What does it matter who is speaking anyway?

In this essay I aim to use a computationally generative design approach to an architectural column designed by Michael Hansmeyer as a symbol of what may be a changing approach to a design practice. I will look at how this approach is being mirrored in other aspects of design and also in social and cultural development.

The practice of design is in constant flux. Design as a practice is about being at the forefront of human engagement – it is about efficient communication and confident interaction. The human condition, however, is not in constant flux, it has and will continue to stay the same for a very long time, and yet there will always be human involvement in the process of design. The next shift in design and the process of designing however is tending towards a lesser human involvement and hopefully to better design. Michael Hansmeyer is a designer which I feel fits into this category of new [lesser involved] designers.

Michael Hansmeyer is an architect and programmer who explores the use of algorithms and computation to generate architectural form (Hansymeyer, 2011). In his own words, describing the way that he works:

One no longer designs an object, but a process to generate objects.

Hansmeyer’s techniques are fundamentally quite simple, but in the context of architecture seem quite out of place, and thus confusing. So a short explanation will add some clarity.

Hansmeyer approaches a given problem the same way another architect would; there may be some kind of architectural object that needs to be constructed and space that needs filling (not to downplay the role of the architect at all). Rather than admitting himself to his personal aesthetic desires, or human reasoning to the problem at hand, Hansmeyer attempts to find a generative solution. He designs an algorithm which will iteratively grow according to it’s given constraints. The example I intend to use are the columns Hansmeyer designed for the Gwangju Design Biennale in 2011.

The input form contains data about the proportions of the the column’s shaft, capital, and supplemental base. It also contains information about its fluting and entasis.

The initial conditions are set in place, the idea is there, but it is up to the algorithm to do the making, and no-one can really say how that will look. The role that the designer played in this process is clearly very different to that of a ‘traditional’ designer. The Oxford dictionary describes a designer as ‘a person who plans the look or workings of something prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans’ (Oxford Dictionary, 2012) – i.e. someone who knows what the finished product will look, or how it will behave. My saying that does raise some problematic issues however – to what extent does Hansmeyer know how the finished article will look? Hansmeyer does have to describe a number of quite particular specifications before the computer can operate. A blank column is the starting point for his algorithmic creations — and he does design the algorithm to an extent, so must have an idea of how it will look, and thus the ego of the designer will begin to creep back in. But I did not intend to use Hansmeyer’s creations as a perfect example of generative design, but merely what it represents. This is not just a niche experiment inside the world of architecture, this is a fundamental shift in how one actually approaches a design process.

I have mentioned the ego. By taking the ego of the designer out of the design process, I mean questioning notions of the author. Authorship is a topic that has been widely debated by many well known theorists, from Michel Foucault to Levi Strauss. Foucault, in ‘What is an Author?’ quotes Samuel Beckett by saying “‘What does it matter who is speaking,’ someone said, ‘what does it matter who is speaking.’” The function of the author is not to become iconic through his or her work, but to admit himself to a mere transmitter of an idea to others. Levi Strauss understands when he said ‘I don’t have the feeling that I write my books, I have the feeling that my books get written through me’ (Wiseman, 2000). Using generative methods the intention is to take the ego of the iconic designer out of the design process, and it does not need to be computational. The increasing ubiquity of computers and the internet has led to better connectivity between people, and better person to person communication is leading to a greater culture of sharing and involvement.

Charles Leadbeater gives numerous examples of communal and collaborative efforts of sharing ideas and creativity in his book ‘We-Think’. Many of his examples are purely people working together towards the same goal with low-level hierarchy — this, although at its base level is not computational at all, is close to Hansmeyer’s method of designing. I will begin with an example from Leadbeater.

