DIGITIZED MORPHOSIS: THE EFFECTS OF COMPUTER AIDED MODELING ON FORM FINDING AND BUILDING MORPHOLOGY by Gnsu Merin ABBAS

DIGITIZED MORPHOSIS: THE EFFECTS OF COMPUTER AIDED MODELING ON FORM FINDING AND BUILDING MORPHOLOGY by Gnsu Merin ABBAS

A paper submitted to the Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Izmir University of Economics

In partial fulfilment of the requirements of ARCH 494

2011

IZMIR UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS DIGITIZED MORPHOSIS: THE EFFECTS OF COMPUTER AIDED MODELING ON FORM FINDING AND BUILDING MORPHOLOGY by Gnsu Merin ABBAS Supervisor: Serdar AUT (Architecture)

November 2011, 22 pages

ABSTRACT In contemporary architecture, with the technologic breakthrough, the methods of architectural representation and designing methods have been changing. Hereby, the new approach to the architecture has started to be formed. This thesis investigates the shift of architectural designing and representation methods as models and digital morphogenesis. With new technologies, the role of the models in the design process has changed. While models were used as representation tools for designers, the models become more creative tools for designers by perceiving them as a form-finding tool. This shift brings designers to investigate new methods of form finding and combine them with traditional methods of representations. With these new tools, the shift in the concept of architecture has started to change. Instead of having Euclidian aesthetics, the designers started to push the borders of new scopes and branches in scientific fields such as biology. At this stage, this thesis investigates the new concept of architecture as digital morphogenesis, which exploits the digital media as a creative tool for form finding in architecture. Keywords: form finding, form making, morphogenesis, formalism, algorithmic architecture ZET Teknolojik ilerlemeler ve deiimlerle birlikte, gnmz mimarisinde temsil ve tasarm metodlar da degismekte ve esitlilik gstermektedir. Bylelikle, mimariye baks ve mimariyi alglays biimi de degismekte ve zenginlesmektedir. Bu asamada, tasarmclarn kullanmakta olduu temsil aralar da birer tasarm metodu olarak islev grmeye baslamstr. Geleneksel mimaride, maket bir temsil arac iken, gnmz mimarisinde birer tasarm ve biim bulma arac olarak kullanlmaktadr. Bu deiim, tasarmclara, eski ve yeni tasarm-

temsil metodlarn bir arada kullanma ve tasarmn biim bulma fazn bir deneye ve deneyime dntrme olanagn tanmstr. Yeni metodlar ve aralarla birlikte mimariye baks da degismistir. Geleneksel Euclid geometrisi ve estetiginin yansra, yeni mimari alg biyoloji gibi bilimsel alanlar da mimariye adapte etmenin snrlarn zorlamaktadr. Bu noktada, bu tez dijital morfojeni kavram die adlandrlan yeni mimari alg ve dijital morfojeninin getirmi olduu yeni biim bulma metodlarn ve ilikisini incelemektedir. Anahtar szckler: biim bulma, biim yapma, morfojeni, formalism akm ve algoritmik mimari

DEDICATION

Death is a morphosis To memory of my grandmother

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is a pleasure to thank my supervisor Serdar Asut, who made my thesis possible with his great help and assistance, my parents Renan Cnglloglu Abbas, Bedir Abbas and my grandfather Gungor Cnglloglu who show one hundred percent inner support and made me embolden in every step of my life

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ............................................................................................ iv Acknowledgments ................................................................................. v Table of Contents ................................................................................... i List of figures ......................................................................................... ii Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 1.Digital Models for Form Finding ....................................................... 3 1.1.Form Finding and Form Development ..................................... 3 1.2.Manual Models and Digital Models..6 2.Digital Models for Morphogenesis ................................................... 13 2.1.Morphogenesis ........................................................................ 14 2.2.Morphogenesis and Digital Models ......................................... 18 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 27 Bibliography ......................................................................................... 29

