E.9.1 Elements Biennale 2014, Directed by Rem Koolhaas, Was it Research, Was it Scientific?

John Abel, Washington State University

With the 2014 “Elements” Biennale, Rem Koolhaas established a biennale that was itself a research project from initial research question to the spatial installation of research findings. The question remains, what kind of research was it, and was it scientific or some other kind of research that incorporates ‘scientific methods’ which lend credibility to what usually counts as ‘research’ even in the humanities - even if only ‘systematic’ and so fitting within A general genealogical classification of what has come to count in modernity and post-modernity as ‘scientific’ research? This paper explored the nature of the 2014 Biennale research, both the methodological underpinnings of the journalism-based approach to architectural research Koolhaas has undertaken in much or his architectural output, as well as the spatial instant inaction of the results at the Biennale. The artifacts examined in the paper include graphic documents, written documents, as well as physical artifacts (designed and found) exhibited at the Biennale.

E.9.2 The Post-Digital in Architecture. Notes on the Cultural Implications of a Science-based Approach

Valerio Perna, Polis University

In his book The Digital Turn in Architecture, published in 1992, Italian historian Mario Carpo investigated the different phases of the entanglement between architecture, design, and Information Technology and provided a complete historical timeline of the first twenty years of the enthusiastic pre-eminence of computer-based design and production. Indeed, the first two decades of The IT Revolution In Architecture (Saggio 2007), with its dawn ascribable to the Third Wave theorized in 1980 by Alvin Toffler, was a period welcomed in architecture as a liberation force where the deep relationship with the world of science and data sets could free the latter from its standardized mass production methods.

It is not a case, indeed, that the term non-standard architecture – inherited from the 2000s design experimentation through digital media (Migayrou, 2003) started to appear in magazines and journals to highlight the deep faith in a major shift from mass standardization to mass customization processes in everyday design practice. Besides its theoretical implication, albeit these libertarian processes lead to the opposite phenomenon. The first enthusiasm towards anti-homogeneity was quickly turned into a homogeneity-based (Cramer & Guiney, 2000; Gourdoukis, 2019) approach where the first generations of architects narrowed their focus and discovered themselves more interested in discussing the tools rather than the cultural implications. Considering this starting point, this contribution aims to investigate the emergence of a post-digital sensibility in architecture (Cascone, 2000) where the relationship between science and architecture is intended in terms of its cultural production rather than in terms of technical possibilities (Del Campo, 2018), and to isolate some enzymes through which science has – and will – be contributing, in continuity or discontinuity, to the lineage of architectural production.

E.9.3 Architectural Archivism: Preservation, Emulation, and Reinterpretation

Jason Shields, University of Manitoba

Architectural works have been historically documented as two-dimensional hand or CAD (computer-aided design) drawings. As the discipline moves forward into a digital three-dimensional BIM (building information model) era, a lack of standardization in digital architectural content places many ideologies of archivism in contention. Contemporary design methodologies often expect three-dimensional models to include a plethora of construction information, metadata, textures, and general documentation. With this drastic shift in the workflow, how can an inherently unstable form of media, such as BIM, be accurately archived for future generations and historical purposes? Architectural drawings are typically transcoded, transposed, or reinterpreted to function using contemporary hardware and software. Once architectural BIM models are digitally stored, can the work remain as the designer intended, and is contemporary digital archivism in architecture fundamentally inaccurate if the original work requires modifications and upgrades for viewing purposes? While archiving the integrity of the BIM models and data is essential, archiving the crucial processes and instructions of the model creation is equally vital in interpreting historical data in architectural works. This session will discuss solutions to mitigate archival constraints in the architectural field using software-driven empirical studies that examine concepts such as technology preservation, technology emulation, and data reinterpretation. The presentation will also introduce preliminary frameworks to assist in archiving architectural process documents, BIM data, metadata, and linked external works.