The name Wikipedia sends shivers down the spine of secondary school teachers and conjures notions of half-truths and suspicious pages. All this because ‘Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopaedia project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation and based on an openly editable model.’ (Wikipedia.com, 2013). All content on Wikipedia is user generated – those that wish to contribute what they feel is knowledge worth sharing, do so; and those that feel the information needs amending, do so. It is clear that there are major issues here if for what claims to be an encyclopaedia, there are admitted holes in it’s articles. However, the wonderful thing with Wikipedia is what happens, organically, over time. ‘From 31 articles in English in January 2001, Wikipedia had a year later amassed 17307, rising to almost a million in January 2006, and 1.5 million by 2007… The rate of growth in article in English between 2001 and 2007 was 5 million per cent, and for articles in all languages 19 million per cent’ (Leadbeater, 2009). Of course there is not a definite percentage of that which can be said to be completely trustworthy, but the sheer willingness of involvement is staggering. The community within the society which forms is just as impressive — Jimmy Wales, one of two co-founders with Larry Sanger (whom ultimately left as he disagreed with the total open access approach to Wikipedia), describes the self policing nature which forms in an open community:

Wiki software does encourage, but does not strictly require, extreme openness and decentralisation: openness since page changes are logged and publicly viewable and pages may be further changed by anyone; and decentralisation, because for work to be done, there is no need for a person or body to assign work, but rather, work can progress as and when people want to do it. (…) There is also an element of aristocracy: people who have been involved in the community longer, who have acquired a reputation have a higher standing in the community.

The Wikipedia team at its most is only 5 people. There is just too much work for a central team to govern and even survey what is going on, if a community did not form, then Wikipedia would fail. This much can be known before on the creation of such ambitious experiments like Wikipedia, but you simply will not know if that necessary ingredient will find it’s way into the system – that ingredient, in this example, is user participation. All the designers of such system can do, is design a framework – Wikipedia’s framework, unsurprisingly, is shared on the website. It is what they call the ‘five pillars’:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.
• Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
• Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.
• Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.
• Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

What I am now proposing is that the five pillars that Wikipedia so successfully operates on, are not that dissimilar to the blank column which Hansmeyer designs before letting his algorithmic process take over (it just so happens, that they are both pillars). The similarities here are that the designers in both examples are not seeing the process through to the end, they are letting the design process continue under the influence of an outside, more organic source.

The success of Wikipedia cannot be measured on user involvement alone — the material is, undeniably, lacking in complete verification. But success can be measured in other ways: culturally and socially, for example. Wikipedia, ultimately, is an alternative to it’s costly counterpart The Encyclopaedia Britannica – which is verified and a trustworthy source of information, however:

…most people in the world cannot afford to compare Wikipedia with the Britannica… Wikipedia is creating a global, public platform of useful knowledge that will be freely available in any school, college or family in the world, in their own language. In Africa, even where communities do not have access to the internet, teachers are using copies of Wikipedia downloaded on CDs. Wikipedia may get the odd thing wrong, but that misses the bigger picture. Jimmy Wales and his community have created a new way for us to share knowledge and ideas at scale, en masse, across the world. Wikipedias message is: the more we share, the richer we are.

There are of course critics to this notion, and it does not always work as well as one would imagine. Not every initiative which entrusts sharing to the user ends in prosperity. Andrew Keen is one such critic, and he talks about Wikipedia in his book ‘Cult of the Amateur’:

Forbes recently reported, for example, a story of anonymous McDonald and Wal-Mart employees furtively using Wikipedia entries as a medium for deceptively spreading corporate propaganda. On the McDonald’s entry, a link to Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation conveniently disappeared; on Wal-Mart’s somebody eliminated a line about underpaid employees making less than 20 percent of the 2 competition.

Recent examples show that freedom to roam an open network, connected to many people, can lead to corruption. The landing page of codr.cc now reads:

Because such a large amount of text could be shared anonymously, it was used to share identifying information, malware program coding, and spamming.  One highly covered event was the distribution of 20,000 hotmail, a free e-mail web service, passwords were distributed via Pastebin.com.  This event caused the owner to temporarily shut down the site to develop more filters to prevent this kind of event from happening again.