LIST OF FIGURES

Number 1.1 Weighted Strings - Antonio Gaudi

Page

(http://nathanielzuelzke.com/category/discourse/) ............................ 3 1.2 Resulting Form - Antonio Gaudi (http://labs.blogs.com/its_alive_in_the_lab/autodeskgallery/)..3 1.3 A Sketch Model of French Cultural Centre in Damascus, Syria by Jose Oubrerie Morris, Mark (2006) Models: Architecture and the Miniature .....................9 1.4 A Middle-Stage Model of French Cultural Centre in Damascus, Syria by Jose Oubrerie Morris, Mark (2006) Models: Architecture and the Miniature ................9 1.5 A Final Model of French Cultural Centre in Damascus, Syria by Jose Oubrerie Morris, Mark (2006) Models: Architecture and the Miniature ......9 1.6 A Final Model of French Cultural Centre in Damascus, Syria by Jose Oubrerie Morris, Mark (2006) Models: Architecture and the Miniature ......9

ii

2.1 Parasite Cell Structure by Stanislav Roudavski (Photographs by Giorgos Artopoulos and Stanislav Roudavski) Roudavski, Stanislav (2009) Towards Morphogenesis in Architecture.....16 2.2 Evolution of form by Toni sterlund sterlund, Toni (2010) Methods for Morphogenesis and Ecology in Architecture......................................................................................... ...............17

iii

INTRODUCTION

The development of contemporary technologies and consonantly breakthrough of the new approaches to design, sharply involved the classification of form finding and form making. Thus, the use of new technologies and methods defined a clear borderline between the former methods and approaches. They changed the apprehension of architectural notions such as form and space relation. As well as turning inside out the concepts and approaches, these methods and distinctions changed the position of the designer in the design process. This graduation thesis, investigates the manual and digital models regarding to architectural notions and the contemporary approach to the generative and reproductive design methods as computational modeling-the digital morphogenesis and its relation to the formalism. This thesis expects to compile, pair up and re-interpret the concepts and methods in design process in field of architecture. Making a literature review provided an opportunity to comprehend different approaches to architecture, the form finding methods and the scope of morphogenesis, which is a plot that highly disputed in field of design. Having comparisons revealed the new perceptions about concepts and methods.

Chapter 1
DIGITAL MODELS FOR FORM FINDING

1.1. Form Finding and Form Development: Form finding is a continuous design process about the form of the building, which generally starts right after the contextual analysis. A continuous phase, which is led by the data, obtained from analysis in its early ages such as environmental, social, cultural, historical background of the problem area. Diagramming, sketching, modelling are the form-finding methods, which follow the analysis phase of current context and programme in order to obtain and express initial design concepts and ideas. According to Isaacs (2008), form finding is a part of answering about architecture and how we go about designing it. Form finding is a phase, which leads designer to think about architecture and how he approaches it. It makes designer, discover and be more conscious about analysis and obtained data. In further phases these data will shape the form. As Isaac (2008) stated, It can be described as the study of emergent properties of complex system to establish a more intelligent, correct, and robust form. So, form emerges from analysis in form-finding phase. Having retrospection about form finding leads us to see the first architect who used concept of form finding in his designs, Antonio Gaudi. Gaudi used 3

physical models for form-finding experimentations. In example he used weighted string form finding method in order to express the Catalan style in Colonia Gell. At this point, Gaudi used weighted string models, which is also named as funicular models for structural form finding. (Isaacs, 2008). At the beginning of the presence of the physical models, they are used to understand and develop the structural behaviour of the imaginary building. As Wendland (2000) stated; In structural design, physical models have been used to determine the figure of equilibrium for structures, resistant by form, such as tents, tensile structures or shell structures. The obtained structural form later on shapes the form of the building. While having structural form finding, Gaudi expressed the spatial quality in these physical models. (Isaacs, 2008). He defined the shade-shadow effects of the volumes, which defines the volumetric quality of the space. Having structural and form-finding experimentations with physical models led Gaudi to analyse and to control the geometry in his designs. By doing that, Gaudi forecasted the resulting geometry and the structure of his designs. (Isaacs, 2008).

Image 1.1: Weighted Strings Antonio Gaudi

Image 1.2: Resulting form Antonio Gaudi

As far as the computers conquer the design field, the methods of form finding is enhanced and enriched by digital tools. Software enable designer explore complex geometries and digital models enable the designer transform and manipulate the existing geometry, for example transformation of the existing form by using basic topological transformations such as stretching, bending; non-isometric transformations such as equal and non-equal scaling. (Celani; Martins; Stroeder, 2007). These operations diversify and alternate the existing form and the geometry. Digital tools and models also diversify the possible forms that can be derived from both Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry by using software such as 5

NURBS originated Rhinoceros.

