DR Ex.5

SUMMARY

DRAFT

Image:

Humanism versus technology is an expanding field of research wherein the mode of design decision-making alters between humans and machines. In recent decades, this mode rapidly evolved, as 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 decision-making process over to machines. I also argue that the machine has no inherent ethical values and aims for efficiency and perfection. This leads to diminishing the moral value of designing as a uniquely human action.

A DYNAMIC INTERPLAY AND DANGER OF SELF -DESTRUCTION

The mutual invention between humans and the artificial world, in which they live, plays a pivotal role in the human evolution. This ongoing interchange consistently challenges conventional notions of power and utility, reshaping the very essence of humanity. Whether in the hands of humans or machines, the throne of decision-making dictates the destiny of civilizations. At the heart of this discourse lies a crucial question: who envisions the course of human evolution, and what destination awaits us on this journey?

Humanism versus technology is an expanding field of research where philosophers or researchers debate the dynamic interplay between humans and technology. Beatrize Colomina and Mark Wigley’s work ‘Are We Human?’ address the mutual invention of humans and artifacts, analyze the impact of technological advancement on humanity and raise a critical question: whether technology invents better decision-making or creativity in

DRAFT

humans. I agree with this stance, in that technologies can empower humans as physical and mental extensions, regardless of the ethics of the utility. However, the human species is continually re-invented by its own artifacts when it views itself and its potential by these. Tools challenge existing concepts of utility. Humans not only invent tools, but tools also invent humans. Humans are ‘permanently suspended between being the cause and the effect’. Thus, the increasing mechanical decision-making in designing profession risks diminishing the moral values of the designing process and has the potential to lead humanity to self-destruction, namely, fall into lines of number 0 and 1, and eventually into nothingness.

Beatriz, Colomina, and Mark, Wigley, 2016, Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design (Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers), 78. Ibid., 54. Ibid., 51-52. Ibid., 56-57. Ibid., 76. Ibid., 77. Ibid., 83. Ibid., 128. Ibid., 130. Ibid., 130-131. Ibid., 133. Ibid., 134. Ibid., 137. Ibid., 138.

‘And the rate of extinction of ways of living and dying of peoples of all species, including human are truly on the edge of falling off into nothingness.

‘The story of the earth is at stake as we participate in it. Our own extinction is of course truly possible. But with or without extinction in terms of the final death, the deepening of the destruction of ways of life on this earth is happening.

- Donna Haraway

DRAFT

‘Falling into nothingness’ Image by Wenxiu

GENESIS: CREATION AND FALL OF PARAMETRIC DESIGN

In recent decades, due to the progression of sociological demands and empowered by the development of computational technology, the modes of design decision-making have rapidly evolved from human to mechanical processes. Modern-era humanity was characterized by a mass society with a universal consumption standard. However, in the mid-20th century, aesthetic fatigue from industrial mass production and disdain for standardization led to societal heterogeneity and a favoring of differentiation. Taking full advantage of the computational revolution that drives contemporary civilization, parametric design emerged as a response to the sociological problems of ‘mass society’ and the ‘standardized consumption of modernization’. These parametric tools enable continuous differentiation, versioning, iteration, mass customization, and bespoke designing.

Since the late 20th century, digital parametric design, as a unique

DRAFT

mechanical decision-making endeavour, quickly crystallized, becoming the driving force of the architectural design profession and fundamentally altering the traditional relationship between designers and their designed objects. In the past, buildings were viewed as materialized drawings, but now they are materialized digital information. In the parametric era, architectural design features Building Information Modelling (BIM), in which site, program, and expressive intention all contribute to building forms as parameters. In this framework, from concept to construction, the architectural design product can be integrated into an information flow, where numerical analyses of financial, environmental, and social aspects can be easily evaluated. The building becomes the solution to a set of sociological problems. Computer scientists have successfully created machines that can outpace the human brain in calculation speed and data storage. Thus, many architects have taken advantage of these mechanical features

ry and examined technology relation to truth. Other scholars proposed a revaluation, suggesting technology precedes philosophy itself

PARAMETRIC DESIGN MERGED IN RESPONSE TO THE NEED OF

SSIVE CUSTIMISATIO

IN THE POST MODERN SOCIETY

to reduce the time and cost of human employees in the decision-making process. Additionally, defining many dramatic parametric shapes relies on massive mathematical calculations that are humanly impossible; only machines can provide this service. For example, multi-dimensional transformations, including scaling, translating, reflecting, differential scaling, and shearing, can be easily achieved within seconds by machines but may require days or years of work by humans. Many software packages incorporate symmetry, logical data structures, visual scripting, and environmental analysis, capabilities that are beyond manual human capacity.

