ISSUE Link:
Humanism vs technology is an expanding field of research wherein modes of design decision making have rapidly evolved in recent decades. New parametric modelling tools have changed the traditional relationship between the designer and their designed objects. I argue that the new design parameters, based on sophisticated algorithms and rules, are undermining human creativity by handing the process of decision making over to the machine. I also argue that the machine has no inherent ethical values and aims for efficiency and perfection. This leads, as our conclusion shows, to diminishing the moral value of designing as a uniquely human action.
In our journal article we will be reviewing the use of technology by the designer and its impact on the architectural designer’s creativity in creating a design outcome. Our discussion will explore the various technologies that designers use, the ways in which they both foster and harm human creativity, and how these technologies are evolving us in return. The primary idea that we will explore in this article is the adaptation of parametric design software in design practice, and whether the use of these tools to generate and explore creative ideas robs the designer of the innate creativity required to produce engaging architectural spaces. This technology has enabled designers to use preset, ready-made components in their design process, which can speed up production, but potentially at the expense of the creative potential of more bespoke design solutions. These programs encourage the swift use of pre-made components and encourage
designers to not leave the scope of what is ‘easy’ and ‘fast’. With these elements becoming more and more prevalent in architectural practice, it is important to understand and study how these technological advancements have and continue to evolve design thinking, and the impact on the creative potential of the architectural designer. Through our research, we hope to explore whether these tools truly are in aid of the designer, or whether the designer has simply become a slave to the technology’s sense of design. Some designers highlighted in ‘Are We Human’ argue that the benefits of advancing technology create ‘superpowered humans’, capable of much more than ever before. Students can advance their skills faster than the past, being able to produce drawings and designs much faster than the days of hand drawing.27 Other people mentioned, however, discuss the harmful effects, including the inaction and neglect shown towards students in their evolutionary process as designers.
The sources that we have selected for this article are related to parametric design tools used in architectural practice, the human nature of design, and the machines’ role in design.
Books
Patrick Schumacher gives a clear description of the emergence, development and future trends of digital parametric tools from both technical and sociological perspective. John Fraser illustrates the complete renewal of architectural thinking system caused by mechanical, particularly parametric, design tools. He presents this phenomenon in a figurative way by giving examples, quoting famous statements and logical inference. Harold Nelson book explores the nature of design itself as a ‘deeply human activity’, and emphasizes the ‘intentional and purposeful aspect of design’. His argument is that design is not simply a
techincal process but a process that is a deeply human endevour.
Articles
Rivka Oxman has expertise in digital architectural design from both technical and practical perspectives. She also explains the parametric tools’ impact on the structure and materiality. She proposes a conceptual framework and theoretical foundation for digital design, examining recent theoretical and historical contexts. She also outlines design characteristics and formulates paradigmatic classes of digital design. There are a set of articles that records some experiments on the impact of parametric tools on the creativity of architectural designers. In the first article, the authors compare designers’ cognitive processes and creative output with and without parametric tools. The second article focuses on the type of parametric tools and suggests that confirmative DMP fosters creativity, while simulative DMP supports divergent and convergent thinking for creative
outcomes. Similarly, findings in the third article indicate greater support for design problem reformulation in GMEs compared to PDEs. Conversely, PDEs, known for facilitating parallel design solutions, appear more supportive in the solution space. These results support our first argument (3). An article writien by Daniel Fallman, ‘Design-Oriented Human-Computer Interaction’, explores the idea of what exactly ‘design’ is and its relation to human-computer interaction. Design is explored through different design theories of conservative, romantic, and pragmatic. The article proposes that the role of design in HCI must be acknowledged, and the difference must be explored between ‘knowledge-generating design oriented’ research and ‘artifact generating conduct of research oriented design.’
During our research, we chose sources based on several different criteria. Firstly, we selected sources that engage with the various aspects of our discussion, both on the broader field of research of Humanism and Technology, and also parametric design in architectural practice. Secondly, we chose sources that were authored by people who have an established and credible voice in the field of humanism and parametric design. Our primary sources are strongly involved in the discourse surrounding the topic, and therefore can be reasonably engaged with as reputable voices. Secondly, we made sure to choose a mix of sources that argue both for and against the role of parametric design in architectural practice. We also specifically chose some sources that recorded experiments within practice on the impact of parametric tools on the creativity of architectural designers, as these sources look to find specific evidence of the impact of these tools.
John Fraser’s work greatly supports our first argument (3) by describing how machines takeover, take control and undermine humans in the architectural creative process. For example, he stated that: The term “tool” in our context doesn’t diminish the significance of these techniques as mere aids but rather emphasizes their pivotal role in challenging conventional practices. Computer should mirror traditional design methods, highlighting their inadequacy and the potential for machines to offer more imaginative solutions. Our tools aim to break away from existing norms and are integral to cratiing a new model of the architectural generative process. Schumacher gives a clear description of the emergence, development and future trends of digital parametric tools from both technical and sociological perspective. First, regarding the emergence of the parametric tool, he stated that stated that ‘Parametric
design is architecture’s answer to contemporary, computationally empowered civilisation, and is the only architectural style that can take full advantage of the computational revolution that now drives all domains of society.’ Second, he also portraits the current scope of parametric design in the field of practice, that parametric design tools and scripts allow the precise formulation and execution of intricate correlations between elements and subsystems. Third, he pointed out that parametric design is going through a cycle of innovative adaptation and criticise certain aspects of the current tools according to the current socioeconomic demands. Therefore, his book is helpful for us to both set the field of research and establish our second argument (4).