Euclidian geometry is based on the plane

geometry and attributed to man-made geometry such as squares, circles, triangles and polygons. As Anandasivam (2003) stated Everything that was built on Euclidian geometry stood out from nature. It gave special meaning to things manmade. (Krishnapillahi, 2003). Yet, non-Euclidian geometry is attributed to geometry of the nature. Fractals, spherical, elliptic and hyperbolic geometry are examples for non-Euclidian geometry. As Anandasivam (2003) pointed, the traditional European aesthetics in architecture is influenced by Euclidian geometry. As Kolarevic (2003) stated; The introduction of digital modelling software into architectural design provided a departure from the Euclidian geometry of discrete volumes represented in Cartesian space and made possible the present use of topological, rubber-sheet geometry of continuous curves and surfaces that feature prominently in contemporary architecture. With

digital tools, designers have started to redefine the concept of aesthetics and the form, so; the shift from Euclidian to non-Euclidian geometry in architecture has manifested. Digital tools break the confines of traditional concept of form and form finding. Digital models facilitate to control the form finding and resulting form finding process for the designer. During the form finding

experimentations, the designer is able to visualize the possibilities of the form and the potential of the design. This feature of digital tools enhances the form 6

finding process and changes the process into experimentation in order to achieve optimised form in form development process. Being able to visualize the design ideas, leads designer to improve his design and optimize the form. Following the form-finding stage, the digital models are used in formdevelopment stage as well. Form-development is a phase of optimisation of existing form, which is obtained in form-finding phase. The designer starts to have a critical interaction with the model in order to enhance his design. At this point, digital models facilitate the analysis of the form, which is derived in formfinding phase. They permit designers to visualize three-dimensionality and spatial quality of the form. They also permit designers to investigate and notice the lacks and deficiencies of the form. According to the data, which are obtained during form investigation, the designer can make optimisations and refinements on the form. He can fix the lacks and deficiencies. He can alter and manipulate the existing form. Moreover, digital tools lay the opportunity to examine the form-environment relationship with environmental simulations at this stage. As an example, the architectural form and its environment are modelled digitally. The data about environmental conditions such as sun, wind or topography can be used as inputs, this allows designer to have virtual mockup and visualize the reaction of the form to these inputs. According to these investigations, designer can enhance and strengthen the form and he can 7

optimize his design. As Frazer (1995) stated, Computer models are used to simulate the development of prototypical forms that are then evaluated on the basis of their performance in a simulated environment. Digital tools create perception of the form and the design with its environment in a more realistic and similar way as it is built.

1.2 Manual Models and Digital Models Models are three-dimensional, scaled figures of the architectural pieces, narrative tools for designers, a part of the design process, a solution for form finding and the summation of ideas and concepts. Models are way of representing the main idea of the architectural piece. They are the conceptual representations and they make it easier to comprehend the architectural ideas. As Morris (2006) stated, Models need not merely describe a project, but generate it. As being a way of representation of design ideas, models are the part of the design process as design tools, a method for discovery, and a method for form finding. As Mills (2005) stated in Designing with Models, models as a tool for discovery. When used as an integral part of the design process, study models are

capable of generating information in time comparable to drawing and offer one of the strongest exploration methods available. In the history of models, Leon Battista Alberti was the pioneer who advocates the models as design tools. He asserts that the models are not just the medium of architectural expression, they are also the primary tools of the design process. (Morris, 2006) Models lead designer to translate the ideational architecture to visuality, to see the process and the evolution of the form, design and the design idea in each model and to go one step further by exploring aspects of the idea. Models are mainly the tools for apprehending the three dimensionality of the design. They illustrate the space form relationship and enable designer to visualize the three-dimensional form as an object and the volumes as spaces. They can be perceived as architectural objects, which represent the shell, the envelope of the design that lead designer to improve the form finding or they can be perceived as the tool for framing the volumes. As models are the narrative design tools for designers, the perception of being an object or the volumes or representing both depends on the designers way of communicating and expressing his design ideas. Regarding to being scaled versions of the real buildings, it lays the opportunity to apprehend and to explore the scale-form-space relationship and the 9

