Patrik Schumacher: Parametric Semiology
By Tigran Khachatryan & Ashish Mohite
Author starts with the statement that the evolution of the society is possible only with simultaneous ordering
of space. He presents ordered built environment as a DNA for social evolutionary mechanisms (Mutation,
Selection, Reproduction)1. Later in the text, author refers to Luhman’s interpretation of society (society as a
set functionally differentiated subsystems composed of communications) as a starting point for his theory2.
In authors point of view if society is composed of merely communications than in order to solve societies
problems architecture should be oriented towards increasing the efficiency of these communications. In the
next paragraph author depicts the complexity of communications that are present in urban and social context
and he propose intensification of these communications through the principle of correlating everything and
making each individual piece a part of a whole.3
Later in text author defines three main subtasks needed for framing communicative interaction in built
environment: Organization, Articulation, Signification. Organization stands for spatial distribution and
connections between elements. Articulation stands for organization based on morphological properties of
architectural elements. Signification stand for semiological articulation4.
Author concludes with reflecting on previous attempts to theories architectural semiology referring to
Eisenmans (Phd) and Jenks (Semiology and architecture) work 5. However, he classifies previous attempts
as failed attempts since they were based on analysis of architectural history therefore unable to liberate
themselves from historical clichés. He suggests that the new spatio-visual language should not be related
to previous semiological studies. In order to fully unleash its potential be.
In the rest of text, the author suggests that the parametric design is the tool capable of creating complex
spatial and social systems.
1
Schumacher, P. 2013. Parametric semiology. In: Lorenzo-Eiroa, P. and Sprecher, A. ed. Architecture in formation.
London: Taylor & Francis Ltd., pp.54
2 Ibid, pp.54
3 Ibid, pp. 55
4 Ibid, pp. 55
5 Ibid, pp. 57
Kostas Terzidis: Algorithmic Form
By Ariane Déhais & Zhi Zheng
The main subject of this text is the description of two notions etymologically similar but literaly different :
computerised and computerisation. « In computerised methods specificity exists as a precursor, where
the action of design is a matter of filtering, reorganising and recompiling information to present different
fields of outcomes. Computerisation mainly mirnies the actions of designing in rationalising the information
of a predictable outcome. » « Computation, on the other hand, involves the action of deducing specificity,
that which cannot be captured given the initial dataset of properlies and conditions. »preamble. This is the
same kind of distinction between invention and discovery « Invention is defined as the act of causing
something to exist by the use of ingenuity or imagination; it is an artificial human creation. in contrast,
discovery is the act of encountering, for the first time, something that already existed. » paragraph 5 He
explains geometry mixes invention and discovery because it is possible to apply geometry to discover or
rediscover forms, but at the begginnnig euclidean geometry was invented.
The author describes possibilities and issues of Algorithms which is defined as a « computational
procedure for addressing a problem in a finite number of steps » paragraph 1. An algorithm is a programmatic
method which is rational and never failed. The result is the culmination of predefined logics. There is not
any invention in this result and no amazement. As the author makes the difference between invention and
discovery he put the finger on algorithms principles. This is an invention by a person and another person
will discover results thanks to this algorithm.
Most oh architects use computerisation1 and 2. This shows two main problems in using algorithm in
architecture. Fisrt of all, this determinic3 way of thinking prevent art and intuitive idea and futhermore, it asks
the question of the authorship and who invent the form, the engineer of the algorithm or the person who use
it to find something interesting.
Algorithm design « involves the designation of software programs to generate space and form from the rulebased logic inherent in architectural programs, typologies, building code and language itself » paragraph 10.
It is a way for architect to mixe computation and computerisation in there works 4.
The functional equivalence between brains and computers differs5. While they are the materialisation of
mathematical and syllogistic procedures at the information Ievel. « Unlike computerisation or digitisation,
the extraction of algorithmic processes is an act of high-level abstraction » paragraph 14. The use of the
computer as an exploratory formal tool but computerisation provokes Whorfian effects 6. « Algorithmic form
is not about perception or interpretation but rather about the process of exploration, codification and
extension of the human mind » paragraph 16. « Algorithmic form is an extension of human understanding. »
paragraph 17
notes 7 and 8
NOTES
1. « The dominant mode of utilising computers in architecture today is that of computerisation While research and
development of software involves extensive computational techniques, mouse-based manipulations of threedimensional computer models are not necessarily acts of computation » paragraph 9
2. « While the mathematical concept and software implementation of NURBS as surfaces is a product of applied
numerical computation, the rearrangement oftheir control points through commercial software is simply an affine
transformation, ie, a translation. » paragraph 9
3. « in contrast, algorithmic logic involves a deterministic approach to form and its shaping forces; it suggests
rationality, consistency, coherency, organisation and systemisation. What makes algorithmic logic so problematic for
architects is that they have maintained an ethos of artistic sensibility and intuitive playfulness in their practice. »
paragraph 2
4. « Algorithmic design does not eradicate differences but incorporates both computational complexity and creative
use of computers. For architects, algorithmic design enables the role of the designer to
shift from architecture programming to programming architecture. » paragraph 10
5. « The functional equivalence between brains and computers does not imply any structural equivalence at an
anatomical Ievei (eg, equivalence of neurons with circuits) » paragraph 11
6. « the use of the computer a san exploratory formal tool and the increasing dependency of their work on
computational methods. » paragraph 15
7. « Digitisation is the conversion of analog information into digital information.
