01_Performing Instruments_pg13

Regarding the discussion on the Fun Palace vs. Lovejoy Plaza, specifically the adaptability of the structure and space. To me the Fun Palace grants too much power to the end user. At the scale of a civic center, the difficulty in achieving consensus across a group leads me to think that a responsive architecture that is active will be susceptible to indecision and inaction in favor of the status quo. This contrasts with Lovejoy, and by extension the Fort Worth Water Gardens (P.Johnson), in that they more rigidly define an adaptable space. The architecture makes the hard decisions and allows for the more minute decisions to be made by individuals. Is there a way to create an active responsive architecture similar to the Fun Palace the is not subject to the issues of groupthink?

02_Performing Instruments_pg16

In analyzing the thought processes behind the Fun Palace and Lovejoy, the latter is much more congruous with traditional thought processes; Halprin looked to a precedent, designed alterations and formulated a base from which the individual can build from. Price, on the other hand, created a system that has no precedent, that has no base state. This fluidity contrasts traditional thinking, starting with the fluid idea and arriving at a base state. Do others agree with this analysis? What is the part to be played by human psychology and thought process in considering the design of responsive architecture?

“Computing the Performative”

1.The new concept and skill of digital building were developed from late 1960s to 1970s. Nowadays, We can use many tools to analysis digital building such as Gaussian analysis, and analysis base on “finite-element method”, and geometry can influence the building shape. How Architect adjust this change and how building influence the city ?
conflict to old and new building?

Responsive Architecture

1.”dynamic processes that are shaping the physical context”
When system become fragility means dynamically ? Is paradox to each other?

2.It is not a pure architecture practice in Si-tech. Si-tech is a geometry design and installation that people can talk the potential of architecture.
Some building become dynamically, and dynamical process seems important to building.
About the success of the cybernetic analogy, Why Beesley hesitate?

Responsive Architecture:

‘Can we really ‘talk’ with our architecture?

Or can we have a dialogue with architecture. This gets me thinking about the concept of behavioral architecture similar to human behavior. Studying human behavior involves studying cognition among other things. I wonder what would be the elements of architectural behavior? Would it be tools and techniques as used in Fun Palace or tools/ techniques are just mediums to enable functions governed by a separate agency?

What drives responsive architecture?

Is it dialogue/interaction it creates, is it intention to adapt, tools/techniques and methods used, human or environment?

Computing the performative:

‘SEMPER’ provides comprehensive performance modeling based on first principles, “seamless and dynamic communication between the simulation models and an object oriented space design environment using the structure homology of various domain representations,” and Bir-directional influence through “preference- based performance to design mapping technology.”

Would it be correct to say performative based approach facilitates the idea of architecture as system design? If yes, then can SEMPER be taken as one of the answers to the question about a possible interface that architects would need to interact with their work in a system design approach?

Kolarovic – Computing the performative.

1 – When generating performance based architecture based on a set of parameters and then optimizing the form based on running several types of simulations, what can and cannot be optimized? for example, how does aesthetics or multiple opinions of what is and is not a priority for the structure become “optimized”? Do such non-quantifiable variables define the role of the designer/architect?

Kolarovic – Towards the performative in Architecture

2 – I am struck by the dichotomy of the word “performance” in this reading. While on one hand he discusses “performative” architecture with the context of theater or popular culture, he also uses it to discuss structural or environmental qualities which have a more quantitative performance. How does this word open questions of how we as a society view “performance”, and the ever increasing demands on what architecture often has to achieve in a single project?

Khan and Beesley – Responsive architecture/Performing instruments

3 – I was very interested in the juxtoposition of the fun palace relative to the lovejoy plaza. Most interestingly, they are visually opposites, but both perform as variable use spaces which have fluid relationships with their occupants. How does the aesthetic play a role in these two projects, from a perspective of optimization? Natural vs Industrial aesthetics both being responsive and adaptable?

