|
|
| 首页 | Master | 作品 | 招聘 | 招标 | 动态 | 热帖 | 杂志 | 帮助 | 搜索 | 注册 | 登录 | Blog 积分 简历 |
|
» ABBS 论坛 » 纯粹建筑论坛
» 理论
动态 | 热帖 | 招聘 | 杂志 |
|
 |
  
|
| 从blob开始 [精华] |
linmay7
发贴: 33 
|
 2005-04-10 08:48 
      yeah~~~up~ |
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-10 12:32
 cooparch wrote: 先请cooparch兄静心阅读Manuel De Landa 2001年的这篇文章， Deleuze and the Use of the Genetic Algorithm in Architecture （德勒兹及基因运算法则在建筑学中的运用） 选自Phylogenesis FOA's ark by Foreign Office Architects page 521. 文章的核心意思是这样（个人总结），Manel De Landa从Gillz Deluez 的populational（族群__引自生物学）、intensive（强度__引自热动力系统学）和topological（拓扑__引自数学）三大哲学概念中论述建筑的Genetic Algorithm（基因进化运算法则__引自生物学），即真正意义上的“仿生建筑学”不仅仅是形式上的，而是在遗传、进化、物种更迭上都是仿生的，即把建筑的生成过程（这个生成过程就像一种或多种生物的诞生、进化和变异一样）看作和生物的进化一样，期间有这样一种相似性：二者的进化都是建立在无数无法量化的复杂因素非线性的相互作用基础上的。而这种复杂的无法量化的非线性的进化过程，目前来说只有计算机才可以较逼近的模拟，这便是关于设计方法（通俗讲）或建筑生成论（客观讲）的思辨和探索。 正文： http://boo.mi2.hr/~ognjen/tekst/delanda2001.html Deleuze and the Use of the Genetic Algorithm in Architecture Manuel De Landa (2001) The computer simulation of evolutionary processes is already a well established technique for the study of biological dynamics. One can unleash within a digital environment a population of virtual plants or animals and keep track of the way in which these creatures change as they mate and pass their virtual genetic materials to their offspring. The hard work goes into defining the relation between the virtual genes and the virtual bodily traits that they generate, everything else—keeping track of who mated with whom, assigning fitness values to each new form, determining how a gene spreads through a population over many generations is a task performed automatically by certain computer programs collectively known as “genetic algorithms”. The study of the formal and functional properties of this type of software has now become a field in itself, quite separate from the applications in biological research which these simulations may have. In this essay I will deal neither with the computer science aspects of genetic algorithms (as a special case of “search algorithms”) nor with their use in biology, but focus instead on the applications which these techniques may have as aids in artistic design. In a sense evolutionary simulations replace design, since artists can use this software to breed new forms rather than specifically design them. This is basically correct but, as I argue below, there is a part of the process in which deliberate design is still a crucial component. Although the software itself is relatively well known and easily available, so that users may get the impression that breeding new forms has become a matter of routine, the space of possible designs that the algorithm searches needs to be sufficiently rich for the evolutionary results to be truly surprising. As an aid in design these techniques would be quite useless if the designer could easily foresee what forms will be bred. Only if virtual evolution can be used to explore a space rich enough so that all the possibilities cannot be considered in advance by the designer, only if what results shocks or at least surprises, can genetic algorithms be considered useful visualization tools. And in the task of designing rich search spaces certain philosophical ideas, which may be traced to the work of Gilles Deleuze, play a very important role. I will argue that the productive use of genetic algorithms implies the deployment of three forms of philosophical thinking (populational, intensive, and topological thinking) which were not invented by Deleuze but which he has brought together for the first time and made the basis for a brand new conception of the genesis of form. To be able to apply the genetic algorithm at all, a particular field of art needs to first solve the problem of how to represent the final product (a painting, a song, a building) in terms of the process that generated it, and then, how to represent this process itself as a well-defined sequence of operations. It is this sequence, or rather, the computer code that