Generative vs Parametric Modeling

Hello David,

Philosophically speaking...could you please explain the theory background behind the title: Generative Modeling? Most of the users refer to GH as Parametric Modeling and it would be really interesting if you could share with us your references, to demystify a bit this usual discourse from your perspective.

Thank you very much in advance.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alex on September 6, 2013 at 11:28am

What is the meaning heory background behind the title: Generative Modeling?

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on September 6, 2013 at 12:32pm

Hi doompop,

I'm not even sure that is my tagline. The way I understand these adjectives is as follows:

Manual/CAD. Make shapes with the mouse or the keyboard. Results are recorded, processes are not.
Parametric. Make shapes with the mouse or the keyboard. Processes are recorded and can be tweaked, results are recomputed.
Generative. This one I'm very uncertain about. In fact I'd like to stay away from it. Generative Components obviously made this one famous but I think it's best left alone (in fact I think I'll change the tagline of the Grasshopper site)
Computational. Shapes are not directly defined, but rather they are the result of some form of computation/simulation.
Algorithmic. Quite similar to Parametric (and a lot of overlap with Computational too). However the process is more central. Rather than the computer recording (and replaying) what you do with the mouse, you directly create the algorithm yourself. I would say this is the best description of what Grasshopper is.

Some further thoughts, in no particular order:

The above adjectives are not mutually exclusive.
Computational and Algorithmic do not require the use of a computer per se. Gaudi and Otto were doing computational design using physical models.
Parametric has been hijacked, it clearly doesn't mean 'parametric' in the mathematical sense any more. In effect, everything a computer does is parametric.
I suspect Generative refers to a certain emergence/bottom-up paradigm, but I'm not sure about this.

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on September 6, 2013 at 12:39pm

Well, looks like I can't change the tagline, so I probably didn't pick it either.

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by Alex on September 7, 2013 at 11:59am

or :)

Maybe this will be the philosophy of generative thought.
Gen - structural and functional unit of heredity dynamic forms.
Generative Design is an algorithm that defines the sequence of the function definition or functional forms. But what form we do not know. Only by genetics we blocked (shape) to visualize.
However, some functions have their own defining them (forms) features that are not included in the forms of a gene.

Permalink Reply by Dimitrios Papadopoulos on September 6, 2013 at 1:21pm

Hello David,

Those are some very interesting and useful definitions.

Even after so many years of using GH I haven't noticed the tagline until today and I was curious about the selection of the term.

I agree too that for most of the users i know the term Algorithmic intuitively feels more accurate.

Many thanks.

Permalink Reply by Nick on September 6, 2013 at 1:43pm

I thought generative modeling was directly translated, aka modeling from generations, aka multiple model options achieved through multiple generations and/or transformations.

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on September 6, 2013 at 2:25pm

Wouldn't that be "generational" modeling? "Generative" is I think the adjective of "to generate".

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on September 6, 2013 at 2:47pm

It is. In the context of art and architectural design, I understand "generative" to be inclusive of both digital and analogue approaches. As I have most seen it used, generative design suggests a systematic proliferation of form or detail that is in some way recursive or self-dependent. I would say that Tara Donovan's work offers many great examples of analogue generative design.

Permalink Reply by Dimitrios Papadopoulos on September 6, 2013 at 2:57pm

Yes, but partially "proliferation" & "recursive" and especially "self-dependent" implies a certain level of unpredictable result / automation. You set some initial rules and you let the program produce the different generations/results/forms. I would say "generative" is closer to how "emerging" is usually used. Tara Donovan's work is a very good example of such a "self evolving" shapes. Grasshopper (excluding the Galapagos functionality which is also not "generative", or L-shapes, CA plugins) seems to be more of lets say Algorithmic Construction/or software if that terms even exists.

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on September 6, 2013 at 3:15pm

Totally agree...algorithmic seems much more appropriate to me. I think here McNeel is using "generative" as a catch phrase. No doubt you can do "generative" with Grasshopper, but you certainly don't have to. In any event, one of GH's greatest strengths is its generality. Personally, I still really like "Explicit History".

Permalink Reply by Dimitrios Papadopoulos on September 6, 2013 at 3:17pm

I was JUST thinking EXACTLY the same thing about "Explicit History"!!!

Permalink Reply by Michael Pryor on September 6, 2013 at 4:05pm