Posted by Paul Malo on December 09, 2001 at 12:07:26:In Reply to: Re: material intuition in architecture posted by ZERO on December 09, 2001 at 03:37:00:
The pursuit of object "design methods," whether using the computer or not, is not new. After all, Chris Alexander has been around for a while, and MIT has been into this for decades. It seems that the objective (contra subjective) processes are inherently analytical, rather than synthethical. They can provide exhaustive check lists of factors and criteria, but in the end, it's a matter of values-in = values-out. The priorities have to be determined by the programmer, and the computer which is a mere processor can't make that essential contribution. What is quantitative (strings of digits) can't yield what is qualitative (that which distinguishes art from problem-solving).
I recall a huge (500+ pages)book by Geoffrey Broadbent called "Design in Architecture: Architecture and the Human Sciences," which I diligently read, only to close the weighty tome in disbelief. "Is this it?", I asked.
He hadn't talked about "design" at all, as I understood it, but only about PLANNING, objective problem solving. Yes, one could put the Broadbent "method" onto a program, but would it yield architecture?
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|