specifies it, that becomes the “genetic material” of the painting, song, or building in question. In the case of architects using computer-aided design (CAD) this problem becomes greatly simplified given that a CAD model of an architectural structure is already given by a series of operations. A round column, for example, is produced by a series such as this: 1) draw a line defining the profile of the column; 2) rotate this line to yield a surface of revolution; 3) perform a few “Boolean subtractions” to carve out some detail in the body of the column. Some software packages store this sequence and may even make available the actual computer code corresponding to it, so that this code now becomes the “virtual DNA” of the column. (A similar procedure is followed to create each of the other structural and ornamental elements of a building.) At this point we need to bring one of the philosophical resources I mentioned earlier to understand what happens next: population thinking. This style of reasoning was created in the 1930’s by the biologists who brought together Darwin’s and Mendel’s theories and synthesized the modern version of evolutionary theory. In a nut shell what characterizes this style may be phrased as “never think in terms of Adam and Eve but always in terms of larger reproductive communities”. More technically, the idea is that despite the fact that at any one time an evolved form is realized in individual organisms, the population not the individual is the matrix for the production of form. A given animal or plant architecture evolves slowly as genes propagate in a population, at different rates and at different times, so that the new form is slowly synthesized within the larger reproductive community.-1- The lesson for computer design is simply that once the relationship between the virtual genes and the virtual bodily traits of a CAD building has been worked out, as I just described, an entire population of such buildings needs to be unleashed within the computer, not just a couple of them. The architect must add to the CAD sequence of operations points at which spontaneous mutations may occur (in the column example: the relative proportions of the initial line; the center of rotation; the shape with which the Boolean subtraction is performed) and then let these mutant instructions propagate and interact in a collectivity over many generations. To population thinking Deleuze adds another cognitive style which in its present form is derived from thermodynamics, but which as he realizes has roots as far back as late medieval philosophy: intensive thinking. The modern definition of an intensive quantity is given by contrast with its opposite, an extensive quantity. The latter refers to the magnitudes with which architects are most familiar with, lengths, areas, volumes. These are defined as magnitudes which can be spatially subdivided: if one takes a volume of water, for example, and divides it in two halves, one ends up with two half volumes. The term “intensive” on the other hand, refers to quantities like temperature, pressure or speed, which cannot be so subdivided: if one divides in two halves a volume of water at ninety degrees of temperature one does not end up with two half volumes at forty five degrees of temperature, but with two halves at the original ninety degrees. Although for Deleuze this lack of divisibility is important, he also stresses another feature of intensive quantities: a difference of intensity spontaneously tends to cancel itself out and in the process, it drives fluxes of matter and energy. In other words, differences of intensity are productive differences since they drive processes in which the diversity of actual forms is produced.