Designing the Virtual

Presented at ARCHTHEO ’14. THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE CONFERENCE, Istanbul, Turkey, November 6-8, 2014

[1]

Designing the Virtual

Author: Vassilis Papalexopoulos Affiliation: MSc student at AAC, The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL, London email: [email protected]

Abstract:

Since the decade of 1980’s and the spread of personal computers many theorists and practitioners have argued that information technologies and digital design tools have altered our perception of the design process. Although at the beginning, some focused on the efficiency and quality provided by Computer-Aided Design processes (Crosley, 1988), as the tools at hand evolved, many realized their capability to manipulate and incorporate change (Woodbury, 2010), or to even address and introduce in the design process the new, the unknown (Terzidis, 2009). Views, such as the later, are the ones that lead to the rise of the discourse around the so called Paradigm Shift of Architecture, caused by digital technologies. Is this Paradigm Shift really taking place? And if so, are there theories that may provide us with tools that will enable us to realize the new nature of the architectural object and practice? The aim of this paper is to examine whether the theory of the virtual and its processes, as described by Gilles Deleuze (Deleuze, 2004) and Pierre Levy (Levy, 1998), is able to open us to new interpretations of the changing ontology of the architectural object.

After a presentation of the nature of the virtual and the processes of virtualization and actualization, which accompany it, I will try and show how the techniques developed for the use of contemporary parametric design programs and scripting languages are consistent with the way of thinking inherent in the theory of virtualization. To do so, I will use the examples of Grasshopper 3d, of Rhino 3D and of Processing. Furthermore, I will present a few examples of architectural practices in which either the building or parts of it are closer to being actualizations of a virtualized architectural object rather than a one-time, static solution. Lastly, I will take us through the process of designing a virtual artifact on an attempt to realize the way in which the theory of virtualization may provide us with guidelines for the creation process.

mailto:[email protected]

Designing the Virtual_ Vassilis Papalexopoulos

Introduction

Many practitioners and theorists argue that the use of digital technologies have brought a paradigm shift in architecture. Indeed, both design and production methods have been transformed by the introduction of CAD/CAM technologies. Yet, within the last few decades these technologies have evolved themselves and have implemented new modes of architectural design. In traditional CAD, architects design static models of end-products and the main aim is its representation by two-dimensional means, and occasionally three-dimensional. It appears though that, with the development of algorithmic and parametric design programs this has changed. Architects design the design process itself. They create schemes that are able to produce multiple end-products. Has this change brought a shift in the object of architectural design? Are there conceptual tools that might help us to better understand this transformation of the architectural object?

The theory of the virtual as developed by Gilles Deleuze in Difference and Repetition (Deleuze, 2004) and by Pierre Levy in Becoming Virtual: Reality in the Digital Age (Levy, 1998) seems to offer such tools. In my attempt to examine possible relations between this theory and contemporary methods of architectural design, I will start with the presentation of the basic characteristics of the virtual. Then I will try and point out certain analogies that might exist between the process of virtualization and the structure and use of two common algorithmic and parametric design tools, Grasshopper 3d and Processing. Lastly, I will present an example of the design process implemented by such programs.

The Virtual and its Characteristics

To begin the exploration of the relation between the virtual and contemporary CAD tools we have to understand the basic characteristics of the first. Deleuze describes the virtual as “real without being actual, ideal without being abstract” (Deleuze, 2004, p. 260). The virtual is not opposed to the real, as so it happens with the possible, and this distinction between them, according to Deleuze, should be taken into serious consideration. On the one hand the possible is opposed to the real and undergoes the process of realization, while on the other hand the virtual is fully real and undergoes the process of actualization. Furthermore, it is completely determined. In the same way that a mathematical problem is as real and determined as its solution, the virtual is as real and determined as the actual. Moreover, “the actualization of the virtual always takes place by difference, divergence or differenciation” (Deleuze, 2004, p. 264), hence the actual does not resemble the virtual, in the way the real resembles the possible, it responds to it.

