Patrick was formally championing "Parametricism" as the new pervasive era of design, while Roche exposed his surreal, phenomenological Deluzean dreams. The torrential downpour outside caused so many to leave the lecture early, but late that night, there was this tension in the air that I will never forget. It was as if we were seeing a new and very relevant debate crystallizing. Zellner and Leach provocation's and the way the lectures were curated seemed to pointedly pose the question to the new guard of parametricists and scripters that were there that day (including the likes of Fornes, Reas, and Snooks):
What does all this scripting really mean?
I think everyone on all sides of the debate looked to De Landa numerous times for an unequivocal nod of approval, but the debate was only further nuanced by the weight of so many powerful intellects. Conspicuously absent ( but listed on the bill) were Lynn and Hernan.
I myself am not entirely able to frame the entire discussion here...but am merely trying to learn more....and hope to see if anyone else attended and/or cares to help elaboate on their own stance on Parametricism /Scripting/Algorithmic as a valid and predominant phase of evolution of Architecture (as Schumacher would have you confirm):
...or is it something else....
Some, like Kwitner and Jason Payne, have have lumped scripters into the "third generation" of digital designers, and have suggested an inevitable deflation of the popularity of scripting and the parametricism for reasons such as a general lack of semiotics and ideation in much of the work.
Three weeks ago, I attended USC's Intensive Fields conference where Patrick Schumacher [Zaha] sort of "faced off" with François Roche [R&Sie(n)].
http://arch-pubs.usc.edu/INTENSIVEFIELDS/
Patrick was formally championing "Parametricism" as the new pervasive era of design, while Roche exposed his surreal, phenomenological Deluzean dreams. The torrential downpour outside caused so many to leave the lecture early, but late that night, there was this tension in the air that I will never forget. It was as if we were seeing a new and very relevant debate crystallizing. Zellner and Leach provocation's and the way the lectures were curated seemed to pointedly pose the question to the new guard of parametricists and scripters that were there that day (including the likes of Fornes, Reas, and Snooks):
What does all this scripting really mean?
I think everyone on all sides of the debate looked to De Landa numerous times for an unequivocal nod of approval, but the debate was only further nuanced by the weight of so many powerful intellects. Conspicuously absent ( but listed on the bill) were Lynn and Hernan.
I myself am not entirely able to frame the entire discussion here...but am merely trying to learn more....and hope to see if anyone else attended and/or cares to help elaboate on their own stance on Parametricism /Scripting/Algorithmic as a valid and predominant phase of evolution of Architecture (as Schumacher would have you confirm):
...or is it something else....
Some, like Kwitner and Jason Payne, have have lumped scripters into the "third generation" of digital designers, and have suggested an inevitable deflation of the popularity of scripting and the parametricism for reasons such as a general lack of semiotics and ideation in much of the work.
Any thoughts?
Mass customization is an oxymoron.
Hey Miles! Glad to see you back.
Thanks, Nam!