That’s a one million dollar question, which will take one million words to answer. But in short, the first fundamental change is that architecture as we know it or as we knew it, was an act of notations. Architects in the western Renaissance tradition do not make buildings, they make drawings of building, notations which we give to the builders and the builders make the building. We don’t cut bricks, we don’t lay bricks, we don’t cut stone and we just make drawings. The pencil in the humanistic tradition is the tool of our work
Hello dear Mario welcome to GAD foundation thanks for accepting our interview request this interview is organized by GAD Foundation and parametric architecture magazine. We invited you to ask a couple of questions around your latest book and your latest theories about the second digital turn.
According to your study of the history of architecture how do you think the computer-aided design has changed the way architects think about the design space building and the relationship between human and environment?
That’s a 1 million dollar question which will take 1 million words to answer, but in short the first fundamental change is that architecture as we know it or as we knew it was an act of notation architects in the Western you know Renaissance tradition to not make buildings they make drawings of building notations which we give to the builders builders make the building we don’t cut bricks we don’t like we don’t cut stones we don’t just make drawings the pencil in the humanistic tradition is the tool of our work we have ideas with the pencil we translate these ideas into drawings with drawings of technical notations with even builders but we’ll just make the building we don’t because
we don’t do that just make drawings this is very of the architect which was
invented in the which was good until a few years ago when computers came and with computers with separation between design and making is imploded doesn’t exist anymore because when you have something on the screen the same file can be used to produce an image and to produce the object itself the same file on the
screen is an image you put it on a 3d printer or another milling machine and you make the object so the notation is at that point the representation and the fabrication at the same time whereas traditionally we are agents of notation not agents of fabrication with separation between thinkers and makers in the Renaissance tradition we are
Thinkers not makers we think we do not make makers make and we are not allowed
to think but with computers the same tool is a tool for thinking for drawing and for making and so this separation which was the foundation of architectural profession the reason why we made drawings and not physical objects that’s not good anymore because theoretically using computational tool we could and we can notate represent and fabricate at the same time now this is the field in practice you can 3d print a
teapot you cannot be print a skyscraper so if you build a bigger object you still need all the you know degrees and layers of technical separation but with
robotics even this degrees of separation
are little by little being reduced so
this is the next step but anyway that
was the first important thing we used to
be makers of drawing and now we are
makers of notations which can be used
immediately and directly for physical
fabrication this is what computers do
well computer lead computers today are
increasingly choice of artificial
intelligence and so that’s another story
because we can solve problem of decision
making which traditionally we kept for ourselves but increasingly they can be devolved to an artificial intelligence which is increase be capable of making reasonable informed decision in our state when we delegate
so phase one inherent to architectural
profession the end of a separation
between design and making phase two with
the rise of artificial intelligence but
this is not just what we are attached to
the profession for every human activity
increasingly the machines are no longer
tools for making we’re becoming
increasingly tool for thinking so but
this is not going to happen overnight
that’s a trend
what’s a training course in your new
book you have talked about the second
digital turn and the oxidation or
maximization style in design how would
you define these terms yes in a simple
word yes box emulation of oxidization we
could even call it discrete ISM the
style of discretization so the idea but
mainly little bits and pieces chunks
pixel boxes whatever they are notated
calculated and fabricated individually
and they show as units so you can see
all the little chunks which compose the
physical object in to some extent this
is a consequence of the shift in the use
of the tools for computer-aided
fabrication because in the 90s the
driving the most common machine for
computer aided making or manufacturing
was a CNC milling machine which was a
milling machine which cars would and
takes away subtractive technology taking
matter out and they did it mostly by
following smooth lines which created a
spline a smooth style of the 90s which
we still call parametric see now we were
eyes of 3d printing a 3d printer print
each machine from subtractive to
additive technologies instead of taking
matter out matter is fabricated almost
out of nothing almost out of thin air
but it is printed out by little chunks