There are also numerous reports of how Facebook, Twitter and particularly Blackberry’s Messaging Service played roles in the London Riots of 2011. ‘Its encrypted messages give troublemakers an added benefit: Police aren’t able to immediately trace message traffic the way they can with regular cellphones.’ Due to the nature of a construct such as an open, but paid for, messaging service, it is not as easy to solve as the Pastebin incident above. ‘BlackBerry said it was cooperating with police, but shutting down the messaging system could penalise more than just the troublemakers. More than 45 million people use the BlackBerry messaging system worldwide.’ (HuffingtonPost.com, 2011).

What this critique is tending towards is the notion that designing a framework, whether for social engagement, computational or otherwise, which is too open can lead to negative usage. If people, the users, have complete control there is nothing to stop it being used in a bad way. However I believe this fundamental shift is of greater significance, and misuse of a given tool will happen regardless of the tool itself.

I have spoken of the human condition, early in this essay, and that it is something that I do not believe you or I will ever witness changing. The process of designing that I feel is the next progressive step and which requires people (designers and users alike) to admit themselves to a bigger picture; to succumb, as a cog in a mechanism, to just playing their role for the greater good (without trying to sound too dramatic). This is not an easy thing to do – after all, why do we all have icons we admire, and aspirations of recognition? However, I think to make use of other aspects of the human condition will let this happen by itself. Each person considers themselves individual, but, ‘paradoxically, individuality is a matter of crowd spirit and a demand enforced by a crowd’ (Baumant, 2005). To return to Wikipedia, it is not asking each of it’s contributors to admit themselves to the Wiki construct, but by giving every user the ability to create under his or her own name, they feel they maintain their individuality, while still getting lost in the crowd of millions of other ‘individuals’. Thomas Jefferson speaks quite gracefully of his opinion on the sharing of ideas:

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature… Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

To better understand this, it is perhaps easiest to take humans out of the equation altogether. This is perhaps entering a realm beyond the scope of this essay, but generative, organic design methods do begin to mirror that of the truly organic world. Nervous System is a studio which works in the field of generative design, although they do only produce decorative works.

Drawing inspiration from natural phenomena, we write computer programs based on processes and patterns found in nature and use those programs to create unique and affordable art, jewelry, and housewares.

The outcome of Nervous System’s deign approach aside, they do aim to mimic natural phenomena which in itself is an interesting thing. Mathematical analysis of nature has revealed some astounding patterns. Fibonacci published Liber Abaci and his famous mathematically defined integer sequence in 1202 which occurs consistently in nature (notably the spirals in pinecones and similar organic materials). As humans we have the capacity to understand natural systems which clearly work so well, and yet we feel the need to elevate ourselves above this system. To fully understand is to become a part of it, and start designing in our own way, the same way nature intended. As Wikipedia has shown, a system can work very well if the framework is strong, but also open and flexible, and has time and space to grow. Perhaps Beckett was right when he said ‘what does it matter who is speaking?’ and we should concern ourselves with what is actually being said.

Josh

References

AP (2011) Social Media Used To Spread Britain’s Riots. [online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/facebook-twitter-london-riots_n_922633.html [Accessed: 13 Mar 2013].

Baumant, Z. (2005). Liquid life. Cambridge, UK, Polity Press.

Beckett, S. (1967). Stories & texts for nothing. New York, Grove Press.

En.wikipedia.org (2013) Wikipedia:About – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About [Accessed: 13 Mar 2013].

Inc., N. (2013) Nervous System. [online] Available at: http://n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com/ [Accessed: 13 Mar 2013].

Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur: how today’s internet is killing our culture. New York, Doubleday/Currency.

Leadbeater, C., & Powell, D. (2009). We-think. London, Profile.

Michael-hansmeyer.com (n.d.) Michael Hansmeyer – Computational Architecture. [online] Available at: http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/ [Accessed: 11 Mar 2013].

Oxforddictionaries.com (2013) Definition of designer in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English). [online] Available at: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/designer?q=designer [Accessed: 13 Mar 2013].

Press-pubs.uchicago.edu (1905) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8: Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson. [online] Available at: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html [Accessed: 11 Mar 2013].

