I fell down the proverbial rabbit hole when I came across Kostas Terzidis words framing an etymology of ‘design’ in his 2006 published work “Algorithmic Architecture” by Architectural Press. My journey started in chapter one as he explained origins for design, innovation, novelty, and originality as a preservation of their meaning from often abused reference by practitioners discussing their design process. I became intrigued by the end of the chapter when Kostas argues that the investigative nature of design requires a forgetting, to see things as they really are; to erase false connections and return to the origin. This sets the stage as he discussed the potential of algorithms, when solutions are unknown or forgotten, for exploring (problem-addressing) versus its association with a logical mechanism for problem-solving (tied to memory).
With this mindset an algorithmic process could be freed to explore with heuristic and adaptive decision procedures. This embraces the unpredictable, impossible or unknown so they are not feared but can be a launching point for exploration.
you sure you shouldn’t be at the AA instead of me? (your topics are like the bible here). sorry i will be missing the spring meeting for sure (as it is tomorrow and i am here) but i’m pretending to be still involved by visiting the rome program next week during their final crits. let me know when you will be hopping the pond
p.s. what did “step . . . ” mean?
I’m admiring, from the farmland, a great wave of ideas blending science + design to make architecture @ AA – MIT – Harvard – Columbia – Pratt – etc… Currently, I have committed to looking for ways to investigate these concepts via a studio engaged in practice.
When you go to Rome give Pete Goche a hug for me.
Step… is short for StepHEN. Plus, I like what it infers.
It would be great to cross paths again.