By process of architectural production we mean the path that a project takes, from the moment it is conceived as a design problem until realised in form of a building. There is no doubt that design is a process-based activity. Yet, if we look at the most important projects of the past decades, we recognise at least two different approaches to design proc- ess in contemporary global architecture. The main topic of this issue, i.e. ‘Process and Anti-Process’, studies these two general approaches. The former represents systematic ways of producing architecture, which rely partially or fully on digital technology, while the latter is the representative of experimental and phenomenological paths stressing architect’s role as an author. My motive for suggesting this topic was on the one hand the importance and the scope of projects created with any of these two approaches, and on the other hand, the importance of the architects of both groups: Schumacher, Greg Lynn, Hani Rashid and others in the first group, and Peter Zumthor, Steven Holl, Tadao Ando, Eduardo Souto de Moura and many others in the second. Since these two paths share themes and fac- tors that influence architecture, it is not possible to draw a clear line between them; however, there are distinctive and distinguishable differences between the intellectual back- ground, design methods and stages of architectural pro- duction in these two groups. While Peter Zumthor presents himself more as an artist than an architect, Patrik Schu- macher is concerned about confusing architecture with art, and clearly expresses in Biennale 2014 that according to him: ‘architecture is not art.’ The opposition of these two viewpoints can be regarded as a historical confrontation of empiricism and rationalism in architecture. In author’s opinion, today we are in an era in the history of architecture when we need to reflect upon these two viewpoints in order to understand and analyse our current situation and have an idea about the situation that lies ahead of us.
Anti-Process or the Experimental-Cognitive Process Here, I would need to point out that by ‘anti-process’, we do not mean a design without a process or an opposi- tion towards various kinds of design processes. The term anti-process not no theoretical grounding and its coining in this issue is merely for the sake of attracting attention to different kinds of processes and questioning and opening the subject. By anti-process, a complicated and non-linear process is implied: a phenomenological process which, when combined with architect’s experience, personal skill and his analysis of conditions through a process of dis- covery, results in creation or invention of an architectural work. In such a viewpoint, the product of architecture is as important as the production process. Of course, this product is not synonymous with architectural form, and according to Peter Zumthor, dealing with the form can be the last stage of production process. Peter Zumthor can be considered the best representative of such an architecture.
حبيبه مجدآبادىHabibeh Madjdabadi
POSING THE QUESTION OF DIGITAL AND NON-DIGITAL PROCESSES
At his RIBA gold medal lecture he insisted on the insig- nificant role of form in his work and regarded factors such as light, shadow, material, structure and function, which are connected to the senses and a physical experience of space, as elements of architecture. Zumthor considers the task of architecture to be creating atmosphere in the body of a certain sensorial design. As we know, the root of such approach to architecture lies in the phenomenology of philosophers such as Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger and Schulz. Norberg-Schulz believes that architecture avoids scientific processes because it is in the service of the generality of structures and the meaning of the world. Hence, a pure scientific approach to architecture would end up in negligence of the true meanings connected with the essence and nature of architecture. In his book, Thinking Architecture, which is, in a way, his manifesto for design method, Zumthor explains his deep sensitivity for environmental stimulants and analyses them in detail. In his process of architectural production he uses the word ‘creation’ and considers it a very personal process related to an author’s individuality. In another place, he mentions that the presence of the staff in his office is just to help his ideas come to reality. However, his projects are in the end the work of an individual, not a group. In such a process, the response an architect gives to an architectural problem reflects his worldview, temperament, experiences, prefer- ences, and finally, the priority of the influential factors of the project, into a series of decisions. These decisions are an outcome of the author’s analysis and conclusion, even when the group is consulted about it.