we
jeongsuk all voxels the way the machine
works it makes a box and then another
and then another
each box it even individually fabricated
now you could theoretically merge all
the bottle you need in a single smooth
uniform surface you can do it it’s
possible but as it always and or often
happens the logic of the tool fits back
on to the mentality of the operator and
so if you are using a machine that makes
everything by little discrete piece you
may want at some point to show the
technical logical using in the object
you’re making and so since the machine
by its own technical logic and nature
makes everything by little chunks at
some point it becomes reasonable and
logic to show the chunks and so and so
the discrete logic of manufacturing
becomes an aesthetic attribute because
instead of hiding it you actually
display it and so increasingly if you
use machine for almost artificial
intelligence you know it marries a piece
of something which is made of fourth
gazillion voxels meaning big number of
words yeah if we had to work that way we
couldn’t because as humans we cannot
well be good but it would take forever
that’s not right notate calculate and
fabricate 4 gazillion balls one by one
it’s not a practical proposal because
you start today you will never end but a
machine can notate calculate and
fabricate four trillion voxels in ten
minutes
so this logic of discrete components
which we humans would never use because
it would take too long for machines it
is quite usable because machines can in
fact machines are very good computers
are making very simple operation very
many times it’s what they do
arithmetics but I pursue per fast speed
and so the idea we could in a you know
in a game for a practical joke calculate
a box which is made of 27 boxes it’s
possible it’s a
charge game but if we want to make a
building which you’ve made of or an
object which is even a tip which make
the 4 gazillion voxels is we couldn’t do
it computers can do it so this is a
shift between our way of thinking our
way of making and the way computers
think and make we tend to simplify
objects to make them understandable for
our you know limited capacity of
arithmetic or calculations computers
don’t have those limits because we are
done but we are very fast and so they
can show the logic well they can produce
pieces of solid matter which are made of
a huge well call it excessive resolution
a huge degree of resolution it’s not
excessive for them it’s excessive for us
because we cannot count those voxels
computers can and so this shows it’s a
style it’s an aesthetic but in
engineering it is a big change because
if you think what a structural engineer
typically does well our limit up to the
degree of resolution to which we can
push our calculation of a physical
object think of a beam a
reinforced-concrete we simplify it we do
not micro design each little each little
chunk of it we could but it would take
forever computer can to limit push the
resolution of the structural object to
an almost microscopic level of
resolution and they can calculate and in
fact fabricate a beam of structural
piece where each microscopic component
it’s different from all others which
means you know in a beam of reinforced
concrete we admit but concrete is the
same all over even in fact it isn’t but
we have to assume for calculating it but
concrete is the same all over and the
steel the iron was still on you call it
beam rod it’s best still rod it is in
fact always the same excited we tweak it
so we can take into account but here it
is a 45 degree yet is so we
admit of small variation in the steel
rod which is merged inside this is as
far as we can go beyond that it becomes
too complicated for our traditional
computational instrument because we have
to calculate everything by hand whereas
using computational intelligence and 3d
printing you can print out a beam where
each voxel is different from all apps
not accidentally but by design so you
can calculate this voxel here to be
stronger than the box next to it and the
one next to it perhaps you don’t need a
box where you leave it empty and so you
can must customize the structural
component to a microscopic level of
resolution so instead of designing the
structure paradox it could be manual the
statute is already the same you design
what happens inside the structure which
is what typically we couldn’t do so for
engineering this is a big change because
you can design a level of granularity
which would allow a degree of precision
in the calculation which means saving a
lot of building material for example
because where the material is not needed
you will not use it whereas
traditionally we could never even if we
could calculate it we could not notate
it in a way which was precise enough for
an artisan or even you know a fabricator
to execute it because you cannot expect
master builder to build the beam with
the precision of a serger or a dentist
if we’re so precise it would be a
dentist not a Master Mason
but today with 3d printing we can print
a beam with the degree of resolution
which a dentist with the printer a
dental implant yes this can save a lot
of well work work and material resources
you know steel is expensive shouldn’t
waste.
what is the need of architecture today
to use big data and walks elation style
and design for what kind of architecture
problems is this method a solution ?
