1
In “Sagrada Familia Rosassa”, the authors discuss the importance of rapid prototyping in the process of transition from the digital model to the real stone components. Although this new 3D printing technology was embraced, it seems that it was not ripe enough to yield the desirable results (pp.81).

a. What remained relatively unclear was, why did 3D printing did not live up to the endeavor, despite being both fast and precise?

The authors conclude that experimentation should rather carried out “in an academic laboratory, than within a tight critical path in a real-world situation” (pp.84). This statement did not resonate with me, because it suggests a dichotomy between academia and the professional world. According to popular belief, the role of academia is to generate ideas and experiment, whereas professional practice is merely the smooth and controlled application of those ideas through known and reliable tools.

b. How did the aftermath of the unsuccessful use of 3D printing contribute to the evolution of its technology? How could the concept of beta-version software (which is released to be tested in real life by real users) be applied to architectural design?

2
Sterling advocates for a kind of identity politics for objects. He does so by thinking of himself as a consumer rather than a designer, reflecting on the end-user’s experience and the power of having “design decisions at [one’s] fingertips” (p94)

Are consumers really interested in harnessing this potential? How could arphids help us make informed decisions about the unseen history and afterlife of our objects?  Also, in what ways could the Internet of Things foster a more substantial relationship to materiality, if it allows objects to slip out of mind?

Sagrada Família Rosassa: Global Computer-aided Dialogue between Designer and Craftsperson (Overcoming Differences in Age, Time and Distance)

by Mark Burry, Jane Burry, and Jordi Faulí

1. This article talks about how rapid prototyping has enhanced the process of “just-in-time” project management, which is characterized by the ability to construct one or several parts of a project while still designing for other parts. This practice has come to be much more prevalent in design and construction especially as design firms work more closely with contractors to finalize projects. My question deals with the role of the Architect in this entire process. Traditionally the Architect designs and hands off the drawings to other people to finish the project, but now as the practice demands a more real-time cooperation between design and construction, to what extent is the Architect’s role becoming more of a managerial position rather than a design one? We briefly spoke about this last week, and I agree that an Architect’s role is more about coordination and managing the varying elements that go in to design and construction, however is this a positive thing? As we see with the Sagrada Familia Rosassa, it allows for rapid construction, but in projects that lack the same richness in history and meaning, does it lead to standardized designs or a lack of variety? Or does it lead to the opposite as “mass customization” implies?

Shaping Things, by Bruce Sterling

1. Sterlings example of the bottle of wine to describe the special nature of a SPIME was very clear. The “bottle of wine” as we think of it – its form, shape, smell, taste, feel – is an image of that object, and the physical object captures only an instance of that object’s history. It was once grapes on Italian soil and cork from Spain, and continues beyond the consumer phase to become recyclable glass and fluids in our bloodstreams. But it’s impossible to know every single component of that object and where its coming from, and especially what happens to it once we’re done with it. This brings into question our relationship to objects as consumers. Today we like things to be customized especially for us, yet we live in a world where everything is mass produced, hence the term “mass customization,” but if we think of manufactured objects as SPIMES, can a SPIME ever really be customized?
2. I thought it was interesting how Sterling names the objects he’s talking about. It reminds me of our discussion last week about the semantic problems of designing objects – the question being how do we name things? The word SPIME is a contraction of the words “space” and “time” which is a reference to Sterlings idea about these objects being instantiations of themselves in space and time, but that they’re always associated with a history. And ARPHID is a pronunciation of the acronym “RFID.” In the passage he says, “In an age of SPIMES … I don’t worry much about having things. I worry plenty about relating to them. How? Mostly through naming. Naming enables the generation of pattern. Naming enables measurement. Naming gives me something to speak about.” And this goes along with the idea of uniquely identifying objects, either through barcodes, RFID tags, or other future processes. How does our ability to relate to objects change in a world where everything is tracked, traced, coded, and basically given unique “names” for us?

REQUIRED:

Burry, M., Burry, J. and Jordi Fauli, “Sagrada Família Rosassa: Global Computer-aided Dialogue between Designer and Craftsperson (Overcoming Differences in Age, Time and Distance)” in ACADIA 2001: Reinventing the Discourse Proceedings, ACADIA, 2001.

Sterling, B. Shaping Things, MIT Press, October 2005 (excerpt)

RECOMMENDED:

Evans, P.C. and Marco Annunziata, Industrial Internet: Pushing the Boundaries of Minds and Machines, General Electric, 2012