Surface Consciousness: Between Surface and Substance

You know, this is a fairly big issue and one that seems to keep coming up in architecture school. This particular subject, I believe, branches out from the typical ‘computers-in-school-are-bad” debate, and really forces those of us who are interested in digital media to step back and ask ourselves some questions. Do these ‘things’ that we are making really have any value? Are we approaching a design process critically and not just making sexy looking architecture? Is the space we are creating actually worth inhabiting? We can now make just about anything we can model on the computer because of advances in technology. Digital fabrication processes have given us the ability to be super precise, while extremely creative. Yet some could argue that it’s just not worth it.

This article brings up some good issues regarding the topic of craft. Craft in general I would say is how well you can make something. So in the case of the typical physical model example, this requires measuring precisely, cutting (usually slowly), and attaching things together without smudging the rest of your model. Now, we don’t have to worry about smudging in the computer realm…photoshop aside…but putting your digital pieces of architecture together carefully, and in the right spot, is very important. However, you can achieve this type of craft, by pushing and pulling pieces around until they are in the right spot. This will not disturb the rest of your model and you can iteratively repeat this process until you have something that people really want to look at! The digital craft I feel relies in multiple attempts at something, otherwise, you are just using it to make pretty pictures of something that is already designed. What’s the fun in that…cadd monkey on steroids?

The idea of using parametric processes in group design is also intriguing. It is nice to have a bunch of smart people who can set this sort of stuff up and then have the creative designers go nuts and manipulate force vectors, isoparms, and the like to then, produce something worth looking at (ideally, later to inhabit spatially). These types of design studios in school are obviously valuable in the conceptual design processes in an educational setting. But can they still work in the real world? Firms like Grimshaw and Associates in NYC have done what has been previously described…but it so happens that the smart people who can set these things up parametrically, can also find that great image and design out of these mathematical constructs. The reading room described was a very small, but I’m sure intriguing, studio project, but things like Waterloo Terminal in London has a structure that was based on this type of parametric design and implementation.

Don’t even get me started on this Aegis Hyposurface construct. I think this is great and could only come from a result of great minds collaborating digitally all across the world (go figure J). Any type of seemingly smooth surface that comes alive in a few seconds is great. The math and man hours required to make such a project come to life is probably astonishing. However, this reminded me of another type of material I have seen a presentation on that is equally fascinating, super cilia, I know what you’re thinking, just watch…(http://web.media.mit.edu/~hayes/mas834/scs1.html) This material is programmed to record the patterns of touch one makes as you would run your hand across it, then it repeats the motion back at you in real time that simulates the motion as if your hand was touching it at that time. Very interesting stuff.

So, what do I get out of this article? The art of surface is one that should be approached with a level of craft so as to create meaningful, even if only gestural, designs with a process that has integrity and a solid foundation. And, yes, iteration is key, as with any design process.