Grasshopper

algorithmic modeling for Rhino

Hi /Grshp/

What are your thoughts?

Views: 1029

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That question sounds like if it were a trend, when in fact is a design method. Therefore it depends on whether the solution to a problem requires or not that method as the best choice.

Estoy de acuerdo con lo que dices. De hecho la pregunta iba precisamente para tentar a alguien a tomarlo desde ese punto de vista.

Lo que pasa es que quiero encontrar varios textos parecidos a los que Patrik Schumacher tiene en su blog referente al parametricismo. Seguro que los has leído. Sobre todo en esta parte donde habla del parametricismo como un proceso de invesitgación de diseño (Design research) y pone en el mismo estado a movimientos arquitectónicos como el modernismo, el gótico, etc.

¿Qué piensas al respecto? ¿Sabes de alguien más que haya teorizado esto de manera similar?

Saludos

PD: de hecho ese post que acaba de poner David Rutten abajo me llama la atención también.

PD Te digo esto en español para después abrir más mi pregunta. Me parece una buena oportunidad para discutir con alguien al respecto.

Pues no, no los he leído, no vengo de la arquitectura, pero me suena su nombre. Yo no soy dado a leer a "gurús" o a teóricos, a si que seguro que no soy el adecuado para fomentar el debate académico. 

Desde mi punto de vista el parametricismo es un término inapropiado para el método de diseño que ofrece grasshopper o similares o la programación. Esta caja de texto en la que escribo es paramétrica, puedo poner negrita, cursiva, subrayado... tengo parámetros donde elegir y modificar los datos de texto. Todos los software cad lo son, la diferencia es que algunos software también crean modelos parametrizados (modificables una vez creados), y eso hace referencia al resultado, no al proceso. Por tanto, para mi el término correcto del método que ofrece software como grasshopper es generatividad, porque si consideras que lo fundamental para definir un paradigma es el proceso y no el resultado, este término te lleva a lo realmente importante, que es el modelar algoritmos, tu creas el proceso, y aquí es donde hay un nuevo paradigma en el diseño.

Hay quien se refiere a la generatividad solo cuando el algoritmo está basado en unas reglas y el sistema cambia por sí solo, como con los autómatas celulares, o algoritmos genéticos o neuronales, pero para mi esto no es correcto porque siempre está determinado por parámetros iniciales, solo que están en distintas dimensiones de abstracción. Si plantas dos semillas perfectamente iguales y las sometes a condiciones exactas (aunque esto quizás sea imposible de simular), saldrán dos plantas iguales, porque dependen de las condiciones iniciales, de los parámetros. Una ecuación diferencial no más ni menos paramétrica o generativa que una ecuación polinómica, solo están en distintas capas de abstracción. Por eso, yo pongo la diferencia entre el parametricismo y la generatividad cuando se modela el proceso en sí mismo, cuando se crea un sistema de instrucciones, cuando creas un algoritmo. Para mi el parametricismo es algo muy viejo, de cuando las pantallas todavía eran de luz verde.

No se porqué desde la arquitectura se ha establecido el término parametricismo para referiste a un método de diseño donde la solución está en el proceso, no en los parámetros. Y todavía no he encontrado a nadie que lograse cambiar mi opinión.

Pero estoy de acuerdo a que esto es un proceso de investigación, como el modernismo u otras corrientes en sus épocas. El diseño es búsqueda, análisis, testeo, evaluación, etc, y otra vez búsqueda; lo que pasa que para que se vea que es un proceso de investigación, primero hay que someter al diseño a nuevas condiciones (si algo ya está investigado, no hay nada que desarrollar), como las de nuestro caso, nueva tecnología en forma de software. Si hay nuevas herramientas, habrá nuevas posibilidades. Y al revés, si necesitas nuevas soluciones, puedes probar a juntar dos viejas soluciones aparantemente desvinculadas. Desconozco la historia de la arquitectura, pero apostaría que la mayoría de esos cambios vienen por la aparición de nuevas tecnologías (nuevos materiales, nuevas formas de construcción, etc.) que ofrecen nuevos métodos con las que buscar nuevas soluciones.

TRANSLATION:

Well, I have not not read, I do not come from the architecture, but it sounds like her name. I am not given to read "gurus" or theoretical, whether that sure I'm not the right time to encourage academic debate. From my point of view parametricism is an inappropriate design method that offers similar or grasshopper or programming term. This box in which I write is parametric, I can put bold, italic, underline ... I have to choose parameters and modify text data. All are cad software, the difference is that some software also create parameterized models (modified once created), and that refers to the result, not the process. Therefore, for me the correct term method that provides software as a grasshopper is generativity, because if you consider it essential to define a paradigm is the process and not the result, this term takes you to what is really important, which is the model algorithms , you create the process, and this is where there is a new paradigm in design. Some concerns generativity only when the algorithm is based on rules and the system changes alone as cellular automata, or genetic or neural algorithms, but for me this is not correct because it is always determined by initial parameters only that they are in different dimensions of abstraction. If two perfectly identical plants seeds and submit to exact conditions (although this may be impossible to simulate), will two identical plants because they depend on the initial conditions of the parameters. A no more and no less generative parametric differential equation or a polynomial equation, are only in different layers of abstraction. So I put the difference between generativity parametricism and when the process is modeled itself when an instruction system is created, when you create an algorithm. For me parametricism is very old, when the screens were still green. why not from architecture has been established for the term parametricism you referred to a design method where the solution is in the process, not in the parameters. And I still have not found anyone that would achieve change my opinion. But I agree that this is a process of investigation, as modernism or other currents in their times. The design is search, analysis, testing, evaluation, etc. and search again; what happens is that to make it look that is a research process, you must first submit the design to new conditions (if something is already investigated, there is nothing to develop), as our case, new technology in software form . If new tools, there will be new possibilities. Conversely, if you need new solutions, you can try to join two old aparantemente delinked solutions. I do not know the history of architecture, but I'd bet that most of these changes come from the emergence of new technologies (new materials, new forms of construction, etc.) that offer new methods with which to seek new solutions.

the latest craze is to not use computers and go live in the woods

Which makes this even more relevant.