With the popularization of informational design frameworks and computational power for managing vast datasets, technology and design thinking are increasingly intertwined. As machines take over, human designers risk becoming disposable machine parts, responsible only for inputting data parameters, while the machine

becomes the central organism that drives the design process.

DRAFT

Schumacher, Patrick, editor. Parametricism 2.0 : Rethink Schumacher, Patrick, editor. Parametricism 2.0 : Rethinking Architecture’s Agenda for the 21st Century. 1st ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2016, 1-12.

Schumacher, Patrick, editor. Parametricism 2.0 : Rethinking Architecture’s Agenda for the 21st Century. 1st ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2016, 10.

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, 229.

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, 229.

Schumacher, Patrick, editor. Parametricism 2.0 : Rethinking Architecture’s Agenda for the 21st Century. 1st ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2016, 1-12. Mitchell, W (2005) Constructing complexity, in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures, Vienna, Austria, 41-50. Mitchell, W (2005) Constructing complexity, in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures, Vienna, Austria, 1. Ibid., 1. Ibid., 1. https://www.parametricism.com/ kas-oosterhuis

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, 229.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 29. Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 26-33.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 26. Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 23. Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 23. Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 18.

UNDERMINED HUMAN CREATIVITY

Colomina and Wigley posit that good design invents good humans. Yet, does parametric design technology, lauded as the pinnacle of contemporary architectural design, elevate human creativity? Are designers using parametric tools more creative than those who do not? This essay contends that handing the decision-making process over to machines will undermine human creativity. There is a fundamental difference between machine decision-making and human decision-making in architectural design. Traditional architectural concept formation operate in the mind of the architect within the realm of visual reasoning about space, structure, and form. In contrast, parametric machine decision-making, as a rule-based automation, relies on sophisticated algorithms; architectural concepts in the parametric realm are expressed through generative rules encoded in a genetic language. By handing the decision-making process over to machines, humans are forced into a new avenue for design thinking.

DRAFT

Concepts in the new era emphasize inner logic rather than external forms. Instead of visual reasoning, the job of designers involves juggling multiple forms of data and images represented in contemporary digital design environments. Rivka Oxman identifies this renewed design thinking system as digital design thinking. This new system is non-typological and non-deterministic; it prefers the discrete and differentiated over the generic and typological. This approach does not adhere to formal preferences or reject traditional formal and typological knowledge, such as formal languages, typological classes, generic design, and design cases. Instead, it centres on the relationships among the designer, information, and images. Creativity lies in logical approaches rather than in form vocabulary. This new design thinking avenue has the potential to undermine human creativity. It may create a false sense of reality and design optimization, elevate mechanical computation to unwarranted importance, constrain

the design process to fit program limitations, shift the focus of criticism from process to end-product, and emphasize easily quantifiable aspects of a problem in feedback, thereby dulling critical thinking. First, machine decision-making creates a false sense of reality and design optimization. The parametric interface provides a phenomenological model, which is tentative, adaptable, and constantly changing. This model never achieves absolute isomorphism with reality, but it is constantly tested and redeveloped in the manipulation attempts. For example, no matter how complex the digital organism may become, the nature of parameters limits the digital tools in the realm of simplification, assumption and manipulation. In the digital parametric space, all information can be compressed to simple numbers ‘0’ and ‘1’; computation can be reduced to simple logical statements such as ‘and’ or ‘nor’. There is a gap of complexity between the real-world system and the models we

ry and examined technology relation to truth. Other scholars proposed a revaluation, suggesting technology precedes philosophy itself

