Readers familiar with my writings know whenever I choose a subject I express my final judgment with regards to it, be it right or wrong. The question of process or anti-process, more than being a ‘theme’ in itself, is a provocative question apparently posed to challenge the clichéd ‘pseudo-avant- garde’ digital design methods. The question which falls in the domain of ‘architectural design methodology’ never reaches a definitive answer. Neither do I have a personal preference with regards to ‘process: yes or no’. So I decided to answer the question, as its nature requires, in an open manner and through dividing and aggrandising its parts. The following text opens with an analysis of the main problem and ends with posing more questions.
What is process and when is it meaningful? There are always two ways of designing a project: through readymade packages, such as constructed projects or projects suggested by reference books, or looking for a new design corresponding to the special conditions of the project. A discussion on process is meaningful when design takes the second path. By process, we mean a chain of changes happening throughout the design planned and followed from the beginning of the project or occurring in response to project conditions during designing. In the first case, the project is product-based and in the second, process-based.
Design process and Modern Architecture Pioneers of Modern Architecture, like Frank Lloyd Wright, Adolf Loos and Le Corbusier, have given instructions and remarks on design method. I have repeatedly referenced them in my articles on design process from concept to form. For us, design is part of a wider discussion on design method. Sometimes remarks by influential architects of the twentieth century, for instance Le Corbusier’s five stages of creative process, are of a prophetic nature.1 Other times they are suitable for design2, such as Wright’s theory of organic architecture. All in all, great architects have usually breached their previous principles in different projects. As Alexander mentions, ‘Structurally, there is a deep and im- portant relationship between the general form of a problem and the process of designing a physical form correspond- ing to that problem.’3 Naturally, many designers can free themselves from it when needed, the same way they freely define method. Architectural culture develops this way. In practice, it often happens that ‘praxis’ comes before ‘theory’.
Two Important Processes in Architecture Apart from design process, there is another process associ- ated with the experimentation and curiosity of architects at a certain stage or throughout their professional lives. Similar to scientific researchers or artists, influential architects are always looking for new discoveries and inventions in order to solve design problems, and use their projects as
كامران افشار نادرىKamran Afshar Naderi
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, PROCESS OR ANTI-PROCESS?
a laboratory for evaluating their ideas. Architects inatten- tive to ‘architectural understanding’ get stuck in what they have learnt once, and change attitude based on the variable tendencies of the market. Generally, the existence of a more or less consistent procedure in professional research and experience aiming at finding a solution for ‘design problems’ is the sign of an active mind and mastery over profession.
Process and Architect’s Individuality It is one thing to maintain that architecture, like any other work leading to a specific result, has a process. Yet it is another thing to claim that it is the architect who determines the process. In Iran until the modern era, and in Europe during the Middle Ages, architects and craftsmen followed methods determined by the guild or by other architects. Methods and processes developed slowly. Craftsmen tried to preserve the identity of the products of their guild which was usually particular to one city. The individuality of the creator was not the centre of attention. In carpet-weaving, for instance, cities such as Tabriz, Qom or Kashan enjoyed their own style and the quality of the production was guar- anteed by all craftsmen following more or less fixed proc- esses and patterns. In a similar manner, architects of Yazd, Abyaneh or Gilan had their own processes. In Europe, from Renaissance and in Iran from the modern period, the ‘originality of work’ became an individual matter. Therefore, architectural theory gained currency parallel to individual creativity. Today, each designer is responsible for their proc- ess and ideas and needs to observe also from far the stage of work in which he is submerged.
Evaluating Processes Evaluating design process could be considered from two different perspectives. Firstly, the ability of the process to achieve a certain result, and secondly, the ethical judg- ment concerning possible results when higher-level factors such as environment, society and economy are taken into consideration. When the design process is self-referential and self-centred, even if the ‘result’ is formally attractive, its proper interaction with man and environment is doubtful. On the other hand, processes oriented towards higher-level fac- tors could result in a technical pragmatism with insignificant architectural substance. In architecture, design processes with a sociological focus, such as ‘public participation in architectural design’ or with an environmental focus, such as ‘green architecture’ have mostly failed.
