transFORM workshop '09
spring 2009
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
click on an image to see full size
Only during the days preceding and following the transFORM workshop was I able to tilt my head in thought and grasp the magnitude of this opportunity. During the workshop it was hard too see who and what was in front of me as i glued my mind and eyes to my monitor. Recently I've spent time soaking up images, photos, and drawings of architectural projects that convey innovation and progress in architecture through digital technology. Morphosis , an LA firm that incorporates digital fabrication and building information modeling into its practice, was responsible for many of these projects; thefirm's Information Technology Director, Marty Doscher led the workshop alongside Makai Smith and Brad Workman. Makai is Generative- Component's product manager for Bentley Systems. Brad Workman is their vice president of building and plant solutions as well as the University of Arkansas' 21st Century Chair in Integrated Practice. Attendees with prior experience with the software along with those mentioned made it possible for everyone to explore and collaborate regardless of their experience with GenerativeComponents.
The first day of the workshop began with a mental exercise. The objective was to break down a simple design problem into parameters so that its elements can be both understood and addressed. Despite the same instruction, problem, and software, the resulting solutions had a significant variance. Some solutions approached the problem empirically with graphic relationships; others found analytical and explicit solutions. The exercise encouraged a new way of thinking about certain design problems. Also, it helped illustrated the possibilities for proposal authorship and computational output to coexist. The rest of the day was spent flying through tutorials with fast pace demonstration, collaboration, and troubleshooting.
Two camps were created the next day. One group took a step back to the basics of GenerativeComponents to ensure a solid understanding of its structure and features. The other group took their varying ranges of experience with the software and established some areas of investigation for the day. I think this second camp represents one of the most efficient and valuable methods for learning a new way of thinking and a new software/technology. Similar to the thinking exercise from day one, the design problems we offered were independent of the software. Working through these problems with a foundational concept that is divorced from the software's capabilities forces the designer to make the technology work for him or her rather than vise versa. Thus these concepts or design problems were constructed beforehand in sketches and text in order to provide a reference while working withGC . I participated in the second camp. It was incredibly interesting to see how the concepts explored with the software were primary in the process on multiple levels. Like I mentioned, the idea in the workshop is that the software is explored by discovering how it's features can test your concept(s). In another aspect/level those involved with the development software (i.e.Makai Smith, Brad Workman) made it clear that we should share any ideas or problems we had with the software; so, the software ideally develops around the concepts driving its use.
We concluded the workshop with a short discussion about our future interest and involvement with the software. The students who spoke made it clear that the use of the software (or similar software) in academic or studio projects was difficult to manage. Exposure to the software has been very recent and considerably short. Use of the software to further a project while learning the software would likely dilute the aims of an investigation and compromise the quality and quantity of products. Considering this observation, something became clear to me; exposure to many software and tools is more important than providing instruction for their use. The instruction should attempt to clarify the appropriate uses for different software. The exposure should be comprehensive and exhaustive regarding types and brands of software. Together the instruction and exposure would provide students with an array of software and their applications. The contents of this array would be analogous to any other tool or media set (e.g. watercolor, ink, graphite, physical models). This is just one suggestion. Until a method is developed for how to exploit new software in academia, there is the risk that students will chose one or few software and develop processes based on them. This workshop opened eyes to new ways of thinking about practice, academics, geometry, and even our own future in architecture.