Wiseman, B., Groves, J., & Appignanesi, R. (2000). Introducing Lévi-Strauss and structural anthropology. Cambridge, UK, Icon Books.

 

What isn’t Collaboration

Quite often I get ideas for small projects which involve many people, but each person working on their own, but in response to another person’s input. This evening I had an idea for a typeface where each letter is designed individually, but to try to match the font of the previous character, by the previous designer. Although this might be a nice consequences style project, it in fact, is not collaborative.

Although I’ve said it and read it many times now, I am still further understanding that true collaboration comes in the sharing and discussing of ideas between people. The technicalities and production are things which can quite easily be done separately, in isolation even, so long as the conceptual process is done collectively.

That, however, can differ if the outcome itself grows from a mass of inputs. The example above is different as it is a domino-effect process (it relies on the previous input and thus the next relies on it) as apposed to a tree-like process (many inputs work alongside one-another but do not rely on each other to feed the organism).

Josh

Sharing is Progress

For a short while now I have been undergoing a personal research into ideas of open-source, data sharing and collaboration, and the benefits of these things. I am still learning a lot—trying to better understand them, the motives and the incentives that people can find in them and ultimately… why?—but I do believe that this is the future. Not just in the design world, but in science, art, mathematics, education an so on; I feel through an open-source culture the world will develop into what can one day be called, a mile stone in cultural and social evolution.

It was not my intention to get so heavy, it kind of just happened. The point I had intended to make is that from now on I think I will put my money where my mouth is. From now on I want to share almost everything, namely ideas.

I am victim, as much as every other human, of the human condition and I automatically feel an ownership of anything I feel may be a good idea, and, as with anything else I own and cherish, I want to protect it. But if I am to act on the beliefs stated above, I must start abiding to an egoless design incentive (studying and occasionally working in the design world, I feel it is a reasonable place to start, but in an open-source culture, a designer could, by all means, contribute to other practices). I will, from now on, publish any good* idea I have. I will publish my ideas on a popular social media outlet, such as Tumblr, and the ideas will free free to use by anyone.

*And as I recently found out, it is not possible to copyright an idea.

This will commence this evening. Why, again, am I doing this?

1. I may have conceived my own ideas, but who am I to say that I am the best person to act on these ideas?
2. As a means of encouraging collaboration and sharing generally.
3. As an experiment.

This is a small move on my part, but as I say, I feel I need to put my money ideas where my mouth is.

This was inspired by Unrealised Projects and Michael Nielson’s TED Lecture about Open Science:

…And many more open-source initiatives.

Josh

Page Turners

I have rekindled* an old love for book design recently, which I think has come from the increased amount of reading I have been doing lately. And it is through the reading that I have noticed something about book design, which I feel makes for a good page turner.

The general idea is that sparse layout, with text spread out not on one page, but onto more pages—so no text is removed but more pages are added—and a high number of images maintains a readers [my] interest. This was noticed in 3 books: ‘The Architecture of Happiness’ - Alain de Botton, ‘The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan & Quentin Fiore, ‘Mourning Diary’ - Roland Barthes. None of them are perfect examples, but I feel they all have strong merits to the same point; let’s start with ‘The Architecture of Happiness’.

You can see the image-to-text ratio – images seem to dominate the page. But not without good reason, all the images used throughout the book are not decorative, they are used as examples in the text. There are some double-page-spreads which are purely text, but they occur perhaps once per chapter, of six chapters.

The way the designer has approached the captions is quite inspired – there is obligatory formal reference which essentially tells you what the image is, but then there is also a small quote from the text body in reference to the image. This gives you a direct link from text to image and instantly contextualises it. Architecture is quite hard to explain in text, and so having a simple but clear link from where in the text the writer is talking about a particular example is extremely effective.

The second example is the wonderful ‘The Medium is the Massage’.

