Ελένη Μακ-Κίραχαν

Computational Design

The excerpts from “Expressive Form: A Conceptual Approach to Computational Design” by Kostas Terzidis, demonstrate an approach to the subject of computational design through the thorough definition and analysis of terms and concepts. First, the author describes the concept of “expressiveness” contrasting it with “dynamism” and stating its “connotative and subliminal” character. Indeed, “expressiveness” is one of the key issues when it comes to the controversy surrounding computational design. Can a computational program convey “expressiveness”? And if it can, does it limit the designer’s creativity and prerogatives? Terzidis links the terms “implicit” and “tacit” with “expressiveness.” “Tacit,” in particular, having to do with cultural values and standards, it seems would exceed the capabilities of a scripted design program. The author distinguishes between computerization, computation and algorithmic design which “incorporates both computational complexity and creative use of computers.” This seems to be a middle ground where the designer uses the computer as a tool through which he conveys his expressiveness. This “human dominance over the machine” is addressed later on as one of the two approaches to “readdress formal issues using new techniques and methods.” The other is based on using the enormous capabilities of the machine, which are not yet understood, in order to push existing limits and expand knowledge. The very interesting question is posed of “whether logic can resolve everything in architecture.” The second approach to computational design answers the question with a definitive “no.” The insistence on logical justification for every move we make in architecture may be the very force limiting progress. Computational design gives contemporary designers a unique opportunity to escape this rigidity and attempt to gain knowledge of architecture through a process of “reverse engineering,” namely, by using the results attained by foreign mechanisms and concepts to relate to current knowledge of architecture. Indeed, it is argued that “computational formal explorations do not eradicate human imagination but rather extend its potential limitations.”

In his article, Schumacher discusses the necessity for the establishment of Parametricism as an architectural style, or rather epoch. He describes the current state of architecture as a “cacophony” created by glorified pluralism and states the need for the unification of these subsidiary styles. In fact, this unification will be a natural development not only because parametricism can include elements from all these styles, but also because they will be connected by a “system of principles, ambitions and values that constitute global best practice.” In fact, the very principle of correlation in parametric design is enhanced by its own correlation with other styles. Schumacher describes parametricism as an avant-garde movement which, however, is vying for “hegemony.” The author fiercely defends the right of parametric design to pursue this status. Similarly to Terzidis, who discusses the complexity of the transition from the genotype to the phenotype, he emphasizes the value of the intense complexity and endless associations and connections which can be created with parametric design as they reflect contemporary society. Though he does not negate the designer’s creative role, Schumacher argues that these relations can be quickly and precisely done by the program. The program is the tool; the designer brings the “new ambitions and new values” which will define the new style. It is interesting, however, that the author insists on the necessity of absolute adherence to the “strictures and impositions” of parametricism in order for there to be consistency. It seems that to achieve freedom through the use of parametricism we must not question its rules. This concept is touched upon in the excerpts of Terzidis in a reference to Robin Evans: “we can only find freedom in the rigor of techniques, being fully aware of their limitations.” Schumacher argues that parametricism is a combination of principled minimalism and unprincipled pragmatic modernism; it couples the rigid structure of the program as well as total adherence to the values of parametricism with the “expressiveness” of the designer.