Let me start by saying thanks to everybody who came out and participated in last week’s event – it was an extremely interesting session led by Dr. Anjan Chakravartty who focused on what it means to represent things.
Looking back, there are couple points that resonated with me the most. In his talk, Anjan emphasized the difference between “abstraction” and “idealization”. For him, abstraction is (and I hope I don’t get this wrong…!) the process of extracting certain aspects of the object in question and dealing with them in isolation, a method that is effective when studying things that have a strong underlying structure which dictates the fundamental behaviour of the object, but that also have a large amount of detail that can potentially confuse the issue. Of course, this also sets the scene perfectly for drawing incorrect conclusions due to having simplified the system beyond any degree of realism. In contrast, the notion of “idealization” is the process of transforming the object or how the object is perceived so as to bring forward certain important aspects of the system.
Despite the somewhat abstract setting, these two concepts seem come up all the time in parametric modelling. In in any parametric model, the overall output is controlled and generated by a collection of parameters: does it follow then that parameters are an abstraction of the model but are chosen by how well they “idealize” it?
In any case, the result of the most lively discussion following the presentation was that the abstract notion of representation is of fundamental importance to the modelling and design community as a whole.
Thanks for coming!
Dr. Chakravartty has kindly provided some words on the upcoming session:
Architecture in Combination with Representation
Picasso’s mural Guernica represents the aftermath of the bombing of a Basque town during the Spanish Civil War. Watson and Crick’s cardboard cut-out model of DNA represents the double-helical structure of the molecule. The Gothic arch represents the spiritual aspiration of reaching towards the heavens. Examples such as these are ubiquitous, and my aim is to step back from them so as to ask a philosophical question about representing: what *is* a representation, precisely, such that all of these examples count as instances of it? Are there conditions that are necessary or sufficient to make one thing a representation of something else, and are these conditions shared across different domains of human endeavour such as art, science, and architecture? I will review some proposals for how representation should be understood, with the goal of shedding light on these questions. Some of the issues raised concern whether intuitive relations such as similarity or mathematical ones such as isomorphism are required, whether the emphasis should rather be on the cognitive activities we perform in connection with representations as they relate to the things they represent, such as interpretation and inference, and how matters are complicated by the ways in which representations abstract from and idealize their subject matter.
It’s been just about a week since our first session (Architecture in Combination with Music), and despite an extremely interesting presentation by Mani Mani (www.fishtnk.com) on his Tunable Sound Cloud, I still have questions on what it means to combine architecture and music. Granted this is a rather old debate, but judging from the number of projects that use some aspect of music or sound to drive the design, it seems to still be an active one. So here it goes.
Firstly, what is the role of music in design? Is it purely to produce data that can be fed into a geometry producing script? Can any of the emotional content of the music be revealed in the design? Should it be? And secondly, are there any practical advantages to having music as a design driver?
I’d say the most solid connection between music and architecture comes from the world of acoustics. The idea is that acoustically driven forms will enhance the performance (or at least try to), and conversely, every aspect of a given geometry can be valued in terms of how much it contributes to that performance. Unfortunately, this is a very idealized state and any acoustician will tell you that it’s just not that simple. It also completely ignores the content of the music.
Maybe there’s a kind of organizational principle hidden inside the rhythmic structure of fugues? Who knows….?