-2- For example, the process of embryogenesis, which produces a human body out of a fertilized egg, is a process driven by differences of intensity (differences of chemical concentration, of density, of surface tension). What does this mean for the architect? That unless one brings into a CAD model the intensive elements of structural engineering, basically, distributions of stress, a virtual building will not evolve as a building. In other words, if the column I described above is not linked to the rest of the building as a load-bearing element, by the third or fourth generation this column may be placed in such a way that it cannot perform its function of carrying loads in compression anymore. The only way of making sure that structural elements do not lose their function, and hence that the overall building does not lose viability as a stable structure, is to somehow represent the distribution of stresses, as well as what type of concentrations of stress endanger a structure’s integrity, as part of the process which translates virtual genes into bodies. In the case of real organisms, if a developing embryo becomes structurally unviable it won’t even get to reproductive age to be sorted out by natural selection. It gets selected out prior to that. A similar process would have to be simulated in the computer to make sure that the products of virtual evolution are viable in terms of structural engineering prior to being selected by the designer in terms of their “aesthetic fitness”. Now, let’s assume that these requirements have indeed been met, perhaps by an architect-hacker who takes existing software (a CAD package and a structural engineering package) and writes some code to bring the two together. If he or she now sets out to use virtual evolution as a design tool the fact that the only role left for a human is to be the judge of aesthetic fitness in every generation (that is, to let die buildings that do not look esthetically promising and let mate those that do) may be disappointing. The role of design has now been transformed into (some would say degraded down to) the equivalent of a prize-dog or a race-horse breeder. There clearly is an aesthetic component in the latter two activities, one is in a way, “sculpting” dogs or horses, but hardly the kind of creativity that one identifies with the development of a personal artistic style. Although today slogans about the “death of the author” and attitudes against the “romantic view of the genius” are in vogue, I expect this to be fad and questions of personal style to return to the spotlight. Will these future authors be satisfied with the role of breeders of virtual forms? Not that the process so far is routine in any sense. After all, the original CAD model must be endowed with mutation points at just the right places (an this involves design decisions) and much creativity will need to be exercised to link ornamental and structural elements in just the right way. But still this seems a far cry from a design process where one can develop a unique style. There is, however, another part of the process where stylistic questions are still crucial, although in a different sense than in ordinary design. Explaining this involves bringing in the third element in Deleuze’s philosophy of the genesis of form: topological thinking. One way to introduce this other style of thinking is by contrasting the results which artists have so far obtained with the genetic algorithm and those achieved by biological evolution. When one looks at current artistic results the most striking fact is that, once a few interesting forms have been generated, the evolutionary process seems to run out of possibilities. New forms do continue to emerge but they seem too close to the original ones, as if the space of possible designs which the process explores had been exhausted.