PEDAGOGY, PROCESS, PRAXIS
14
Image Š Nicole Gardner 15
Digital-Free Architecture?
Computers were introduced into architecture almost four decades ago and since then they have become mainstream in architectural practice. Yet, they are considered as somewhat extrinsic to the field especially when it comes to expressive idiosyncrasy and talent. A common assumption among architects has been that creativity is better served by manual craft and above all drawing. This is evidenced globally at schools of architecture where, apart from very few exceptions, introductory design studio courses are framed by drafting, sketching, modelmaking and other analogue techniques, along with a conviction to shape architecture’s future with the enduring values of hand-drawing. Meanwhile, computers are being pushed away from creative activities and, when possible, the Design Studio space and its main teaching agendas, intellectually and physically as well.
Yannis Zavoleas
Consider for example the Computer Lab, a room found in every school of architecture, filled with up-to-date computers. To maintain a Computer Lab today may be viewed as a sign of digital integration; however, it also raises profound questions, since computers are now used in every other learning environment space and not simply in designated areas. It is common for students to multi-task on a laptop or tablet PC in the Studio space, the lecture rooms, even corridors and cafĂŠs. It can therefore be argued that Computer Labs are underutilised, but still, they persevere. Such incongruity is often given practical explanations. When computers first entered architectural education and the profession, they were expensive, requiring constant monitoring for troubleshooting and had to be in sealed rooms with low temperature to prevent overheating. They were also connected through cables to peripheral devices ideally placed in physical proximity. For these reasons, computers were put in separate, secure and controlled spaces. However, at least since the mid-2000s computers have been commonplace, cheaper, lighter, operationally more stable and with great power autonomy and mobility. Moreover, university campuses now provide ubiquitous wireless coverage for connectivity and licencing to every portable device within range with full accessibility to online services, software, databases and all networked systems. Apart from specialised tasks such as those related to 3D printing, 3D scanning and robotic operations which are best managed from assigned workstations and local hubs, for a long time the amenity offered by a Computer Lab has not been necessary in a school of architecture and consequently it hardly meets its purpose of justifies the cost.
16
Yannis Zavoleas
Figs. 1, 2 and 3. Three pictures of studio spaces at schools of architecture taken recently in north and south Europe, and in Australia. Despite the cultural differences these examples represent, they are all expressive of the same view that the studio should stay digital-free. The prevailing view is that the project develops better with pencil and paper, also with physical mock-ups and that handcraft techniques provide students with a deeper sense of key factors informing their work such as scales, sizes, analogies, composition, structure, material, textures, colour and detailing. It is further believed that handcraft techniques allow students to focus more on their ideas and thoughts, rather than getting fascinated or distracted by software’s capabilities. In effect, production at the studio is intentionally kept closer to that of the pre-digital era, as meanwhile current architectural practice has moved past that model. Š Yannis Zavoleas and Peter Stevens
Digital-Free Architecture?
17
Instead, the contemporary Computer Lab may have a symbolic role and that is to distinguish computers from the Design Studio space and those activities attributed to it. This implies that the Design Studio remains a ‘mystical’ place where creativity happens so to speak, and one that involves something else - and something more - than simply ‘using computers to draw lines or do whatever else they can do,’ a non-digitally trained architect may confirm. Even if its computers stay dormant, the Computer Lab’s mere sight nurtures the idea that their use should be only limited towards practical aspects about production, certainly not those Studio has traditionally represented. Profession outpacing education However, the current reality at most architectural firms is generally very different to the Studio/Computer Lab model presented above. Common tasks are now digitised and using computers is a standard part of production for most cases from start to end. For years there has been a practical need to place computers on the architect’s desk for immediate access right next to the area devoted to drafting, sketching and physical modelling. An architect may have developed her/his own individual working style over several years of education and then practice, but it is generally accepted that any tool, whether digital or analogue, offers alternative ways to register, test, compare and expand upon one’s own thoughts at various stages of design. In effect, computers and digital equipment share the production space with non-digital means on equal terms. Advanced digital skills are specified in most architecture job postings. Architectural practice has long-embraced computers and computing in its entirety, consequently reducing the focus on handcrafted solutions. The difference between education and practice was not always so stark. As the distance between them is growing, an interesting debate has been whether education should emulate or vary from practice, but for a long period they were assumed as being close to each other. Before computers appeared in architecture, the Design Studio space - its equipment and overall layout - were set up to prepare students for the profession. The Studio space symbolised and to some extent replicated an idealised operational practice environment. As such, it was typically organised as a semi-compartmentalised