Metamorphosis_liwen

Metamorphosis_idealized process in architecture
Liwen Zhang

Throughout John Frazer’s work, An Evolutionary Architecture, I’ve felt an urge to continually question his statements. This is fundamentally attributed to that fact that Frazer’s work relies heavily upon the assumption that evolution is a natural “self-organizing intelligent” process upon which the end result is optimal. However, after having read Gould’s article in class a few weeks back, we come to realize that this is not always the case, Gould have proved that evolution is not always intelligent and purposeful.

Frazer’s work is framed around the idea that “architecture as a living, evolving thing” as Gordon Pask puts it in his introduction of Frazer’s work. This statement is perhaps not so hard to digest and even provocative as we have learned to see our cities in that way. Much of what Frazer advocates has been promoted by my previous studio instructors – in 100B we were told to come up with ‘generative rules”’ which is then applied to an ‘operational logic’ that is eventually creates a building, somehow. In Greg Lynn’s work we read for the word ‘Hybrid’, we learn of an architect’s insecurities with techniques that are so heavily reliant on the use of the computer. Not only is the authenticity of the designer’s creations questioned, but also the process is considered to be superficial because it may be purely formally driven. The need here calls for differentiation, yes emergent forms are “often unexpected” as Frazer puts it, but is this on a purely formal level or can it be performative? Furthermore, how is the ‘performative-ness’ measured anyway?

Frazer is quick to address the former issue regarding the authenticity of the designer. He thinks that the design process is ultimately reliant on “human skill and for the essential first step of forming the concept”, what he deems as the “initial spark”. I agree with his comments but nonetheless I question if the “initial spark” is all that is needed on our behalf, as implied by Frazer, since then the computer as a “slave [with] infinite power and patience” will do the rest of the work for you. I cannot help that feel that he is idealizing the computational process in design, especially in calling it the “the electronic muse”. The word muse, aside from the convention meaning, in the classical mythology sense means a “goddess presiding over a particular art” (taken from dictionary.com). Thus Frazer is indirectly elevating the role of computer-aided design to that of a goddess.