Magic Bullet

March 29, 2007 at 12:38 pm · Filed under Architecture General

In an effort to create a more well-rounded dialogue, this blog has been opened up to other contributors to comment as they see fit, which will undoubtedly account for changes in tone, attitude, and flavors of posts. With that said, I would say that relative to “Skepticism”, the funny part is I agree with 95% of what was said, but I’d also like to address some aspects which I think can be built upon relative to the aesthetic domain.

Rarely do we set out to create something ugly. It is not in our nature. Even when we do, we end up making it so ugly, it becomes endearing, and has the opposite effect. Relative to the topic of scripting as addressed in the previous post, we have to look at some potential misconceptions. The first is that it is exclusive to creating Form from metric data. While it has been used in that sense from a performance standpoint, that is not it’s only value. I think its real value comes in creating organizational rigors which go beyond predictability. We are interested in scripting for a number of reasons, whether to give ourselves a built-in medium to ensure a specific organization in response to hard parameters, or to positively affect the construction process by providing a road map to understanding the complex architectures that we are capable of creating digitally, but are trying hard to resolve realistically.

Using scripting successfully is grounded in two things: anticipation and evaluation. So simply “tweaking wind data to make something hot” is both right and wrong. To be able write one in the first place, you have to have a general understanding of what the outcome is going to be when setting up rules and variables. Furthermore you have to be able to evaluate what is produced from the inputs/variables to make decisions on what works and what doesn’t. Enter: Subjectivity. What we fail to realize is that although we can readily employ metrics as variables/rules, so can we employ aesthetic seeds, such as composition, scale and relativity, which are also well documented (think Golden Section). Scripting is only a method for automating and maintaining control, and ensuring rigor, as we can (and have done) since architecture was a profession.

So if we can understand that “scripting” as a method is only another tool in the toolbox, and not a one-button problem solver, we can take the analogy a step further. Think of scripting as a paintbrush. There are people who make paintbrushes and there are people who use paintbrushes. We can also agree that some paintbrushes are made better than others, and that in some circles, paintbrush-making is an art in itself. Furthermore, paintbrushes require but a minimal understanding, if any, of how they are made to use them successfully. Knowing their limits and being able to tweak them slightly, is incredibly enabling. Jackson Pollock lifted the brush off of the canvas, effectively finding a new “technique” for applying the brush. I think it is fairly easy to see the potential implications if we draw the parallel to scripts. We need not be programmers to be architects (although it would allow more control), but we do need to understand capabilities and limitations of the tool to be able to move forward and embrace new technologies. We will find that we will exploit these potentials as we are becoming more adept at using them.

This still does not address the topic of individuality as brought up previously, which we can get to, yet.

MS

Comments