Process and Computers It is clear that in the past half a century, particularly from the 80s onwards, computers have played an important role in increasing designers’ capabilities through their drawing pre- cision and speed, enhancing control over 3D forms, realistic representation of forms, help in coordinating architecture with structure and utilities spatially, and finally in designing
Fig.1&2- Aronoff Center for Design and Art, University of Cincinnati, Ohio, Peter Eisenman – مدرسه معمارى سينسيناتى در اهايو، پيتر آيزنمن2 و1 تصوير
complicated forms. At the same time that computer software and hardware and related accessories were developing, a group of pioneering architects came to the conclusion that the schemes of Modern Architecture based on simple Euclidean forms have become obsolete, both aesthetically and functionally, and no longer correspond to the demands of the post-industrial era. Moreover, ‘composition’, i.e. the traditional method for designing modernist forms in which ‘designers’ decisions’ played the main part, could never go beyond the imagination of the individual, while computers could. Therefore, creating a process capable of creating new forms was thought of as a solution for surpassing the limitations originating from designers’ direct decisions and creative imagination. Hence, contemporary architects such as Peter Eisenman, Greg Lynn, Zaha Hadid and Bahram Shirdel diverted their attention towards valuing process as a machine for producing forms.4 At the same time, controlling process instead of form turned into a phenomenon in archi- tecture, and computers played an important role in distanc- ing architect’s decisions from the final form of projects. In renovating and expanding Aronoff Center for Design and Art at University of Cincinnati, Ohio (1988) Eisenman combined the zigzag form of the existing plan with the fluid form of the new section, and waved the forms like Giacomo Balla’s Futurist paintings allowing the overall shape of the project to be automatically generated by this process. (Fig. 1&2)
Are Man and Nature Factors Limiting the Creativity of the Machine? In his book, The Craftsman, Richard Sennet mentions that man naturally carries in himself the gene of craftsmanship. This is why when doing something he thinks only about perfection and discovering the maximum potential of the work, not its outcome. That is the reason why General Leslie Groves led the Manhattan Project during the WWII until the atomic bomb was made. The most important thing for him was to gain the best practical result from the work, and did not consider the inauspicious mass murdering that resulted from it. The likes of Groves are to be found in different professions. Today, when using the maximum potential of computer to design wonderful forms, few think of their possible negative effects.5 In western culture, this concern existed from ancient times that too much curiosity and invention on behalf of man could destroy the world. The Greek myth of Pandora (goddess of invention) exemplifies such a belief. She receives a box from Zeus in which all the miseries of the world had gathered. Zeus advises Pandora
Fig.3- Landscape of a savanna in Africa– منظره يك ساوانا در آفريقا3 تصوير
to never open it. Endowed with the blessing of curiosity from Hermes, Pandora cannot resist and spreads illnesses and miseries across the world by opening the box. The current, critical, environmental condition shows how the myth of Pandora is becoming more and more a reality. The extra energy accumulated on the surface of the earth as a result of greenhouse gases equals the explosion of 400 thousand Hiroshima atomic bombs per each day of the year. In nine years the planet will reach irreversible and irreparable conditions in its relation to nature. The earth regain equilibrium in a very lengthy process, this time prob- ably without the presence of man.6 It is only natural that in such critical conditions, we, the builders of artificial nature proud of offering man novel and unprecedented spaces, cannot remain indifferent to the living environment. In such a situation, judging any approach to architecture requires an attention to the environment to which man and his cultures also belong. According to what was said, it seems logical that proc- ess should not be considered merely from the viewpoint of the discipline and without any concern for higher-level fac- tors, since ‘process’ determines the product, and in archi- tecture, ‘product’ influences man and environment.
Two Ways of Looking at Process In recent decades, architecture opened the door to all sorts of extraordinary and wonderful experiences with the help of computer and building technology. It seems that the only serious limitation for architects in creating a new work is the force of gravity. Even that seems to be controllable now to a great extent using new construction techniques. Today, works are being made which appear to stand up miraculously. The only concern is whether all that variety and dynamism of architectural styles we are witnessing today has a positive effect on the users of architecture and the environment. We know that man is not a rigid phenom- enon and develops genetically as a result of environmental factors and culture, and that nature is not liveable without man’s interference (agriculture and infrastructures). Yet, the changes in architectural styles happen so quickly that nei- ther man’s genes nor the environment could possibly adapt to them. A great part of the development of man’s brain and nervous system has happened during millions of years before the appearance of cities or architecture in its current sense. Therefore, it is important that architectural forms are designed according to the capacity of human cognitive system which develops gradually. Upon such principles,
two opposing tendencies have been formed in architecture today. The first group tries to create environments through using more or less automatic computer design and produc- tion processes, which structurally fit nature’s complicated patterns. They also generate forms based on the findings of neuroscience in the field of man’s visual cognitive system in order to produce a sense of security and welfare. The sec- ond group believes that computers and advanced paramet- ric software disrupts a natural and continuous relationship between the ‘brain’, ‘hand’ and ‘tools’, a relation to which our nervous system is accustomed. Hence, the product of such a process is alien to man and environment. The sec- ond group suggests a return to the process of craftsmanship in architectural production.
