
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
"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
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
A little confuse about the role that architect playing
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.......
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Delanda
Delanda’s essays investigate the genetic algorithm; their place in architecture and their use in the future. Genetic algorithms are now a tool that can generate form by the mating of different forms. The richest algorithms breed the most surprising results. If the results were predictable the need for this tool would no longer exist. In saying that, there still needs to be some level of predictability to generate true buildings. Structural elements need to still function in the same ways, holding the loads and stresses of the building. For if columns evolved into decorative elements the structural soundness of the building would be compromised. Therefore; before the breeding of forms begin, a “body plane” must be set, much like how mammals have an “abstract vertebrae” plan, building would have to have their own “body plan” that defines the essence of a building. The designer would decide what that plan is comprised of, and in doing so becomes the designer of the egg rather than the designer of the building. Once the egg is decided upon the genetic algorithm takes over and starts generating offspring, as generations pass new building forms will evolve.
My question is then; in the end will algorithms be able to produce more efficient buildings than architects are now able to produce? And if so, will aesthetic design in the future be of less importance compared to “aesthetic fitness”?