Q1:

From W. Ross Ashby, “Principles of the Self Organizing System”:

Some of Ashby’s examples of conditional “goodness” of organization feel a bit contrived (pgs. 264-266). Specifically, the example of evolutionary development appears to somewhat pedantic/moot, because whichever living/surviving organism would adapt to said conditions (as per natural selection). The idea that our bodies’ organization works against us in a situation without atmosphere is only valid theoretically, and is dependent on some sudden, catastrophic environmental change (which seems to be a bit of a reach). Can we elaborate on this?

Q2:

From W. Ross Ashby, “Principles of the Self Organizing System”:

The computer is heaven-sent in this context, for it enables us to bridge the enormous conceptual gap from the simple and understandable to the complex and interesting. Thus we can gain a considerable insight into the so-called spontaneous generation of life by just seeing how a somewhat simpler version will appear on a computer (pg.271)

Is this idea related to Heidegger’s concepts regarding the “quantification of the human”? Furthermore, does this suggest this as a ‘true, or higher purpose’ for the computer (to ultimately organize and quantify life)?

Q3

From Jack Burnham, “Systems Esthetics”:

In a society thus estranged only the didactic function of art continues to have meaning. The artist operates as a quasipolitical provocateur, though in no concrete sense is he an ideologist or a moralist. L’art pour l’art and a century’s resistance to the vulgarities of moral uplift have insured that (pgs. 3-4).

What exactly is the didactic function of art, in this sense/context? Given that, is this position of the artist as merely a “provocateur” still relevant, or is it further catalyzed by contemporary media?

01_Ashby_As a general question; is self-organization a form of learning? Are the synthetic organisms that can arise sentient, or are they just sophisticated systems? or both?

02_Ashby_pg 272_Ashby highlights his points on competition as:

“In any isolated system, life and intelligence inevitably develop (there may, in degenerate cases, develop to only zero degree).

To summarize briefly: there is no difficulty, in principle, in developing synthetic organisms as complex, and as intelligent as we please.”

This second point comes with the qualifications that the intelligence of organisms will be an adaptation to the environment they exist in, and that the intelligence is directed towards self-preservaition and self-organization.

Do we have an environment in place to facilitate this today? And in what capacity? Can the internet function as this environment, allowing for synthetically intelligent programs to develop intelligence?

03_Bahnam_by constructing a perfectly optimized structure to fulfill needs, but nothing more (as in the environmental bubble), I’m not sure if the Human element is considered in this. Yes, the bubble facilitates all the basic needs a shelter must in order to protect a human, but I don’t see the system addressing or engaging the human beyond this. If architecture shapes the way we live our lives, how would a habitat such as this shape an occupants life? Is it better or worse than ‘traditional’ modes of habitat? Is this an outdated or irrelevant way of viewing architecture anymore?

Principles of self-organization

(Page 262)

The engineer having put together some electronic hardware and having found the assembled network to be roaring with parasitic oscillations is quite accustomed to the idea of a ‘bad’ organization and he knows that a ‘good’ organization has to be searched for. The biologist however studies mostly animal species that have survived the long process of natural selection, so almost all organizations he sees have already been selected to be good ones and he is apt to think of organizations as necessarily ‘good’

Learning machines, a biologist point of view or an engineers?

Learning machines that present a concept of a mechanism that derives  patterns from the past for decision making in present and future, when compared to the idea of memory and decision making by the brain, can be a ‘good’ organization (that leads to better decisions in the context it is designed for ). And can be ‘bad’ organization when the focus is on the limitation of deviation in the decision making as It Is constrained with the patterns from the past.

Systems Esthetics

What and who defines art?

Can any object, thought, process, system, mechanism or expression, tangible or intangible, if holds a meaning be considered as art?

Is it art when one calls it that or is there something more for a piece to be qualified as art?

A home is not a house

In Architecture Relevance, Gordon Pask speculated that, with the inclusion of cybernetic theory, concepts of varied disciplines will be unified with the concept of architecture to yield an adequately broad view of entities such as civilization, city or educational system.

Here, architecture is not limited to the design of a building but as designing reactive and adaptive environment.

While in ‘A home is not a house’ , with the interwoven mechanical services, a house is visualized as a shell that contains these services and more.

How do these approaches affect the scope of architecture?

A Home is Not a House

1. According to Bucky Fuller’s concept of standard-of-living package, there are two ways of controlling environment – one being avoiding the issue by hiding under a roof or tent and the other by interfering with the environment. “Unlike the living space trapped with our forebears under a rock or roof, the space around a camp-fire has many unique qualities which architecture cannot hope to equal, above all, its freedom and variability.” (pg. 112) What does he mean by “cannot hope to equal” and “its freedom and variability.” Does he mean that using architecture as a shelter is constraining and limited?

Principles of the Self-organizing System

2. “There is no such thing as ‘good organization’ in any absolute sense. Always it is relative; and an organization that is good in one context or under one criterion may be bad under another.” (pg.263) When Ashby mentioned about good or bad organization, does he mean the presence of organization is good/bad or the degree of organization? What is he evaluating on? Function? “The theory of organization is partly co-extensive with the theory of functions of more than one variable.” (pg.256)

Systems Esthetics

3. “Where the object almost always has a fixed shape and boundaries, the consistency of a system may be altered in time and space, ts behavior determined both by external conditions and its mechanisms of control.” Where do we currently stand in the transition from an object-oriented to a system-oriented culture?