structural behaviour of the design. It facilitates to combine the form and the space concepts of the design, which affects the form finding process by having manipulations and modelling the variations of the form. Models give the opportunity to examine and test the design as it is built and change it as it is going to be built. As Alberti (1755) asserted in The Ten Books of Architecture; I therefore always highly commend the ancient custom of builders, who not only in draughts and paintings, but in real models of wood or other substance, examined and weighed over and over again, with the advice of men of the best experience, the whole work and the ad-measurements of its parts, before they put themselves to the expense or trouble. By making a model you will have the opportunity, thoroughly to weigh and consider the form and situation unlike Beaux Arts. (Morris, 2006) As far as the computers get involved in contemporary design field, models can be generated in two ways as; manual models, which are the traditional way to produce models, and the digital models, which are becoming widespread in contemporary architecture since 1990s. (Morris, 2006). While the manual models are based on hand-crafting, the digital models are based on digital-crafting. Manual models are the traditional way of illustrating the architectural design ideas. Tracing, cutting, folding and pasting techniques on materials such as 10

cardboard, paper, metal sheet, wood, plastic and polystyrene are used in manual models. Scissors, hacksaws, utility knives, sandpaper are traditional handheld tools for traditional manual models. Drill presses, milling machines, grinders and sanders are the examples for conventional machinery for manual models. (Seely, 2000) Thinking in three dimensions via manual models make designer to be aware of the tactile, volumetric, proportional and solid-void relationships of the design. By having manual models for illustrating the ideas makes designer have a tactile contact with the design unlike digital models. The physical presence of the form and space enable designer to have direct interaction with the design. (Mills, 2005). Sensing the material, rotating the model with hands, perceiving the scale comparing with another piece of the design enhance the way of visual perception and volumetric apprehension of the designer. Their physical presence facilitates the form finding by being aware of the manipulation in a tactual way and obtaining the instant feedback for the design. Sketch or study models, as a sub-category of the manual models, can be an example for tools to have an instant communication and the feedback of the design. Unlike the final models which consumes time and money and needs materials-which can be costly and sometimes hardly found- and certain level of craftsmanship; the sketch models are quickly produced models, which are generally based on the 11

conceptual design ideas. They are open-ended, which leads designer to make manipulations and improvements on it according to the feedbacks from the model itself that enhance the form finding experiments.

Image 1.3: A Sketch Model of French Cultural Centre Image 1.4: Middle-Stage Model of French Cultural Centre

12

Image 1.5: A Final Model of French Cultural Centre Cultural Centre

Image 1. 6: A Final Model of French

Since the computers have incorporated in design field, the digital models have started to rank among the modelling techniques. Digital models are computerbased representations of the designs and based on digital crafting. Digital models firstly used for the visualization like manual models. (zkan, 2008). In contemporary architecture, they are also used for analysis and simulation like environmental simulations and structural simulations. Digital models facilitate exploring the complex geometries, which cannot be explored by manual models. At this stage the digital models are counted as the tools for form finding explorations. They break the confines of traditional 13

geometries of architecture such as Euclidian geometry and Cartesian space. They let designers to explore new forms and new geometries such as fractals, non-uniform surfaces, amorphous objects and isomorphic polysurfaces. (Kolarevic, 2003) They also break the traditional way of representation of architecture. This gives to model objectness approach. As Morris (2006) stated, The model emphasises the objectness of the building, making it an organic unity comparable to a work of sculpture As Morris advocates, this objectness makes design to be understood as a unity and a singularity like a sculpture or an object, not the compilation of the individual components or volumes. At this stage, as they are perceived like sculptures, the aesthetic concerns become more dominant rather than spatial, functional or structural concerns. According to Vitruvius, architecture has three essentials as firmitas- referring to structural ability, venustas- referring to beauty and aesthetics, and utilitasreferring to function and utility. (Moffet, Fazio, Wodehouse; 2003). If digital models for architectural design are evaluated by traditional and classical principles of Vitruvius in his De Architettura, venustas become more prominent than firmitas or utilitas. This approach leads design to be based on its semblance and put its functions such as function as a space or function as an internal 14