-3- This is in sharp contrast with the incredible combinatorial productivity of natural forms, like the thousands of original architectural “designs” exhibited by vertebrate or insect bodies. Although biologists do not have a full explanation of this fact, one possible way of approaching the question is through the notion of a “body plan”. As vertebrates, the architecture of our bodies (which combines bones bearing loads in compression and muscles bearing then in tension) makes us part of the phylum “chordata”. The term “phylum” refers to a branch in the evolutionary tree (the first bifurcation after animal and plant “kingdoms”) but it also carries the idea of a shared body-plan, a kind of “abstract vertebrate” which, if folded and curled in particular sequences during embryogenesis, yields an elephant, twisted and stretched in another sequence yields a giraffe, and in yet other sequences of intensive operations yields snakes, eagles, sharks and humans. To put this differently, there are “abstract vertebrate” design elements, such as the tetrapod limb, which may be realized in structures as different as as the single digit limb of a horse, the wing of a bird, or the hand with opposing thumb of a human. Given that the proportions of each of these limbs, as well as the number and shape of digits, is variable, their common body plan cannot include any of these details. In other words, while the form of the final product (an actual horse, bird or human) does have specific lengths, areas and volumes, the body-plan cannot possibly be defined in these terms but must be abstract enough to be compatible with a myriad combination of these extensive quantities. Deleuze uses the term “abstract diagram” (or “virtual multiplicity”) to refer to entities like the vertebrate body plan, but his concept also includes the “body plans” of non-organic entities like clouds or mountains.-4- What kind of theoretical resources do we need to think about these abstract diagrams? In mathematics the kind of spaces in which terms like “length” or “area” are fundamental notions are called “metric spaces”, the familiar Euclidean geometry being one example of this class. (Non-Euclidean geometries, using curved instead of flat spaces, are also metric). On the other hand, there are geometries where these notions are not basic, since these geometries possess operations which do not preserve lengths or areas unchanged. Architects are familiar with at least one of these geometries, projective geometry (as in perspective projections). In this case the operation “to project” may lengthen or shrink lengths and areas so these cannot be basic notions. In turn, those properties which do remain fixed underprojections may not be preserved under yet other forms of geometry, such as differential geometry or topology. The operations allowed in the latter, such as stretching without tearing, and folding without gluing, preserve only a set of very abstract properties invariant. These topological invariants (such as the dimensionality of a space, or its connectivity) are precisely the elements we need to think about body plans (or more generally, abstract diagrams.) It is clear that the kind of spatial structure defining a body plan cannot be metric since embryological operations can produce a large variety of finished bodies, each with a different metric structure. Therefore body plans must be topological. To return to the genetic algorithm, if evolved architectural structures are to enjoy the same degree of combinatorial productivity as biological ones they must also begin with an adequate diagram, an “abstract building” corresponding to the “abstract vertebrate”. And it is a this point that design goes beyond mere breeding, with different artists designing different topological diagrams bearing their signature. The design process, however, will be quite different from the traditional one which operates within metric spaces. It is indeed too early to say just what kind of design methodologies will be necessary when one cannot use fixed lengths or even fixed proportions as aesthetic elements and must instead rely on pure connectivities (and other topological invariants). But what it is clear is that without this the space of possibilities which virtual evolution blindly searches will be too impoverished to be of any use. Thus, architects wishing to use this new tool must not only become hackers (so that they can create the code needed to bring extensive and