openspace plan with main desks for drawing and special areas for making mock-ups. But while practice is constantly moving towards digital updating, the Studio space is, on the face of it, not. It seems that the change in practice is not yet accompanied by adjustments in schools of architecture, which signals either a practical delay in keeping up with that sort of novelty, and/or a deliberate aim to separate and in a way to protect traditional educational design experience from the digitised one of current practice; a phenomenon met with little variation at schools of architecture around the globe (see Figures 1, 2 and 3). In fact, the more digital production trends enter the profession, the more academic discourse shows signs of polarisation on this matter. In the meantime, a set of convictions and doctrines are built around manual over digital craft. Drawing is indebted with the mission to carry architecture’s main values through to the next generations as the most important skill for architects to develop and constantly advance. Such a philosophy to design education is often supported by design studio professors first established as practitioners, who have marked their pathway to architecture through manual skills only, consequently advertising their recognised oeuvre, intellectual status, knowledge and expertise as being
18
Yannis Zavoleas
synonymous with an almost innate ability to draw-as-they-think and think-as-they-draw. However, it can be argued that this way of teaching may diminish the potential for adaptive and creative design under changing conditions. Such a concern is reflected especially upon the new generations of architects who, compared to their mentors, have been raised in a totally different cultural and practical background that is, one framed almost entirely by digital technology, and who consequently perceive its applications as extensions of human’s natural capabilities, physical and intellectual alike (Figure 4). Perhaps for the young architect computers are more than a mere technicality and can be used to perform creative tasks and to manifest creative insight. Or, if the hand drawing brain advocates are correct, perhaps architects should not depend upon computers to express their talent; or, simply put, architecture must stay digital-free. An ideology (and some idolisation) of the means A digital-free approach to architectural education has significant consequences. To those architects who are digitally unfamiliar, computers are too complex and unpredictable. With computers everything seems possible at first, not constrained by limitations related to the material world; meanwhile, computers offer no apparent design content or ‘ethical’ framing, and so what is presented as freedom is in fact lack of control, orientation, and purpose, evidenced by how they can very easily be used to produce fascinating, but shallow results. For this reason, computers are thought of as being too dangerous especially during the formative years - that is, before one is fully introduced to architecture’s principles - and later, when a protective shield is always needed against their seductive yet also reductionist features. Traditionally trained architects are comfortable with the idea that creative thinking should be taught along with manual techniques, a view based upon the belief that a hand-made sketch, technical drawing, or model, involves more direct embodiment. Even though working by hand lacks computer’s automated features and thus delays the design process, this extra time cost is not a waste, but an investment of labour or the ‘price’ to reach higher levels of artistic profundity, excellence and wisdom, an activity that is exclusive to humans and one that - allegedly - computers simply cannot perform since they don’t have the same intellectual capacity. Whether they can have it or not, is clearly a debate much beyond this chapter’s scope, but nevertheless it is accepted that interacting with computers at their current state of evolution may induce varying negative reminiscences and stressful feelings especially for the novice. For creative people with limited digital exposure, to learn a new design software is an awkward and non-intuitive process, certainly non-rewarding in regard to their creative skills. Putting computers next to manual activities in architectural practice or education is often difficult to tolerate, since it is mostly imposed by agents who are extrinsic to architecture and therefore cannot fully appreciate architectural or design values. Seen from that view, computers are generally met with disbelief and are pushed away during early-stage curricula, especially where core design courses are taught using only traditional tools and manual techniques. Meanwhile, as the profession is changing, digital-related activities and high functionality programs are steadily incorporated into architecture programs. These additions are often offered in specialised courses and workshops, which help curricula meet accreditation requirements. Since these activities started almost four decades ago, they have generally
Digital-Free Architecture?
19
Parallelisms and Interactions: An Account of Science, Design, and Policy On the nature of change, sweet is the consideration that physical phenomena are but an instance of transition. For the known way is an impasse proceeding from transitory forces and interactions. Beyond the impermanence of individual occurrences, it is their relation of mutual dependence which confers meaning upon change; it is the effect of a force which is impressed upon a system, whether it be a particle or an organism, that affects the latter even when the action of force has ceased. The permanence or equilibrium of the system, then, is explained not merely in terms of its interactions with forces, but also in connection with their echoing effects. And since these may not be measurable or apparent in the short-term but rather in the long one, it is with care that actions may be performed upon the system from the standpoint of their many important consequences.
