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.

建筑学的第一次数字化转向使从业者能够通过计算机辅助设计和模拟，将日常的模拟设计过程，如绘图和建模，过渡到高度特定的数字技术。第二次数字化转向要求我们从概念上质疑这些技术的作用，正如马里奥·卡普罗所强调的那样，新的认知技术正在进入建筑学科，也在训练我们以不同的方式思考……[但是]除非我们学会应对这种新的科学，否则我们很可能会把它搞得一团糟。[1]尽管数字技术现在很常见，但在建筑实践和学术界，作为设计师，我们仍然很少选择质疑这些高度技术性的过程的根本基础。我们的数字建筑工具，大多来自科学和计算背景，仍然在努力寻找独特的术语来讨论空间。即使在最常见的可转让建筑术语中，如渲染，建筑师也在不知不觉中简化了这些数字软件的潜力，这些软件能够准确地模拟大量轻粒子撞击复杂的笛卡尔几何图形。这种简化导致了融合的美学理想，这些理想与类似的手绘术语登记在一起，然后又被设计师的传统期望所偏向。正如西蒙·彭尼强调的那样，在计算中，拟人化的定义同样适用，“当任何这样的断言不再被明确理解为隐喻时，我们已经陷入了本体论的泥潭。”[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，我们加剧了建筑环境中表象思想和它们的物理构造现实之间存在的有问题的裂痕。这个问题导致了审美意象的优先次序和制造，而不是建造的建筑，并让我们处于话语的临界点；我们必须定义与这些工具接触的术语，以避免陷入更深的数字泥潭。这项研究将我们目前有问题的数字鸿沟与19世纪末和20世纪初科学图像制作的客观转向相提并论。在亚瑟·沃辛顿的带领下，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存在美学偏见的做法，正如彼得·加里森和洛林·达尔斯顿就沃辛顿的实验所指出的那样，“这是一种高阶的科学美德--跟踪和记录基本的、理想的‘自动飞溅’--变成了心理上的缺陷，是知觉上的缺陷。”[3]对他们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示，转向通过无偏见的透镜可以观察到的真实构建、模拟和记录的现实。这种方法在当时被认为是非传统的，剥夺了对理想化的完美形象的追求，这种追求令人钦佩，但具有美德。这项由设计主导的研究致力于开发实验性和非常规形式的实践，以及与我们的建筑对话中定义不足的数字工具相关的自我确定的准确性测量。这项研究主要着眼于前述认知机器学习的新形式，这在我们的建筑词典中是无与伦比的，研究将使用能够定义自己对空间条件的独特自学理解的工具和系统。[1]卡波，M.，2017年。第二次数字转向。剑桥：麻省理工学院。162.[2]Penny，S.，2019年。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.客观性。专区图书。第16页。