environment, and the structure in the second row for the designer. So, the aesthetics and the semblance shape the volumes and spaces in digital modelling. It makes models to be perceived as architectural objects. The envelope or the shell, which frames the volumes, becomes more prominent rather than the volumes. It causes design to be less communicative about its volumes and the spatial quality in contrast to manual models. As Hertzberger (1991) stated in Space and The Architect: Lessons in Architecture 2; Decreasing the objectness of buildings makes them less distant in every sense. As the models are scaled versions of the buildings and as they perceived more object the buildings become to be perceived more object too. And being object and so that being less communicative make designs more introverted and self-enclosed. Unlike manual models, which are built according to the certain physics rules as they are built in reality, designing with digital tools do not need these physics rules to be built up. It makes designer pass over the structure, as the firmitas branch of Vitruvian Trilogy. Differing from manual models, digital models do not provide haptic interaction with its designer. Since there is a lack of tactual-three dimensionality, and physical traces of the designer or model-maker, the representation of design works only for vision. (Morris, 2006). It means that, the digital models ignore the 15

sense of touch-which is much more in the foreground in manual models and just works for the sense of sight. It causes scale, spatial and material relations not be apprehended easily. The designer is no more able to touch the model and feel the texture, which is a representation of the material in manual models or he is not able to compare the piece of the model with another piece of the design in sense of scale by holding or rotating the model by touching and seeing at the same time. While designer uses his sight, touch, smell and hearing senses in manual models, he is not able to use the senses other than sight in digital models. So, the monitors create a separation between the design and the designer, the body and the architectural piece. As Maze (2006) stated; The engagement of the body is quite limited in most cases to these senses of sight and hearing, so in order for the architect to narrate with design, the architecture of walls and doors will not be adequate because the body will not inhabit this digital environment. While the manual models create dense physical

interaction between design and the designer, the digital models limits this physical interaction. While limiting the physical interaction, digital models enhance the virtual interaction between the design and the designer. These features make manual models more communicative in means of volume, tactility and the scale, the digital models more experimental in sense of form, geometries and the virtual mock-ups. 16

Chapter 2

DIGITAL MODELS FOR MORPHOGENESIS Many trends have been passing through the architecture and design. Formalism and the formal approach to architecture is one of the trends, which have been highly disputed in the design field. Formalism is mainly based on the formal expression and the physical appearances of the buildings. As Linder (1960) asserts in his book Nothing Less Than Literal: Architecture After Minimalism, an effort to relate architecture to modernist painting and sculpture. Formalism is an approach to architecture, which is similar to the sculptors way of designing, purely taking into consideration of aesthetics, form and formal expression. In contemporary architecture, the concept of morphogenesis is 17

counted as a precursor of the formalist approach. It broadens the horizon of the generation of form by presenting the nature-originated forms. The concept of morphogenesis becomes a tool for generating new forms by interpreting and analysing the form and the structure of cells such as their self-organizations in the field of architecture. As Kolarevic stated (2000) in Digital Morphogenesis and Computational Architectures, It explores the possibilities for the finding form. So by gravitation to morphogenesis, the forms of the architectural pieces become more amorphous and organic in compared to traditional architecture. And with new technologies such as new generation 3D modelling software like Rhinoceros, which is based on NURBS, experiencing and experimenting such amorphous forms become facilitated. As Kolarevic (2000) advocates that, The generative and creative potential of digital media is opening up new emergent dimensions in architecture. Thus, morphogenesis became a tool for form-finding and form-developing process of the design field. 2.1 Morphogenesis Morphogenesis in nature is a process of development and the evolution of the forms of the organisms by interaction with environmental forces. (sterlund, 2010). 18

The concept of morphogenesis is originated in the field of biology in second half of the nineteenth century. Since then, the concept of morphogenesis is widely used in various branches of science and art such as geology, engineering, urban studies and architecture. (Roudavski, 2009). The term of morphogenesis enables the different fields of disciplines to be interrelated and integrated. Morphogenesis widens the interested branches of the disciplines by proposing integrated scopes of disciplines such as biology, algebra and architecture. As Lootsma stated in Hybrid Spaces: New Forms in Digital Architecture (Zellner, 1999) instead of trying to validate conventional architectural thinking in a different realm, our strategy today should be to infiltrate architecture with other media and disciplines to produce a new crossbreed. In architecture branch of morphogenesis, the concept of morphogenesis is used as a series of methods, which exploits the digital media as a generative and reproductive tool for form finding and form-transformation rather than a tool for representation. (Roudavski, 2009). Morphogenesis is termed as digital morphogenesis and the computational morphogenesis in architecture, and it has a metaphorical relation with the concept of morphogenesis in nature in means of the process of metamorphosis, dynamic growing characteristics and emergence of the organisms. (Kolarevic, 19