intensive aspects together) but also be able “to hack” biology, thermodynamics, mathematics, and other areas of science to tap into the necessary resources. As fascinating as the idea of breeding buildings inside a computer may be, it is clear that mere digital technology without populational, intensive and topological thinking will never be enough. References -1- First....the forms do not preexist the population, they are more like statistical results. The more a population assumes divergent forms, the more its multiplicity divides into multiplicities of a different nature....the more efficiently it distributes itself in the milieu, or divides up the milieu....Second, simultaneously and under the same conditions....degrees are no longer measured in terms of increasing perfection....but in terms of differential relations and coefficients such as selection pressure, catalytic action, speed of propagation, rate of growth, evolution, mutation....Darwinism’s two fundamental contributions move in the direction of a science of multiplicities: the substitution of populations for types, and the substitution of rates or differential relations for degrees. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus. (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1987). Page 48. -2- Difference is not diversity. Diversity is given, but difference is that by which the given is given...Difference is not phenomenon but the nuomenon closest to the phenomenon...Every phenomenon refers to an inequality by which it is conditioned...Everything which happens and everything which appears is correlated with orders of differences: differences of level, temperature, pressure, tension, potential, difference of intensity. Gilles Deleuze. Difference and Repetition. (Columbia UniversityPress, New York, 1994). Page 222. -3- See for example: Stephen Todd and William Latham. Evolutionary Art and Computers. (Academic Press, New York, 1992). -4- An abstract machine in itself is not physical or corporeal, any more than it is semiotic; it is diagrammatic (it knows nothing of the distinctions between the artificial and the natural either). It operates by matter, not by substance; by function, not by form... The abstract machine is pure Matter-Function—a diagram independent of the forms and substances, expressions and contents it will distribute. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus. Op. Cit. Page 141
canonrevival edited on 2005-04-10 13:36
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-10 12:45
cooparch wrote: 形体是结果，这种结果直接表达了其生成过程。为什么不同物种之间甚至同一物种在不同历史时期都有不同的外貌？这里借用Peter Eiseman的三大概念Interiority（内部逻辑）、Anteriority（历史逻辑）和Exteriority（外部逻辑），对于一个对象来说，无论来自内部的还是过去的还是外部的，任何一点小的因素都会导致最终形式的微差。 在生物遗传语境里，形式和生成逻辑是环环相扣的，不能孤立任何一部分而进行评价（这样的评价毫无意义）。cooparch兄，咱们早已远离二元论时代了。 在Deleuze and the Use of the Genetic Algorithm in Architecture里，Manuel De Landa 论及topological thinking和vertebrates，可以帮助理解： There is, however, another part of the process where stylistic questions are still crucial, although in a different sense than in ordinary design. Explaining this involves bringing in the third element in Deleuze’s philosophy of the genesis of form: topological thinking. One way to introduce this other style of thinking is by contrasting the results which artists have so far obtained with the genetic algorithm and those achieved by biological evolution. When one looks at current artistic results the most striking fact is that, once a few interesting forms have been generated, the evolutionary process seems to run out of possibilities. New forms do continue to emerge but they seem too close to the original ones, as if the space of possible designs which the process explores had been exhausted.