Apart from actualization, there is another process that accompanies the concept of the virtual which Levy calls as virtualization. Virtualization can is described as the opposite of actualization. While the first one can be considered as the process of finding a solution to a problem, the second one can be considered as the process of creating a problem from a given solution. “It transforms an initial actuality into a particular instance of a more general problematic”. (Levy, 1998, p. 27) It is more a displacement of the ontological center of an object than a simple derrealization. Any entity, by being virtualized, exists within a problematic field and is detached from any “here and now”. With the “here and now”, I am referring to the locality, space and time, that every physical entity is at any given time attached to. Although deterritorialized, the virtual always has to be actualized here or there, now or later (Levy, 1998, pp. 27-30). For Levy, these two processes, together with realization and potentialization constitute the ontological quadrivium (Levy, 1998, pp. 171-175) and are inextricably bound with one another.

According to Pierre Levy, every virtualization can be broken down into three core processes (Levy, 1998, pp. 103-118), which enables us to identify them as such and control them. This core constitutes of the trivium: grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. Grammar refers to the segmentation of a continuum into standard elements, detached from any specific “here and now” and able to be recombined in various ways. As Levy states, “dialecticization is an active process” (Levy, 1998, p.


[3]

116). Through the virtualizing dialectic, these standard elements are interconnected by relations of logical coherence and gain the ability to signify. Furthermore, they are being doubled since “they both remain themselves, and become the vectors of an other” (Levy, 1998, p. 116). Dialectic is the basis of virtualization as it creates a second world which, since it is constantly recreated through an “infinite process of doubling, return and correspondence” (Levy, 1998, p. 117), is open to the unexpected interpretations. Finally, rhetoric becomes the essence of virtualization since it is through this process that the problems and purposes are posed. It is rhetoric that dispatches the objects from any “here and now” in which they came to be and “deploys the virtual as an autonomous world” (Levy, 1998, p. 117). For Levy, the highest invention is that of a problem, “the creation of a void in the midst of reality” (Levy, 1998, p. 118).

Furthermore, Levy distinguishes the three virtualizations that led to the emergence of the human species: language as the virtualization of the present, technology as the virtualization of action and contract as the virtualization of violence. Regarding technology, which is of interest in this paper, through the invention of a tool, a solution to a specific problem “here and now” is being deterritorialized. Although a tool is an actual object purposed to be used in certain “here and now”, not only it signifies the initial problem for which it was invented but also its dissemination opens it to an infinite number of alternative uses(Papalexopoulos 2014). Moreover, as a process of virtualization, technology can be subjected to an analysis based on the trivium, as described before. , grammar refers to the segmentation in basic gestures or material factors that can be recombined in various series of actions or artifacts. The dialectic of technique is based on the fact that a technical ordinance signifies other less complicated or non-technical ordinances. Since, the “meaning of an artifact is the device we would have to use to obtain the same result if it hadn’t been invented” (Levy, 1998, p. 106), the technical object not only performs a function of substitute but also a degree of abstraction. Finally, technique features rhetoric since technical invention generates novel possibilities capable of unpredictable creation. “The production of artifacts reaches the stage of rhetoric when it participates in the creation of new ends” (Levy, 1998, p. 106).

Furthermore, every technical object serves as an ‘object-bond’, a catalyst of collective intelligence. By passing from hand to hand, the technical object “creates shared uses and becomes a vector of knowledge, a catalyst of cooperation” (Levy, 1998, p. 164). As an object-bond, it must be at the same time the same for everyone and yet different, since each one approaches it from a different position. It bears with it the field of the problematic of the group. Scientific resourcefulness is based on the creation of objects-bonds that are able to move freely and be transformed by the members of the community and, in turn, transform the identity of the community. In the same way that the object-bond can only be formed as such through its free interaction with each and every member of the group, a community can only be formed as such as long as it allows this free interaction. As Levy states, “in order for an object to play its anthropological role” (Levy, 1998, p. 154), which is “to constitute the human as a social, cognitive and practical subject” (Levy, 1998, p. 165), must “be free of the cycle of territorial appropriation, identification with one name, exclusivity or exclusion” (Levy, 1998, p. 154).