Computer-Based Process Any new aesthetics opens a new and unexperienced world to us and forces us to have a new look at certain phenom- ena. On the other hand, it has been proven that human prefers natural forms to artificial ones.7 Roger Ulrich gives a list of formal qualities in nature to which man positively re- acts: complexity, general geometrical order, depth, texture, flat surface of the earth, a view of water, and the absence of whatever threatens the unconscious.8 It is interesting that it is not just the presence of nature which has a positive effect. Even very abstract and graphic renditions of natural phenomena, such as facial expressions (Emojis) raise the same feelings in human beings. Yannick Joye believes one reason behind nature’s positive effects is the existence of an essence with fractal geometry in many microscopic and microscopic phenomena in nature.9 We know that fractal forms, contrary to Euclidean forms, are not two or three di- mensional, rather have decimals. The movement of a direct line across a line perpendicular to it creates a two-dimen- sional surface, yet an infinite repetition of an algorithm of a flat fractal can never cover a plane. Therefore, a flat fractal, based on its complexity, has a dimension between one and two while volume fractals have a dimension between two and three. Several experiments on ordinary people has shown how humans prefer fractal forms to Euclidean ones. Arthur Stamps showed with more precision that among different fractals, humans prefer fractals with a degree of complexity between 1.2 and 1.5 while Ulrich’s studies showed that children, who are less under cultural influ- ences, irrespective of their living environment, react more positively to natural landscapes resembling a savanna: flat plains covered with vegetation, a stream and few trees with single canopy. The complexity of savanna landscapes are in the same range (1.2 to 1.5). The greatest part of the history of human development has happened in African savannas and this is what humans unconsciously prefer.10 Savanna
Fig.6- Examples of fractal geometry Fig.7- Parametric architecture in Zaha Hadid’s work, Civil Courts of Justice in Madrid – نمونه هايى از هندسه فراكتال6 تصوير – معمارى پارامتريك در كار زاها حديد، 7 تصوير پروژه دادگاه در مادريد
vegetation allows control over neighbouring landscapes and helps to hide from wild animals. Trees are short there and one can climb them easily. No danger remains hidden under them (Fig. 3). It seems that human likes nature and natu- ral forms, yet an ideal environment for an individual is not necessarily the one he lives in. In response to the structure of nature, man compensates in architecture for the lacks of nature according to his understanding. In Iranian desert ar- chitecture floral patterns and succulent colours rarely found in desert are abundantly used. Probably the lack of visual complexity in desert landscape accounts for the interest shown by the inhabitants of these environments for colourful carpets and glazed tiles. Fractals aside, many other natural forms such as topological, bubble-like and wavy forms can create variety in design while preserving the continuity and monotony that are in many cases required. Non-Euclidean forms and fractals can only be produced and used in architecture using computers and advanced software (Fig. 4-6). In such a design method, controlling process is superior to designing forms and the design process is done digitally. In such ‘process-based’ design method, the product is not restricted to the designer’s imagi- nation, and while having its roots in nature, it is extremely novel and unexpected (Fig. 7&8).11
Craftsmanly Process In analysing digital processes, we should mention another tendency which believes that the design will come close to man and nature if the process is natural and humanly. Parametric design (which is process-based and one of the main branches of digital design) was essentially created to solve architectural complexities, but in practice, it seeks complicated forms. Parameters are not used to determine the programme or function of the project, they determine the aesthetic expression of the building. Their forms aim at creating a sense of wonder instead of beauty and escape any aesthetic judgment due to their difference: valuing the chaos of the world in form of an architectural work. Compu- ter-based architectures, particularly parametric architecture, are easily distinguishable from other styles of architecture and this implies the presence of a certain stylism in this type of architecture. It seems that in many instances parametric design solves problems falsely through a change in the formulation of the problem itself. What happens in reality is the organisation of a clear whole instead of a complicated form. Through reducing the variables of form, parametric design increases its potential to appear in different forms. When a computer user connects a number of parameters to the software, he has only connected a limited number of parameters which does not mean that the computer can look at them creatively or critically.
