Models & Design Agency

Marcelyn Gow

Modeling in architecture, both analog and digital is incredibly fundamental to the profession in the same way that tomatoes are fundamental to contemporary Italian cuisine. In other words, one cannot exist without the other. Modeling, a process that has been around for decades, has undergone, and continues to experience massive developments throughout the history of the profession. Nonetheless, it is due to these developments that the profession can operate in today’s world. In today’s age, the traditional workflow of using models is ever changing. The aim of this paper is to question the validity of using the model, whether it be physical or digital as a design tool in today’s age, and to explore what is the best workflow for models, in a rapidly changing technologically driven workflow?

To begin with, it is important to understand how the physical model has come to be such a systematic step in the architectural workflow. Since, the architectural physical model has played a role in shaping architectural thinking. In traditional terms the physical model is used as a design tool to better help designers visually understand the implications of the architecture in the built environment, as well as the overall massing of the building. It gave an almost God like power dynamic to the architects, due to the scale implications of a scale model. It gave power to the architects in the form of an illusion, since it narrowed the perception of the sheer mass of buildings, downplaying its effects in urban settings. During the renaissance period designers used physical models to resolve some of the complicated structures at the time, such as the likes of Antonio Gaudi, and Brunelleschi, during the construction of the Sagrada Familia, and the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore respectively (Figure 1). However, the contemporary use of the physical model has transcended structure and is now primarily used as design development tool.

The rise of the physical model in the contemporary American architecture scene can be credited in part to William Alciphron Boring1 . Boring, who served as the dean of Columbia’s school of architecture in 1930’s argued that physical model making was to become the main vessel of exploration of architectural concepts at Columbia. Furthermore, he pushed for the notion “from the point of view of the constructed building” rather than “the point of view of the picture”2 . Boring here is referring to the image like representations that drawings possessed at the time. Boring also alludes to the composite realities that images can sometimes portray. Boring believed that drawings were simulated environments that were being conjured by architects, as they were a simple glimpse of a building often not highlighting the full story of the project3 He argued that models would allow architects to bypass the composite realities, which occurred when creating a drawing or image. Ever since then the physical model has been cemented as a key part in the architectural process.

The introduction of digital model making in the early 1980’s allowed for many of the great architectural masterpieces of contemporary architecture to exist. It allowed for the rationalization of extreme complex forms, tectonics, and geometry that physical model making could never replicate, much was the same with drawings (Figure 2). 3D digital models were able to condense large amounts of data into one model, which made it much easier for designers to better understand complex geometry, and then translate that same information to builders for the building to be built. Moreover in some cases drawings could explain the complex geometry, however it simply took too long. Drawings could only convey so much, however at some point 2D drawings were not a sufficient medium for translating extremely complex geometries.

Physical Models are a great and efficient way of quickly visualizing, and testing ideas. They also are great due to their low skill barrier of entry since there is almost no learning curve to conquer. Moreover, Physical models convey ideas clearly to designers, and non-designers alike. However, the current issue with the use of the physical model is that they create false senses of composite realities4 . Physical models due to their scale implications are almost always dwarfed in the hands of an architect. Therefore, architects are almost dropped into this God-like power dynamic, which allow architects to design in a headspace that is far from reality. It is much like Jesus Vallos’ “Seamless: Digital Collage and Dirty Realism in Architecture”, where he explores the history of the intertwined nature of photography and architecture. Vallos argues that while initially photography in architecture was used as a documentational tool to keep track of highly complex, and important details, that did not remain the case5. As architecture slowly began to become an industry that had to “engage in the business of making images”6 a false reality in the architecture began to present itself through photography. This effect was in part due to the nature of the photograph, which is simple terms is a snapshot of a moment in time, forever frozen. Vallos argues that designers began to employ photography in ways to dictate a certain narrative that wasn’t necessarily true. The same flaw is present in the process of creating physical models, the scale of physical models is the origin of the situation. Physical models suffer from the same issue since models provide a singular view onto a project, a view that is often unrealistic and farfetched from reality. A view that often causes designers to neglect one of the core principles of architecture, which is to consider the human to building interaction, and vice versa.

The introduction of the digital model seemingly solves the issue of the scale, that is present in the physical model. The 3D digital model solves the issue of scale by having the ability to scale in accordance with the desire of the architect. The digital model provides an inherent flexibility that the physical model could never replicate. However, the issue of the digital model is that it a model that is not rooted in reality7. There is an element of disconnectedness when viewing a 3D digital model, since buildings are ultimately a physical object with a real fixed scale, with material properties that are appropriate to that building scale. While pointing out the flaws in both physical, and digital models may seem like an act of questioning their validity in the architectural process, that is not the intended goal, but rather the goal is to reframe and reconsider what the future roles of models are in the architectural process.

This is the focus of David Eskenazi’s work. Eskenazi explores the relationships of both the physical and digital models to each of their own inherent scalar qualities in his piece “Tired and Behaving Poorly”. He argues that an amalgamation of both physical and digital models is the key to moving forward (Figure 3). In essence, he merges the positive qualities of both models in order to create an ideal model, that is both rooted in the physics of reality, and scalable. The result is a model that is rather honest regarding its form, and material use, and hands a great deal of design agency to its material properties. This agency of the material allows an architectural project that has a novel piece of humanity, since the building is almost able to ‘feel’ the forces at play and is responding to those forces. Eskenazi, then reframes the role of the model in the architectural workflow. The model becomes less of a transitionary piece of design, but rather the product8. Therefore, the model is the final building. The physical model is then not just a design tool, but more so a product that is representative of the structural, material, and tectonic nature of the building to be built.

