There's a funny thing that tends to happen in schools of architecture and design firms among the younger practitioners and students. The growth of computational modes of design and the development of design software has produced a generation of creative people who increasingly rely on the use of a computer to execute their work. Right off the bat, I'm not saying that computers are "bad" — I think they're great, but it is a tool to be wielded, not a crutch to be dependent on.
Just like a pencil, a computer is an inanimate idiot that requires the mind of its user to produce something of value, and so when lack of proficiency on a computer impedes on one's design, there is a problem. The obvious solution is to get better at using the software, but it often seems that some become preoccupied with the means while canning the ends.
What do I mean? Most typically, a project is pursued for some purpose — typically to address some kind of human condition: a need for a school, home, hospital, office, etc. This is the ends. The process of design is the means to achieve that ultimate end, and, if it is the chosen medium, a computer is merely a tool to facilitate the means.
I admit, this logic alienates those more theoretical explorations of architecture, which have their place, but I wonder if a generation of architects are coming out of school too lost in theory? Is architecture all about the object, or is it about people? Perhaps, the answer is, yes.
6 Comments
The demand for "design iterations" is what drives a lot of the demand for computational tools. At the heart of it is the question of optimization within uncertainty: What is the best design for a set of constraints? Is the final design that the architect produces indeed the most optimized? How does one even quantify the effectiveness of a design? Can a machine learning-equipped program optimize a design to a far greater degree than a human architect without said software? In WeWork's heyday, they were installing sensors on every surface in their workspaces, gathering data and trying to optimize design - in the end, the impact was mostly on relatively minor stuff ergonomics, office layout, color choice. On a larger scale, multifamily developers do have optimization on their wish list - and indeed Google Flux was supposed to target this demand. Unfortunately, a single software to juggle all the constraints in a project - from accessibility to views to energy usage to zoning to interior layouts and MEP etc - proved to be unattractive financially.
In an ideal world from Silicon Valley's perspective, designers would set the constraints and their relative importance before setting the ML program free to churn out thousands of design options. Think Galapagos on a larger scale. Then comes the human touch - styling the project while the machine "designs" the layout to optimize for a host of goals and resolves coordination issues. A Thomas Heatherwick could give the building a distinct look while the computer figures out the rest.
Just like a pencil, a computer is an inanimate idiot that requires the
mind of its user to produce something of value, and so when lack of
proficiency on a computer impedes on one's design, there is a problem.
i like the intention of this article, but i have a lot of issues with calling the computer a tool. in my mind, comparing a pencil to a computer is very problematic, and it *erases* a lot of the complexity that a computer brings to the design process. maybe an individual piece of software could be called a tool, but even within that software there are individual tools that would be more appropriately compared to a pencil. instead, i would call the computer a machine, which implies a different usage.
i think perhaps you're getting at the origin of the problem more closely here:
The obvious solution is to get better at using the software, but it
often seems that some become preoccupied with the means while canning the ends.
maybe the reason why so many are preoccupied with the means of the software (and ultimately the computer) is because that is what the software demands? this is unlike a pencil, which demands very little of the user. equivocating the two as a simple choice between tools doesn't allow for a reverse analysis of the effect of the means on the user, and instead focuses the conversation on the "simple " choice of the user.
I see your point. Most definitely — I don’t think a computer and a pencil constitute an apples to apples comparison. I think what I’m trying to get at is that with a pencil one can have a certain command of the instrument to draw something akin to a masterpiece while others may only get to stick figures. My main argument is the falling in love with the machine (I like this term) vs what the machine is supposed to help one accomplish. In the end, I think the designer (or whoever) should know how to use the tools, softwares, machines, etc. at their disposal and take the time to learn those necessary to their area of focus.
agreed. it might look like i'm splitting hairs here, but i can see your intent and what you're arguing, but imo words and classification in this context is super important (the irony is i think a lot of people use the pencil/computer tool binary to argue the opposite). like you're saying though, i think the computer/machine takes a lot more work and intention to "fall out of love" with vs. working on paper, which is what makes me nervous. due to numerous reasons, including efficiency and productivity, it's really easy to default to the computer and passively allow it to become a crutch, per your words.
It's a valid point. I can appreciate the pencil/computer dichotomy and the baggage it brings in our field. It's something I'll likely tackle again, exploring some different ways to present the argument, and the romance towards computers. Thanks for reading and for the thoughtful comments.
The computer is definitely a great tool/machine, but it will never replace the pencil for speed in conceptualizing a solution. Not that it can't help in the creative phase, but it's more about showing options than an original concept. Because of the computer's interface, it pushes you into a linear way of thinking when creation is never that ordered. Of course, it's invaluable in production for exactly that reason.
The problem with the pencil is that it takes a long time to gain a level of mastery that others will recognize as competence, and patience has never been a young person's strong suite. If you want to impress others, you're more likely to gravitate to a computer, especially if your professor is requiring computer presentations. And since students are getting lost in theory before actually learning the basics of architecture, computer graphics are a great way to dazzle the crits with wall paper.
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.