Today, there is a very stark separation among the people who practice architecture. On one hand, those who remain as “purists” (the grand majority) and those who see architecture not as much as bolts and nails but as a collection of instructions, a means to a greater end.
Architecture, in my opinion is above all a set of instructions, and the architect, the person who defines those instructions. if the end result of such guides is a building, a teacup or a piece of software (systems architect) is completely a different matter.
after the arrival of computer software and the virtual abolition of hand drafting, the main resistance comes from fear to relinquish design power to artificial intelligence. since the use of BIM and parametrics has become a pseudo mandatory requirement (at least a must if one is to obtain contracts with New York State). there is what i feel a sense of paranoia from those who are educated in the old school (purists).
the new technologies, give little attention to crown moldings and ornamental wall bases but instead focuses on the designs effect in relation to time. how materials will decay over a certain amount of wear, how they will affect the individual and society as a whole.However, we must not get ahead of ourselves; with exception of Gaudi, this cybernetic architecture is not yet assimilated by the social consciousness, the common user is not yet expecting the use of parametric walls or auxetic materials in their living rooms. One day the house will indeed become “a machine for living”

Stafford Beer on Designing for Freedom, establishes first of all that human culture takes a long time to learn and to assimilate change. he states that because of our intellectual conformity, we have been using technology and the tools at our reach in an inefficient manner that not necessarily satisfies our social needs but rather increases the chances of catastrophe. in order to satisfy the demand for variety, the specific needs of an individual are deluded and generalized in order to fit a more manageable scheme. it is an interesting thought that despite the social insistence on individuality, it (society and culture as a whole) can not possible support the infrastructure necessary to provide such individual freedom. The main thought i believe is that even though as a collective or even as individuals we operate in constant search of variety and uniqueness, in reality our behavior and social structure is based on repetitive patterns and predictions without which modern society would collapse. everything is regulated in order to anticipate demand.