01_ACADIA_pg 81_A topic that has been hotly contested since the turn of the 20th century is the role of human craft and hand in creation. The mind can conceive of any number of creativites, but few people possess the skills necessary to bring that vision to reality. In the article, the authors reference the fact that the lead stonemason began to use the 3D printing technology to prototype with fantastic accuracy, but that the process was slower than if done by hand. As a second annotation, the process also removed the ‘hand’ from the process, eliminating intuitive and subconscious learning from the modelers that would usually craft the piece.
This reminds me of the conflict in the 20th century between the arts and crafts movement and the German Werkbund in the face of modernism and mass production. What is the gained and what is lost with a shift to mass production, or indeed mass customization? What is lost or gained if we let programmable machines do the actual act of crafting? Is there a loss of ‘aura’ in a 3D print verses a model created by other means?
02_ACADIA_pg79_Tying into the previous comment, the article talks about the process of reiterative design being inherently lengthy, unable to be rushed. The use/development of ‘just-in-time’ construction comes from the business world and manufacturing processes, but is this fundamentally overlooking the importance of taking time to iterate? If deadlines are given even more importance and must be met, lest the entire project now fall to ruin, does this make the design better or worse?
03_ACADIA_pg84_The existence of a ‘codex’ of geometry by Gaudi, to be used after he is no longer able to participate in the process, is an interesting concept. Of course, architects have always left physical blueprints of work to be done while they themselves are not present; its the only way to get things done. But fundamentally, drawings are a means of communication. Construction drawings communicate what the finished product need to be, Shop drawings communicate how to manufacture individual components; but these are all consequential drawings of the design. This codex, as I understand it, is much more akin to a dictionary, or list of definitions within a program. It doesn’t communicate an end product, but instead a relationship.
With parametric design being utilized more and more, will the focus of an architects body of work be less on communicating final products, and more on communicating design relationships that lead to final products? Is this already, or has this always been, the case?