-3- This is in sharp contrast with the incredible combinatorial productivity of natural forms, like the thousands of original architectural “designs” exhibited by vertebrate or insect bodies. Although biologists do not have a full explanation of this fact, one possible way of approaching the question is through the notion of a “body plan”. As vertebrates, the architecture of our bodies (which combines bones bearing loads in compression and muscles bearing then in tension) makes us part of the phylum “chordata”. The term “phylum” refers to a branch in the evolutionary tree (the first bifurcation after animal and plant “kingdoms”) but it also carries the idea of a shared body-plan, a kind of “abstract vertebrate” which, if folded and curled in particular sequences during embryogenesis, yields an elephant, twisted and stretched in another sequence yields a giraffe, and in yet other sequences of intensive operations yields snakes, eagles, sharks and humans. To put this differently, there are “abstract vertebrate” design elements, such as the tetrapod limb, which may be realized in structures as different as as the single digit limb of a horse, the wing of a bird, or the hand with opposing thumb of a human. Given that the proportions of each of these limbs, as well as the number and shape of digits, is variable, their common body plan cannot include any of these details. In other words, while the form of the final product (an actual horse, bird or human) does have specific lengths, areas and volumes, the body-plan cannot possibly be defined in these terms but must be abstract enough to be compatible with a myriad combination of these extensive quantities. Deleuze uses the term “abstract diagram” (or “virtual multiplicity”) to refer to entities like the vertebrate body plan, but his concept also includes the “body plans” of non-organic entities like clouds or mountains.-4- What kind of theoretical resources do we need to think about these abstract diagrams? In mathematics the kind of spaces in which terms like “length” or “area” are fundamental notions are called “metric spaces”, the familiar Euclidean geometry being one example of this class. (Non-Euclidean geometries, using curved instead of flat spaces, are also metric). On the other hand, there are geometries where these notions are not basic, since these geometries possess operations which do not preserve lengths or areas unchanged. Architects are familiar with at least one of these geometries, projective geometry (as in perspective projections). In this case the operation “to project” may lengthen or shrink lengths and areas so these cannot be basic notions. In turn, those properties which do remain fixed underprojections may not be preserved under yet other forms of geometry, such as differential geometry or topology. The operations allowed in the latter, such as stretching without tearing, and folding without gluing, preserve only a set of very abstract properties invariant. These topological invariants (such as the dimensionality of a space, or its connectivity) are precisely the elements we need to think about body plans (or more generally, abstract diagrams.) It is clear that the kind of spatial structure defining a body plan cannot be metric since embryological operations can produce a large variety of finished bodies, each with a different metric structure. Therefore body plans must be topological.
canonrevival edited on 2005-04-10 12:48
|
|
本当无人
发贴: 2984
|
2005-04-10 15:55
说实话 一直没有说话 因为想看CANON兄能把帖子做的多长 现在看来CANON兄的确是功不可末 可正如CANON兄所看到 BLOB被国内认识 还需一定时日 国内的学生恐怕还停留在讨论 空间 人 的语境 以及二元论 顶多三元论的 看问题方法上 如果可能 到是希望CANON兄 翻译几片文章 然后发表在诸如T+A这类的杂志上 就象朱涛先生把建构媒体化那样 未必正确 但至少是引进了介绍了认识到了 |
|
dynamic
发贴: 1079
|
2005-04-10 17:57
canonrevival wrote: 支持，光是看看那几张到处都能找到图片，实在是看不出什么来。必须看文字，某种角度，lynn的文字(思想)比他的设计（实践）更有分量，当然，我指的是那本文集，而不是那本什么animate architecture。 即便是看思想，如果总是想从自己的思维领域出发寻求作者与自己思路的印证或切合，这对于作者以及他的思想闪光点是非常粗暴的，也是很僵硬的阅读。古人不是说了吗，关公战秦琼，如果读者和作者本来就是两个思想领域的人，那还怎么战啊。国内受19世纪德国哲学的污染比较严重，而且污染了半天，也并不是说咱就真的懂那套东西了，咱们经常是将各种玩意煮成一锅杂烩，一口火锅，这里面既有自己的东西，也有别人的东西，更有一些不伦不类的杂交玩意。我觉得我们离真正理解黑格尔一帮人还差得远呢，与此同时，离自己的传统也开始越来越远——扯远了 况且，退一万步说，lynn在西方不管怎么说都是被很多“猛人”监督的，更何况他还在像哥大这样的学校，他并不处于像国内这种只要搞点新鲜玩意就会让大家趋之若鹜的情况，如果要骂他批判他，我相信能找到更有说服力更有力度的批判，而不是那种随便说两句的所谓“批判”。 |
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-10 21:20