1. Principles of self-organization
“In these terms we can see today that the artificial generation of dynamic systems with life and intelligence is not merely simple – it is unavoidable if only the basic requirements are met.”

Is this a cause-related between human and machine, or this is just a necessary progress in technology with people ?

2. Systems Esthetics
“There is no end product that is primarily visual, nor does such an esthetic rely on a visual syntax. It resists functioning as an applied esthetic, but is revealed in the principles underlying the progressive reorganization of the natural environment.”

When designer design a product or space, they will think about esthetic. Sometimes a beautiful stuff are not practical, and a practical stuff are not beautiful. How can designer balance the function and esthetic?

3.A Home is not a House
“But…surely, this is not a home, you can’t bring up a family in a polythene bag?”

In Netherland, there have so many boat houses, and America also have a lot RV which  expensive than a house. Nowadays, the birthrate are lower than past, polythene bag might be a future house?

Principles of Self-Organization

Ashby said there were system of more net-like construction. And with the definition of organization: the theory is partly co-extensive with the theory of functions of more than one variable. What is the system Ashby imaged? Looking back to computer history which start with a specialized purpose. Then 1961, IBM introduced 1400 series which is for general-purpose computer, not specialized system. Perhaps, the system Ashby image could be personal computer. “The identification of the physical bases if the brain’s memory stores”, adding memory to a computer, is it the beginning of AI or it lead to another direction?

System Esthetics

“The specific function of modern didactic art has been to show that art does not reside in material entities, but in relations between people and the components of their environment.” Since it is talking about art, it makes me think about the aura. If modern didactic art is about its environment and context, where and what is its aura. And he quoted system as complex of components in interaction and where the object almost always has a fixed shape and boundaries, the consistency of a system may be altered in time and space, its behavior determined both by external conditions and its mechanisms of control.  What does object mean here? A variable within the system?

House is Not a House

“Man started with two basic way of controlling environment: one by avoiding the issue and hiding under a rock, tree, tent or roof and the other by actually interfering with the local meteorology, usually by means of a campfire… the space around a camp-fire has many unique qualities which architecture cannot hope to equal, above all, its freedom and variability.” The innovation of Air Condition is new form of camp-fire but in more invisible way. Its ability to effect the thermal extensively, which has different quality of camp-fire. When AC take over the power of camp-fire, where does its freedom and variability go?

A Home is Not a House

1. The proposal for an un-house seems to be the ultimate form of versatility in Architecture, as it is essentially proposing the dematerialization of Architecture into a simple bubble or environment that’s only function is to keep the elements out. But could such a “bubble” even really be considered Architecture? I think Banham tries to make the case that it is by suggesting that the trend in American Architecture has been toward such a dematerialization or “anti-architecture,” beginning with the lack of monumentalizing (p.109) and culminating with the automobile as a completely mobile and personal “architecture,” which he seems to suggest will advance into a completely personal and adaptable architecture he proposes as the “un-house.” In terms of systems, it also suggests the ultimate cybernetic relationship between people and architecture, as the architecture would respond to the environment and the user.

Principles of Self-Organization

1. I’m a little confused on what Ashby means when he refers to “organisms” and “intelligent life” developing in isolated determinate dynamic systems. He is suggesting that in every isolated dynamic system, intelligent life eventually emerges, but is he referring to “organisms” as in biology or does this term mean something broader for him? If so, what would an “organism” be in a non-biological dynamic system? He explains a dynamic system of numbers which is clear, and in which the “organisms” seem to be the numbers themselves, however how can this thinking be applied to technology, and what would represent self-organizing systems in technology?

Systems Esthetics

1. Important to Burnahm’s idea of a system is the idea of context or environment, and how a work of art that reacts to its environment essentially becomes part of the environment and is affected by processes outside of just the material space it occupies. The idea of context is intrinsic in understanding systems, and all three readings deal with context in different ways (Banham treats context as environmental forces to be regulated within the system, Ashby sees context as inseparable from the system and ultimately what creates the system, and Burnham seems to treat context as a secondary medium with which objects and people could relate to in order to create systems). But what does Burnham mean when he says, “These processes evolve without the viewer’s empathy. He becomes a witness.” But isn’t it true that if a viewer can interact with the object, he/she is also part of the processes that shape and affect the system? How can he/she then just be a witness?

1 – Principles of Self-Organization – This one I had the most difficult time following, due to the more mathematical explanations. However, i believe i do understand how he was discussing systems as relationships between two parties, and how they are changed based on different factors or even the viewpoint of an observer. I was intrigued by his discussion of how self-organizing systems arise from two different types (Joining of separate parts, or a “bad” system evolving to a “good” system). He does say that machines are incapable of this second option, but what about the first? Could a machine having different parts start to join parts together to make a more complex system which does more than intended? Is this something that could come of the competition he talks about on 271-273?