The Trivium of Algorithmic Architecture

Over the last few decades CAD tools have evolved and have altered both the process of design of the architectural object and our perception of the object itself. Algorithmic and parametric design tools constitute change and variability as main aspects of both the process and its products. As Mario Carpo states, “all that is digital is variable” (Carpo, 2011, p. 51). By using this kind of programs designers create deterritorialized virtual artifacts able to be actualized in various occasions, here or there, now or later (Papalexopoulos & Psaltoglou, 2014). What are the basic characteristics of this new mode of design process? Can it be considered as a process of virtualization? And if so, to what extend is it consistent with the core of virtualization constituted by the trivium? To answer these questions we must first take a look into the structure of such programs through the example of one


of the most commonly used algorithmic design programs, Grasshopper 3d, and the programming language of Processing (Java).

Grasshopper 3d

Grasshopper 3d is a visual programming language developed in 2007 by David Rutten of Robert McNeel & Associates and functions as an add-on for Rhino 3D (Wikipedia, n.d.). Through a closer look into the structure and the way the program is being used, we are able to identify a digital design analogous of what Levy describes as the trivium of the virtualization of technology (Papalexopoulos & Psaltoglou, 2014).

The first process of the trivium is grammar, which, as we saw earlier, segments the continuum of action into distinct, standard elements and gestures which can be recombined through dialectic. A similar logic is embedded in the program regarding its components and parameters. Parameters contain data while components contain functions that combine input data and produce new data. For example, the component of the circle combines data relevant to the plane, center and radius of the circle in order to create it. The categorization of the components is based on the type of function the carry out. Therefore, there are different categories of components regarding curves, surfaces, mathematical functions, vectors, etc. In a sense, components are generic elements and gestures, detached from any “here and now”, able to be recombined in almost endless various ways.

At this point we come across the second stage of virtualization which is dialectic. According to the structure of the program, in order to design something one must create a scheme which is called definition. Each definition the sequence of gestures needed to be carried out for the creation of a desired object. One can recognize here the virtualizing aspects of the dialecticization of technology. Extending the example of the circle, in order for someone to create a cylinder from a circle, one would have to first create that circle and then extrude it along a vector of a specific direction and amplitude. Such a definition signifies the process of creation of a specific cylinder, required at a certain “here and now”, while at the same time constitutes a tool for the creation of infinite cylinders coming from infinite circles. It becomes a deterritorialized generic cylinder bearing with it the doubling effect of dialectic.

Having created any definition we enter the realm of the virtualizing rhetoric. This tool invented to address a specific problem, is being detached from its locality and through dialectic it transcends to the field of problematic. It is now able to address various different problems leading to unexpected solutions. The cylinder becomes the beam of a truss, the column of a structure, a skyscraper. Through parametric and algorithmic design processes architects design deterritorialized objects that they can put to use in different occasions and contexts. Furthermore, these objectiles (Cache, 1995) are able to be actualized in endless variations, creating non-standard series.

Processing

Processing is a programming language developed in 2001 by Casey Reas and Benjamin Fry of the MIT Media Lab, at that time, with the purpose to “teach the fundamentals of computer programming within a visual context” (Reas & Fry, 2007, p. 1). For this reason it serves as one of the best examples to explore the relationship between programming, and more specifically object-oriented programming, and the design process as a process of virtualization.

In object-oriented programming languages (OOP), such as Java and in this case Processing, the basic building blocks are classes and objects, which are instances (actualizations) of classes. Compared to the trivium of virtualization, classes serve as the standard elements created by


[5]

grammatization. “A modular program is composed of code modules that each performs a specific task” (Reas & Fry, 2007, p. 395), and in OOP objects and classes serve as those modules. Other basic modules, which can be easily reused in different contexts, are variables. “Variables are containers for storing data” (Reas & Fry, 2007, p. 38). According to the declaration made for each variable, it can store specific type of data that can be reused in any part of the program.

As we have seen earlier, the next step in the process of virtualization is dialectic. An analogous of this process in the practice of programming would be the creation of modular programs. The process of creating a sketch/source code through the creation of logical relations between distinct elements, in this case classes and variables, can be considered similar to the virtualizing dialectic. Furthermore, whenever an object is used as a module for a program, it undergoes the doubling inherent in dialecticization. It bears its former identity, as an instance of the class that produced it, while at the same time it gains a new one every time it becomes part of a new virtual artifact.