Alessandra Fabbri
Anthropogenic alterations to natural ecosystems, then, acquire a more serious connotation. They become the material realisation of disjointed intention with abiding consequences on the planetary system. This is manifest in our everyday experience: if we look upon patterns of growth and change across the globe, we see that more than 70% of the biosphere is destined to shift from mostly wild to mostly anthropogenic by 2050. Human agency, driven by excessive reliance on natural resources, has interfered with natural processes pervasively and chaotically, with bearings on biodiversity, hydrology, and climate. But despite the systemic nature of these alterations, another realisation carries us further. In human enterprises, depletion meets us as something that is ascribed to local rather than global ecosystems, for it is linked to the practice of agriculture, industry, and fishing. But whereas pressure may be exerted on circumscribed physical scenarios (Vitousek et al. 1997; Foley et al. 2005; Morse et al. 2014; Peters et al. 2019), the magnitude of their effects is manifestly global. Neither the nature of the forces at work nor their effects have yet been satisfactorily and simply explained. The nature of their relationship is still the subject of much of analysis and discussion. We may readily admit then, that, besides phenomena which are obviously intelligible in their nature, there are actions which take place within systems that we can’t ascribe with certainty to any immediate physical force. This may be because when we try
Parallelisms and Interactions: An Account of Science, Design and Policy
69
to connect cause and effect in the processes that everyday experience affords us, it seems at first as if there were no other mutual actions than those of immediate perception. We do not speculate as to the interconnection between causes and effects that are distant in time and space, and therefore we do not become conscious of the convoluted dynamics that confer complexity upon systems. For whereas the causal nexus of phenomenon may appear linear and conclusive, it is in fact grounded in the nonlinearity of its contributing factors, their relationships, interconnections, and dependencies. That there exists a form of correlation between patterns of growth and change is beyond question. It is also obvious that the understanding of such correlation would lead to reconciliating a population ecological footprint with their ecosystem biocapacity. But to act in consonance with the long-term best interests of the planetary system, a holistic understanding of the complex dynamics that act upon them must be first attained. On Causality It has long been acknowledged that people seeking to solve problems often make them worse (Sterman 2000). For a system in a state of equilibrium that is altered by our actions will elicit a reaction to restore the balance that was upset; and whereas we frequently talk about side effects as if they were an inevitable feature of reality, they are indeed a manifestation of our human nature. We are unfitted to grasp systems in their entirety and in time when our existence is bound to a limited aeon. Then as well, traditional approaches to policy making that rely on transitory idiosyncratic statistical data, or data that are temporally and physically circumscribed to a here and now, are inapt to describe complex dynamics in time and under rapidly changing regimes. While it is true that stark differences in patterns of urbanisation, economic development, and consumption across the globe reflect strong disparities in environmental impact, our increasingly transnational living habits have added complexity to this phenomenon by accentuating the interconnectedness between our actions and their permeating effects on the ecosystem. To acknowledge that even apparently insignificant intentions can irrevocably inform our surroundings by triggering non-linear abiding alterations means to accept that the built environments we create and cohabit can fundamentally change our planet’s operating system. While preventing this trend is not desirable, for change is ever present, we, as planners and humans, could and should certainly contribute to reformulating the paradigms upon which systems continue to be altered. The traditional representation of cities, as separate from and dominant of their ecosystems, has come to manifest a defective understanding of the relationships that underpins anthroposystems and ecosystems. For whereas anthroposystems are directly affected by the availability and cost of natural resources, different patterns of socio-economic development, population growth, and urban composition result in substantial differences in resources use (Rode et al. 2017). Thus, a relationship of simultaneity, namely mutual causation, inextricably links ecosystems and anthroposystems, making it a critical factor for global sustainability.
