Unconventional Accuracy; Objectivity in the Digital Turn

非常规的精度；

• 批准号: 2571985
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University College London
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2021
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2021 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2571985
• 关键词: Unconventional; Accuracy; Objectivity; Digital; Turn

The first digital turn in architecture allowed practitioners to transition everyday analogue design processes, such as drawing and modelling, to highly specific digital technologies through computer aided design and simulation. The second digital turn then asked us to question the role of these technologies conceptually and as Mario Capro highlights, new cognitive technologies are emerging into the architectural discipline that are also 'training us to think in a different way, ... [but] unless we learn to cope with this new science, we are likely to make a terrible mess of it.'[1] And even though digital technologies are now commonplace, within both architectural practice and academia, as designers we still rarely choose to question the fundamental underpinnings of these highly technical processes. Our digital architectural tools, which are mostly appropriated from scientific and computational backgrounds, still struggle to find unique terminologies by which to be discussed spatially. In even the most common transferable architectural terms, such as 'render', architects unconsciously simplify the potential of these digital softwares, which have the ability to accurately simulate vast arrays of light particles crashing against complex cartesian geometry. This simplification results in conflated aesthetic ideals that register with analogue hand drawn 'rendered' terminologies and are then biased by a conventional expectation of the designer. As Simon Penny highlights on the same appropriation of anthropomorphic definitions in computing, 'When any such assertion is no longer explicitly understood as metaphor, we are already deep in an ontological mire.'[2] As a result of this lack of truly applicable terminology, between our longstanding analogue and relatively new digital languages, we exacerbate the problematic rift that exists between representational ideas and their physically constructed reality in the built environment. This problem has led to the prioritisation and fabrication of aesthetic imagery over constructed architecture and leaves us at a critical point in our discourse; where we must define the terms of engagement with these tools to avoid descending deeper into the digital mire. This research draws parallels to our current problematic digital rift with the late 19th and early 20th century objective turn in scientific image making. Led by Arthur Worthington, alongside fellow scientific practitioners, this conceptual turn began to question aesthetically biased practices in the production of factual science, and as Peter Galison & Lorraine Dalston note with regards to Worthington's experiments, 'What had been a high-order scientific virtue - tracking and documenting the essential, ideal "auto-splash" - became a psychological fault, a defect in perception.'[3] This understanding of the underlying fault in their methodology resulted in a conceptual shift away from bias representation of an expected reality of the author, to one of truthfully constructed, simulated and documented reality that was observable through a non-biased lense. This approach, which at the time was considered unconventional, stripped away the admirable, but virtues, pursuit of the idealised perfect image. This design-led research sets out to develop experimental and unconventional forms of practice, alongside self determining measures of accuracy, in relation to digital tools that are under-defined within our architectural dialogue. Predominantly looking towards aforementioned new forms of cognitive machine learning, which are unparalleled in our architectural lexicon, the research will engage with tools and systems that have an ability to define their own unique self taught understandings of spatial conditions. [1] Carpo, M., 2017. The Second Digital Turn. Cambridge: MIT. p162.[2] Penny, S., 2019. Making Sense: Cognition, Computing, Art, and Embodiment. MIT Press. p4.[3] Daston, L. and Galison, P., 2010. Objectivity. Zone Books. p16.

建筑领域的第一次数字化转型使从业者能够通过计算机辅助设计和模拟将日常的模拟设计流程（例如绘图和建模）转变为高度具体的数字技术。第二次数字化转型要求我们从概念上质疑这些技术的作用，正如马里奥·卡普罗强调的那样，新的认知技术正在建筑学科中兴起，这些技术也“训练我们以不同的方式思考，……[但是]除非我们学会应对这门新科学，但很可能会把它搞得一团糟。”[1] 尽管数字技术现在在建筑实践和学术界都很常见，但作为设计师，我们仍然很少选择质疑基本原理。这些高科技流程的基础。我们的数字建筑工具大多来自科学和计算背景，但仍然难以找到可以在空间上进行讨论的独特术语。即使是最常见的可转移建筑术语，例如“渲染”，建筑师也会无意识地简化这些数字软件的潜力，这些软件能够准确模拟大量光粒子与复杂的笛卡尔几何体碰撞的能力。这种简化导致了审美理想的混杂，这些审美理想与模拟手绘“渲染”术语相一致，然后受到设计师的传统期望的影响。正如西蒙·彭尼（Simon Penny）强调的那样，在计算中同样采用拟人化定义，“当任何此类断言不再被明确理解为隐喻时，我们就已经深陷本体论泥潭了。”[2] 由于缺乏真正适用的术语，在我们长期存在的模拟语言和相对较新的数字语言之间，我们加剧了代表性思想与其在建筑环境中物理构建的现实之间存在的问题分歧。这个问题导致审美意象优先于建筑建筑并被捏造，使我们处于讨论的关键点；我们必须定义这些工具的使用条款，以避免更深地陷入数字泥沼。这项研究与我们当前存在的问题数字裂痕与 19 世纪末和 20 世纪初科学图像制作的客观转变相似。在亚瑟·沃辛顿 (Arthur Worthington) 的领导下，与其他科学从业者一起，这一概念转向开始质疑事实科学生产中审美偏见的做法，正如彼得·盖利森 (Peter Galison) 和洛林·达尔斯顿 (Lorraine Dalston) 在谈到沃辛顿的实验时指出的那样，“什么是高阶科学美德” - 跟踪和记录基本的、理想的“自动飞溅” - 成为一种心理错误，一种感知缺陷。'[3] 这种对方法论中潜在错误的理解导致了概念上的转变从对作者预期现实的偏见表述，到通过无偏见的视角可观察到的真实构建、模拟和记录的现实。这种方法在当时被认为是非常规的，它剥夺了对理想化完美形象的令人钦佩但美德的追求。这项以设计为主导的研究旨在开发实验性和非常规的实践形式，以及自我确定的准确性衡量标准，与我们的建筑对话中未定义的数字工具相关。主要着眼于上述新形式的认知机器学习，这在我们的建筑词典中是无与伦比的，该研究将使用能够定义自己独特的自学对空间条件的理解的工具和系统。 [1] Carpo, M.，2017。第二次数字化转型。剑桥：麻省理工学院。第162页。[2] Penny, S.，2019。有意义：认知、计算、艺术和体现。麻省理工学院出版社。第4页.[3] Daston, L. 和 Galison, P.，2010。客观性。区域书籍。第 16 页。