Computational Design THEORISTS of DESIGN and COMPUTATION Editor: Onur Yüce Gün, Phd Candidate in Design and Computation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

29 design computational dosya 29NOVEMBER 2012 computational design THEORISTS OF DESIGN AND COMPUTATION Editor: Onur Yüce Gün, PhD Candidate in Design and Computation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) The role of digital computers in the design process for designers has remained an open question for over fifty years. The combinatorial nature of computers and the necessity of fluency in (any low-level or high- level) machine language have been creating the ambivalance that designers feel towards computers and computation. The combinatorial nature of the computer derives from its capacity to operate strictly via discritized enti- ties. A bit, the smallest unit that a computer operates with can bear only one of the two values: zero or one. Any negotiation with the computer must be excecuted in terms of these very bits’ combinations1. For this very reason, the fluid continuity of design thinking requires discretization and codification for its operation on the machine. Such technical and philosophical issues give rise to the research area of design and computation. This field investigates the reason for the words design and computation to co-exist and whether a meaningful synergy is possible. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) boasts historical milestones in advancing the epistemology of design and computation. Although the initial studies in implementation of computer applications in architecture dates back to the early 1960’s at MIT2, initiation of the Design and Computation Group at the Department of Architecture in the mid-1990’s engendered an academic group which would influ- ence architectural education and institutes worldwide. William J. Mitchell’s visionary motivation during the initiation of the group brought renowned academicians of design and computation together. As the program director of the Design and Computation Group at MIT and the founder of the Shape Grammars Theory, George Stiny has emphasized theory of calculation and computing as opposed to concentrating on computer applications. A similar motivation to privilege theory determines this publication’s intent to embody a critical outlook on the epistemology of design and computation. As opposed to arriving at immediate design theories via speculative3 experimental4 design projects, the contributors look into the history of computers and computing in design disciplines. Authors concentrate on the epistemology of design and computation looking dosya Issue Editor Onur Yüce Gün Coordinator of Dosya Editor in Chief and Owner on behalf of Berin F. Gür UCTEA The Chamber of Architects of Turkey ISSN 1309-0704 Ankara Branch Translation Ali Hakkan İlknur Urkun Published by UCTEA The Chamber of Architects of Turkey Ankara Branch once every four months. Editor The responsiblities of the articles is belong to the authors. BOARD OF THE JOURNAL Pelin Özgümüş Berin F. Gür, Cânâ Bilsel, Quotation is allowed with indicating references. Elvan Altan Ergut, Emel Akın Cover Design and Design Application Date of Publishing: Kasım 2012 Ömer Burak Polat Esin Boyacıoğlu, Serpil Özaloğlu Nuray Bayraktar, Ethem Torunoğlu Konur Sokak No:4/3 Kızılay Ankara-TURKEY Bülent Batuman Phone:+90 312 417 86 65 Fax:+90 312 417 18 04 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.mimarlarodasiankara.org Gün beyond whatever mere technical computer skills can achieve. With their detailed analysis and openness about the limitations of computers in design5, these eleven authors transpose the role of computation in design beyond mere applications of digital form crafting, simulating, manufacturing and assembly. Although overlaps render difficult any strict classification of the articles’ content, it may help to discuss the contributions under four sections. The Understandings section includes the transcriptions from the conversations with George Stiny and Humberto Maturana along with Şebnem Yalınay’s etymological investigation. In our conversation with George Stiny, he elaborates on what he values most in design: seeing. The ability to talk about what we see is indispensable to design. However, talking, for Stiny, is not a straightforward process; it incorporates interpretation, manipulation, and even omission of the things we see. The binary nature of computing and its symbolic structure proves inadequate6 to handle Stiny’s shapes, and thus he prefers talking about calculating as opposed to computing. The discussion covers a lot of ground, yielding well-structured insights about the roles of calculating, computing, and computers in design. However, the conversation also turns to talk about Leonardo’s sponges, Duchamp’s Fountain, and the renowned MIT Design and Computation Group. Şebnem Yalınay examines the etymological roots of the word computation. She makes insightful connec- tions between several potential meanings the word computation bears, and acts of design. Yalınay’s article explores not only the prospective meaning of design and computation, but also its translation into Turkish, which sheds tremendous light on an area of long speculation. Yalınay’s investigation inquiries into the role of information and information processing in design processes, and how these roles could be re-thought in (architectural) design education. The first question Daniel Rosenberg forwards to Humberto Maturana triggers a human-centric conversation, situating the human within the ever-continuing presence of the world and things: humans bring things forth at the very moment they experience them. The world becomes present as a configuration of human perception and cognition, not as a construction of human sensory systems. Such understanding reveals insights into design and novelty: the source of newness, according to Maturana, is again the human experience itself. Towards the end of the conversation, Rosenberg brings the computers into the discussion to elicit Maturana’s sincere feelings about where computers can be situated in humans’ living: eventually the computer appears as an organization with whole structural dynamics inside it and it does whatever it does according to those structural dynamics. The Historical reflections section utilizes historical investigations to raise valuable contemporary discussions. Theodora Vardouli introduces the roles attributed to computers in their early apparition in design processes in the mid-1960’s. For Vardouli the early anthropomorphizations of a computer as a “clerk,” “partner,” “wizard,” or “accountant” served two purposes: to situate the role of computers in design processes and to depict then-emerging abstract relationships between the designer and the computer. With her detailed historical investigation, Vardouli reflects on the contemporary term computational design to argue about the role of computers in current design practices. Aslı Arpak investigates the emergence of the Design Methods Movement and the efforts of the group in rationalizing design following computer’s reception as a metaphor for the brain, and a tool to test the mental procedures. Arpak’s article informs us that the motivations behind the movement’s foundation in the early 1960’s also became the fundamental reason for departures from the group after a decade. Arpak claims that the approach of behaviorists, representing a mechanized, quantified view of design proved unsatisfactory for existentialists and phenomenologists. Emerging positivist, behaviorist, cognitivist, and phenomenological approaches thereafter influenced design education via their respective characteriza- tions of computing in design. 2 dosya computational design Gün The Limitations and opportunities section examines current approaches in using computation in design and proposes alternative understandings of the subject area for advancing design thinking. Stylianos Dritsas talks about one of this publication’s core subjects: knowledge, its embodiment and its effects following its becoming widespread. He traces the emergence and impacts of computation: once utilized to execute mundane tasks of mathematical calculations, computation relocates the use of human intellect to worthier fields. For Dritsas, such shift transposes the former concentration of architectural practices on the design product to the inception and production of design. As a result designers praise para- metric design, building information modeling, and digital fabrication. However, for Dritsas, mere computational applications and tools cannot improve the unintelligent bulkiness of a composite wall when compared to a state-of-the-art automobile of the same weight. The real challenge according to Dritsas becomes contextualizing current intellectual and technical capability towards inventing new modes of thinking and practicing. Axel Kilian highlights the challenge in incorporating alternative approaches7 into the early design explora- tion processes, since already-established conventional tools grant designers a habitual comfort zone. For Kilian, redefinition of computational design applications requires awareness of the limitations engendered by the use of computers in design processes. According to Kilian, design should not solely be about the execution of established processes but also about querying the understanding of the factors involved, and computation should be understood as a systemic sense beyond the lifecycles of artifacts and established scales for discovery of novel approaches in design and computation. The Propositions section includes articles which take on the challenge of defining novel computational frameworks

Load more