70
Alessandra Fabbri
On Prediction All these general considerations seem such as to prepare us for the hypothesis of prediction. For the behaviour of any system, and the changes which are apparent in its growth, may in all cases alike be described as impressed upon by the laws of causality. An assumption, then, could be made that all phenomena are traceable back to their contributing factors, proceeding from their interactions. And that change is predictable when the forces involved are known. Let us devote a little while to the consideration of this subject. In your experience, most of you who read this book may be acquainted with Einstein’s theory of relativity, and marvelled, perhaps with more interest than love, at its simple elegance. Evolving from timely observations of different pioneers, the theory resolved past dualisms by consolidating various hypotheses. In the beginning was Democritus, and he described the universe as of unlimited capacity and filled with atoms. These indivisible particles had no specific dimension (density, colour, or size), nor will, but every natural phenomenon derived from the accidental expression of their random interactions. Albeit exploratory, these observations embodied the Milesian intellectual revolution, in that critical thinking and understanding superseded mythology and beliefs in the interpretation and comprehension of natural phenomena. Empirical reasoning along with philosophical argumentations served the investigation of physical systems in lieu of intersubjective convictions. Existing only within the communication network which links the subjective consciousness of many individuals, shared myths became insufficient in describing the objective reality of material entities, as they pertained to the realm of imaginative realities (Harari 2014). Democritus laid the foundation of modern physics, in that the variety found in natural phenomena was to be related to something as simple as an atomic entity (Rovelli 2018), and the hierarchical differentiation of medieval interpretations was to be replaced by the universalism of a singular unit. Newton was next, and he held sway in seeking the cause of particle interactions. The determination of sources of molecular motion, alongside with the laws that it was expected to obey, emerged once again from the observational capacity of a multidisciplinary mind. An axiom proceeded that was one of the greater strives in the effort toward the causal nexus of natural phenomena. If in the world of Democritus everything was reducible to particles, in the mathematical framework of Newton their interaction in space and time was justifiable by means of one force acting upon them. The laws were effective and clear, albeit limited in their explanation of the nature of all forces. Newton had assigned a cause for gravity by interpreting it as action at distance, proceeding from masses. This appeared to be in conflict with the principle springing from the rest of experience, that there can be reciprocal action only through contact, and not through immediate action at distance (Einstein 1920a). When in the first half of the nineteenth century the far-reaching potentiality of electric forces holding together atoms was revealed, the Newtonian action at distance was
72
Alessandra Fabbri
rectified by means of a medium that permeates reality. On the basis of Faraday’s and Maxwell’s interpretation of the electromagnetic field, Einstein described the universe as not filled with, but rather made of particularised matter. This multidimensional field would undulate, flex, curve, and twist as a result of external bodies acting upon it. In turn, Newton’s action at distance would be only apparently immediate action at distance, but in truth conveyed by this elastic entity diffused throughout space. Thus, as an object with electric charge could distort an electric and magnetic field, so would an object with different molecular composition distort the elastic entity that space is made of. Now, what is interesting in the reverberation of disturbances in the field of particles is this, that it provides a preliminary demonstration of the causal nexus of socio-ecological phenomena. Little by little it became customary to observe the experiences which everyday life affords us from the standpoint of the forces acting upon them. Physicists and mathematicians were more and more impressed and finally engrossed by the entelechy of interconnection between an action and its rippling effects. In this fervour of rediscovery, even a simple anomaly in the pattern of a stratocumulus cloud evolved from a mere deviation in the natural order of things to the manifestation of an obstacle along the direction of the wind flow. The theory of relativity brought with it a clearer understanding of the concept of reciprocity. But its development along the path opened by Einstein gave the development of other ideas quite a peculiar and unexpected turn. For Einstein himself, the reciprocity between actions and reactions meant that the past was traceable, and that the future was accessible. It appeared that the determinism of Laplace was still applicable, though it required a much more comprehensive set of equations. But, since neither Einstein nor his followers succeeded in elaborating an absolute model which could provide a satisfactory interpretation of particles behaviour, it became apparent that it would not be merely the study of the parts that contribute to a phenomenon which would provide us with access to time. The special theory of relativity brought additional complexity to the problem by means of few considerations. That change is not repeatable in an absolute way when a host of novel disturbances interfere in the process. That perception, even if latent, plays a very important part in tracing steps through time, for it changes the way things work from the standpoint of the observer (Einstein 1920b). And that the nature of time, being it an entity that curves as space does, contributes to a differentiation between speeds of growth; for systems at different altitudes will be found to have grown more quickly high up than below, nearer to the Earth (Rovelli 2016). Such was the state of things when the theory of quanta added a dowel to this puzzle. The position and speed of particles, ergo the particle, admittedly were observable only when in collision with another object. Thus, the principle of interaction was invested of a renewed significance. For the trajectory of a particle could be computed as a set of values resulting from the interaction of the one particle with other circumstantial particles. The hypothesis resonated the phenomenon of fluctuation of a particle in a fluid which
Parallelisms and Interactions: An Account of Science, Design and Policy
73