Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Computation Methods
The discussion is dominated by the surprising emergence of components - through an intermittent process of computation and spontaneity. In both cases, arriving to a sense of structure seems to be the main interest. Spuybroek/Otto's method of calculation contemplates transformation and freedom; flexibility is literal and material variable relevant to every operation. The relevance of flexibility is such that the method seems to be reduced to a framework, and following non-procedural events take precedence over the process of determining form. The truthfulness of the methodologies can be extended to site influences and social parameters, just to propose something. If so, then Spuybroek/Otto's method seems to aim closer to that regard, especially when it recognizes that it is material potential/material intelligence (and not a superimposition of mathematical operations) what sets "the method" in motion, and it leaves plenty of room for future influences.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
JUST SOME RANTING-
OPTIMIZATION AND VARIATION THROUGH COMPUTATION
WHAT IS BEING COMPUTED BY WHOM AND HOW? SPUYBROEK VS. BALMOND
Balmond and Spuybroek discuss the elimination of the "random" within their respective approaches to design. Both explain how the "notion of randomness disappears", Balmond 245, Spuybroek… They are using computation as a design tool and in this case Spuybroek employs a Frei Otto technique with water and wool where as Balmond makes use of fractals and the "aperiodic tiling" techniques of the mathematician Ammann. Though both use computation and achieve unexpected results with a complexity that eliminates randomness, they remain fundamentally different.
Perhaps the most interesting distinction between these designers is in their use of computation. "Fractals vs. Abstract Machines" Get your tickets now. It can be seen that both are using computation as form finding devices that eliminate randomness from the design process. However, the process is different for the two. Spuybroek is looking for emergent and unexpected results where global organizations are affected by dynamic forces. Balmond is looking for complexity and non-repeating results where global organizations are affected by geometric principals.
It seems to me that the issue at stake has to with emergence, intensive and extensive properties. While Spuybroeks "form finding machines" have to do with intensive forces and material constraints, Balmonds have to do with extensive geometry and mathematical constraints. Spuybroek’s work is created from responsive networks or structures that adapt and change in the process of "translating" information (force) into form. Balmond’s work is created from rigid geometric relationships that are a result of "translating" recursive mathematics (equations) into form. Spuybroek’s machine looks for optimization and variation where Balmond’s calculator looks for variation and there is nothing to optimize.
Spuybroek’s experiments produce radical global variations as the strings bifurcate, deform and undergo "phase transitions" when different types of forces are applied. Spuybroek’s forms emerge as a result of fluctuation and change and are therefore unpredictable. Balmond’s forms are a result of fractal geometry that it is not reflective of change or fluctuation, but rather an unchanging seed condition. While Balmond’s complex tile pattern does not repeat itself, it will never have phase transitions or radical global variations and it is difficult to call the final product emergent or unpredictable.
Residual effect vs. Seed condition
Machine vs. Computer
Forces vs. Rules
Optimization vs. Variation
Residue vs. Result
WHAT IS BEING COMPUTED BY WHOM AND HOW? SPUYBROEK VS. BALMOND
Balmond and Spuybroek discuss the elimination of the "random" within their respective approaches to design. Both explain how the "notion of randomness disappears", Balmond 245, Spuybroek… They are using computation as a design tool and in this case Spuybroek employs a Frei Otto technique with water and wool where as Balmond makes use of fractals and the "aperiodic tiling" techniques of the mathematician Ammann. Though both use computation and achieve unexpected results with a complexity that eliminates randomness, they remain fundamentally different.
Perhaps the most interesting distinction between these designers is in their use of computation. "Fractals vs. Abstract Machines" Get your tickets now. It can be seen that both are using computation as form finding devices that eliminate randomness from the design process. However, the process is different for the two. Spuybroek is looking for emergent and unexpected results where global organizations are affected by dynamic forces. Balmond is looking for complexity and non-repeating results where global organizations are affected by geometric principals.
It seems to me that the issue at stake has to with emergence, intensive and extensive properties. While Spuybroeks "form finding machines" have to do with intensive forces and material constraints, Balmonds have to do with extensive geometry and mathematical constraints. Spuybroek’s work is created from responsive networks or structures that adapt and change in the process of "translating" information (force) into form. Balmond’s work is created from rigid geometric relationships that are a result of "translating" recursive mathematics (equations) into form. Spuybroek’s machine looks for optimization and variation where Balmond’s calculator looks for variation and there is nothing to optimize.
Spuybroek’s experiments produce radical global variations as the strings bifurcate, deform and undergo "phase transitions" when different types of forces are applied. Spuybroek’s forms emerge as a result of fluctuation and change and are therefore unpredictable. Balmond’s forms are a result of fractal geometry that it is not reflective of change or fluctuation, but rather an unchanging seed condition. While Balmond’s complex tile pattern does not repeat itself, it will never have phase transitions or radical global variations and it is difficult to call the final product emergent or unpredictable.
Residual effect vs. Seed condition
Machine vs. Computer
Forces vs. Rules
Optimization vs. Variation
Residue vs. Result
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)