created to simulate it. This gap show that human conception of the reality directly contradicts to the facts of the reality. There are always more things than the contents of our understandings accommodate; therefore, there are infinitely more parameters than those we have defined. David Bohm stated that the way real things distinguish themselves from our imagination is keeping the independence from our thoughts. The digital material is formed by calculation, mapping and resolution of differences. Thus, the creative decision-making process is not based on the absolute knowledge of reality but based on a relational dialogue between the real world and the parametric tool developer. The architects as users of parametric tools may be immersed in this virtual simulation and lose the sensitivity and intuition of the physical world and produce design options that could not exist. Even though plug-ins like Karamba3D and Kangaroo are tackling this by bring the current scientific physical laws into the virtual interface;

they still can only consider limited parameters that only reflects partially the physical reality.

DRAFT

Second, parametric tools often elevate computer outputs to unwarranted importance and enforce an unnecessary glorification of computational complexity. For example, our new digital capacity has enabled the construction of irregular shapes; however, many of these buildings have been deployed merely for their sensational effect. These designs are criticized for their short-lived seduction of the surprising and the compromise of Procrustean simplification. In the academic setting, students are encouraged to create meaningless and exaggerated shapes without truthful reflection of architectural function; they are rewarded for the shameful over-glorification of computational complexity. Another issue is over-concentration; the goals of certain software products appear egocentric and ignore the practicality of creativity. For example, BIM aims to include cost, energy, and material

calculations in a single model. However, specific modelling tasks, like energy modelling, demand distinct software, codes, and file formats, along with fundamentally different modelling methodologies. Similarly, computational fluid dynamic models demand significantly different entities and parameters compared to other sub-models. This challenge underscores the fundamental differences in modelling approaches. Consequently, architects must manage multiple models concurrently for a single project, which poses integration and coordination challenges inherent in handling diverse modelling paradigms. Instead of simplifying the representation process, the egocentric ideology complicates it. Kostas Terzidis criticised the fact that, ‘theories of design and form are ‘translated’ into computational ones, merely to participate in the digital fashion’. Finally, parametric mechanical interfaces often constrain the design process to fit within program limitations. Albert Einstein once said,

‘Creativity is seeing what others see and thinking what no one else ever thought’. It is ironic that parametric tools, like Revit, aim to nullify and fix the representation or abstraction methods of architectural elements. These algorithms, originally envisioned as pioneers’ thoughts, are precisely the enemy of true creativity. In the parametric interface, instead of expressing geometrical qualities from the unique perspectives of a particular project, universal parametric blocks and families rigidify design outcomes. If we view parametric design as a language of architectural thinking, where parameters are grammar and families are vocabulary or syntax, the “parametric language” would appear simple in phonology but constrained by large, configurable morphological regularity, grammar, and special syntax. These heavy constraints limit creative freedom to an extremely small scope. For example, the use of Revit families greatly constrained the detailed design abilities of architecture students at the University of Adelaide. Instead

DRAFT

of creating new doors, windows, beams, and columns, students now easily download and import existing universal families from the Autodesk website. This has caused difficulties for teachers who aim to enhance students’ detailing creativity. Furthermore, this newly widespread universal language endangers local design languages and global design linguistic diversity. One painful example is the standardization of BIM in design communities. Contractors and clients expect “automatically coordinated construction documents, accurate cost and scheduling estimates, automated program verification, and the digital transfer of design and construction data to building operations” from contemporary architectural practices. There are fewer jobs or collaboration opportunities for those who cannot meet the standard. Designing with BIM becomes a constrained labour of fitting into the technological system expectations, instead of a process of creative exploration.

Gerd, Leonhard, 2016, Technology vs. Humanity: The Coming Clash Between Man and Machine (London: Fast Future Publishing), i.

Patrik, Schumacher, 2009, ‘Parametricism: A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design’, (Architectural Design, 79(4)), 14-23.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 61.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 9.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 9.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 10.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 9.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 51.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 9.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 61.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 10.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 60.

Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995, 60.

Beatriz, Colomina, and Mark, Wigley, 2016, Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design (Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers), 76.

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, 261.

Matthew, Poole, and Manuel, Shvartzberg, 2015, The Politics of Parametricism: Digital Technologies in Architecture, (Bloomsbury Publishing).

