Readings: De Landa & McCullough
Philosophies of Design : The Case of Modeling Software ~ Manuel De Landa
The main point of this article is to contrast two philosophies of design; as the author calls it, "the genesis of form." The first philosophy states that design is a mental conception. From that, it can be taken and translated into a literal form by use of various materials; this is said to be homogenous - able to be molded. Adversely, the second philosophy suggests that the material used to translate is not merely a medium in which to convey, they are actively apart of the "genesis of form." By use of heterogeneneous materials in which the properties must be taken in consideration in the process of creation.
James Gordon is introduced in this article as one of the pioneers of the science of materials where he conjoins several areas from ceramic engineering to metallurgy. He implies the lack of importance in the use of new materials and states that the material behaviors have been completely disregarded and reduced to "routine properties." He clearly takes a stance on the side of materiality and its linkage to the genesis of form.
The article continues on to suggest that craftsmen dealt with the complexities of materials and that they have no choice but to respect the individual properties of such things as impure steel. This leaves no room for routine. The author also states that, though the craftsmen had plenty of knowledge and carried out that knowledge by use of his hands, the knowledge could not be articulated verbally or written down. With today's technological advancements, it is easier to generate a mechanism for creation, however, it is still difficult to translate the knowledge of a craftsmen into usable applications.
Phase transitions is introduced which are the "changes that occur in the structure of material at certain points of intensity" [De Landa, p.134]. These transitions affect architecture in many ways.
The question is posed whether the philosophy of non-routinized design procedures are inevitably lost today. The introduction of new materials, which are inherently heterogeneous, one would think, would aid design skills but in fact, it may actually be hindering our skills. It is because we have created new devices in which to bring our conceptions to life but we have no physical interaction with the material itself until it has been through a mechanized process which limits our own creativity in a way. Computer assisted design virtually eliminates the need for physical interaction between the designer and the material. It is close to being, but not quite, a tool in which to exercise design creativity while involving the designer in the manipulation of materials.
I think this article was interesting in suggesting that advancements in CAD are rendering the "craftsman knowledge" obsolete. I'm unaware of the publish date but I think that it was written before the popularity of 3D modeling in which case, I would argue that the interaction between designer and material has actually increased. I don't fully understand what the author means by "routine process." Is he suggesting that designers begin to care less and put less thought into a process which leads them to fall back on a "routine" ?
1. Was this written before BIM, and if so, would BIM now be considered a successful medium that allows the proper interaction between the designer and the material?
2. Would it be successful to teach a craftsman some form of CAD and would that span the gap of "lacking craftsman knowledge"?
3. How can BIM advancements be integrated with physical interaction rather than virtual?
Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand ~ Malcolm McCullough
As evident with the title, this article focuses on the hand. The article suggests that the hand is a "conduit" for knowledge. The hands are a vital extremity through which we experience things.
In many ways, the hands illustrate ones own skill which can be described as the ability to implement learned skill effectively. It is implied that skill and talent are separate. Talent is the result of schooling whereas skill is the result of hands-on learning.
The hands are often slighted in the analysis of the mind even though it is intimately connected. Michael Polanyi's study of scientific defends skill successfully in "Personal Knowledge" (1958). The hands are arguably the most skilled part of the body.
The way in which practice becomes habitual develops a relationship with the tools that are being used. The hands represent the most knowledge because it is the most receptive part of the body. "Through the hand, authorship involves execution, and expression involves workmanship" [McCullough, p.8].
Art is briefly touched on and the author suggests that it has no other function than to simply be. Art is arguably the greatest expression of creativity and usually the creation of art requires the use of the hands. Industrial objects, however, are strictly for function and its principle is efficiency. "The destination of the work of art is the air-conditioned eternity of the museum; the destination of industrial object is the trash barrel" [McCullough, p.10]. Handcrafted objects resonate qualities of art and industry harmoniously.
There was a separation of craft and fine art in Europe by the Renaissance. Art was then praised more and thought of with higher regard. With this, eventually the word "Artisan" was used to distinguish intellectuals from skilled manual worker.
Craft is used for professions that require the use of hands. The article continues on to describe definitions of craft, artisanry, industry and technology. Technology has increasingly become an interface for human-computer interaction. It allows the development of abstract concepts into a visible output.
I agree with the article in that I believe that the hand is the best tool in which to communicate concepts. I also believe that it has a lot to do with hand-eye coordination. I have a tablet and I think that it would be difficult to use it if I did not have decent hand-eye coordination because I find that I don't look at where I'm physically drawing on the tablet, but rather, where the pen lies on the screen which is the opposite of what you're inclined to do. I believe that, for example, when drawing, your hands aid you in developing your skills rather than the hand guiding and holding the skill in itself.
If we are still using our hands to translate thoughts into the computer, why is that not considered craft?
Similarly, we are still using our hands with touch-screen - we are still creating - why is it not considered craft?
Are there more studies that link the hands to the mind?
discoholicmusic
stormborns
dailybridgerton
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
titsay
romaincrisis