In general I am not a fan of ‘theorists’ or anything else from the 80s. The exception is Neil Leach. I can still remember the first time I read The Anaesthics of Architecture, cover to cover under the afternoon sun, the whole text resonating. In the domain of digital architecture, even though it does not explicitly discuss the computer, it is significant because it establishes context for the emergence of digital architecture. This context of architecture at the end of the millennium is described by Leach as “Architectural design reduced to the superficial play of empty, seductive forms and philosophy is appropriated as an intellectual veneer to justify forms.”
It is against this Xeroxed backdrop of image based architecture that our current focus on performance emerges. I think Leach has articulated this shift better than anyone else, best summarised in his article Digital Morphogenesis, in Architectural Design, 79 (see full article here). The only critique I have is that Leach tends to downplay the role of the architect in digital morphogenesis, claiming the process is objective when in reality the architect exerts absolute control over the process – either through limiting the application of digital morphogenesis, or acting as an editor. In some cases this has lead to performance replacing philosophy as ‘an intellectual veneer to justify forms.’ Browsing the Grasshopper forum this becomes apparent, where project after project is rendered in the image of performance rather than being performative. In many ways the shift towards performance has been a fulfillment of John Frazer’s warning (issued in 1995) that computers “induce a false sense of having optimised a design which may be fundamentally ill conceived.” Whether or not the performance we are now seeing in architecture is ill conceived or intelligent, Neil Leach has been essential in exposing the trend.
A full list of all Leach’s publications can be found at http://neilleach.wordpress.com/ along with the picture used in this post.
I have just started my PhD and have begun reading all those 1990′s books on how to do a PhD. Filled with useful advice like: when searching for a girlfriend, make sure she has transferable skills so that when you get employed overseas she can easily move with you; and start your research by phoning people in your area and asking them to post you papers. It is scary how much researching has changed in the last decade as information become freely accessible. I read almost everything as a pdf on the screen, downloaded from databases like CuminCAD. I get more fiction from the library than non-fiction (although most writing on architecture is fictitious). I have also been watching a bunch of lectures on Youtube by everyone from Steve Jobs to Neil Leach to Einstein to Manual DeLanda. In the 1990′s, only societies elite would have access to this information, now anyone with an Internet connection can watch Manual DeLanda deliver a lecture at Columbia University.
DeLanda’s lecture on Deleuze and the Use of the Genetic Algorithm in Architecture is a favorite of mine, for DeLanda’s stage presence as much as anything – no Powerpoint just an hour long rant without any cues. The lecture goes with a paper Delanda produced of the same name. To me, and the Youtube commenters, the philosophy DeLanda presents is a little dubious [i]. I wish he would throw it away like he has done to the Powerpoint and tell it straight because DeLanda, who was once a computer programmer, has a very good understanding of this subject. So since DeLanda wont and because an hour is a long time to watch Youtube, my summary of important points:
We have already used the genetic algorithm to design, most domestic animals are the result of selective breeding.
The genetic algorithm is a tool – although this somewhat contradicts DeLanda’s paper where he talks about architects becoming racehorse breeders, subservient to the code.
The genius of form can either be fixed, if it comes from a God like vision. Or it can be fluid if it comes from an evolutionary paradigm
Difference is critical to the process, and this corresponds to the paper where he says surprising results are important. If we are setting up genetic algorithm to produce homogenized shapes in a narrow range then why not just design them ourselves.
[i] I once had a girlfriend who was a philosopher who was very dubious of any architect talking about philosophy, as I think most philosophers are. Needless to say, this was before I had read the PhD books because philosophy is hardly a transferable skill and when I moved overseas things ended, so perhaps the PhD books do have some value.
I often get emails from people wanting to progress beyond CAD but unsure of where to start. So I started this blog. It seems appropriate to begin with the three books that have guided me and may be a source of inspiration for others.
An Evolutionary Architecture – John Frazer – 1995
This book is remarkable. Written in 1995, Frazer and Unit 11 at the AA, identify many of the issues that are still present in evolutionary architecture. The most pertinent of these is the use of biology as a design analogy, a method which is at the foundation of modern digital morphogenesis. He identifies most of the modern methods like Genetic Algorithms, Neural Networks and Cellular Automata, even though in 1995 they are still new to computer science let alone architecture. Frazer’s position is strengthened by his awareness of the limitations of these methods – restraint that some modern authors could benefit from. Some gems of wisdom that are still relevant today:
18: Computers “induce a false sense of having optimised a design which may be fundamentally ill conceived.”
15: “Unfortunately for this goal directed approach, it is notoriously difficult to describe architecture in these terms” – this remains true today.
117: “The gap of complexity that exists between unsimulatable real world systems and our models of them reflects the fact that the real world often behaves in ways that directly contradict our ideas about it.”
The book is made available by the AA for download as a pdf here – a few months ago the book was taken down but it appears to be back up.
Algorithmic Architecture - Kostas Terzidis – 2006
Terzidis advocates a symbiotic relationship between algorithms and human designers, best summarised by this quote: “Human designers fail to compute extreme quantitative complexity and computational processes fail to justify consciously even simple decisions” (29). At times I feel Terzidis falls for etymology and clouds the book with discussions of words rather than words themselves. This is probably a product of his circumstance and underneath this there is a great thesis. The book ends with programming examples in MEL script (for Maya). He has also just finished a new book Algorithms for Visual Design Using the Processing Language I have not had a chance to read it, but it looks really good.
Tooling is not my favourite book but I added it because it is a great introduction. The book goes through seven simple algorithms, all explained by excellent diagrams, and developed into architectural projects. Programming begs for more complexity and it is refreshing to see the authors keep everything so simple. In this simplicity there is an argument for programming as a method of sketching. I feel that it is somewhat misleading to present seven very considered projects as sketches – I do not believe the genesis for these projects was the code. Nevertheless, they provide a relevant introduction to programming.
There is also a preview of Tooling on Google Books.
rss feed