1 – (Kolarovic) “Determining the different performative aspects in a particular project and reconciling often conflicting performance goals in a creative and effective way are some of the key challenges in performance-based design.” PACE is a digital performance analysis tool. When it is analyzing the “spatial” and “activity” performances, it will lead to “convergence of an ‘optimum’ design solution.” Why does it only gives one solution? Since there are a lot of performative aspects, it seems like a series of options as solutions will be better. If there is only one optimum solution, is it limiting the design aspects?

2 – (Kolarovic) The idea of the city’s “state of mind” and “emotional landscape” shows the inhabitant’s emotions by using colors. The D-Tower by Lars Spuybroek uses colors to show the dominant emotion of the day. What kind of performance this it? How does architect design for people’s emotions and at the same time try to use the performance-based design tool?

3. (Kolarovic) The movement of people, the experience of architecture’s spatial presence, and the materiality gives architecture its performative capacity. In the Aegis Hyposurface project by Mark Goulthorpe, the building skin can dynamically alter its shape in response to environmental influences. If the skin can change, that means that there is no set form. Is there a way to evaluate this so that its performance is predictable? If there is no set form, how does the process of form finding changes?

Fun Palace is example that illustrated the Interaction and cybernetic system, which is able to change according to user’s need. Since the intension of the Place is to emphasis its adaptability, it makes me think about the material. What kind material is going to use on smart building? Concrete? Steel? Glass? Smart material? For the Fun Place is “using an unenclosed steel structure, fully serviced by travelling gantry cranes the building comprised a ‘kit of parts’: pre-fabricated walls, platforms, floors, stairs, and ceiling modules that could be moved and assembled by the cranes. (Glynn)” If an architecture which is aiming for its changeability and adaptability, I would image it will be moving fast in its changing stage in order to fit the need of user. When we talking in building scale, even in smaller scale, it will still bigger than Hylozoic Soil. Also from structure aspect.

1. What will be the material that we can use in order to create the Fun Palace? A material is light weight but strong.
2. If there is not such smart material yet, who is going to create it? Architects or engineers? If it is corroborated work, what is the role of architects in the creating process? Can we combine design with creation? If the nature of cybernetic system is about communication which will push architecture toward dematerialization, maybe the way for finding new material will be the role of architect.

“In performative architecture, the emphasis shifts from building’s appearances to processes of formation grounded in imagined performances, indeterminate patterns and dynamics of use, and poetics of spatial and temporal change. The role of architects and engineers is less to predict, pre-program or represent the building’s performances than it is to instigate, embed, diversify and multiply their effects in material and in time.” How will the performative architecture effect the social life? Since it is more flexible. How will the change of the role of architects effect our education interns of period and knowledge?

1
“Weak architecture”, as discussed in Performing Instruments (pp.31), embodies organic features that are beyond the merely referential relationship of modern, especially Metabolist structures. It seems that ‘weak’ environments reflect (on) the human condition.

How does such a paradigm shift affect our understanding of space and ourselves? What are the drawbacks of swapping a fixed spatial substrate with a vulnerable and transient one?

2
In defense of Fuller’s approach, Beesley argues that centralized control can prove crucial for regulating an unstable, precarious system (pp.39). While keeping power at the top of a hierarchical structure may render the decision-making process faster and more efficient, it compromises individual and collective agency.

How could a distributed, participatory model be a viable alternative in times of urgency?

3
Pask argued that although the individuals engaging in dialogue retain their autonomy, they mutually affect each other (pp.19) and produce a conversation which is independent of themselves (pp.22). I was wondering if Pask considered different means of conversing; a conversation carried out face-to-face is different than a disembodied one conducted over the telephone or through written correspondence. How would the conversation model change according to different media of communication? Was this conversation carried out in person (oral form) or via email (written form)?

