Tuesday, March 31, 2009

2009-03-31 On Board


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.

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.

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.......

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”?