Committee on Design

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Committee on the Environment and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------

 

ORGANIC LOGIC

 

Organic reaction correlates external influences with internal response. This is adaptation in the Natural Domain and must become design in the Built Domain. The first is a gift; the second a responsibility, and essential to the balance required for survival on a planet that does not compromise with ignorance. Appearance is not necessarily an indication of success in the Natural Domain, but a desirable symbol of increasing awareness in the Built Domain.

                Our survival has always depended on the way we think and has always involved the linear concept of cause and effect. Science simply organized a confused search that was full of emotion, distraction, assumption and superstition. At one time we danced for rain and believed it would happen, but random success destroyed the credibility of an idea. Science introduced the concept that achievement is not success until it can be duplicated. This makes talent an achievement but not a success.

 

Science requires measurement systems and research with vocabularies and specialized languages; but each dispassionate experiment remains a linear thought process that isolates cause and studies effect with the tools created and the knowledge accumulated.

 

                Linear thinking has gotten us here, but organic thinking must adapt to its success. Organic thinking involves linear strands of knowledge that combine to form a web of response. Architects are used to thinking in these terms without recognizing the attribute, because they have focused on a tactical level of achievement. By this I mean that architectural tactics have an objective that involves a strategic concept and a web of specialized knowledge, but the effort wins a battle that adds to sprawl. I should add that this organic logic may be overlooked because the thought process and decision-making is primarily learned, but not taught, which makes talent a substitute for knowledge. This leaves a vocabulary, pattern language, measurement system and method of evaluation that is not equal to the symbiotic challenge.

 

                Organic logic is a leadership trait at the tactical, strategic and policy levels of human decision because many variables must be reconciled within a maze of options. Advancing from the instinct, intuition and tactics of linear thought to the more abstract reconciliation of competing options with organic logic has never been easy throughout the course of human history, but it is the challenge that faces the Built Domain in the 21^st century. Architects can participate or they can lead, but leadership means that tactical objectives must be woven into a strategic plan focused on a common goal. The result will be public benefit, but the effort will require determination and help from all in the web required for organic logic and adaptation.

 

Architecture is one of many professions that can rise to the challenge. It is certainly capable of translating talent into knowledge. This must be one objective in a strategy to achieve symbiotic harmony with the Natural Domain. Its business plan, however, may prevent a leadership effort in the public interest. This is not a criticism. It is an attempt to face reality. Major organizational adjustment would be required for architecture to participate in policy and strategic design decisions at the highest levels of human deliberation, but this is where you go when land is not taken for granted.

 

                Shelter is a fundamental element of survival and the only one I'm remotely qualified to address. It can also be a threat to survival. Those who have read my earlier essays know that I believe it must exist within a Built Domain that does not expand to threaten its source of survival - the Natural Domain. If you agree with this, then you may also agree that the development capacity of this Built Domain will be a function of the shelter intensity options chosen. I've mentioned in previous essays that intensity can be measured, classified, evaluated and forecast; but its implications require a coordinated web of research from many tactical professions and sciences. If undertaken, the reward will be knowledge that has leadership potential based on a common measurement system. At this point, tactical architecture will be led by a strategic language on the road to symbiotic victory.

 

We all know that the decisions of many contribute to victory and few receive award. The objective is to improve these decisions to repeat success. To make a difference, therefore, the emphasis in architecture must adjust from design award to design decision before we will be able to shelter growing populations within sustainable limits. An emphasis on defining decision builds knowledge. When decisions contribute to a goal and strategy, public benefit can be obvious. Opinion will be supported by research and award will recognize achievement that contributes to knowledge capable of repeating success.

 

An emphasis on award makes it the goal. This results in fame for a few but does not produce a pubic perception of value for the entire profession. Design can produce a symbiotic future for the family of man when the emphasis is on organic logic and decision. These decisions are not limited to architecture, but architecture will be part of any solution. It can be a tactical achievement in a web of organic thinking or move to the center of an organic movement that measures excellence in relation to its symbiotic goal.

 

             In either scenario, architectural design is a thought process based on organic logic. It conducts business at the tactical level of achievement, but can translate talent to strategic knowledge and policy debate when it improves its vocabulary, language and methods of evaluation. A professional goal is to repeat success in the public interest. The challenge is to elevate architectural goals from tactical achievement to symbiotic strategies that contribute to a sustainable future. When this goal is achieved, architectural value will be priceless and award will be public recognition. Fine art will symbolize the contributions of an entire culture and the Symbiotic Period will begin.

 

-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
Alan Rudy AIA
Sole Proprietor
Alan Michael Rudy & Associates
Oakland CA
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Hosack's erudite essays contain gems of insight imbedded in a style of prose that is difficult to understand and typical of a problem endemic to our profession. Written communication is hard for us. The irony in reading Mr. Hosack's piece on Organic Thinking is that it cries out for Linear Thinking to allow it to be understood. Here are some random reactions:

I like blunt observations like yours, because it helps to move the fog out of the way of the problem with design discussions. There are those who will write essays about what good architecture should be. This approach is not unlike what most architectural historians do, as they try to analayze our product.  But the problem with this analysis is the tremendous focus on the finished product. It's focused on what was created, rather than how it was created.  It focuses on the ends more than the means. 