1. The Mutual Relations discussion between Khan and Beesley reminds me of Donna Harraway’s When Species Meet. Physical boundaries are arbitrary measures of separation, with psychological and social aspects influencing us at every turn, just as we influence the world around us by our mere presence.  At what point can we identify the other? If there is an interdependence between people, objects, spaces, animals, and the rest of the world, at where can we cleanly and consicely declare that something is seprarate from us? How does this change when the ‘other’ is indifferent to us, as the case of nature, instead of manufactured or fabricated explicitly for us?
2. Kolarevic’s article does a good job of breaking down various limitations and places where generative design software can succeed when guided by a humanistic touch. I wonder, however, why on p199 he mentions a need for randomness in design algorithims. I’m not arguing against randomness in design, but genuinely curious what role it would play in a system like this. Is it for finding unexpected relationships in forms? is it to introduce organic qualities as in the “annealing process of metal”? What other sources cof data ould be used for generative seeds? Could these be tailored to the purpose to location in a meaningful way?
3. I had not explicitly thought of responsive environments as performative before, though I did often thing of the sapces as ‘actors’, so the model fits. But being performative assumes an audience, and spaces do not always have one present, which is why I appreciate how the argument extends into the city itself. The Guggenheim as a performative object in Bilbao, the Kunsthaus Graz’s surface. These are more than just a neat show, they play out their actions for the city itself. To extend the Deleuzian reference on page 210, these become virtual spaces extending into the past and the future. The reality of the present changes the way we perceive the objects in the rest of time. Computers help designers model the effects of physical dynamics on these spaces in the future, but how can we measure and predict the response these performances have on the culture and societies on whom they act?

“Towards Architecture” – Kolarovic

1. Kolarovic mentions in the article how The “Old” way of Performing building design (1970 -1990) is slowly but sure fading out of the overall design process and that a new age and more dynamic process is up and coming. Systems like PACE back then were new and innovative but its inevitable where designers and engineers produce their own systems which work on a more “dynamic/ allusive level”. That is all due to time and growth of innovation in the field. FEM (Finite element method) is seen to be the new predecessor of older systems such as PACE but I pose the question of when will FEM be phased out and an even newer system comes about? The process of Performance digital systems seems to be cyclical. Eventually, there is a newly updated system that outperforms the rest. Another question could be if innovators could collaborate more rather then unconsciously outdo their “Competiton” so to speak. When will there be a generalized system for all? or will that never happen?
2. Kolarovic Mentions hows a flaw in our current “dynamic” systems is that programs and simulation systems can only go so far within their own systems. Redundancy is the outcome when for example you can only use FEM for acoustical purposes only, My questions, pertaining to the first one, is the possibility of there being a universal/ global system that can manage and house everything. With the constant turnover with new systems/ simulations software being at a high, when will a unison system be produced?
3. The conclusion in the first part of the passage mentioned how simulating software are only utilized post completion of the project. Kolarovic projected that if we could get the dynamic software to help in the schematic/ conceptual stages then opportunities could be endless and aid in producing a new way of designing within the realms of architecture and engineering. How could we go about this process? Keep on going as and produce a plethora amount of systems or rethink the whole structure as a whole?

1. Performative Architecture / Kolarevic – This reading talks about digital “appraisal aids” which give feedback on things such as heat loss, energy consumption, etc. Kolarvic says that the next step is to create technology that can effectively aid the designer in the early stages of a project, when its still being conceptualized. Then the architect can take the information and adjust the design to create a more effective and efficient space. Does architecture’s identity change when technological intervention such as this occurs? is architecture/ architect obligated to engage these technologies when they are available, to create the highest performing space possible?
2. Responsive Architecture / Khan – Beesley – Price’s Fun Palace and Halpins Lovejoy fountain are both discussed as examples for designs which engage and interact with their inhibitors. Fun Palace uses collective action and ever changing shape (the perpetual construction site) to adapt to what the user wants from it. While the Lovejoy fountain draws from nature as inspiration and creates spaces for performance and leasure, allowing people to move through the space. Are these equally effective ways of creating responsive architecture? How can these qualities be implemented in a more traditional building? These concepts can move much more freely in these examples considering they are 1 unbuilt and the other a public park style program
3. Responsive Architecture / Khan – Beesley – On pg 32, the idea of geometry being a means to control material behavior is discussed and is contrasted with geometry used for inconography. How does the geometry inform the material assembly on how to perform? Is this just to say that an objects form determines which materials are capable of supporting it?