The temptation of parametric architecture

It is almost universally recognized that the artifact would be the result of the materialization of the idea with the help of the tool and that is why, also in architecture, there are established approaches starting from the determinism of the material and the technique of its realization in certain epochs/territories. Much less numerous are the approaches of correspondences between drawing and design tools/techniques and architectural expression although the "quietening" of architecture in the Renaissance, when architects resorted to 1-2-3 vanishing point perpectives, is visible, the advent of cavalier perspectives after artillery "buried" Vauban fortification systems, the modernists' predilection for isometric axonometries that mastered the imbrications of volumes, the rehabilitation of "khachk" by postmodern pictorialism, etc.a.

The computer could not be an exception and its use in architecture already has a history, which can be traced: missionaryism and the promises (sometimes unrealistic at the time) of freeing creativity, the first "flat-rechauffe" type programs in the shipbuilding and clothing industries, the first "ergonomic" programs, CAD-CAM duality, the BIM revolution and recent parametric architecture.

It would therefore be somewhat commonplace that architects, painters and writers have always worked with imaginary spaces, but the question remains: which representational techniques still make sense today, and how important are these techniques for the way we define and create architecture? (Personally, I have pointed out on several occasions how the computer predisposes to "collage", which some even claimed to be a property of postmodernity).

It is almost universally recognized that artifacts stand for the materialization of an idea with the help of the tool; this is why architecture as well establishes approaches which start from the determinism of material and achievement technique characteristic of specific eras/territories. Far less numerous are the approaches focusing on the correspondences between drawing and design tools/techniques and architectural expression; and this, despite the visible "peace" reached by architecture during the Renaissance period, when architects resorted to perspectives with one, two or three vanishing points, the rise of cavalier perspectives after the artillery buried the Vauban fortifications system, the propensity of modernists for isometric axonometries which reigned over volume imbrications, the rehabilitation of "cheese" by postmodern pictorialism etc.

The computer could't have been an exception, and its use in architecture already has a long history which boasts such achievements as missionary work and the promises (occasionally devoid of any genuine foundation) to set creativity free; the first "plat-rechauffe" type of programs in the naval and clothing industries, the first "ergonomic" programs, the CAD-CAM duality, the BIM revolution and the recent parametric architecture.

Therefore, it would be a truism to say that architects, painters and writers have always worked with imaginary spaces; the question which, however, lingers on is what would be the representation techniques that continue to make sense today and how important are they to the manner in which we define and create architecture? (Personally I have remarked on several occasions how computer favors "collage", claimed by some to be a property of post-modernity).