WK9 Reading

Over the past decade we have seen in architecture the emergence of complexly shaped forms and intricately articulated surfaces, enclosures, and structures, whose design and production were fundamentally enabled by the capacity of digital technologies to accurately represent and precisely fabricate artifacts of almost any complexity. With the different methods of technical reproduction of a work of art, its fitness for exhibition increased to such an extent that the quantitative shift between its two poles turned into a qualitative transformation of its nature. In a dramatic departure from the formally and materially reductive norms of much twentieth-century architecture, it is now possible to materially realize complex geometric organizational ideas that were previously unattainable. Furthermore, in a paradoxical way, the new techniques and methods of digitally enabled making are reaffirming the long forgotten notions of craft, resulting from a desire to extract intrinsic qualities of material and deploy them for particular effect. There is a close relationship of materiality in architecture to the extended realm of effects and affects. Articulation of surface and formal effects can have a tremendous affect on the experiential veracity of architecture. Digitally based technologies have introduced new spatial and formal capacities in architecture. This digital technological shift led to several lines of investigation in contemporary architecture, one aimed at seamless materially, in which fluid smoothness was primary design consideration, a second trajectory explored the outcome of digitally crafted, two and three dimensional non uniform patterns and textures, and a third sought out the unity of skin, structure and pattern. Beyond the pragmatic instrumentallty implications of manufacturing material effects lies a provocation of new ways of thinking about architecture. The idea of a harmonious whole being greater than and dependent upon the sum of its parts is examined today directly through interconnected relationships, layers of information, and a search for elegance in architecture.

WK8 Reading

In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Man-made artifacts could always be imitated by men. Historically, it advanced intermittently and in leaps at long intervals, but with accelerated intensity. The Greeks knew only two procedures of technically reproducing works of art: founding and stamping. Bronzes, terra cottas, and coins were the only art works which they could produce in quantity. All others were unique and could not be mechanically reproduced. The enormous changes which printing, the mechanical reproduction of writing, has brought about in literature are a familiar story. However, within the phenomenon which we are here examining from the perspective of world history, print is merely a special, though particularly important, case. Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership. The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity. Chemical analyses of the patina of a bronze can help to establish this, as does the proof that a given manuscript of the Middle Ages stems from an archive of the fifteenth century. The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated. This holds not only for the art work but also, for instance, for a landscape which passes in review before the spectator in a movie. The concept of aura which was proposed above with reference to historical objects may usefully be illustrated with reference to the aura of natural ones. The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition. This tradition itself is thoroughly alive and extremely changeable. With the different methods of technical reproduction of a work of art, its fitness for exhibition increased to such an extent that the quantitative shift between its two poles turned into a qualitative transformation of its nature.

WK7 Reading

BIM's Seven Deadly Sins

BIM as the building information modelling, has become very popular nowadays. Professionals from a diverse range of backgrounds in the building industry such as architects, have high expectations towards BIM for efficiency gains and for more integrated collaboration with their partners. The first sin is Technocentricity - focus on software instead of design culture. BIM is often misconceived as being a new version of what the industry associates with CAD and its uptake over the past two to three decades. CAD helped designers to carry out these processes on the computer for higher speed, accuracy and for real visualisation. However, the difference is that a technology-centric view on BIM will inevitably lead to fundamental problems in understanding BIM as a method for conceiving buildings in the first place. By talking about culture, when BIM gets introduced to a practice some staff will find it easier than others to embrace the new possibilities it has to offer. A practice's leadership is well advised to consider those who will be taken out of their comfort zone and who will be anxious about the changes BIM may bring to their work. The second sin is Ambiguity, during the Australian industry forums on BIM, building industry's workers agreed that one of the major hindering factors in the adoption of BIM in design practice is the high level of ambiguity about the range of services it constitutes. Lacking a differentiated view on the value BIM adds to projects, clients are likely to be reluctant to compensate their consultants for BIM related services. Less well informed users may be tempted to associate BIM with everything interesting on could achieve in architecture with the help of computational design. This is not helped by the fact that the term "Building Information Modelling" is general in nature and it could be used to describe any activity that involves 3D architectural design. BIM users experience an overall increase of the interfacing capability between multiple, previously segregated, areas of computational design. BIM's potential for linking intelligent building information throught various types of enquiry and during various stages of design should prompt users to define a spectrum of BIM related activities. The third is Elision, one diagram in particular has been central to progagating the benefits and effects of BIM in the building industry. It is a graph created published by the American Institute of Architects via one of their members, Patrick MacLeamy. Base on the graph, it shows a positive contribution to the progagation of BIM in the industry as it communicates in very basic terms what can be achieved through BIM and it highlights the ineffciencies of pre BIM work methods. When considering the MacLeamy diagram in retrospect and in more detail, it seems to present processes in the uptake of BIM in an overly simplistic manner. The smarter the BIM, the more useful information it will contain specific to each of its contributors. In order to achieve a high level of usefulness, that information needs to be managed, coordinated and associated with individual objects in the BIM. The forth is Hypocrisy - the IPD excuse. BIM by itself makes little sense in design practice. Integrated Project Delivery is hailed as BIM’s twin sister as it associates project procurement and a predefined partnership among collaborators with the appropriation of design data through BIM. IPD allows us to tap into the potential BIM has to offer, based on procurement and collaboration principles that foster teamwork rather than litigation. Fifth is Delusion, despite the continuous development and industry uptake of BIM over the past 8-10 years, the ultimate deliverables for designers still remain the submission of 2D documentation.While the end product has stayed the same, the means of achieving it have changed drastically. The effects of BIM on any established work methods are disruptive by nature.The process change intrinsic to BIM implementation is substantial, and it requires a venturous mindset plus the willingness to take risks by a practice’s leadership in order to succeed. A step by step approach with small increments will in many ways not suffice to enable true change.