e-credentials - waaow  :O

*claps*

*bows*

so what's an electronic emo, and are you not one of those?  When I see that term, I think of people that talk about parametrics rather than the people with muddy boots explaining to a contractor how to flash a sill.  Or do you not operate on the assumption that other words on this site come from real human beings, and that is why being a dick for no reason is generally acceptable?  (i can appreciate that being a dick for no reason is acceptable for your own entertainment or whatever.  i do not intend to start a side topic on that thought.)

maybe we should try to find the common ground here.  If you switched from e-credentialling to architecture, surely it had something to do with buildings right?  Most people on this forum have an interest in those, and a lot of us have a fair idea how they stand up.

If it's really only an interest in software or artificial intelligence or whatever, wouldn't it be more useful to apply that on a smaller scale before redesigning buildings?  I'm thinking maybe firmware for an insulin pump or a pacemaker?  If you could make luke skywalker's bionic hand, that would be useful and profitable.  architecture, by the way, is not generally profitable.

I would be more interested in your point of view if you presented it with perhaps more appropriate language.  Saying your really smart, and we're all dumb, and read a book isn't a clear way of expressing an opinion.  Actually, it's kind of mean.  Summarizing your point with clear language would be much more beneficial to all of us.

here's an analogy.  when you obfuscate code, it's usually because you want to hide something.  either that, or you suck at what you do.  that's what you're doing with your language.  Your obfuscating it.  what are you trying to hide?  my assumption is what your trying to hide is there is no content to 'parametricism.'  it's an empty ideology with no rational or practical basis.  but to be clear, I only hold that assumption because you guys are obfuscating your language.

there's been about 5 or 6 discussions about this same topic in the last 6 months. go look around. i'm not rewriting anything for you just because you're too lazy to search around the forums. most of the garbage you just answered with, i've responded to in a civilized manner in other threads.

nm, slow your roll noub, what you say in these forums and online can stick around for a long time.

+1 curtkram. The impenetrable jargon and convoluted explanations only tell the world that you're a fraud, not a genius. As a friend of mine likes to say, Just because you don't make any sense doesn't mean you're profound.

There are some very interesting ideas buried under the voluminous crap emanating from the orifices of the academic parametricists. Algorithms, for instance, are fascinating things.

But there's no intellectual rigor to any of it. It's all solipsistic game-playing and mental masturbation.

One of the favorite rejoinders among the parametricists here has been for us unbelievers to go "read more." I suggest the same applies to them. They have fearlessly trod into some very deep and murky philosophical waters without the slightest whiff of philosophical knowledge or sophistication. Hint: if you are doing architectural theory, you are doing philosophy. From the parametricists, all we ever seem to get is cargo cult regurgitation of worn-out, sophomoric platitudes combined with mystical naturism, Mathematica graphs, and computational matrices.

tl;dr.  Architectural theory, U R DOING IT WRONG.

at the nothing et al, re: style vs tool etc (and borrowing from vado post over at TC) 

didn't herr schumacher just last year state parametricism is ,"the most potent movement and avant garde architectural style there is today" ?

Perhaps you disagree with him? Or do you refer to something else when using term parametricism  ?

"i r give up" is patrick schumacher. Or so he/she thinks.

Let me try to be the friendly one,

Schumacher touches upon architecture's communicative and social role. The fact that he is not afraid to talk about style is not a reason to dismiss what he is still trying to formulate. You can even see similarities between him and BIG. But Schumacher is much more extensive than BIG and sides with Zaha, which turns people off.

Behind architectural parametrics there is a very deep history which has appeared as loose affiliations of research. When some of us have spent years researching and developing these things, see they have massive potential, and then we have to hear superficial discussions about it.... its kind of upsetting, not to mention critics pick bad examples.

For the most part, conversations would be much more productive if we didn't have to put up with (you know who you are). This site could foster a progressive type of architectural social community if certain thinkers could congregate and discuss, just how people pick friends, some can't be friends with everyone.

Chat rooms maybe? enabled by passwords. If archinect wants to pay me, I'd be glad to weigh in.

Kids today are terrible and their parents are even worse!

@Larkin, white fang
I appreciate you guys trying to be a peacekeepers

I also think Larkin would get along with "i r giv up"
but amidst dealing with the public/parents it is difficult for such relationships to emerge.

just make sure it doesnt leak, bitches

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but with current manufacturing techniques and workforce skill, orthogonal shapes are cheaper to build; and with the current state of the economy, the trend in new projects (stateside) will trend away from parametricism. Internationally, that will happen as well as wages increase. An architecture education spent entirely on parametric forms just isn't going to be that valuable. The trick is to change the manufacturing, once a parabolic plastic panel becomes similar in price to manufacture & install to a stamped metal panel, that is when we will really be able to experience parametricism in the built world. Until then, it's all glittery renderings.

do parametrics add any value to the end product?

i hope tom wolfe adds a chapter to "from bauhaus to our house" for parametricism...

i suspect he would explain it as another fad by a profession desperately searching to enhance their own credentials by embracing the "truth" of math and programming.

I believe that architects (and graduates) who don't know how to build devalue the entire profession

please tell us more about you.

Wolfe is probably too busy taking notes from the whole Trayvon Martin/George Zimmermann episode for a sequel to Bonfire of the Vanities to pay much attention to architectural "inside baseball" at the moment.

good god I think brogrammers have infiltrated architecture and archinect

1997 and white fang at a parametric convention....

is that supposed to be an insult?

Quoted from http://lilly.tumblr.com/post/23719699951/computers-trucks but I feel like it applies to this discussion:

I picked up a phrase some time ago that I think applies: “The next big thing is always beneath contempt.” Implication being that it is, of course, until it isn’t. Until it’s too big to ignore. This has happened over and over again in our society. In the middle ages, people assumed that no serious discussion could happen in anything but Latin — the so-called “vulgar” languages had no merit. And writers assumed that nothing interesting or lasting would come from this new medium of television. And, I think, people assume right now that nothing important will be created from a 10” touch screen without a keyboard (let alone a tiny 3.5” screen).

But I think that we already know that that’s a mistaken view of history, and of the future. That humans always find a way to create, and to make. Phones and tablets are right in the midst of becoming devices of incredible creation, and they’re going to let us create things on the go, in real time, that we never imagined.

I r giv up: "multicolored orthogonal boxes are hard to draw?"

once you realize that architecture is NOT about drawing, you will get it.

Parametric design is NOT blob forms or compound curving shapes.  It helps you rationalize them in ways we could never do before, but it is NOT a style.

Parametric design uses computers as tools to solve complex equations.  The designer sets up the equations themselves to solve any number of issues.

The problem some of you are having is with the rationale behind linking geometric forms to irrational information sets we could never do before.

You take issue with how people use the tool, not the tool itself.

Do you use REVIT?  You are using a set of parametric tools specifically developed for architects.  GASP!

Yeah this whole internet fad should wear off soon too, curtkram. Not to worry!