Kas Oosterhuis talked more about the renewal impact of parametric architectural tools on a sociological perspective. He pointed out that mass customization, heralded by industrial
and household fabrication, is reshaping architecture fundamentally. Digital parametric design, linked to CNC production, births a new complex yet controlled aesthetic. Nonstandard architecture, costeffective yet intricate, redefines architectural expression in the modern era. His work will support our second argument and conclusion (4). The implications for ‘digital design thinking’ are explored and discussed in Oxman’s work (4). The sources are all fundamental in supporting the propositions we are making in this discussion, as they are reliable and informative insights into the discussion around parametric tools. They lay the path for a solid bedrock in understanding how parametric tools are used in architectural practice, how these tools may undermine fundamental human creativity through their application, the lack of ethical values of software, and lays the way to conclude that the value of designing is a human action.
1: Image one
I argue that the new design parameters, based on sophisticated algorithms and rules, are undermining human creativity by handing the process of decision making over to the machine. I also argue that the machine has no inherent ethical values and aims for efficiency and perfection.
In the literature reviewed a case is made that designing through the machine fundamentally undermines the human creative process. John Fraser describes how machines take decision making control from the human. He issues concerns about the autonomy of the creative process using machines, and how the heavy reliance on machines to do creative work results in a final product that lacks depth by missing out on the human agency in design. Harold Nelson makes a case that design itself is a ‘deeply human activity’. He argues that design is not a simply technical process, so therefore these machines that rely
on technical processes to design are inherently undermining the human creative process.
On the other hand, arguments are made that machine design tools are simply an extension of human design that can enhance innate human creative processes. There is a group of studies that supports this argument, where the use of parametric software in architectural practice was researched and finds advantages to the cognitive design process with the use of parametric tools as a supporting method.
Though the literature can be divided on the argument around machine’s place in the human creative process, it can be theorised that the machine can be used as a powerful supplementary design tool beside the human creative process, however too much reliance on the machine to lead the creative process can result in designs that are too based in technical processes, rather than founded in true human creativity.
Beatriz Colomina stresses that design and technology have strong influences over human experience and behaviour. Machines are a tool that originate from the human mind, however there is argument that the machine is incapable of truly sharing humanities ethical considerations. Due to technologies increasing influence on the human world, it is imperative that the ethical implications of these technologies are considered. As the literature argues, this technology that humans create naturally inherits humanity’s flaws, biases and prejudices, and proactive critical reflection on the design decisions made by the machine is essential to maintain our human moral values. Gerd Leonhard writes on the debate of humanism vs technology, and states that technology has the potential to perpetuate socioeconomic injustices unless designers act responsibly to keep it in check.
It can be theorised based on these arguments that while technology can be beneficial, humanity must be careful when using machines for design processes to carefully analyse whether the outputs are in line with human ethical standards.
Summary
- Placeholder -
Conclusion
- To Be Completed -
Primary Sources
Book 1: Schumacher, P. (2016). Parametricism 2.0: rethinking architecture’s agenda for the 21st century: Rethinking Architecture’s Agenda for the 21st Century (1st ed., Vol. 240). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Book 2: Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995.
Book 3: Nelson, Harold G., and Erik Stolterman. The Design Way : Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. Second edition., The MIT Press, 2012.
Secondary Sources
Article 1: Oxman, Rivka. “Theory and Design in the First Digital Age.” Design Studies, vol. 27, no. 3, 2006, pp. 229–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. destud.2005.11.002.
Article 2: Oosterhuis, Kas. “Simply Complex, toward a New Kind of Building.” Frontiers of Architectural Research, vol. 1, no. 4, 2012, pp. 411–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foar.2012.08.003.
Article 3: Lee, J. H., Gu, N., & Ostwald, M. J. (2015). Creativity and parametric design? Comparing designer’s cognitive approaches with assessed levels of creativity. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 3(2), 78–94. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/21650349.2014.931826
Article 4: Creative Decision-Making Processes in Parametric Design.” 2020. Buildings 10 (12): 242. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings10120242. https://www. proquest.com/scholarly-journals/ creativedecision-making-processesparametric/docview/2471300426/se-2.
Article 5: Comparing Designers’ Behavior in Responding to Unexpected Discoveries in Parametric Design
Environments and Geometry Modeling Environments, Rongrong Yu, Ning Gu, and Ju Hyun Lee, International Journal of Architectural Computing 2013 11:4, 393-414
Article 6: Fallman, Daniel. “DesignOriented Human-Computer Interaction.” In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, edited by ACM, 225–232. 2003.
Image Sources
- To Be Completed -