for all the problems to which it provides
solutions well I promise to which it
doesn’t provide any solution and then if
you don’t even try with today’s
architectures I think I don’t know maybe
using this kind of ornaments or very too
much detail is there any need for that
exactly exactly these are all tool of
mass customization the possibility to
micro design variations at no additional
cost but the question is do we need that or when do we need it for example using
these technologies you could imagine but
you know this glass is probably cheap
because it is made somewhere with a mold
where the same mode is used to reproduce
1 billion identical glasses
standardization mass production
economies of scale the more identical
glasses you make the cheaper each class
will be that’s the logic of Industrial
Revolution using computational tool you
could theoretically in practice we are
not yet there but in theory you could
make 1 million of these glasses all
different from every other one
1 million all different are the same
unit cost so variations would not entail
any supplemental cost is possible
assuming it’s possible the question is
why on earth would you need 1 million
different glasses if this glass is good
is good for me as it is good for you as
it is good for everyone else probably we
don’t need to make one get zillion
different glasses one of the founder of
inventor of the digital turn in the
nineties burn our cash as an example he
always lectures with a big pen a plastic
big pain in his hand of great product of
French consumer design and this argument
is I use I could use a 3d printer to
make this big pen customized
specifically for me
and you could do a different one
specifically for you and each one would
basket mask customize a big ballpoint
pen specific to her or him but why would
we need to do it since this big pen is
perfect and it works just fine for every
user on earth so there are cases when
mastica customization is an pleasant
solve any problem there are cases where
it solves be problems because there are
cases where one size does not fit all
a big pen it’s one size which fits more
or less everyone but for example if you
need a dental implant probably one I
need is different from the one you need
it’s like fingerprint but surgery is
done some of these technologies were
developed for surgical implants before
we were use at a scale of you know
engineering because if you need a knee
replacement or a hip replacement it has
to be custom-made and so using 3d
scanning and 3d printing you can
customize it more precisely and cheaper
than using traditional mechanical tools
but same for dentistry of course we have
more money than we do in the building
and construction industry because a knee
replacement is more expensive and you
know peace-offering sport concrete but
yeah thank you how good second digital
turn and voxel asian-style will change
the future of architecture for better
I’m not certain that they can but it’s
one of the tools but we have at our
disposal we must try to use them because
there are there is evidence that they
solve some problems we will not solve
every problem but these tools are out
there why should we not try to make
something out of them I am certain that
many architectural problems are
completely irrelevant to computation and
computation is completely irrelevant to
many architectural questions as we were
saying yesterday in the conference in
the lecture some architectural problems
are computable when computers can help
some are non computable and when
computers cannot help but where
quantification
part of again computers are a big help
because we had to optimize the solution
has to save time money resources
renewable material minimize energy waste
etc etc all things we care about thank
you but of course architecture is way
more than that yes technological and
cultural changes and expansion of the
tools for design what do you see as the
role of Architects in future could a I
be the future are no it’s not going to
happen anywhere anytime soon so this is
a debate between the designers and
architects it’s gonna design for us what
I would what it’s gonna do AI what is AI
well we don’t know what is a I for the
time being is the tool we use but it is
not a tool but is going to replace us
for many reason but basically AI is a
problem-solving device it is good for
solving the problem of a certain degree
of complexity architecture is such a
complex problem
each architectural project has levels of
complexity but we cannot quantify
because we cannot even rationalize for
better for worse and then don’t say it
is good but it is inevitable much of
what happens in the decision-making
process of an architectural design is
based on intuition feeling taste
ideology personal choices an
idiosyncratic opinions it’s not
something that you can prove as in a
mathematical demonstration and in that
area of subjectivity computational tool
are perfectly irrelevant then as we said
there are many areas of pure technical
rules you know quantification where
computers are a big help but again we
shouldn’t confuse instrument and
intentions computers are instruments
they are help to implementing our
intentions but intentionality is ours
instrumentality is very very our
instrument in the service of our
intentions but we don’t provide
intentions intentions are ours we have
intentions computer instrument
intentionality is a Spencer mentality is
them then I have a second argument why I
don’t think what artificial intelligence
going to break a promise anytime soon
artificial intelligence sticks so
expensive and architectural a belief so
cheap
but it doesn’t make any sense to use an
expensive machine to replace cheap human
labor yes so you say you say robots are
not gonna kill us more expensive an
architect for the tiny well robots are
going to replace expensive profession
profession with a huge amount of added
value yes and so economic logic if there
is a surgeon whose work is paid
$1,000,000 per hour there is an
incentive to replace it with a good
computer or a good robotic hand you know
how much architectural labor cost $15
per hour so there is no incentive to
replace any of us with a computer which
is going to be way more expensive than
we are so don’t worry it’s an instrument
we should learn to use because it solves
many problem yeah that’s already – yeah
it’s a total instrument the instruments
is there intentions is here
in your guess or predictions who are the next generation of architects who will diveinto this world and become starchitects in other words who is the next Frank Gehry of late 90s?
