Do you think that typography is enough to explain concepts of a visual design format?
The image above is from Patrik Schumacher talking about Parametricism. Does it better explain parametricism then his manifesto?
image from http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/
I do not feel either representation is successful by themselves. It is challenging to understand the text and this image does not convey enough to be anything but a creative rendering. In this situation the image is visually stimulating beyond the text. This manifesto is challenging to absorb. The image does not explain parametricism, it is just an image.
ReplyDelete"Do manifestos have more power as words or as artifacts that show what is being described? Would it make sense to show imagery for a design manifesto to better explain what is being talked about?"
ReplyDeleteI believe the answer is: it depends.
In some instances, imagery can be supportive of a theory. In others, there does not currently exist the appropriate imagery to support it. It would then be fool hearty to force something because that which is shown will then be subjected to a high degree of scrutiny which may then become the focus instead of the larger concept and philosophical implications.
This work by Patrick Schumacher is a great example of imagery failing to support a theory. The image doesn't either support Schumacher's manifesto or show a captivating example of parametric architecture.
Schumacher may actually have contradicted his manifesto by creating this rendering: Computer randomized repetition is still repetition- a "Negative heuristic," which Schumacher states should be avoided in contemporary architecture.
If anything the rendering translates an experience similar to LeCorbusier's ideal city. It's actually as if LeCorb's concept has simply been translated into a modern digital model and randomized by a parametric parameter. So what... we have a more randomized inorganic concrete jungle in which to inhabit?
This rendering fails to support Schumacher in articulating just precisely how parametric design can lead to better dwelling.
Even though I do feel strongly for visual images over writings, in the case of a manifesto I believe that the written word would be more powerful. This is because when looking at an image it is almost impossible for one to not look at and interpret in their own manner possibly entirely misunderstanding the manifesto. However, with the written word, you can be more descriptive so that people can understand better what your saying but also if done right, they can let their mind still drift in the poetic nature of the writing. However, writing can go wrong as well if not done properly. So in my opinion Patrik Schumacher's writing is more powerful in understand his manifesto than his image even though his image is beautiful.
ReplyDeleteWhen the promulgation of ideas is at issue I believe seduction is the operative concept. An architectural manifesto is a pitch, a pick-up line, a suggestive place-holder for actual things not yet delivered. Will a given set of ideas produce a better architecture? While that question hangs on the horizon, in the domain of forecast, future and uncertainty, significance will be attached to the more persuasive accounts, i.e. those that appeal most thoroughly, on the greatest number of levels. For this reason I think that a sexy image will always help to sell an idea, and from that standpoint it does make a manifesto more "powerful."
ReplyDeleteAs to whether images help explain ideas, I think that they can, but there is also the possibility of the image saying too much. There is great potential for conflating ideas with aesthetics and misleading the audience as to the real substance of the manifesto.
In this particular case, with regard to Parametricism, which seems to be more focused on a process than a particular codified visual product, the image by itself doesn't get to the heart of the idea. I think it serves as an evocative complement, but in and of itself doesn't say much about parametricism.
I agree with kpan…it is just an image. Neither the text nor the image alone tells a full story of parametricism. It may be an example of the final product, but like Andrew had said, Parametricism is focused on the process. This seems to be the case with most architectural theories. They do not affect the final outcome nearly as much as the process taken to arrive there. This is why images alone do not explain an architectural process or reasoning for the outcome. We rely on diagrams to tell a story. Diagrams and multiple images can begin to create a full narrative of the idea or experience at hand.
ReplyDeleteI would argue, that in this case, the written word is more successful in describing an idea. Lets look at some of the terms used in the first paragraph of the manifesto: "variation, continuous differentiation" and "dynamic [...] figuration". These terms talk about processes, more than a finished product (which the static image displays) and for that reason alone, text is more appropriate to communicate the principles of Parametricism.
ReplyDeleteGranted, the image manages to hint at some of the ideas just mentioned (the similar, but varying tower construction vanishing into the distance) but the true meaning of the process behind this occurrence is very hard to decipher. In my opinion, in this case the image fails so severely because of the nature of the described. The revolutionary essence of Parametricism is the fact, that geometry is defined by parameters. The structure ideally responds intelligently to a set of data. I believe that the success of this method relies on what that data is and how well it is translated into physicality, but in this case more impotently is the fact, that the image keeps that essence hidden. Sure, the structure looks “parametric” (whatever that means to people) but it is anyone’s guess, why things look how they look.
On an other note, the manifestos on Parametricism that circulated around Shattuck Hall provided some heated discussion in our studio. Students quiet intensively argue for the soullessness of said method. I on my part feel rather strongly about the poetics of Parametricism. I understand how people might be put off by the technical aspects and the fact, that it is a highly computer based process – scientific you might call it. But isn't that same science the base for the beauty we encounter in nature?
I recently wrote a paper on the similarities between the period of the Renaissance and the recent development of the parametric design methods. Think about Leonardo da Vincis study on human proportion. What if you take human anatomy (movement of a ballet dancer, or a mma fighter if you will) and create a intelligent form that embodies the same proportions and relations? Wouldn’t that be poetic?
To come full circle, I think Parametricism is more than anything a new process rather than a new end result. Certainly, the results seem new and maybe even revolutionary, but in the same way the Renaissance was a new methodology to process the old, parametric design uses the newly available computing power to enable the designers in his creativity.
I believe there is a benefit to having imagery or a physical artifact describing the intentions of parametric. Imagery stimulates the visual senses allowing an individual to see the physical changed, the conflicts that occur in using Parametrics. The rendering above doesn't truly show the full intentions of the design nor does it stimulate our vision. A succsessfull picture doesn't have to be a fully finished render. It can be the supporting structure of what defines the final product. The movement of the form, the pushing and pulling can be described better in picture then in wards.
ReplyDeleteThere is a huge benefit to having a physical artifact to describe your intentions. In a previous studio I had to create an artifact that embodies our analysis of our project. We were challenged to create an object that informs the holder of the story that is being told. It becomes a physical embodiment showing the materiality and there relationship with one and another.
Parametricscan creates these intelligent forms from data that we collect. They can be reproduce into images and artifact allowing us to experience these gestures in a more personal and intimate way.