Computerisation, by definition, involves digitisation. This is not necessarily the case with
computation. computational methods do not have to involve digitisation. » paragraph 7
8. « Grammatically, the term computation involves the suffix '-tion' that denotes a state, condition or qua/ity of a
procedure. Similarly, the term computing employs the suffix '-ing' that implies an action of implementing a procedure. »
paragraph 8
Greg Lynn: Architectural Curvilinearity
By Ko Ai, Ki Yeongseok, Olli Viljami Nieminen & Yinan Xiao
Main idea: (page24-25)
For the last de-cades, beginning with many theory for Deconstructivism, architects have been primarily
concerned with the production of heterogeneous, fragmented and conflicting formal systems. This practices
have attempted to embody differences within diverse physical, cultural and social contexts in formal
conflicts.
In response to this issue, Grey Lynn introduced the concept of ‘smoothness’ in architecture. Smoothness is
defined as an approach to design that acknowledges and combines both the contradiction and the unity.
His idea of ‘smoothness’ is neither heterogeneous or homogeneous but a continuous variation and
development of form and space which can be treated as viscous fluids.
Second part: (page25-31)
A group of De-constructivism architects made some research about continuous flexible system. In compare
with aggressive and conflict form, a logical curvilinearity have the capacity of bending, folding and curving
(borrowed from cooking terminology) to involve distinct external events within the composite mixture.
Achim Menges: Integral formation and materialization - Computer form and
material gestalt.
By Laura Laso Buceta, Armand Vaissade & Yoon Han
Looking for new design processes through computation, allows us to “(re)think” 1 Architecture. As suggested
by Kostas TERZIDIS, computation can be described as a calculating procedure that follows logical methods.
A system inspired by the idea of natural morphogenesis -development through interaction of system-intrinsic
material characteristics, as well as external stimuli – can integrate form generation and materialisation
processes. Computational modelling enables the designer to integrate manufacturing constrains, material
features, and assembly logics through an abstraction of natural morphogenesis. Material systems are the
“generative drivers in the design process”2. The general morphology of the process is understood as a
framework of different possibilities. Depending on the input, processes that trigger and drive the advancing
development emerge, which include “evaluation protocols serve to track both the coherency of the
generative process with the aforementioned system-intrinsic constraints, as well as the system's interaction
with a simulated environment”3. Designers are involved in a mediation of evolutionary computation
processes reaching towards homeostasis on the growth process, and in evolution of fitness criteria as well
as the defining parameter ranges along with development of the system. These projects still await contextspecific architectural implementation. However, they serve as a challenge to the nature of currently
established design processes and promote an alternative approach for architects to utilise all resources of
computational design.
1 P. 196, paragraph 1.
2 P. 196, paragraph 6.
3 P. 198, paragraph 2.
Aaron Sprecher: Architecture In Formation - On the Affluence, Influence,
and Confluence of Information
By Santeri Mikael Hänninen, Yining Liu, Heimo Severi Virolainen
The architectural model has changed from fixed and ideal to an open system reacting to
information. This has led to architecture being compared to how adaptive organisms process
information.1
Architecture is integrating information technologies along with the “informatization” of the
society. This affluence of information can be seen as more intense connection between form
and function. Such way of thinking can filter useless information and speed up it’s evolution to
guarantee it’s functional properties.2
The architectural object increasingly resembles an organism that is responsive to internal and
external conditions. It evolves non-linearly like complex evolutionary processes. Generative
design methods imitate evolution and can be applied to changing internal and external
circumtances.3
The architectural entity has went from a static to a dynamic condition that depends on
parameters that may affect its configuration. Architecture is increasingly influenced by other
fields of knowl- edge and can no longer remain an autonomous discipline.4
Former diagrams have turned into operational codes.5 Coded systems are dynamic and
reac- tive no matter how the external environment and internal capabilities of the architectural
models change. Static objects have changed into architectural organisms.6
1 ...assess the architectural object as a responsive, reactive and mutative organism.
2 ...this intensification of information affluences has augmented the symbiotic relation between the form and it’s function.
3 ...a wide range of information influences that render a reality in constant mutation.
4 ...computational codes that stem from the confluence of a wide range of disciplines.
5 ...the former diagram has turned into a operational code.
6 The architectural organism thus conceived is now ready to embrace the “ambient spheres” of life.
Stan Allen: Field Conditions
By Johan Nanne Knijff, Yehan Zhang, Pablo Blanco Martinez, Antuané Nieto Linares
The author centers his dissertation on the relation between the field and the object, for an artistic and
architectural approach. The text relates to the importance of the “field” and how its conditions create
variations through a sequence of minor variations created by the motion of the users.
“a field condition would be any formal or spatial matrix capable of unifying diverse elements while respecting
the identity of each. […] Field conditions are bottom-up phenomena: defined not by overreaching
geometrical schemas but by intricate local connections.” (p.63)
Allen suggests that architecture should be related to its context, not merely to achieve form, but to answer
to individual permutations derived from the dynamics of motion and behaviour.
“The conventions of classical architecture dictate not only the proportions of individual elements but also
the relationship between individual elements. […] Field configurations are inherently expandable; the
possibility of incremental growth is anticipated in the mathematical relations of the parts.” (p.65)
“By remaining attentive to the detailed conditions that determine the connection of one part to another, by
understanding construction as a 'sequence of events', it becomes possible to imagine an architecture that
can respond fluidly and sensitively to local difference while maintaining overall stability” (p.69)
“Field Conditions” is an alternative to two opposing debates. One dismisses the context by covering it up
(ie: Contextualism) and the other one addresses the context through its deliberate rejection (ie:
Deconstruction). Through field conditions, the logistics of contexts are recognized through the in between
zones. The meaning is displaced from the object to the spatial field.
“Field conditions and logistics of context reassert the potential of the whole, not bounded and complete […],
but capable of permutation: open to time and only provisionally stable.” (p.78)