本当无人 wrote: 多谢本当兄长久以来无言的监督，理想的估计，这帖子现在只进行到百分之一而已。赫赫，大家一起努力。 我现在仅仅停留在自我理解的水平上，还望各位多多帮忙。当然我已经在考虑请哥大的毕业生来给我讲讲blob，甚至亲身留学去学习。 本当兄的建议很好，倒是给了我更大的信心。我想这一天迟早会到来，我希望我有充分的准备和足够的底气时就这么干。这个帖子其实就是预备题材嘛赫赫。 我之所以对blob情有独钟，是我越来越发现其中有很多和东方相通之处，同时它又是批判和超越经典建构理论的试金石。如果能用计算机去寻找到建筑的当代中国性或者说未来中国性，那我就如愿以偿了。 |
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-10 21:44
dynamic wrote: Lynn这个名字能在国际建筑界这么响亮，包括威尼斯双年展两次为blob开专题，这已经说明很多问题了。屈米掌舵哥大建筑这么多年，blob怎么样他难道不心知肚明？赫赫。 常常慨叹中国没有真正意义上的当代哲学，这其实是个更基本的问题。如果我们有当代哲学，并且有真正的当代建筑学，我们完全可以去和Greg Lynn辩驳，但可惜的是，我们没有。 |
|
本当无人
发贴: 2984
|
2005-04-10 23:27
canonrevival wrote: 呵呵 不过哥大的BLOB传统好象随着LYNN的离去而渐渐淡去 MARK WIGLEY是个什么都看都研究的学者 术业不能专攻的话 恐怕能看到不少差异 不知道对你学习BLOB是好还是坏 如果需要术业专攻 那么UCLA还是不错的 当然我不是很赞同 现在在这种学习积累阶段一心扑在同一个东西上面 接受差异看到更多不同的东西 才会有更多的长进 说实话从中国人的角度来看 BLOB在当今建筑界 有点走向了死胡同 多年的计算机研究LYNN等人已经掌握了虚拟的技术 而FOA也把房子造了起来 但似乎就这样结束了 FOA的房子没有关注建造的本身 而只是找了个方法造了起来 这似乎跟AA的理念有所相违背 所以AA今年所做的工作 尤其是EMTECH 就是在研究BLOB的形态表达建构的问题 而研究这个问题 却又离不开对现象学 表皮 细部 等问题的深入认识 所以我们也许从这个意义上可以认为LYNN的BLOB的灵活性 不如AA的研究 反过来对比一下中国的园林 似乎觉得中国园林所具有的BLOB性质 比BLOB本身更丰富呢 西西 
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-10 23:43
本当无人 wrote: 所言甚是 我如果真的出国学习，海纳百川自然更为重要，因为以后的路还是要回国走的。而且我相信到时候，新的选择就和机遇会出现，今天我所看到的其实远不足以让我做如此重大的选择赫赫。 现在的AA和FOA的东西似乎介于经典建构和blob之间 中国园林仅是东方文化的沧海一栗，但光园林就够咱大伙儿研究一阵子了。 无论如何，有一点是非常坚定的，就是做中国真正的建筑。 恨人生太短，自己的路看不到尽头（挺幼稚的情绪） |
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-10 23:47
Asymptote Steel Cloud 
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-10 23:59
Asymptote Steel Cloud 
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-11 00:02
Asymptote Steel Cloud 
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-11 00:06
Asymptote Knoll A3i 
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-11 00:09
Asymptote Knoll A3i 
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-11 00:11
Asymptote Knoll A3i 
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-11 00:13
Asymptote Knoll A3i 
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-11 00:16
Asymptote Knoll A3i 
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-11 00:17
Asymptote Knoll A3i 
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-11 00:19
Asymptote Knoll A3i 
|
|
BKU
发贴: 370
|
2005-04-11 00:21
canonrevival wrote: 很敬佩CANNON兄的专业精神.  不同的软件是否"相似功能在编程算法上都类似"有待考证,不过"计算机对这个过程(GENETIC ALGORITHM)的模拟是相对最逼近的方法"倒是更有说服力.不过说到GENETIC ALGORITHM又带来另外一个问题. 依据GENETIC ALGORITHM以计算机为工具来设计,最终总是要落实到一个静态的FORM上来, 而一旦这个FORM成为现实, 不管这个FORM如何的FLEXIBLE, 其所遵循的GENETIC ALGORITHM已经成为历史. 已经不在具有因外界,内部或时间等等各种因素的变化而ANIMATE(OR ELEVOLUTION OR WHAT EVER TERMS HE USES)的特性. 大概这也是他所吹出的PHYSICAL 泡泡的最大的弊病.而这也正是为什么EISENMAN和TSUHUMI的东东对我更有说服力的原因. 建筑理论永远都是个看你是否能自圆其说的东东. 没有绝对的正确与否, 在讨论的过程中已经学到不少有意思的东东, 其实这也是这个帖子的最大的益处. 共勉!
BKU edited on 2005-04-11 00:27
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-11 00:23
Asymptote Knoll A3i 
|
|
BKU
发贴: 370
|
2005-04-11 00:32
canonrevival wrote: 还是觉得他们这个时期的东东看着顺眼.
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-11 01:08
BKU wrote: 共勉共勉 这里有一丁点小小的分歧——evolution以及organic。 form仅是漫长的evolution过程中的某一时刻的表现，就像生物一样，进化永不终结，直到物种灭绝。Greg Lynn等人的理想似乎是设计这样的建筑：它是动态的，可变的，柔性的，甚至是智能的（intellegence），其实这也是blob最根本的属性——拓扑（topology），流体（stiky），由外因（这里是广义上的外因，包括blob与blob之间融合的算法以及其他因素的影响）而改变自身（天哪，真像中国的太极，赫赫），可以渗入（seep）到事物的缝隙中。 其实不得不承认，这样的房子目前仅仅存在于想象当中。而blob是其在虚拟世界中的替身，所以说Greg Lynn他们在YY赫赫。可是他们的意图很明显，尽一切力量去逼近这种有机（organic）形态的建筑，虽然目前仅停留在试验阶段。不难看出，现在世界上有很多人都在探索这种organic，不仅仅在计算机领域，在表皮的具体做法试验上也取得了显著成果，比如Toshiko Mori在哈佛的织物试验和dECOi的软墙试验。
canonrevival edited on 2005-04-11 01:57
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-11 01:20
BKU wrote: 从Greg Lynn Form的对其关键词的解释措辞上可以了解到他们其实关心的是隐藏在各大软件背后的计算机图形图像学概念比如bleg和lattice，而计算机图形图像学有是建立在数学基础上的，如shred和topology。  
canonrevival edited on 2005-04-11 01:23
|
|
canonrevival
发贴: 1226
|
2005-04-11 01:26
BKU wrote: 1988年........真让人惭愧 今天电视里听到一句话：我知道你委屈，你不服气，你反对，但我不得不告诉你，你已经被淘汰。哈哈，开玩笑 |
|
已读帖子 新的帖子 被删帖子
|
|
|
|
返回ABBS首页 | 设计 | 室内 | 景观 | 建材 | 设备 | 卫浴 | 展览 | 照明
招标服务 | 广告服务 | 招聘服务 | 隐私政策 | 联系我们 | 设为首页
违法、有害信息举报：QQ 1764506 电话 028-61998486
Powered by Jute Powerful Forum® Version Jute 1.5.5 Ent
Copyright © 1998-2024 ABBS.com All Rights Reserved.