Form Finding

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on September 24, 2012 at 6:59am

Problem with these terms is that they are over-used and over-hyped. I'm not even sure what all these terms mean exactly, their usage is often so ambiguous. Without checking the official definitions, I drew a small map from how I understand these terms. I think you could pretty much keep on drawing arrows until all terms are connected to all other terms. The only thing I don't see is how fractal geometry fits into all this.

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Poprad, Slovakia

Permalink Reply by Ángel Linares on September 24, 2012 at 7:07am

Perhaps fractal geometry is not a concept to apply in design. I understand fractal geometry like a consequence of some kind of math/computational design. L-system or some kind of swarm logic are able to create that kind of geometry.

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on September 24, 2012 at 7:18am

Almost every one of those terms is capable of producing fractal geometry*. Just as they are all capable of producing smooth spheres. 

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Poprad, Slovakia

* with the possible exception of cellular automata, which are resolution bound.

Permalink Reply by Ángel Linares on September 24, 2012 at 7:29am

Indeed it is :)

Permalink Reply by Andrew Heumann on September 24, 2012 at 12:36pm

Cellular Automata are capable of producing fractal geometry too... see Wolfram.

Permalink Reply by Dedackelzucht on September 24, 2012 at 7:13am

yes, and where do I place my self in there? Thank you David for this nice picture, I like it!

Permalink Reply by Omar Helmy on September 24, 2012 at 12:10pm

Thanks a million David, i love the diagram, you've done exactly what i had in mind (Actually it's a bit scary, do u have a mind reading plug-in!!!!)

Permalink Reply by Vicente Soler on September 24, 2012 at 2:21pm

David, don't try to make sense of design jargon. It mostly consists of hijacking specialized terms from other fields in an attempt to make their discourse sound has having more depth than it actually has.

Seriously, why would any designer use cellular automata except because the term sounds really cool.

Permalink Reply by Ángel Linares on September 24, 2012 at 2:48pm

Totally agree. There is a big air balloon around all this math/algorithmic/... concepts that make some people search on them support for their empty projects...but...wasn't the same thing done in '20-'30 with the International Style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_style_(architecture))? They were only "simple" rules to justify design decisions, just like voronoi, l-system, cellular automaton...

Architecture has always used some kind of "in"-flavour to introduce itself in the contemporary cultural environment. 

Permalink Reply by RWNB on September 26, 2012 at 6:24am

i'm not sure, but i assumed,
that the cellular automata generate the opportunities
to generate all types of surface-textures/structures.
that sounds somehow attractive for designers.
or not?

it is merely a question that i ask in space.

Permalink Reply by Dedackelzucht on September 26, 2012 at 6:43am

Once I heard a famouse arcitect say `what the line was for Corbusier, is the spline for me`. :-)

I agree with you that most of this terms get used to sound good and sell a product. Or to give a name in anyway.

Permalink Reply by Vicente Soler on September 26, 2012 at 7:02am

I'm sure if you try hard enough you can do interesting things with it, as with everything else.

My point was that it wouldn't have gathered so much interest from designers if instead it was called "the funky squares effect".

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page