DRAFT

NEW ETHICS AND EVOLVING MORALITY

In moral philosophy, an enduring inquiry revolves around determining which entities merit ethical consideration. It is commonly accepted that humans bear moral responsibilities, but should we extend such considerations to machines? When humans delegate decision-making to machines, are the designing outcomes subject to the same moral scrutiny? Who bears responsibility for the moral legitimacy of the vast and complex decisions made by machines?

I argue that machines as objects possess no ethical values; they are merely extensions of human body and mind, designed primarily for task efficiency and human empowerment. However, functioning as the extension of humans, the purpose of machines do inherit ethical values from its master. Particularly, the adverse impacts of technology are also inherently human. Powerful machines, created by morally flawed and unaware humans, represent a menacing phenomenon. These machines have the capacity

to realize and magnify malevolent intentions, whether their human creators are conscious of the immorality or not. The mechanized brutality of World War II stands as a stark example of this danger. Thus, transferring decision-making responsibilities to machines and absolving humans of moral accountability risks diminishing the moral significance of design as a distinctly human action.

DRAFT

The first example is that utilizing parametric or mechanical ‘form finding’ diminishes the ethical value of design outcomes. Terzidis explained the parametric mechanical form generation process, that ‘an algorithm is a process of addressing a problem in a finite number of steps… there are some problems whose solution is unknown, vague, or ill-defined… algorithms become the means for exploring possible paths that may lead to potential solutions’. The absence of defined parameters allows for the random generation of forms, with architects selecting from these

ry and examined technology relation to truth. Other scholars proposed a revaluation, suggesting technology precedes philosophy itself

COMPROMISATION OF INDIVUAL BECAME MORAL IN THIS

SSIVE CUSTIMISATIO

AND UNDERMINE THE PUBLIC

instead of actively designing them. Although this process appears neutral and natural, akin to Darwinian natural selection, it precludes the evaluation of unknown parameters and the definition of ethically sound numerical values. Such form finding surrenders human ethics to randomness and is irresponsible for design professionals. For end-users, their choices are limited to forms randomly generated by architects, potentially resulting in suboptimal solutions. Similarly, the concept of parametric ‘emergence’ is an unethical avoidance of human responsibility, as it implies forms could autonomously arise, obscuring the arbitrariness of their decisions. While computers offer vast choices in line with von Foerster’s ethic of expanding choices, architects must extend this ethos to users. End-user inclusion should not be confined to participation but should enable them to design their own choices.

The second aspect is that parametric machines may enforce social injus-

DRAFT

tice by selectively using information. Although social justice issues existed before mechanical decision-making, this paragraph illustrates how these ancient problems persist in the parametric era. As mentioned earlier, parametric architectural design, integrated into information flow, reflects the numerical values of financial, environmental, and social parameters. Parametric machines effectively include context parameters that align with the interests of powerful stakeholders while neglecting the broader range of site forces and user experiences. For instance, parametric BIM software has effectively promoted the construction of high-density housing in the contemporary world. There is extensive research and data regarding the health implications of unit density. For example, Loring links over-density to social disorganization; Gruenberg found that high-density areas increase first psychosis admissions; a French study links habitable space to family tension; and Madge notes a European mental health standard of 170 square

feet per person. However, these user-focused parameters are purposely ignored as designers receive program and unit density parameters from stakeholders. The power of parametric tools extends the moral values of the stakeholders. If stakeholders desire unethical high-density living conditions, the machine will enforce their concepts, further perpetuating social injustice.

DEATH OR VICTORY

Richard Susskind and Daniel Susskind have stated that there is a mutual agreement between professionals, who ‘provide expert, ethical, and reliable services, maintaining high standards and training’, and society, which grants them ‘exclusivity, autonomy, fair compensation, and respect’. This mutual trust based on that professionals prioritize clients’ interests and continually update their knowledge and skills. However, machines of parametric technology may take on the provision of these services and prove capable of maintaining standards and regenerating autonomously. Should society then withdraw the entitlements accorded to human architects and instead give them to machines? As we enter the age of designing mechanical automation, should we declare the death of the architecture profession, or at least the death of architectural practice in its current form?