2 – Systems Esthetics –  Burnham is discussing the major shift that is happening in art in the 1960’s by describing it as the art of systems rather than objects. I was especially interested in the anecdotes about different changes to art which allowed for an expansion of the art, for example the work by Jan van der Marck where the art was created by a fabricator over the phone and then the recorded conversations were exhibited as being part of the art. Do these examples of Art relate back to our discussion of art/objects and their Aura? Does this change to art which is part of a system rather than object oriented allow for a larger aura or a more depleted one?

3 – A Home is not a House – I loved the description of technology for living as simply a way to subdue nature rather than battle it. It is interesting to think of living as simply a bubble which keeps out the problematic weather but allows in the nicer aspects of it. I am especially interested that he did not believe that this was a more environmentally friendly alternative (since it’s powered by the car), and that it wasn’t necessarily his primary objective. How would he feel about the current trend of “tiny homes” which are devoid of connection to the grid and are owned by people claiming they want to be able to simply move their home to change views, experiences, etc?

1
According to Ashby, organization is directly equivalent to the existence of constraints between parts (pp.257).
Comparing computers to ecosystems, Ashby argues that “every isolated, determinate dynamic system obeying unchanging laws will develop ‘organisms’ that are adapted to their environments” (pp.270). Yet, how can an isolated, determinate system with unchanging laws be dynamic? Is its self-organizing ability its only dynamic quality?

Also, does Ashby suggest that organisms are the output or product of the system, and thus external to it? In what ways do organisms make an impact on their environment and actually change the laws of the system? Nowadays, the idea that ecosystems are always tending towards equilibrium by absorbing any disruption has been disproven. If then, for the sake of conversation, we confine Ashby’s theory to computer systems we might wonder: how do self-organizing systems deal with change?
^ Interesting contrast from Burnham’s text: “Systems analysis (…) is still largely a form of art. Art can be taught in part, but not by the means of fixed rules…” – E.S. Quade (pp.3)

2
Burnham writes that for Galbraith, “esthetic decision-making becomes an integral part of any future technocracy. As yet, few governments fully appreciate that the alternative is biological self-destruction” (pp.3) I find this statement alarmingly reminiscent of Walter Benjamin’s concern about the aesthetization of politics, as practiced by fascistic regimes and expressed by the technocratic prose of the Futurists. Shortly after, however, Burnham clarifies that the artist should by no means be a moralist or ideologist and crosses out the ‘L’art pour l’art’ approach which Benjamin scrutinized as well. It is arguably a very thin line between ideological fallacies and revolutionary concepts, but where does it lie in moments of transition?

—
As inherently post-formalist, the system esthetic has no primarily visual end-product, nor does it adopt an exclusively visual language (pp.6). Instead of material entities, it is concerned with relations (pp.4). In what non-oculocentric ways can relations be perceived? We are commonly used to identifying relations through their physical effect on our environment, but what is their non-formal impact? Can something similar to Judd’s listing of  his specific objects’ phenomenal qualities be found for systems?

3
When it comes to environmental control, Banham identifies two approaches. The first one is to resort to a fixed, stable shelter protect oneself from nature, which is the foundation of architecture as we know it (pp.112). The second one has to do with interfering locally in an ephemeral manner, for instance by lighting a campfire. It seems like Banham identifies the fire as a liberating provider of a variety of services, or situations, that “ground-anchored homes” (pp.111) simply cannot offer. In which ways is the automobile the middle ground between the two approaches, as a well-tempered environment on wheels?

1)Ashby’s writing seems to be firmly in line with the cybernetic readings from a few weeks go. Where he takes it though is interesting, particularly as he lays out a method for interrogating how a self-organizing system develops through formalized interaction. Though I think he is a little optimistic about what is needed for more complex systems to arise through computers, he does identify the need for long term memory and storage for these deeper balances to emerge. The most resonant question that emerges from this reading is the one he poses at the end, “But what will the forms developed be of use to us?” I’d also extend this question a bit by asking if there’s a period of uncertainty in the system, is there a level at which homeostasis is not appealing because the process of getting there is too variable? How can we predict what forms are not useful to us?

2)Burnham’s descriptions of systems art, drawing unexpectedly from minimalism and earth works, was striking as it left our Sol LeWitt. His work, particularly the wall drawings, always seemed to be an exemplary illustration of system based art. Particularly in reference to the process becoming the locus of the art, as opposed to the object or artifact. The influence of multiple systems on the work are what become important in this context. on p 12 he writes

An aside, there’s a line from these early forms to contemporary algorithms that give us aesthetic expressions of Conway’s game of life and pixel sorts (see images below).

Pixel sorting

Conway’s Game of Life

3) In A Home is Not a House the article openly criticizes American architecture, particularly the weird relationship we have with our environment. We crave open spaces, but also isolate ourselves from natural spaces, necessitating artificial systems of control for heat, water, electricity, etc. I kept thinking of Andrea Zittel and her work in the American southwest, particularly the High Desert test Sites project. How can we create spaces that are meaningfully related to our natural environment, but also offer people the type of protection they desire? Is the change needed socially? Architecturally?