2000). As Estevez (2003) asserts in Genetic Architectures that, the new methods in architecture enable us, not to create a nature, but creating with nature, which leads the nature to be integrated in architectural design. As well as metaphoric relation to the nature, the digital morphogenesis is based on the generative processes such as topographic architecture, isomorphic surfaces and parametric design. (Kolarevic, 2000) In scope of architecture, morphogenesis is being used and defined as a tool for form finding as Leach (2009) asserts in Digital Morphogenesis. It exploits the use of the formal process of the natural organisms such as their self-organization, evolution and the transformation of their forms. At this point the discrimination between the form finding and form making becomes more obvious in terms of methodology of the form development. As the designer is the controller of the form in form making process, the designer is the controller of the process in morphogenetic form finding process (Leach 2009). Rather than controlling the form, the designer controls the process of the transformation. At this stage the concept of form changes into the process and transformation of the form becomes more dominant in the design rather than the presence of the form, which is created by a designer. The transformation process determines the form of the final architectural piece according to the analysis such as environmental

20

and topological in morphogenesis unlike the form making method. It proposes a new approach to presence of the form and the form-finding process.

As being a method for form finding, morphogenesis is based on the formal appearances of the natural organisms such as parasites and counted as biologically inspired forms. Departing from having architectural notions about the space or volumetric qualities, morphogenesis primarily privileges the appearance as form finding. (Leach, 2009). Rather than creation of volumetric expressions as a part of the architectural notion, creating formal expressions becomes more prominent in morphogenesis. At this stage, the notion of objectness of the form, dominates the spatial and volumetric notions of the architecture piece. Perceiving the architecture piece as an object and aesthetical concerns become predominant in morphogenesis.

21

Image 2.1: Parasite Cell Structure by Stanislav Roudavski (Photographs by Giorgos Artopoulos and Stanislav Roudavski)

Being a form finding method in contemporary architecture and privileging the formal expression of the design, make morphogenesis a precursor of contemporary formalist approach, which is becoming distinctly separated from Post- Modern formalism. According to Post-Modernist approach to formalism, digital morphogenesis can be defined both as a part and as it is apart from the formalism. Morphogenesis can be counted as a part of the formalist approach; because of the formal focus to the design and architectural morphology. And it can be counted as it is departed from traditional way of formalism Post Modern formalism- by focusing on the question of how it performs in architecture. In digital morphogenesis, per formative issues include the efficient use of the resources and the analysis of the structural loadings and environmental conditions such as sun exposure or ecology. (Oxman, 2008). In form finding process, the form is transformed and the optimised by taking the conditions such as environmental, structural and economical into considerations with the help of software (Leach2009) such as MoSS plug-in of Alias Wavefront Studio

22

(Testa

2000).

Image 2.2: Evolution of form by Toni sterlund

Thus, the morphogenesis can be classified as formalism departed from traditional approach of formalism and termed as contemporary approach to formalism to contemporary architecture.

2.2 Morphogenesis and Digital Models Models are used for representing, visualizing and generating the design ideas. As the term of morphogenesis-the digital generative process- is used as a reproductive and a generative tool for the design idea, the main purpose of digital modelling is to propose a design idea as an experimental process for form finding with transformations and manipulations of the primary design idea like 23

the evolution process of forms of the organisms in nature. At this point, digital models become a tool for involving creativity and experimentation with production of ideas and design rather than being a representation tool for the designer. As Kolarevic (2003) asserts in Digital Morphogenesis, In

contemporary architectural design, digital media is increasingly being used not as a representational tool for visualization but as a generative tool for the derivation of form and its transformation-the digital morphogenesis. By this paradigm shift, the perception and the use of digital models changed, shifted to being a representation to experimentation and form finding. Accordingly, in the mean time the method of producing a model has changed. Rather than using traditional way of modelling such as manual modelling and even the computer aided modelling become outdated. At this stage as Picon (Terzidis, 2006) asserts in Algorithmic Architecture; the positions regarding the role of computer in architectural design fall into two categories. For many designers, the computer is just an advanced tool running programs that enable them to produce sophisticated forms and to control better their realization., the traditional way of computer aided modelling is just a tool that enables designer to run the software. Yet, in contemporary approach to computer modelling has shifted to the concept of computational modelling as termed as digital morphogenesis which works like another human mind. (Terzidis, 2006). Thus, this paradigm 24

