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
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Manuel de Landa reading
"The computer with its smart software is killing the designer's authorship"! Sounds like a sentence from a cheap futuristic movie. But on the other hand-all sense of the discussion is laid around this nowadays phenomenon. It seems that today's designer (or architect) plays role of a "guider of the evolution of form"not a generator or composer. Controlling form's development ("designer does not specify every single point of the curve, but only a few key weights which deform the cure in certain ways"M.de Landa) is his initial duty. It can be partially true. But it doesn't frees us as a designers from having artistic flair, from understanding the nature and potential of the material. The computer is just a mean of the achievement of the purpose.
I was also impressed with such words as:"The genes guide but do not command the final form. In other words, the genes do not contain a blueprint of the final form"(M. de Landa). A balance would be a perfect decision. A hand and a pencil with the computer and smart software should be a projection of someones mind in the space.
"The computer with its smart software is killing the designer's authorship"! Sounds like a sentence from a cheap futuristic movie. But on the other hand-all sense of the discussion is laid around this nowadays phenomenon. It seems that today's designer (or architect) plays role of a "guider of the evolution of form"not a generator or composer. Controlling form's development ("designer does not specify every single point of the curve, but only a few key weights which deform the cure in certain ways"M.de Landa) is his initial duty. It can be partially true. But it doesn't frees us as a designers from having artistic flair, from understanding the nature and potential of the material. The computer is just a mean of the achievement of the purpose.
I was also impressed with such words as:"The genes guide but do not command the final form. In other words, the genes do not contain a blueprint of the final form"(M. de Landa). A balance would be a perfect decision. A hand and a pencil with the computer and smart software should be a projection of someones mind in the space.
De Landa
I suppose we are all somewhat fascinated by the "egg designer" analogy.
De Landa writes that to achieve the potential of genetic algorithm in design, designers are no longer specifying forms but boundaries and constraints. To allow for the evolution of more complex and interesting forms, sets of primary codes/rules must be generated. Designers set constraints but must not foresee any particular result; indeed, the "evolutionary result [is] to be truly surprising". When the algorithm ceases to produce surprises it is no different than a simple CAD program that produces rigid polygons. It is the different intensities that drive the evolutionary process and thus the complexity of forms.
The challenge to designers, therefore, is to know what and to what extent these intensities are to be employed. To achieve this, designers need to acquire the understanding of the complexity of material. They are to become, to a certain degree, craftsmen whose craft is often overlooked.
De Landa writes that to achieve the potential of genetic algorithm in design, designers are no longer specifying forms but boundaries and constraints. To allow for the evolution of more complex and interesting forms, sets of primary codes/rules must be generated. Designers set constraints but must not foresee any particular result; indeed, the "evolutionary result [is] to be truly surprising". When the algorithm ceases to produce surprises it is no different than a simple CAD program that produces rigid polygons. It is the different intensities that drive the evolutionary process and thus the complexity of forms.
The challenge to designers, therefore, is to know what and to what extent these intensities are to be employed. To achieve this, designers need to acquire the understanding of the complexity of material. They are to become, to a certain degree, craftsmen whose craft is often overlooked.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Delanda Readings
Delanda’s chief interest is in the complexity of matter and the nature of material. Formal manipulation is purely conceptual, and the problems facing architects include numerous additional factors such as material constraints, structural forces etc. Delanda sees enormous potential in CAD software to not only develop complex forms but also ground them in real life situations, thereby providing a more holistic approach to design. He also challenges the traditional role of materiality in architecture, specifically through the idea of the genetic algorithm. Similarly to how DNA can be restructured to create a variety of organisms, new heterogeneous materials can be restructured and applied universally in any situation. These ideas have the potential to alter the way that buildings are conceived and constructed as well as the role of the architect in the design process.
DeLanda
Both of DeLanda's articles were helpful to me in terms of relating Delueze to our modes of thinking about form and architecture. I was equally interested in the "egg designer" idea as Matt was, but it also fascinated me the way DeLanda talked about materials. Rather than talk about the inherent properties of a material, he approached it from a craftsman point of view, in that materials are always varied based on their origins/components. It started me thinking about what it would mean to be a craftsman today - how does the know-how of materials influence an approach in design? Particularly a digital approach?
While using the bottom up approach that Tsakairi talked about, materials are obviously very important and influential in design. That got me questioning how materiality could relate to the genetic algorithms and designing in a virtual environment - where materiality can assemble itself. DeLanda talked about the benefits of bone-like materials - where tension and compression stresses are dealt with in different ways rather than homogeneously. But if those elements that deal with tension and compression are in themselves homogeneously/mechanically produced, then how are we still representing the possible material variation?
A little confuse about the role that architect playing
For the process about virtual evolution mentioned in the article, "the space of possible designs that the algorithm searches needs to be suficiently rich for the evolutionary results to be truly surprising" is the first point that enlighten me, but also confuses me a little.
About the evolution of the virtual structure, when the number of the changes or the generations are large enough, the result will be quite unexpected, and far different from the original generation. Surely that will bring up some amazing designs after the process, but what role is architect playing in this process? Just a critic who gives comment? Or a final-decision-maker to dicide which should be kept or to be thrown away? If so, what's the difference between an architect and a passer-by?
As my thought, architect should be a god of such progress instead of the final-decision-maker, which means architect should get involved of the whole evolution progress rather than take a glance at the result. Architect should design the first generation with required function, which could define the correct topological relations of the several parts in this design; architect need to set up the rules of "natural selection", too, so that every generation could be directed to follow the restrictions. There must be something else an architect need to concern, but so far not so clear in my head.......
About the evolution of the virtual structure, when the number of the changes or the generations are large enough, the result will be quite unexpected, and far different from the original generation. Surely that will bring up some amazing designs after the process, but what role is architect playing in this process? Just a critic who gives comment? Or a final-decision-maker to dicide which should be kept or to be thrown away? If so, what's the difference between an architect and a passer-by?
As my thought, architect should be a god of such progress instead of the final-decision-maker, which means architect should get involved of the whole evolution progress rather than take a glance at the result. Architect should design the first generation with required function, which could define the correct topological relations of the several parts in this design; architect need to set up the rules of "natural selection", too, so that every generation could be directed to follow the restrictions. There must be something else an architect need to concern, but so far not so clear in my head.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)