Said the Prophet (~40 years ago):

In the unselfconscious culture the same form is made over and over again ; in order to learn form-making, people need only learn to repeat a single familiar physical pattern .

In the self conscious culture new purposes (BTW: mostly fabricated if you ask me) are occurring all the time ;the people who make forms are constantly required to deal with problems that are either entirely new or at best modifications of old problems (BTW: that's what we call garbage in garbage out).

Under these circumstances it is not enough to copy old physical patterns. So that people will be able to make innovations and modifications as required, ideas about how and why things get their shape must be introduced.

Teaching must be based on explicit general principles of function, rather than unmentioned and specifi c principles of shape. I shall call a culture unselfconscious if its form-making is learned informally, through imitation and correction . And I shall call a culture selfconscious if its form-making is taught academically, according to explicit rules.

Now why are forms made in the selfconscious culture not so well fitting or so clearly made as those in the unselfconscious culture ? (answers: to The Lord, District 9, North Pole).

In one case the form-making process is a good one,in the other bad. What is it that makes a form-making process good or bad?

In explaining why the unselfconscious process is a good one, hardly anyone bothers, nowadays, to argue the myth of the primitive genius, the unsophisticated craftsman supposedly more gifted than his sophisticated counterpart.

The myth of architectural Darwinism has taken its place.Yet though this new myth is more acceptable , in its usual form it is not really any more informative than the other.It says, roughly, that primitive forms are good as a result of a process of gradual adaptation - that over many centuries such forms have gradually been fitted to their cultures by an intermittent though persistent series of corrections.

But this explanation is vague hand-waving. It doesn't tell us what it is that prevents such adaptation from taking place successfully in the selfconscious culture, which is what we want to know most urgently (Note: Prophet was ultra optimistic on that one, but nobody's perfect).

And even as an explanation of good fit in the unselfconscious culture, the raw concept of adaptation is something less than satisfactory. If forms in an unselfconscious culture fit now, the chances are that they always did . We know of no outstanding differences between the present states and past states of unselfconscious cultures; and this assumption, that the fit of forms in such cultures is the result of gradual adjustment (that is, improvement) overtime , does not illuminate what must actually be a dynamic process in which both form and context change continuously, and yet stay mutually well adjusted all the time .

"Has anyone at the end of the nineteenth century a distinct conception of what poets of strong ages called inspiration? If not, I will describe it. If one had the slightest residue of superstition left in one, one would hardly be able to set aside the idea that one is merely incarnation, merely mouthpiece, merely medium of overwhelming forces. The concept of revelation, in the sense that something suddenly, with unspeakable certainty and subtlety becomes visible, audible, something that shakes and overturns one to the depths, simply describes the fact. One hears, one does not seek; one takes, one does not ask who gives; a thought flashes up like lightening, with necessity, unfalteringly formed I have never had any choice. An ecstasy whose tremendous tension sometimes discharges itself in a flood of tears, while one's steps now involuntarily rush along, now involuntarily lag; a complete being outside of oneself with distinct consciousness of a multitude of subtle shudders and trickles down to one's toes: a depth of happiness in which the most painful and gloomy things appear, not as an antithesis, but as conditioned, demanded, as a necessary colour within such a superfluity of light; an instinct for rhythmical relationships which spans forms of wide extent length, the need for a wide-spanned rhythm is almost the measure of the force of inspiration, a kind of compensation for its pressure and tension.... Everything is in the highest degree involuntary but takes place as in a tempest of a feeling of freedom, of absoluteness, of power, or divinity." - Friedrich Nietzsche (Ecce Homo, 1888)

"I have a terrible lucidity at moments, these days when nature is so beautiful, I am not conscious of myself any more, and the picture comes to me as in a dream. I am rather afraid that this will mean a reaction and depression when the bad weather comes...." - Vincent van Gogh (letter to Theo van Gogh, 1888)

The Days of Parametricism are coming to an end. This is the dawn of Computationalism. To "compute" as a human you must first decomputerise. The woods are the ideal place for "decomputerization" and restoring your computation abilities.

Then how do I compute the design of my buildings ?

It's easier to see how computation might fit in with a design process. What are good dimensions for this space to damp out sound in the 300~3000 Hz range? How wide do these doors need to be so they allow for 80 people/minute to pass through? Where along this emergency escape route is the bottleneck? What is the greatest distance in this building to the nearest bathroom? Where do I place my 20 square meters of glass along this wall so that people walking through the hall see that landmark for as long as possible?

These are all questions that could be answered by computation (they can also be answered in other ways of course, building models or simulations, studying existing designs, ...).

If taken to the extreme, every question that would affect the design might be answered using computation at which point you'll have computed your entire design. But I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting such an uncompromising interpretation ought to be the goal of Computationalism.

I was referring to Brian's suggestion to live in the woods without the computers. "Then how do I compute the design of my buildings" is a sort of sarcastic response to this nonsense (you can't really compute something unquantifiable)... Nonsense which is repeated in a big part of academic world, which part is usually just ignorant. I think there is no point to say more on this forum, cause we probably all more less agree.

RSS

About

Translate

Search

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2019   Created by Scott Davidson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service