Computational Design and Nature
To the exhibition of the Academic Platform for Computational Design at the UM Gallery
The breadth of contemporary architectural thinking encompasses and connects very different approaches, from social and humanitarian activism to the integration of the latest computational technologies within specialized research. This is happening in Europe, both in academia and in practice, and the UM gallery has presented several such centers.
The places where this research takes place are not found on the sidelines; they are mostly well-known and respected schools of architecture: from ETH in Zurich to Bartlett in London to Prague's UMPRUM, where both curators of the exhibition, Imrich Vaško and Shota Tsikoliya, are based. Additionally, other specialized institutions such as ICD Stuttgart, CITA Copenhagen, IAAC Barcelona, ATTP TU Vienna, and MOLAB FA CTU were represented. The involvement of digitization does not lead to a purely abstract approach to architecture, but surprisingly explores the use of traditional handcrafted techniques such as sewing or knitting in digitally controlled building.
One of the main questions that arise while observing these projects is to what extent they can create new experiences of space and the overall organization of the environment. The search for change seems to echo the radical utopian projects of the 1960s, when architecture lost its solid outlines and became a soft, sometimes barely discernible envelope of life. Overall, these projects were strongly influenced by the excitement of cosmic exploration, and proposals for such architecture were deliberately inspired by spacesuits as minimal living units. Many of these designs were also accompanied by enthusiasm for the future perfect informational interconnectedness of the world and, from a material perspective, plastics and other materials directly developed in connection with journeys into space. This dreaming of the future faced a harsh reality during the oil crises of the early 1970s. As can be inferred from the projects in the exhibition, current research does not primarily focus on interior space. Experimentation in architecture, a way of thinking about building that seems to be oriented toward the future, today lacks a vision of inhabiting the outer universe. A shared vision, which is not explicitly articulated but can be quite well sensed in the background, is oriented toward sustainable and symbiotic living of people on Earth. The fundamental fact is that there is some recognizable vision here. One can delineate, argue (including regarding the form and cost of these research projects), or agree with it, but the lived environment resulting from such attitudes will be the outcome of discussion and not indifference, which we see far too often today.
Since the orientation is terrestrial, many projects draw inspiration from nature and translate their functional solutions from the world of insects to scales that meet human needs. Biomimetic architecture, which mainly takes place in experimental ephemeral pavilions, can adapt to changes in weather conditions thanks to the natural properties of building materials. These are still only attempts on a small scale, and it is quite likely that many of them will never find permanent application; however, it is a remarkable activity because it discovers new forms of architecture that do not primarily deal with formal appearance but with solutions to new societal needs, led by minimal ecological impact (which is also primarily a matter of the future).
At the exhibition, one rather gets the impression that the displayed works are artistic objects and installations rather than seeds of future architecture. Although such architecture often does not arise from the inside out, from the primacy of internal arrangement, this type of architecture can still transform our everyday experience of space. It would be remarkable if only this experience would be variable. It is difficult to speak of any traditional rhythm of architecture here, as the presented projects are still approaching architecture, but it is evident that the concept of rhythm will need to be rethought, just as modern architecture broke down established notions of inside and outside. Whether this type of architecture is too aggressive in this regard, as it does not take too much consideration for the individual and their perception of place, can only be guessed at in hints, and concerns about excessive abstraction of the created environment are valid. Will such architecture lose the sense of belonging to the place, which should be the foundation of a thoughtful perception and treatment of one's surroundings, in graceful and variable lines? Or will it be instead strengthened by biomimetic forms? I think that will be in the hands of individual architects.
Academic Platforms of Computational Design
Gallery UM, September 5 to October 7, 2017
Curators Imrich Vaško and Shota Tsikoliya
More Information >
The places where this research takes place are not found on the sidelines; they are mostly well-known and respected schools of architecture: from ETH in Zurich to Bartlett in London to Prague's UMPRUM, where both curators of the exhibition, Imrich Vaško and Shota Tsikoliya, are based. Additionally, other specialized institutions such as ICD Stuttgart, CITA Copenhagen, IAAC Barcelona, ATTP TU Vienna, and MOLAB FA CTU were represented. The involvement of digitization does not lead to a purely abstract approach to architecture, but surprisingly explores the use of traditional handcrafted techniques such as sewing or knitting in digitally controlled building.
One of the main questions that arise while observing these projects is to what extent they can create new experiences of space and the overall organization of the environment. The search for change seems to echo the radical utopian projects of the 1960s, when architecture lost its solid outlines and became a soft, sometimes barely discernible envelope of life. Overall, these projects were strongly influenced by the excitement of cosmic exploration, and proposals for such architecture were deliberately inspired by spacesuits as minimal living units. Many of these designs were also accompanied by enthusiasm for the future perfect informational interconnectedness of the world and, from a material perspective, plastics and other materials directly developed in connection with journeys into space. This dreaming of the future faced a harsh reality during the oil crises of the early 1970s. As can be inferred from the projects in the exhibition, current research does not primarily focus on interior space. Experimentation in architecture, a way of thinking about building that seems to be oriented toward the future, today lacks a vision of inhabiting the outer universe. A shared vision, which is not explicitly articulated but can be quite well sensed in the background, is oriented toward sustainable and symbiotic living of people on Earth. The fundamental fact is that there is some recognizable vision here. One can delineate, argue (including regarding the form and cost of these research projects), or agree with it, but the lived environment resulting from such attitudes will be the outcome of discussion and not indifference, which we see far too often today.
Since the orientation is terrestrial, many projects draw inspiration from nature and translate their functional solutions from the world of insects to scales that meet human needs. Biomimetic architecture, which mainly takes place in experimental ephemeral pavilions, can adapt to changes in weather conditions thanks to the natural properties of building materials. These are still only attempts on a small scale, and it is quite likely that many of them will never find permanent application; however, it is a remarkable activity because it discovers new forms of architecture that do not primarily deal with formal appearance but with solutions to new societal needs, led by minimal ecological impact (which is also primarily a matter of the future).
At the exhibition, one rather gets the impression that the displayed works are artistic objects and installations rather than seeds of future architecture. Although such architecture often does not arise from the inside out, from the primacy of internal arrangement, this type of architecture can still transform our everyday experience of space. It would be remarkable if only this experience would be variable. It is difficult to speak of any traditional rhythm of architecture here, as the presented projects are still approaching architecture, but it is evident that the concept of rhythm will need to be rethought, just as modern architecture broke down established notions of inside and outside. Whether this type of architecture is too aggressive in this regard, as it does not take too much consideration for the individual and their perception of place, can only be guessed at in hints, and concerns about excessive abstraction of the created environment are valid. Will such architecture lose the sense of belonging to the place, which should be the foundation of a thoughtful perception and treatment of one's surroundings, in graceful and variable lines? Or will it be instead strengthened by biomimetic forms? I think that will be in the hands of individual architects.
Academic Platforms of Computational Design
Gallery UM, September 5 to October 7, 2017
Curators Imrich Vaško and Shota Tsikoliya
More Information >
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
0 comments
add comment
