad that someone started this thread in the first place.
It has been well known fact that this topic is one of the most polarizing one in architecture world. In past I tried to not to step into any of these conversations as I felt that the environment is filled with fume of emotional and intellectual toxic. I thought it wasn’t the case anymore. But it still is.
I hope we can continue the meaningful conversation with level-headed way.
Hope you all can have great weekend!
P.S anyone going to baseball game? It seems like really good time to go to ballpark and eat some greasy overpriced food. Haha
@jla-x
If everyone is on the same page or on the same wave length, we won’t have this conversation. I think it is better to talk to people with different opinions than talk about these people. I do appreciate your time you put into this conversation.
.. we'll always have opposing forces clashing, most people fear and ridicule something they don't really know about. Browsing through grasshopper3d.com and looking up Parametric architecture in wikipedia does not entitle people to hand in extensive opinions about the subject matter.
This is for everyone participating in this thread. Just sayin.
Similarly just because have been doing parametric modeling since 1987 doesn't give entitle to publish a thesis either - Just sayin.
fluxbound, I hope all your reponses are automated responses, released by a robot answering in your honor, and basing the response on your responses in the past
... the reality is that architectural spaces on this planet are inhabited by people, and are made by people, and for people. Taking a program and statistical analysis for the only reason for design for HIGHLY personal spaces seems ... alien and robotic. Reducing the many facets of architecture, art, science, sociology, real estate, land use policy, ecology, ect. to just parametrics seems void. Even placing on all these facets into a database and calling this architecture is absurd ... architecture is design, at its most basic sense, an requires a personal view and experience to make it that.
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.