Systematic Computer Process Such processes could be considered the result of a systematic and scientific approach to design as a system of step-by-step problem-solving. They can be historically traced back to the 60s. By computer processes, we mean a way of designing in which the codes influencing the project are analysed through the application of parametric equa- tions and with the help of digital software. The medium plays a direct role here in the production of the final form. Although process lies at heart of such a viewpoint, the form of the final product is at the centre of attention. Forms created through this method have a complicated fractal geometry and are very close to natural forms. The history of parametric thought in architecture predates the appear- ance of parametric software. Such thought can also be detected in Gaudí’s chain curves at the end of 19th century, Eifel Tower in 1889 or Philips Pavilion by Xenakis and Le Corbusier in 1948. Of course, in these examples the pa- rameters are analysed using analogue methods. I believe there are two main differences between the cognitive approach and the systematic computer process in their use of parameters. The first one is related to the nature of parameters and the second to the method of their
Peter Zumthor Patrik Schumacherپيتر زومتور پاتريك شوماخر
analysis. As we know, the term parameter has entered architecture from mathematics and is referred to measur- able data and quantities. If we want to name some of the influential parameters in a project we can refer to the cost of the project, environmental conditions, physical func- tion, the objective qualities of the site, available material, etc. Such quantitative factors are measurable and could be used as influential codes in parametric equations. Yet, many of the factors influential in the process of architec- tural production are qualitative factors. Now the question is: how can qualitative factors such as the qualities of the site, culture, language and other human parameters enter the equations, which at times depend on the author and other times on the theme of the project? For instance, in Zumthor’s design process even the choice of location for the design office in Haldenstein Village (a peaceful loca- tion in the Alps) is a qualitative parameter that affects his architectural product. On the other hand, when it comes to analysing data, the parametric software mediates between the human brain and the hand, and thus detaches part of the proc- ess from the author and passes it to the design tool, which plays the role of the generator of a complicated geometry. Here, we might find ourselves agreeing with this sentence by Norman Foster: ‘The pencil and computer are, if left to their own devices, equally dumb and only as good as the person driving them.’ One can interpret from this sentence that in as much as computer is merely a tool, it is compa- rable to hand tools. This argument was valid before the 80s and the birth of reliable parametric design software, a time when the computer was used for transforming hand drawings or real models to digital ones and the influence of digital tool was much less. Today, the advancement of technology has reached a point where the computer is much more than a tool. Parametric equations, which first entered architectural discipline in response to architects’ ambitions, now offer them possibilities that deeply influence the question of design product and process. In 2010, Patrik Schumacher officially baptised a new style in his manifesto
Production of Euclidean and fractal forms توليد فرم هاى اقليدسى و فراكتالى
titled Parametricism published in The Architects’ Journal. He considered it to be the dominant style of the past cou- ple of decades in the world. (A Persian translation of this manifesto is published in this issue.) Some critics regard the rapid advancements in the field of digital design and construction as the ‘third industrial revolution’. The effect of digital tools particularly on architectural forms makes me wonder whether technology adapts itself to design needs, or design changes shape according to the possibilities cre- ated by technology. On the role of computer in architecture today, Renzo Piano writes: ‘The presence of computer in architecture is vital. Computers have become so intelligent today that they resemble pianos that play Rumba when one key is pressed and Cha-cha when another… You might play very badly on them but they make you feel you are a professional pianist. The same is the case with architecture. You might be in a situation where you feel you can build everything by pressing a couple of keys. But the subject of architecture is thought. In a sense, it is about slowness. You need time to dream. The bad thing about computer is that it makes everything happen very quickly.’ Based on the aforementioned arguments, we recognise two main paths in architectural production process today. Generally, when certain movements gain currency in archi- tecture, the excitement of the proponents of such move- ments does not allow the deficiencies and shortcomings (or even the positive values) to be properly evaluated. This is the result of a one-sided gaze and a general consensus. Yet, the history of architecture has shown how the new horizons and advancement of architectural culture have always been achieved by changing the viewpoint, seeing the established movements and issues upside-down and doubting the presuppositions. As Descartes had written in his famous book, Method of Doubt: ‘I’m sure of one thing only, and that is the existence of doubt itself.’ While shaping the concept of this issue of Memar, I sent a set of questions regarding the problem of process to more than 30 architectural offices that are among the most
Paying attention to materiality instead of dematerialisation of formپرداخت به جنسيت و مصالح، ارزش گذارى جنسيت در مقابل ماتريال زدايى از فرم
پانوشت ها: 1- http://www.dezeen.com/2014/03/18/architecture-not-art-patrik-schumacher-venice- architecturebiennale-rant/ 2- Haldenstein 3- The pencil and computer are, if left to their own devices, equally dumb and only as good as the person driving them. Norman Foster
Two different approaches to natureدو نوع نگاه به طبيعت
Prioritizing purity through abstracting natural forms
Le Corbusier’s five stages of architectural creation.
active Iranian ones or winners of the Memar Award, asking them to express their opinion with regard to different forms of process, in a one-page statement. After a two-month period, six offices sent back their statements, which are printed in this issue. Since indifference towards this subject is unlikely, the absence of many offices probably indicates the difficulty of expressing a specific opinion with regard to process. As such, the cooperation of offices that entered the discussion and of the authors who exposed their opin- ions to criticism is worthwhile. In some of the articles of this issue the following themes with regard to process and anti-process are discussed: the definition of process, analysing and comparing different types of design processes, process-based and product- based architecture, Modern Architecture and design proc- ess, human, nature and machine: design processes and the challenge of creativity, architect’s individuality and process,
the importance of site in design process, Schumacher’s manifesto, introduction of Parametricism, Peter Zumthor’s manifesto, the qualities gained or lost by systematic design processes, process for production of form or functionality, practical experience of step-by-step design method with systematic process, design process and methods for teach- ing it in university design classes, etc. All in all, many of the presented topics will take the form of a question and remain without a definitive answer.
Endnote: http://www.dezeen.com/2014/03/18/architecture-not-art-patrik-schumacher- venice-architecturebiennale-rant/
Complementary and compensatory relation of architecture and nature. رابطه مكمل و جبرانى معمارى و طبيعت
Human parameters پارامترهاى انسانىQuantitative parametersمقادير كمّى
THE JURORS OF MEMAR AWARD 2016