Lastly, in object-oriented programming and, in this case, in Processing the virtualizing rhetoric is inherent in almost all of the basic developed techniques (Reas & Fry, 2007, p. 146). Through modification and augmentation, existing codes are altered and expanded and thus opened to new interpretations and ends. The same applies to the technique of collage where pieces from previous, maybe even unrelated programs, are cut and then put together to form new programs. Although, those pieces were created in order to address a specific task, they now gain new meaning and become open to novel possibilities. Lastly, although some may start writing code from scratch, most programmers base their program on pre-existing templates. “A template is an outline with code infrastructure common to many programs” (Reas & Fry, 2007, p. 147). Again in this case, tools that were created as solutions to specific problems are being detached from any “here and now” and are being actualized in multiple cases, always differently and yet always immanently carrying their original purpose.

One can see correspondences between the two programs and their respective structure. Regarding the input of data, in Grasshopper parameters are the equivalent of Processing’s variables. They are the basic element for the manipulation of the data given at any time. They declare the type of the data and facilitate in their distribution within each program. Moving on to components and classes, they are both structured in the same way. Both, devices for the transformation of data, defined by the parameters assigned to them and detached from almost any context, they form the standard gestures in this process of virtualization. Lastly, each definition is basically a program made out of combined components or classes. The fact that such programs are so similar is the reason why both parametric and algorithmic design tools suggest the same approach of design process. And this approach is towards the design of virtual artifacts instead of one-time static solutions. Such a design process has its own characteristics that, although based more or less on the characteristics of the means at hand, meaning algorithmic CAD tools, they should be pointed out. To do so I will present


the example of my Design Diploma Thesis, Virtual Artifact: FabLab Network in a Creative Cluster (Papalexopoulos & Psaltoglou , 2013), and which was carried out together with Artemis Psaltoglou.

Before I do so, I should comment on the fact that, although data is the basis of every algorithmic process, they were not mentioned at length before. That is because, in the process of virtualization, data is the anchor that binds the virtual object to a “here and now”. As we saw earlier parameters and variables store data. In the case of parameters, the data they can store are of two types, Volatile and Persistent (Payne & Issa, 2009, p. 17). “Volatile data is inherited from one or more source parameters and is destroyed (i.e. recollected) whenever a new solution starts. Persistent data is data which has been specifically set by the user” (Payne & Issa, 2009, p. 17). Furthermore, a lot of data used in this kind of programs, such as vectors, coordinates, etc., are bound to specific systems and contexts. It is important that one knows when to use which kind of data in the design of a virtual artifact, for it is possible that the deterritorialization of the artifact may be restrained by context-bound and persistent data.

Designing Virtual Artifacts

The process of designing virtual artifacts is subjected to the logic of virtualization. In our Diploma Design Thesis, with Artemis Psaltoglou, we tried to map this process using as a case study the creation of a tool for the design of FabLab networks in creative areas. In this chapter I will present its basic steps and the way they are related to the process of virtualization.

Before any attempt to solve a problem, one must first analyze it and break it down to its basic components. This appears to be even more important in designing a virtual artifact since, insofar as it is virtual, it exists in a problematic field. In that sense, the architect is not so much trying to find a solution to a problem, but instead, he is trying to use the process of finding a solution to a specific problem in order to create a new, more general one. In our case, we tried to solve the problem of a network of digital fabrication laboratories in the area of Valaoritou in Thessaloniki, Greece, in order to create the more general one of FabLab Networks in Creative Areas. To do so we set a quite simple roadmap which consisted of three main parts, the creative district, the network and the artifact, as we named them. In the first part an analysis of the area of Valaoritou as an urban creative cluster took place from which we gathered most of the necessary data needed for the design and function of the artifact of the network. In the second part, through the analysis of the digital fabrication process and its relation with the creative industry we were able to create algorithms for the position and evaluation of the network and design guidelines for its development. Finally, the third part referred to the creation of a virtual artifact that would be used for the design and construction of each node of the network.


[7]

As so it happens with every process of virtualization, we had to start with the analysis of an actuality, the area of Valaoritou as a creative area. Over the past few years it has attracted various creative professions, such as art galleries, recording studios, theatre and dance groups, architects etc. For that reason, it has been defined by local actors (Creativity Platform, Dynamo Project Space) as a creative cluster. In order to further understand what creative economy consists of and how this agglomeration is distributed in the area, firstly, we identified and mapped the various creative sectors that can be found there. Furthermore, in order to better understand the district we have chosen to work on, it was essential to investigate the different urban qualities this district has as well as its strengths and weaknesses.

