Week 4

Technology theorists frequently quote systems theory, which defines a conglomerate as a property of entities which cannot be derived from the sum of its parts. Michael Hensel, Achim Menges & Michael Weinstock (HMW) derives the concept of emergence from systems theory, highlighting the gap or lack thereof, between the natural and the mechanic. HMW introduces self-organising bodies as a form of morphogenesis as key elements to the advancement of computational design, devoid of focus towards form (blatantly), they contextualise material performativeness as self-evolving resulting in a form that has been ‘settled into’. “Performativeness is the quality of material systems that perform through deformation, or which visibly deform to self-organise and resist new external forces”. This is a holistic approach to architecture as a system where each element is a necessary cog in the larger machine (or should I say automaton). I struggle to grasp HMW’s true furtherance of computational theory and practice, on one hand they boldly state that design should be self-generative however they then backpedal to the origins of architectural theory and suggest that a building it like a system, a sum of its parts. To then describe computational design as a quantifiable method to system performance, to the reader this again subsides into the realm of BIM, a great tool however it is not a computational approach, just a computerised approach.

Inclusively, Christopher Hight & Chris Perry (HP) annotate the notion of Picon’s already existing cyborg within the realm of the digital age, advanced though liberating technological communication platforms. “Machines and technologies that are an extension of that social body, one cannot differentiate practice from product, or the notion of the human or social from the technological or the natural.” The creation of web 2.0 cast the foundations for information exchange, liberating intelligence from the centralised being to that of the collective cloud, again misguidedly building upon the advances of BIM, convolutedly shadowing as a computational design tool. There is no doubt that collective intelligence is a large driver in the cabin of the architectural profession (any profession for that matter) however, it is that oversized, hairy and sweaty driver that is commonly mistaken for the contents of the haul, the real fusion of the natural and mechanic has not been found, discussed or even pondered to the extent of other academics such as Picon or Menges who have truly identified the differences between computation and computerisation; where one is a deduction of values as opposed to a compilation of values.