shift changes the positions of the designers and the computers, correspondingly the digital models. While the designer was the controller of the form and the design process using traditional methods of form finding and form developing, the computers become the controller of the design process and the computation of algorithms; accordingly they become the controller of the final form. The involvement of the designer becomes more ideational (Leach, 2009). With gravitation of computational methods for modelling such as algorithmic architecture and modelling get involved in contemporary architecture. (Koralevic, 2003). At this stage, the logic of digital morphogenesis mimics the algorithmic logic of natural morphogenesis. As organisms are formed accordingly to the algorithms such as DNA code permutations and sequences, the digital morphogenesis is based on the same algorithmic principle. (sterlund, 2010). Instead of creating morphologies by modelling the geometry, the input of codes and algorithms forms and transforms the complex geometries. Instead of designing by thinking visually, designers get involved to design with mathematical representations more scientifically. Formerly, in traditional approach to architecture, the models were tool for representations, yet in contemporary architecture the models are the products of the representations.

25

26

CONCLUSION

This thesis has investigated the relations between the manual and digital models, their similarities and differences. The comparison between two methods of both visualizing and form finding reveals that the manual models make more sense in means of tactility and scale relations, yet the digital models provide more freedom in means of form finding by permitting the nonEuclidian geometries to be experimented. Pairing up the digital models with concept of morphogenesis reveals that there is a sharp distinction between the concepts of form finding and form making. The literature review indicates that, the form finding is experimentation rather than being a representational tool. Combining with digital morphogenesis, the digital modeling especially the computational modeling rather than conventional computer aided modeling involves the experimentation aspect of architecture in sense of form. Being a tool for form finding experimentations makes digital morphogenesis as a part of a formalist approach. But at the moment, digital models especially the algorithmic modeling branch of the computational modeling does not bear the architectural notions totally. As far as it is a developing field of architecture, it lacks the notion of space and the volume. Digital models do not prefigure about the space and spatial relationship. It makes designs to be perceived as it lacks the architectonic quality and this lack makes digital models to be perceived as an object, as an envelope or shell. Thus, it strengthens digital models to be a part of the formalism. In the future, strengthening the volumetric relations will make computational modeling more humane. In the contrary case, when they started to be built in the future without making any sense about the spaces and spatial relations make them called alien. 27

28

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anandasivam, Krishnapillahi; (2003), The Euclidian Bias Celani, Gabriela ; Martins, G.H Stroeder (2007) Geometric Transformation as an Architectural Form Generation Strategy: A Case Study in the Work of Santiago Calatrava Estevez, Alberto T, Puigarnau, Alfonso, Perez-Mendez, Alfonso (2003). Genetic Architectures Hertzberger, Herman (1991), Space and the Architect: Lesson in Architecture 2, 010 Publishers Isaacs, J. Allison (2008), Self- Organizational Architecture: Design Through Form-Finding Methods Koralevic, Branko (2003), Designing and Manufacturing Architecture in Digital Age Linder, Mark (1960), Nothing Less Than Literal: Architecture After Minimalism, MIT Press Morris, Mark (2006), Architecture and the Miniature: Models Mills, B. Criss (2005), Designing With Models Moffet, Marian; Fazio, W. Michael; Wodehouse, Lawrence (2003), A World History of Architecture Oxman, Rivka (2008), Performance-based Design: Current Practices and Research Issues, International Journal of Architectural Computing Vol6. Issue1 zkan, Sevda (2008), The Way Architectural Model As a New Collaborative Design Environment Talks with Machines Roudavski, Stanislav (2009), Towards Morphogenesis in Architecture, International Journal of Architectural Computing vol7. issue3 pp.345-374 Seely, CK Jennifer (2000), Digital Fabrication in the Architectural Design Process Terzidis, Kostas (2006), Algorithmic Architecture, Architectural Press Zellner, Peter (1999), Hybrid Spaces: New Forms in Digital Architecture, Rizzoli International Publications

29

30