The next step was to take some distance from the specific area and gain a deeper understanding of digital fabrication technologies and the way they could be related to creative activities. To do so we first analyzed the continuum inherent in the use of digital fabrication technologies. Then we carried on with the identification of the basic characteristics and capabilities of a series of digital fabrication machines. These enabled us to create a matrix of the diverse possibilities that each device can offer to different creative activities. Furthermore, we were able to investigate different ways in which the digital fabrication continuum could be embedded in different types of networks. In our study we analyzed three distinct types. The first one describes a non-hierarchical network of interconnected groups each one consisting of small units. The second type also describes a non-hierarchical network, but instead of grouped units, it consists of larger, self-sufficient laboratories. The third type describes a combination of the previous two. In this case, the network consists again of interconnected groups of nodes, organized hierarchically. The choice of the type of organization of the fablab network largely depends on the building stock provided its time. So, once again we had to go back to the “here and know” of our case to pick from the building stock the most appropriate ones for the network. Three main criteria ruled this process regarding, one the one hand, the spatial requirements of the specific use, and on the other the combination of functional and morphological restrictions. This led to the choice of the third type as a basic scheme for our network.


Having defined the type of the network and most of the necessary input data it was time to carry on with the design of the algorithm for the position and evaluation of the network’s nodes. As we saw earlier, in order for an algorithm to be consistent with the process of virtualization it has to be modular. For that reason we divided the network algorithm into 5 discrete parts which can be isolated from the rest and altered without affecting the structure of the others. The first one is the input of the spaces that were deemed appropriate together with a list of their respective size. The second part was the organization of the list of spaces which, according to the chosen type of network, we had to divide into two, the ones which would serve as “satellites”, and the ones which would work as the central nodes of each group. The third part referred to a problem that is likely to appear in most cases, and that appeared in ours, which is the close proximity of central units. In such a case, the ones that are close to each other are put into groups from which the larger one is picked, while the remaining ones are sent to the list of the “satellites”. The forth part was the selection of those that would serve as “satellites” for the central nodes. The process was based on proximity. The last part was the evaluation of the groups of nodes and of each node separately. This evaluation happened according to the number of creative businesses each group and node serves. This evaluation was crucial for the optimum design of development phases of the network.


[9]

Having designed the part of the virtual artifact that would facilitate the design and development of the network we went on with the creation of the part that would be used in the design and construction process of each node of the network. To do so we first had to estimate the spatial requirements of each type of nodes and the way the parts of each node would be articulated. This led us to the creation of a diagram of the inner logic of the function of the nodes. Then it was time for us to find an architectural element that would be able to organize the spaces of each node in a distinct yet coherent manner, as if actualizations of the same virtual object. After several attempts we decided to go with what we would call the “ribbon”. After applying it in various cases which could be separated into two main groups, corner and central ground-floors, we were able to refine and parameterize the organizational diagram which would utilize all its aspects.

The next step was the creation of the virtual artifact for the design of the “ribbon”. This was also modular since we defined 5 distinct “reactions” of the “ribbon” that would support specific architectural elements. The first one is openings, which will allow the movement from one space to another within the node. The second category is windows, which would not only allow light from the street to come in during the day but would also allow to people passing by to have a glimpse into the events and processes happening inside the laboratory. The third category was shelves. The fourth category was the work benches. The last category is stairs that lead to the loft. For each and every one of these “reactions” its place along the “ribbon” as well as its height and size were parameterized rendering them case-sensitive.


Finally, we came to the part of the manufacturing process of the “ribbon”. We decided that, in order for the artifact to be complete, this part should be embedded in the algorithm as well. Regarding the construction of the framework of the “ribbon” we choose to explore two different approaches, each one with its advantages and disadvantages. In both cases the framework would be cladded with 3D printed segments of recycled paper. It was necessary, for the facilitation of the manufacturing process, that the algorithm provided list of all the digitally fabricated parts of the structure.


