i just stumbled on this while looking for something entirely different and i thought i would leave a comment just in case it helps to clarify things a bit.

the difference between computation and digital is not that confusing although it is true that in most cases the terms just like parametric and algorithmic have been used interchangeably…
in essence, digital computation is a subcategory of the general term Computation. the digital requires digits i.e. Zeros and Ones – it requires a predefined way to make calculations using predefined units. our personal computers are digital computers because of that. they use only combinations of 0s and 1s to make any sort of calculation/computation.
on the other hand the term computation can include types of calculations that are not predetermined in nature. in other words not all computations are symbol based. for more information on this one could read the book SHAPE by George Stiny from MIT.
So the digital is a type of Computation but Computation is not necessarily Digital. If a computer (machine) does computation… like executing an algorithm or executing the range of parameters in a parametric model, this computation is Digital. If you use a computer (machine) to design stuff, depending on how you use it, you could be doing digital computation or not. the term digital has to do with a predetermined definition of units… in the case of the digital zeros and ones.

Most importantly, you can also design computationally without ever touching the computer (machine).

LikeLike

Nice post

LikeLike

I hoped the computational experiment would slow down and start to look at why and what they were doing a couple of years ago. I went to a few conferences where it was clear that playing with these new toys just for the wow factor had come to a end and that a new approach was required. I had hoped that moment had finally come where we could sit down and say that was fun but now lets get to work figuring out what all this means.

Unfortunately it looks like you pointed out a new area for the fun and games to continue – fabrication. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is important to figure out if these crazy shapes can be built, but at some point we have to stop and wonder why. And I do think it is more than likely that a good reason is right there waiting to be verbalized. Though I worry that if we wait too long the discussion will have been taken over by the wrong voices pushing computation right out the door and into a strange and lonely autopoietic world.

LikeLike

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Critical-view-Curvitechture-2432125.S.109597043

LikeLike

LikeLike

LikeLike

What I want to express by this is: finally define by the use came at resume everything to everything. And as you said everything end to be digital design.

I think the definition should come from the intent in the use. If you want use computation concept as an inspiration of your design you are computational designer, or a computable pattern oriented designer. Even nice software with nice GUI or user friendly doesn’t change the intent of their own design quest of a kind of rationality.
But this is not a mannerism this, I don’t mean they will do everything with Vim or emacs from scratch to produce there design. They can use nice software, but the slight difference with other is : they are really interested in the concept brought by computer science (and in somewhat the comeback of the ghost of Alexander who had his part of influence on the computer science development.) They are looking on the architectural concept friendly part in the computer science

If you don’t care about what happens inside the computer and you just want the power of the computation in your hand you are digital designer. And you inherit in some ways from the deconstructivist point of view

So to continue my definition by intent, I would say parametric-ism is a will of over control of your design. You want to control it in a very precise manner. This control help you to keep the cost, to adapt the project over to the tribulation of reality.

In algorithmic approach you want to loose a bit of control to be surprise by your own design. You research the generative and unpredictable aspects of algorithms.

You can combine this definition to define your manner of design : a digital algorithmic design (want to be surprise, use nature inspired algorithm _ More UCLA trend) or a computational algorithmic design (want to be surprise but want to fit in a logic of a rational design lying on computer science concept_ more MIT trend)

So now it’s useful to have different name to express different things… It merge with the feeling of jojeg07

LikeLike

LikeLike

I hadn’t previously considered how dramatically the concept of design patterns was modified on the 40 year journey away from architecture and back again. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It is interesting to see how the scale of patterns has changed, from very general rules of design (don’t build anything over 4 stories) to very specific methods of organising geometry. Even in programming, design patterns never really got beyond this stage, even though programming a blog is arguably much less complicated and more repetitive than designing architecture. One way this has been addressed is with increasing abstractions and open source libraries. All the open-source projects I have seen in architecture have left me pretty sceptical but again this might be a scale issue and small, less ambitious projects may be a more successful path for extending the current design patterns.

Daniel

LikeLike

LikeLike