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.

建筑中的第一个数字转弯使从业人员可以通过计算机辅助设计和仿真将日常模拟设计过程（例如绘图和建模）转变为高度特定的数字技术。然后，第二个数字转弯要求我们质疑这些技术在概念上和马里奥·卡普罗（Mario Capro）的亮点，新的认知技术正在进入建筑学科中，这些纪律也正在“培训我们以不同的方式思考，……[但是] [但是] [但是]除非我们学会应付这项新科学，否则我们可能会造成数字练习，并且在数字技术中也很普遍。仍然很少选择质疑这些高度技术过程的基本基础。我们的数字体系结构工具主要是从科学和计算背景中使用的，仍然难以找到可以在空间上讨论的独特术语。在最常见的转移架构术语（例如“渲染”）中，建筑师不知不觉地简化了这些数字软件的潜力，这些软件能够准确模拟与复杂的笛卡尔几何形状撞击的大量光颗粒。这种简化导致混合的美学理想，这些理想与模拟手工绘制的“渲染”术语注册，然后被设计师的常规期望偏见。正如西蒙·彭尼（Simon Penny）在计算中对拟人形态定义相同的尊重所凸显的那样，“当任何这样的断言不再被明确理解为隐喻时，我们已经在本体论的泥土中深处。” [2]由于我们缺乏真正适用的术语，我们长期以来的术语和相对新的数字语言之间的构造，我们在实体上的构造，我们现有的现实是我们的现实范围，而我们的现实是，我们变得更加不变。在建筑环境中。这个问题导致了与构建建筑相比，审美图像的优先级和捏造，并使我们处于论述的关键时刻。我们必须在哪里定义与这些工具的互动条款，以避免更深入地进入数字泥土。这项研究与我们目前的有问题的数字裂痕相似，与19世纪末和20世纪初的科学形象制作中的客观转向。在亚瑟·沃辛顿（Arthur Worthington）的带领下，与科学实践者一起，这种概念上的转折开始质疑审美的事实科学生产中有偏见的实践，以及彼得·加利森（Peter Galison）和洛林·达斯顿（Peter Galison＆Lorraine Dalston）在沃辛顿的实验方面质疑彼得·加利森（Peter Galison）和洛林·达斯顿（Peter Galison＆Lorraine Dalston）的注释。感知。'[3]对他们方法论中潜在错误的这种理解导致概念从作者的预期现实偏见，转变为通过非偏见的角度可观察到的真实构建，模拟和记录的现实之一。这种方法当时被认为是非常规的，它剥夺了对理想化的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度量，与我们建筑对话中未定义的数字工具有关。这项研究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，该研究将与具有定义自己独特的自学知识理解能力的工具和系统相关联。 [1] Carpo，M.，2017年。第二个数字转弯。剑桥：麻省理工学院。 P162。[2] Penny，S.，2019年。有意义：认知，计算，艺术和实施例。麻省理工学院出版社。 P4。[3] Daston，L。和Galison，P.，2010年。客观性。区域书籍。 P16。