Gehry's Guggenheim Museum at Bilbao, Spain
Photo by Joey Ottman, Texas A&M University
This article marks the trial introduction of what I hope will become a regular feature in the ACADIA Quarterly, a forum for the debate of opposing viewpoints on various CAD issues. In each issue, I intend to present a controversial, CAD-related topic, and argue it, pro and con, with another ACADIAn. It is my hope that the discussions in this article will cause us all to form knowledgeable opinions on subjects we hadn't previously considered, examine our views on debatable subjects more critically, make us better informed about differing viewpoints, and perhaps even change a few minds.
The topic of the debate for this issue is inspired, in part, by the Peter Eisenman building that was the site of the '97 conference, by the works shown by Greg Lynn in his keynote address at the 1999 conference, and by other recent high-profile works. In these projects, the architects used computers in the design process, performing transformations on models, generating splines, or feeding data to fabricating equipment. This resulted in designs that were visually very different from buildings produced by more conventional means. For these architects, use of the computer in the design process had a clearly discernable effect on the final product. The buildings look like they weren't designed by conventional means.
This brings up what I believe is an important design issue. Should buildings produced with the aid of a computer somehow "look like" they were designed with the aid of a computer? Arguing to the affirmative is Mark Clayton of Texas A & M University. I present the argument to the negative.
Yes:
Mark Clayton, mark-clayton@tamu.edu
|
No:
Scott Johnson, sven@umich.edu
|
My rebuttalOur aesthetic and functional values reside in our minds and our society, not our tools. Abandoning our parallel rules doesn't mean we should abandon our architectural principles. Straight lines, right angles, and repeated elements were used long before parallel rules were around. Likewise, non-rectilinear, biomorphic, and non-regular designs are not really the results of computer-aided design, either. Architects like Gaudi, Mendelsohn, Le Corbusier, and countless others were designing such forms long before the computer age. Historically, new technologies alone have never motivated new styles -- a combination of factors has always been responsible. A Gothic cathedral wasn't just a result of improved building techniques; it was a highly symbolic expression of religious views, and it fit the needs of the clergy and their congregations. Even the form of a skyscraper wasn't solely a response to structural steel and elevators; it was also a response to the need and desire to build higher. Furthermore, it represented more than one architectural style. Stylistic changes will surely occur again, and the computer may well be a part of what inspires the transition. But such changes must be the product of many factors, not a deliberate expression of a tool far removed from the end-users of a building. |
Clayton's RebuttalPerhaps architecture responds to timeless imperatives. However, function itself is changing as a consequence of computing and digital communications. The living room may metamorphose into a home theater. Due to Web-based delivery services, kitchens may no longer be necessary. Shopping districts may vanish into the Web. The office may simply be wherever one's laptop resides. A computer-influenced aesthetic is not merely a fashion superimposed upon an unchanged context of social, economic and personal forms. Brick and mortar architecture must change as a consequence of changes to human lifestyles brought on by computing. Technology need not be a false idol, but instead it can be an agent of our ideals. The global reach of the Web provides new opportunities for segments of society that have been disenfranchised. A new architecture can help discredit the institutions of an oppressive social and economic order and usher in a better society. The zeitgeist of our era is the leveraging of the mind through computers. As the mind expands, new imaginations will lead architecture towards better environments for a better society. Architects have no choice but to embrace a new aesthetic and design buildings that look like they were designed with computers. Resistance is futile. |
Mark Clayton presents a well-reasoned argument that buildings designed with the aid of a computer should look like they were designed with the aid of a computer. I present what I hope is an equally well-reasoned argument in opposition. Rather than provide a parting commentary on the discussion, I will leave the arguments as presented above. It is left for the reader to weigh the points made, and I hope this will be done. It is my hope that these opposing viewpoints will provoke careful reflection on the subject and spur insightful, productive debate in halls, classrooms, and offices.
I hope to make this column a recurring feature of the Quarterly. I am therefore actively soliciting feedback from readers, as well as asking for volunteers for future columns and ideas for future debate topics. Please e-mail me with any suggestions.
Betsky, Aaron. (1999). Freed form, Wired 7(9): 68-173. San Francisco: Conde Nast Publications Inc.
Buchanan, Peter. (1995). Ahead of the curve, Architecture 84(1): 97-103.
Cramer, Ned. (1999). Physical fitness, Architecture 88(11): 54-57. New York: BPI Communications.
Giovannini, Joseph. (1997). Gehry's reign in Spain, Architecture 86(12): 64-77. New York: BPI Communications.
Havs, K. Michael. (1998). All-stars: top-seeded designers invade the turf of pro stadium specialists, Architecture 87(11): 116-117. New York: BPI Communications.
Le Corbusier. (1970). Towards a New Architecture. Translated by Frederick Etchells. London: Architectural Press, 1927; reprint, New York: Praeger.
Vitruvius. (1960). Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture. Translated by Morris Hicky Morgan. Harvard University Press, 1914; reprint, New York: Dover.
Zevi, Bruno. (1978). The Modern Language of Architecture. Seattle: University of Washington Press.