Eskenazi’s workflow bypasses all the inherent issues of the physical and digital models. The amalgamated model workflow does not allow architects to fall into the God-like power dynamic, since there is a system of balance, due to the model’s innate design agency. Moreover, the amalgamated model does not suffer from the digital model’s scale disconnect, due to the embedded physical parameters imposed onto the digital model. Michelle Jaja Chang’s work is much the same, which was visible in her exhibition “Scoring, Buildings”, where much like Eskenazi, Chang challenges the use of the model as the final outcome, rather than as a design development tool. She does this by challenging convention of modeling, and the following representation that led to a final building outcome. Usually, builders are given highly specific construction documents that are used to execute the designer’s clear vision allowing for little to no design agency. However, Chang challenges this by providing builders with a set of instructions, and notations which are not entirely precise, and are based off music notation, the score of a song. In a sense, Chang provides advice, not a guide to builders. The outcome, not unlike Eskenazi’s, is an incredibly honest architectural project since the designer is not the sole contributor to the design. In the case of Chang, it is the score of music, and the builder having some design agency.

Essentially a new architectural workflow is being developed around an amalgamated model which hands over some design agency to someone, or something other than the designer. The result is a project that doesn’t suffer from either the drawbacks of physical or digital models. Therefore, cementing the idea of collaboration in architectural pedagogy and practice. This amalgamated model then moves the model in architectural workflow from transitionary design tool to the end product. The model is then the building to be built.

Bilbiography

“Anna Neimark: Rude Forms among Us - Sci-Arc.” SCI, https://www.sciarc.edu/events/exhibitions/anna-neimark-rude-forms-among-us.

“Anna Neimark: Rude Forms Among Us.” YouTube, YouTube, 18 June 2020, https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=QCN2BS75prY. Accessed 16 Feb. 2023.

Astbury, Jon. “Architects Do It with Models: The History of Architecture in 16 Models.” Architectural Review, 21 July 2020, https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/architects-do-it-with-models-the-history-of-architecture-in-16-models.

AuthorAvneeth Premarajan Avneeth Premarajan is a practicing Architect and an ardent “student” of Architecture. He is intrigued by concepts, et al. “Is Architectural Model Making a Dying Art? Is Architectural Model Making a Dying Art?” RTF | Rethinking The Future, 19 Aug. 2021, https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/architectural-community/ a4925-is-architectural-model-making-a-dying-art/.

Ben Dreith |16 November 2022 Leave a comment. “How Ai Software Will Change Architecture and Design.” Dezeen, 5 Dec. 2022, https://www.dezeen.com/2022/11/16/ai-design-architecture-product/.

“Duel + Duet: David Eskenazi & Alexey Marfin (July 22, 2022).” YouTube, YouTube, 23 Aug. 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeXmtfHBDJY. Accessed 16 Feb. 2023. Frampton, Kenneth, et al. Modeling History. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City, 2017.

Fraser, Andrea. “Procedural Matters: The Art of Michael Asher.” The Online Edition of Artforum International Magazine, 1 June 2008, https://www.artforum.com/print/200806/ procedural-matters-the-art-of-michael-asher-20388.

Lavin, Sylvia. “Vanishing Point: The Contemporary Pavilion.” The Online Edition of Artforum International Magazine, 1 Oct. 2012, https://www.artforum.com/print/201208/vanishing-point-the-contemporary-pavilion-34519.

“McNeel Wiki.” The History of Rhino [McNeel Wiki], https://wiki.mcneel.com/rhino/rhinohistory#:~:text=Oct%201998%20%2D%20Rhino%20version%201.0,Dec%201998%20 %2D%20First%205%2C000%20shipped.&text=Jan%201999%20%2D%20 First%20public%20beta%20of%201.1%20released.

“SoA 50th Anniversary Lecture Series: Michelle Chang.” YouTube, YouTube, 15 Nov. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Nt6cY3W44. Accessed 16 Feb. 2023.

TheB1MLtd, director. Building the World's Last Megatall Skyscraper. YouTube, YouTube, 24 Feb. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnRscqkN3vw. Accessed 16 Feb. 2023.

“Tony Smith: Smoke.” LACMA, https://www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/tony-smith-smoke.

“The Weitzman School of Design Presents: Ellie Abrons.” YouTube, YouTube, 14 Jan. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYXenh9i0D0. Accessed 16 Feb. 2023.

Wetzler, Rachel. “Making Space: Katarzyna Kobro.” ARTnews.com, ARTnews.com, 12 Sept. 2022, https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/katarzyna-kobro-spatial-sculpture-1234639122/.

“Who Invented the Skyscraper?” Skydeck Chicago, 1 Feb. 2021, https://theskydeck.com/ who-invented-the-skyscraper/#:~:text=Local%20architect%2C%20William%20LeBaron%20Jenney,the%20first%20skyscraper%20in%201884.