2014
AirStudio J a m e s Sa l v i n i
1.
Introduction.
Design Studio Air2013
TutorsFinnian & Victor I’m James, a third-year architecture major at the University of Melbourne. Having developed an interest in design throughout my teenage years, I was able to extend my knowledge and interest in visual communication and architecture in the latter years of my high schooling. This is where I was first introduced to computer aided design software in the form of Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop and the 3D modeling software Google SketchUp. However, it was not until I arrived at Melbourne University that I was truly confronted with the demands of being an architect. As my structural, construction and architectural theory knowledge expanded, unfortunately my CAD skills did not. I relied heavily on my previous knowledge of the Adobe products and honed my skills on SketchUp. Having not undertaken Visual Environments in my first year of study, this subject has acted as my introduction to the digital design tool Rhino and the subsequent plug-in Grasshopper. I have lived and grown up in the south-east suburbs my entire life and it is this context which has probably fueled my interest in residential design. I do have a strong appreciation for commercial design; however, it is the specific requirements of a house design that interests me most.
2
3.
Section A
C o nc e ptu a l i s ati o n
4.
Contents
A1. Design Futuring A2. Design Computation A3. Computation and Generation A4. Conclusion A5. Learning Outcomes A6. Algorithmic Sketches
06 10 14 18 19 20
5.
A1. Design Futuring
QUOTE
6.
7.
A1. Design Futuring
8.
A1. Design Futuring
9.
A2. Design Computation A basic human evolutionary trait is to take a present day task and explore methods in which it could be completed faster, more efficiently and to a more complex degree. Technology acts as a catalyst for this perpetual development of methodology in which ideas can be realized. In terms or architecture, technology has opened the possibilities for ideas that were once deemed impossible, or even unimaginable to be conceptualized.
“It is possible to claim that a designer’s creativity is limited by the very programs that are supposed to free their imagination” - Kostas Terzidis
Much the same as any profession throughout history, architects have always shown an interest in developing means in which can enhance the possibilities of their field. Developments in the discipline have continued into the 21st century, only this time representing themselves in the form of technological advancements. These advancements hold within them the power to enhance the architect’s capabilities in representing their most intricate of ideas, releasing the constraints of creativity that were once limited by concerns over the structural performance of a design. Computation is changing the way the new generations of architects are thinking. It is no longer considered an avant-garde approach, but rather standard and necessary tool amongst current architecture firms. Computation allows architects to design, explore and analyse complex forms through the use of scripting software in manner which once only conceptually plausible. The computational way augments the designer’s intellect, captures the complexity of how to build a project and the parameters in a building’s formation. Ideas are still formed in the designer’s mind, and – in cases such as Frank Ghery or Zaha Hadid – still expressed as sketches on paper. However, what computation is allowing with-
10.
in the design is to take these entities or processes that are constructed in the designer’s mind, and enter, manipulate or store them on a computer system. Not only used a tool to augment the possibilities of a design, computation can be considered a way of thinking in the sense that it “[computational thinking] is the thought process involved in formulating problems and their solutions so that the solutions are represented in a form that can be effectively carried out by an information-processing agent.” [2] As with any development in thinking, comes the potential for misuse and abasement. Despite its potential, skepticism still lies within the architecture community about the worth of design computation. The possibilities that lie within the algorithms of design computation have lead to discussion on an inherent laziness, or reliance, on software to “conspire against creative thought” [3] by encouraging ‘fake’ creativity. The precedence’s will investigate both opinions of design computation with one examining the possibilities in which it opens up, and the other demonstrating how it can in fact lead to exuberant use of unnatural shapes done without much background purpose.
1. Terzidis, Kostas (2009). Algorithms for Visual Design Using the Processing Language (Indianapolis, IN: Wiley), p. xx 2. Jan Cuny, Larry Snyder, and Jeannette M. Wing, “Demystifying Computational Thinking for Non-Computer Scientists,” work in progress, 2010 3. Lawson, Bryan (1999). ‘’Fake’ and ‘Real’ Creativity using Computer Aided Design: Some Lessons from Herman Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy (New York: ACM Press), pp. 174-179
11.
A2. Design Computation
12.
A2. Design Computation
13.
A3. Computation and Generation
QUOTE
14.
15.
A3. Computation and Generation
16.
A3. Computation and Generation
17.
A4. Conclusion
18.
A5. Learning Outcomes
19.
A6. Algorithmic Sketches
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.