I hope no one becomes
a starchitect in this field no no no I
don’t like there’s a good profession we
do a good job you don’t need to become a starchitect.
there will be good architects there will
be better architects and there will be
architects in between the stardom of
architectural profession in my opinion
is an accident of history it happens not
a precise point in time I do not know
why it happened particularly around the
turn of the millennium I mean luckily he
was a famous architect but it didn’t
have in the thirties nor during the
sixties the level of stardom but some of
our friends have today
never happened before it’s unprecedented
so in my opinion it’s a perk it won’t it
won’t last
I mean I would argue that we’ll have a
good reputation record busy leave the
good life
people invited him around the world and
they travel first-class and they made
some money particularly the second part
of his life that’s ok you don’t need to
be as well it was a start at a human
scale yes was a starchitect it made a
decent life of you know a successful
professional yeah thanks for your time
in closing may I ask what advice would
you like to share with young architects
to do a lot of work and particularly to
devote a lot of work to a systematic
learning in classroom of topics which
you do not learn in a studio because
what I see is many of our students and
colleagues the studio is becoming the
only pedagogical site for the training
of an architect everything else is
ornament that was the Bazar system a
system of a School of Fine Arts which
was eliminating the 20th century because
it proved its ineffectiveness we
shouldn’t go back to that because it
already failed the 20 century great
invention was a school of architecture
where the architect is trained in
different formats one is to do based one
is classroom based and one is lab based
we must train as designer in a studio as
scholar in a classroom a scientist in a
lab we need these three pillars to be
well trained only one is not enough
that’s my my ideal school as these three
pillars the studio the classroom and the
lab the studio for designing and making
creative stuff the classroom for
learning boring stuff in the stew and
the lab for making daring experiments we
need these three forms we work on these
three
modes only one it may be good for some
starchitect but for most of us it would
not work we need all three but about
today’s architecture programs in
universities do you have any comment so
is it working or not
except Bartlett or a do you think it is
they are on the wrong way or on the
right way because we have a lot of
graduated architects now and they’re
complaining there’s no work there’s no
do you think it’s because of
architecture programs and universities
is there any problem number of jobs that
are available to architects does not
depend on the number of artists we
trained in the School of Architecture
real estate booms and busts all the time
and we are at the mercy of a fluctuation
of the markets there are times when
there are not enough architects on the
market and times were you know newly
graduated architects no but for five
years there will be no jobs when I came
onto the market myself there were no
jobs but feeling things saying we cannot
we cannot do much about that
concerning the level of training we
provide in schools yes there are
different models there are different
approaches some are more successful some
including the example I just provided
are in my opinion doomed because we do
not train professionals which are apt to
compete on an international marketplace
so there are winners and losers there
are some schools that are winning some
school but are losing and not going to
make any nice but don’t think but some
of the big names are the winners some of
the big names I’m thinking of are
actually losers and some little schools
which have no star reputation are doing
excellent training so not everything
that looks like gold is gold something
like that it’s an Italian problem so
don’t be misled by the shimmering
shining appearances
do you Mario thanks
for your time and we do really
appreciate the GAD foundation for
sponsoring and organizing this
Thanks thank you
you