Regarder, Observer, Voir, Imaginer, Inventer .1963 اوت15 از دست نويس لوكوربوزيه به تاريخ
On the other hand, certain neurologic studies have shown how an excessive use of computers can disrupt the relationship between the hand and the brain. This reduces the quality of architectural products and gradually reduces man’s sensibility to objective problems, such as the relation of human to environment.12 It is natural that in computer drawings an attention to the logic of statics (tectonics), texture, material, atmosphere of architectural spaces, di- mensions and scale (which computers can hardly judge) is reduced. In parametric design the computer suggests forms the creation of which the designers cannot directly control. The computer turns design into a visual evaluation of an image. A gap is thus created between architecture, which is a multi-sensory phenomenon, and design. Ingold writes, ‘When musicians play the cello, they are not conscious of their playing rather the whole conscious- ness is within the body which is playing the instrument.’13 Athletes, musicians, ballet dancers, actors and architects have such consciousness. An important part of the abilities of these people are kinetic. It is the body that turns into a tool, and the tool become the extension of the body. Mall- grave believes that architects resemble ballet dancers danc- ing with their projects.14 The harmony between kinetic and intellectual activities as well as the direct connection be- tween the brain and the hand increase the richness of archi- tecture. The same way the proponents of digital architecture believe man cannot think about complicated, particularly non-Euclidean designs without the help of computers I have realised through personal design experience that many forms will never emerge unless we study them through hand drawing or build them with cardboard, wood or clay. Each tool suggests to designers a certain family of forms and it is evident that human hand is a very complicated and com- plete tool with the most direct connection with the brain. In the end, I would like to add that I make no judgment with regard to which of the aforementioned approaches to proc- ess is the correct choice in relation to higher-level factors. Maybe digital design, as Lindsay believes, is no alternative for creative design rather a support for it. Therefore, science and craftsmanship should comingle in architecture.15 It is evident that this supposition is easier said than done, be- cause of its many complications and subtleties. Therefore, I leave the judgment and conclusion to the readers. Endnotes: 1- Le Corbusier divides the creative acts of architect into five stages: looking (regarder), observing (observer), seeing (voir), imagining (imaginer) and inventing (inventer). From Le Corbusier’s handwriting dated 15 Aug. 1963, Carnet T70, n.1038 2- Frank Lloyd Wright (1975) In the Cause of Architecture: Essays by Frank Lloyd Wright for the Architectural Record, 1908-1952, Frederick Gutheim (ed.) (New York: McGraw-Hill) 3- Christopher Alexander (1964) Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Epilogue (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press) 4- Charles Jencks (1995) The Architecture Of the Jumping Universe (London: Academy Editions), p. 139. 5- Richard Sennet (2009) L’uomo artigiano (original title: The Craftsman) (Milan: Feltrinelli), p. 11. 6- Grammenos Mastrojeni (2014) L’arca di Noe (Milan: Chiarelettere) 7- Yannick Joye (2007) Architectural Lessons from Environmental Psychol- ogy: The Case of Biophilic Architecture (Free University of Brussels) 8- R.S. Ulrich (1993) ‘Biophilia, Biophobia, and Natural Landscapes’. In: S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson (eds.) (1993) The Biophilia Hypothesis (Washington: Island Press), pp. 73–137. 9- Yannick Joye, ibid. p. 315. 10- Erich Synek and Karl Grammer (1998) Evolutionary Aesthetics: Visual Complexity and the Development of Human Landscape Preferences (Univer- sity of Vienna) 11- Greg Lynn (1999) Animate form (New York: Princeton Architectural Press) 12- Harray Francis Mallgrave (2015) L’empatiadeglispazi, original title: Architecture and Embodiment. The Implications of the New Sciences and Humanities for Design (Milan: Raffaello Cortina), p. 103. 13- T. Ingold (2000) The Perception of The Environment: Essays on Liveli- hood, Dwelling and Skill (London: Routledge), p. 413. 14- Mallgrave, ibid, p. 106. 15- Lindsay in: Peter Szalapaj (2005) Contemporary Architecture and the Digital Design Process (New York: Routledge), p. 25.
2 - Frank Lloyd Wright, Frederick Gutheim, Editor. In the Cause of Architecture: Essays by Frank Lloyd Wright for the Architectural Record, 1908-1952. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975). 3- Christopher Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Epilogue, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1964. 4- Charles Jencks, The Architecture Of the Jumping Universe, Academy Editions, London, 1995, p. 139. 5 – Giacomo Balla 6 – Leslie Groves 7- Richard Sennet, L’uomo artigiano (originaltitle: The Craftsman), Feltrinelli, Milan, 2009, p. 11. 8- GrammenosMastrojeni, L’arca di Noe, Chiarelettere editore, Milano, 2014. 9- YannickJoye, Architectural Lessons From Environmental Psychology: The Case of Biophilic Architecture, Free University of Brussels, 2007. 10 - Ulrich, R. S. Biophilia, Biophobia, and Natural Landscapes. In S. R. Kellert& E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis, 1993. (pp. 73–137). 11 - YannickJoye, Ibidem . p.315. 12 - Erich Synek and Karl Grammer, Evolutionary Aesthetics: Visual Complexity and the Development of Human Landscape Preferences; University of Vienna 1998. 13- Harray Francis Mallgrave, L’empatiadeglispazi, original title: Architecture and Embodiment. The Implications of the New Sciences and Humanities for Design. Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano, 2015, p. 103. 14- T. Ingold, The Perception of The Environment, Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, Routledge, London, p. 413. 15- H. F Mallgrave, Ibidem p.106. 16- Lindsay in Peter Szalapaj, Contemporary Architcture and the Digital Design Process, Routledge editor, Ukraine, 2005, p. 25.