[11]

Having concluded the composition of the artifact used for the production of the nodes, it was crucial that we would proceed with its refinement through its actualization in a population of different cases. To do so, we carried on with its application to each and every one of the 17 nodes of the fully developed network of labs. This non-standard series of actualizations created a lot of positive feedback that enriched the initial virtual artifact.

Through this project we were able to better understand the relations between the process of virtualization and the design process implemented by algorithmic and parametric design tools. Furthermore, by creating a road-map of that process it became clear to us that, although deterritorialized, the virtual artifact needs to be constantly actualized in multiple different “here and


now”. In order for it to be completely determined it has to create feedback loops with its solutions and their context. The creation of the virtual artifact is a process of constant transitions from the actual to the virtual and back. Lastly, we were able to identify within that process aspects of the trivium of virtualization. The way the algorithms for the virtual artifacts were created was consistent with the notions of grammar and dialectic. Both the algorithms of the network and the “ribbon” were combinations of elements able to be detached from the specific context and be recombined in various ways. Yet, the stage of rhetoric seemed to be absent from this process.

Conclusion

Although it appears that contemporary CAD tools and the way they are used by architects imply, to some extent, a process of virtualization of the architectural object, this process is not yet complete. As we saw earlier, the rhetoric stage of technology is achieved when a technical invention is opened to new interpretations and creates new ends. To do so, the artifact or tool has to be able to become an object-bond. It has to be able to change hands within a community and create shared uses. There are many cases where the CAD tools created in a certain “here and now” have changed hands and were able to form and be formed by a community. Regarding the two programs that were used as examples in this paper, one can look on the one case, to the long list of groups revolved around specific add-ons for Grasshopper 3d (Grasshopper 3d, n.d.), and on the other, to the long list of libraries and tools in the Processing homepage (Processing, n.d.). So, if virtual artifacts created by architects can become objects-bonds, what is it that prevents the completion of the virtualization of the architectural object? Could it be that the Modern paradigm of the Architect-Author is not consistent with this new mode of production of architecture? Is it possible that together with the completion of the virtualization of architecture the much debated Paradigm Shift of architecture will also be completed?


[13]

References

Cache, B., 1995. Earth Moves: The Furnishing Territories. Cambridge(MA): Writing Architecture Series.

Carpo, M., 2011. The Alphabet and the Algorithm. Cambridge(MA): MIT Press.

Crosley, M. L., 1988. The Architects Guide to Computer Aided Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Deleuze, G., 2004. Difference and Repetition. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Grasshopper 3d, n.d. Grasshopper 3d Groups. [Ηλεκτρονικό] Available at: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/groups [Πρόσβαση 15 10 2014].

Levy, P., 1998. Becoming Virtual: Reality in the Digital Age. New York: Plenum.

Papalexopoulos, V., 2014, 'Fabricating the Virtual', paper presented at What's the Matter: Materilaity and Materialism in the Age of Computation, Barcelona, 4-6 September 2014

Papalexopoulos, V. & Psaltoglou , A., 2013. Virtual Artifact: FabLab Network in a Creative Cluster, Diploma Design Thesis. [Τέχνη] (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki).

Papalexopoulos, V. & Psaltoglou, A., 2014. The Virtualization in the Digital Era. Στο: D. Moser & S. Dun, επιμ. A Digital Janus: Looking Forward, Looking Back. s.l.:Inter-Disciplinary Press, pp. 119-129.

Payne, A. & Issa, R., 2009. The Grasshopper Primer. 2nd επιμ. s.l.:s.n.

Processing, n.d. Processing 2 Libraries. [Ηλεκτρονικό] Available at: http://processing.org/reference/libraries/ [Πρόσβαση 14 10 2014].

Reas, C. & Fry, B., 2007. Processing: a programming handbook for visual designers and artists. Cambridge(MA): MIT Press.

Terzidis, K., 2009. Algorithms for Visual Design: Using the Processing Language. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing.

Wikipedia, n.d. Grasshopper 3D. [Ηλεκτρονικό] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_3D [Πρόσβαση 30 9 2014].

Woodbury, R., 2010. Elements of Parametric Design. Oxford: Routledge.

Designing the Virtual

Documents

Transcript of Designing the Virtual