The image-to-text ratio here is not as constant—the book design is quite experimental and can become quite abstract in it’s use of text and images—unlike ‘The Architecture of Happiness’. But there is not a single double page spread without any use of imagery at all – and the images do illustrate the text, they are not mere decoration. Pages with a relatively large chunk of text, as above, are almost always followed by an equally large image spread:

(You can see the slight abstraction in the use of imagery). It is quite nice not having captions alongside the imagery too, all references are left to the end which allows for a much clearer playground for the text and the image.

What both books so far are starting to play with is pacing, engagement and the flow of the text. The heavy use of imagery begins to upset the natural flow which one experiences when reading a large text block with little, to no imagery at all. I think this is a very good thing. This upset of a natural reading flow leads to the heightened sense of engagement. I am sure we all have days where we cannot read a text without drifting off into daydream, even while our eyes race ahead in the text, without us. A constant re-reading and a forced slowing down is, for me, the only remedy, or indeed a long break and a coffee. The imagery forces you to slow down, it forces you to consider smaller sections of text at a time and then gives you an image to juxtapose what you have just taken in—a chance to ponder and understand.

Roland Barthes’ ‘Mourning Diary’ is slightly different, in that there is no imagery at all (lie: there are 4 glossy image pages in the centre of the book, as is common with hardbacks, but for now, these are not worth mentioning). However, the text is still very sparsely set—there is a lot of white space. The book was not written as a book, but on a number of small cards which were handwritten, by Barthes, over a number of years directly after his mother’s death.

Given the nature of the writing—extremely personal, expressive, bold, and in typical Barthes style, quite heavy—the vast white space gives you what the images give in the previous examples, time to think, consider and understand the text.

But I feel the sparse layout of the text does another thing, it allows you turn more pages, more often. Turning a page of a book you are reading is a satisfying experience, a small reward after 2-3 minutes of reading—it marks your progress in the book and indicates how far, or near, you are to the end. Finishing a book is an even greater reward, I would say any avid reader dislikes the idea of starting a book but leaving it unfinished, and regardless of the importace of, or feelings to, the text, turning the pages is felt as a good feeling. Turning a page to find a largely empty page, with a small amount of text is equally hard to leave un-read.

There is no reason why this approach could not be taken to most books. It does take a carful consideration of the text, but ultimately any book worth considering, should be worth it. Ultimately I feel it leads to a greater appreciation of the text, due to a greater understanding. Illustration (imagery) used in a careful and thoughtful way can very much improve a text, whether through example or juxtaposition. These ideas, given my new-re-found love for book design, will hopefully be tested soon.

Josh

*is that why it’s called a kindle?

Undrawable

Undrawable – Micheal Hansmeyer

Architect Micheal Hansmeyer uses generative computational methods (largely using Processing) to build complex outcomes based on very simple inputs which are also controlled used very simple controllers – the algorithms are relatively simple, but the complexity grows with iteration.

The generative systems were then lent to a more practical sense. Hansmeyer felt that the column was a suitable way to go. Incidentally, I feel this was a particularly bad choice as in fact even the most famous of columns are mere embellishment as a symbol of power and wealth. However the column does demonstrate that these, initially, unmanageable constructs based on pure algorithm, can in fact be controlled and influenced to create an object of a certain design.

Therein lies Hansmeyer’s problem with this way of working—Hansmeyer was unsure of the level of agency the architect (designer) can claim in the production of such an object. The architect creates the algorithm—the starting conditions—and then all he can do is watch the ‘object’ grow. The architect can no longer design for a finished outcome, but can only design the initial state which then goes on to govern the final result.

This is a particular area of interest of mine—this idea that a modern designer no longer designs for a finished outcome, but in fact designs a set of conditions, or a framework within which a conversation can take place (socially, computationally, and beyond) and then must let this system evolve at its own wil. A designer can no longer design with a view of the final outcome, the designer must hand over the baton to the user whom becomes dictator of the outcome. I think this is an aspect to a new way of designing which is currently in it’s early days, but I am almost certain (less and less based on gut feelings) that this is the future of design—an almost styleless, egoless form of design which is based on evolution and generation—and one which does not only apply to architecture.