The answer is ‘yes’. At the 2006 AIA National Convention, Thom Mayne, a Pritzker Prize winner, foresaw the

potential of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and digital fabrication in architecture, warning that failure to adapt to these technologies would lead to obsolescence. Putting a mouse in the hand of his audience, he said, ‘If you want to survive, you’re going to change; if you don’t, you’re going to perish’. For architects, there is simply no choice but to take on the new challenge of adapting to parametric technology.

DRAFT

As the existing form of architectural tasks is rapidly taken over by ever-upgrading machines, many confront this unavoidable shift and outline new avenues for the human role in architectural practice facing the challenge of machines. For example, Rivka Oxman calls for architects to abandon existing design practices and focus on higher-level design avenues, shifting from visual design to logical design. John Frazer advocates that architects should employ machines with imagination. He argues that it is necessary to develop architectural concepts

first in a generic and universal form, with machines serving as visualizers for the formed human imagination. Frazer also encourages architects to create new customized programs and machines according to the most current needs of their design concepts. Schumacher believes that parametric machines are in a process of retooling and refining according to social demands; sociological demands should be the driver of technological innovation. Mitchell calls for architects to strive for authenticity and uncompromising integrity when facing complex conditions, resisting the temptation of short-lived seduction of sensational surprises.

The relationship between humans and machines in the architecture field is constantly evolving, competing for the throne of decision-making. As machines continuously become more intelligent and take over more design tasks from humans, they are causing a gradual death of existing architectural design practices. However,

human designers can regulate their technological innovation by referencing the origins of self-design and shifting their architectural practice to new design avenues, such as designing logics, machines, and scripts. There are thrones above thrones in architectural decision-making yet to be unveiled and competed for. I want to conclude the discussion with a quotation of Lewis Mumford.

‘…our capacity to go beyond the machine rests upon our power to assimilate the machine. Until we have absorbed the lessons of objectivity, impersonality, neutrality, the lessons of the mechanical realm, we cannot go further in our development toward the more richly organic, the more profoundly human.’

THE MORAL VALUE OF DESIGNING AS A UNIQUELY

DRAFT

LIST OF CITED SOURCES

Colomina, Beatriz, and Wigley, Mark, 2016, Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design (Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers.

Galloway, Alexander R., Thacker, Eugene, & Wark, McKenzie, 2013, Excommunication: Three Inquiries in Media and Mediation, (University of Chicago Press).

Harris, Eric, Franz, Anna, & O’Hara, Sabine, 2023, ‘Promoting Social Equity and Building Resilience through Value-Inclusive Design’, (Buildings, 13(8), 2081), Retrieved from https:// www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/13/8/2081.

Heidegger, Martin, 1977, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, (New York: Harper & Row).

Kapp, Ernst, Kirkwood, Jeffrey West, Weatherby, Leif, Wolfe, Lauren K., & Zielinski, Siegfried, 2018, Elements of a Philosophy of Technology: On the Evolutionary History of Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1st ed).

Kirkwood, Jeffrey W., & Weatherby, Leif, 2018, ‘Operations of Culture: Ernst Kapp’s Philosophy of Technology’ (Grey Room, 72(72)).

Leonhard, Gerd, 2016, Technology

vs. Humanity: The Coming Clash Between Man and Machine (London: Fast Future Publishing).

Oxman, Rivka, and Robert Oxman. “New Structuralism: Design, Engineering and Architectural Technologies.” Architectural Design 80, no. 4 (2010): 14–23.

DRAFT

Poole, Matthew, and Shvartzberg, Manuel, 2015, The Politics of Parametricism: Digital Technologies in Architecture, (Bloomsbury Publishing).

Schumacher, Patrik, 2009, ‘Parametricism: A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design’, (Architectural Design, 79(4)).

Woodbury, Robert, 2010, Elements of Parametric Design, (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author acknowledge the use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, an AI language model, in the writing process of this article. ChatGPT was employed to assist with searching initial field of research, exploring relevant literature and correcting spelling and grammar. While ChatGPT aid the research process, all content was initially crafted and edited by the author.

DRAFT