On a side note, Hansmeyer did experiment into taking his complex structures outside of a computer, and this was one of the results. He noted on current 3D printers lack of a resolution high enough, and robotic carving machines being too large to navigate the minuscule areas of complexity at a micro level. A layered, laser cut approach was deemed appropriate, and the above image is quite fascinating. Hansmeyer also stated, and I agree, that is is only a matter of a few years until 3D printers will have the resolution for such complexity, and this structural experiments will not take long at all—as with everything, the rate of development needs to increased for notable developments to be made.

More fantastic lectures to be found here:  Bartlett School of Architecture on Vimeo.

Josh

Playdays — 1.’Firsts’

The first Playdays is done, and I think it was successful on a number of terms.

Fist of all there was a decent enough turnout, which is always nice. We maxed at 14 people which made for a nice sized group to work with, large enough to get a feel for what it is like working on a slightly larger scale. It also showed that there are enough people keen to get involved – I am quite confident that the next Playday will involve more people.

The start of the day was always going to be the hardest bit, and there was a lot of silence to begin the day. The standard brainstorming session led the way and everyone began to chip in. One thing I noticed during the idea-generation-stage was that people are most willing to share an idea if it is one which goes against an idea just said. By that I mean people are more willing to disagree with someone else’s idea than to contribute a new one – which makes sense – people naturally do not want to be put down, and the fear of that inhibits the free flow of sharing of ideas and thoughts, but one can quite easily deter an idea or thought put forward by someone else. This essentially shows that there needs to be, however, a certain number of people who are willing to get shot-down, for the sake of the larger scale idea generation.

Something worth noting that ran throughout the day, is that people are more than happy to sit and talk through ideas, for a long period of time, but are reluctant to actually try them. Trying to organise small scale experiments of the many ideas we came up with proved to be quite hard. A tendency to over-plan, down to the very last detail even the most simple of tasks was common. But once something was started, it seemed like people were willing to continue to the end. Unfortunately too, it seemed that if something was deemed a failure, it was deemed a waste of time – there was a failure to see the benefit even in a failed experiment among some in the group.

After a number of attempts at both personal and impersonal experiments, it was agreed upon, at the end of the day, that the experiments which involved a communal approach to the concept were far better than the experiments which involved a communal approach to the outcome.

It was also discussed that there were discrepancies as to the expectations of the day. Many admitted to hoping that there would be some kind of tangible outcome to the Playdays; something which is still worked on collaboratively, but an end product none-the-less. This highlights the communal idea generation vs communal outcome point. It may take a little while for participants to realise the benefit of exploring the process rather than the outcome, but I think we will get there, and reap the rewards.

I already feel like I am learning something about how to work collaboratively and organise collaborative work. It takes patience, but there must be an instigator – something to spark interest and debate. People prefer to disagree, than to agree.

People procrastinate.

Josh

We Live In Public

We Live In Public — Ondi Timoner

I just watched this film – and I’ll start by saying it was really great.

Josh Harris seems like an incredibly interesting guy – a trouble guy growing up, but a smart one too. His experiments into surveillance, networking and the human condition are fascinating. It has got me thinking about working with people and social structures – creating them, playing with them.

A self-led ‘workshop’ initiative (I am yet to find a better word than workshop, as it isn’t strictly a workshop) that myself and a number of other people in my class at university have collectively organised is launching in a week. The ethos behind it is collaborative thinking and collaborative working. We will not be working towards a fixed outcome, but will have a vague and open starting point. My hope is that the day will unfold organically feeding off the great pool of ideas generated by the mass of minds working together. My hope too is that eventually this will grow, in itself, into a larger entity in which we can invite more people, outside of our university and also outside of our practice, to work with new interesting people. Although this is nothing like the crazy experiments that Josh Harris conducts, I am without a doubt, going to be casting a critical eye on the structures that form in these workshop days to try and better understand notions of collaborative thinking and working.

Incidentally, the series of workshops, is called Playdays.

Josh