Of course, since they have created the ends they see fit in their mind (as a model of efficiency), the means seems clearly logical to them in their highly "function" driven Darwinian world. But I personally believe their confidence in science as an efficicient stand alone symbol of "progress" is far more linear in their minds than it really is. I accuse them of preaching nonlinear thought processes to match their linear utopian visions. For example, if science were as pure and accurate as they make it sound, then our species wouldn't be so threatened as it is today by our many risky scientific innovations in chemical agriculture, antibiotics, air pollution, water depletion, global warming, genetic engineering, or nuclear energy, . . . etc. -- which might not sound like 'progess' anymore if something goes bad, as it did in Japan recently.

If we focus more on how great buildings are made, rather than what a great building should be, then the discussion gets far more broad, more open, and more important, in my mind. If we focus on what great architects do, that is different than what the ordinary pack is doing, not in what they design, but in how they design it, that is where the real learning and sharing comes in. Because utlimately, this is not about me trying to imitate another great architect (which is about all you learn from studying their final product).  This is more about me learning to be the best architect that I can be, by improving my discovery process.

If you were to imagine us architects as songwriters, then think about how we would communicate.  Would we ask each other what the ultimate great song should be?  No, that would be ridiculous. Songwriters would clearly know that in advance.  But as architects, we repeatedly get trapped in this false vision that our work is so incredibly objective, that we should all logically make the same deductions and want to write the same type of song. I have worked with countless user groups in healthcare architecture, and I can say that no matter how objective, smart and certain your clients are, no two groups will ever come up with the same exact program. And no matter how sure your CEO or construction manager is about what is best or most efficient, that vision of 'efficiency' will change they moment they are replaced (which sometimes even happens during a project). Trying to define the final vision is never going to be static, nor should it be. I have designed homes with great foundations and great construction quality, where the customer was far more worried about how many shoes could fit in the closet.  Don't fool yourself. The public is not so easy to sell on what the best 'function' should be. We are never going to be able to see the whole universe from a single point.

But getting back to those song writers, listen to how they share information on how they write their songs. More often then not, they will share process.  They will share how they get inspired, how they develop an idea, and how they got past stumbling blocks or improved a recording process. That's where the real sharing is among professionals. The process of discovery is the journey.  They real analysis should be on the journey, and less on the destination.  Believe me, you will get an ear-full on destination from your clients.  That obssession will be plentiful. But the professional discussion, architect to architect, should be on the creative process. Because no matter how much 'data' you have to justify your goals, if you can't transport those ideas effectively with a form, then you won't have much for the rest of us to look at. Some can put down the "art" of architecture all they want as unimportant, but our art is ultimately the bus that transports the entire package. And when architecture really works well visually, people are drawn to it like flies on . . . well, maybe we shouldn't use flies as a metaphor.  But you get the idea.  

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Architect
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 07-02-2011 12:49
From: Alan Rudy
Subject: ORGANIC THINKING



-------------------------------------------
Alan Rudy AIA
Sole Proprietor
Alan Michael Rudy & Associates
Oakland CA
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Hosack's erudite essays contain gems of insight imbedded in a style of prose that is difficult to understand and typical of a problem endemic to our profession. Written communication is hard for us. The irony in reading Mr. Hosack's piece on Organic Thinking is that it cries out for Linear Thinking to allow it to be understood. Here are some random reactions:

I am suspicious of an essay on design that does not include the word design.

Creating a work of architecture requires a process, requires tools, requires training, requires learned and inherent skills. If I understand Mr. Hosack's term, then the process is and must be Organic. And always has been. Architects have never been Linear Thinkers. So what is the problem? Why do we create so much crap? Why are we not respected and valued by the "middle class" but revered by the "cultural elite" ?

Since we have been discussing these issues since at least ancient Athens, I am not optimistic for a good outcome here.

However here are some thoughts:

Some buildings look good and work well according to a consensus of users and observers. Some buildings work well and do not look good. Some buildings look good and don't work well at all. Some buildings inspire us with their beauty and their approach to function. Some buildings drive us crazy and we don't know why.

Vetruvius  and Palladio,anyone?

Thank you, Rich Farris.

As long as I've studied, taught, and practiced architecture I've been reading theses on design. Many of these are easily understood, processed, and critiqued. Some are so obtuse that the words get in the way of understanding. Part of the problem is that architectural writers often like to make up words or use words in ways in which they have not been used before, so it is challenging for readers to dicifer the meaning and conceptual intent. But instead of asking for clarification or challenging writers' concepts, many perpetuate the confusion by joining in discussions using the same vocabulary as though it's a foreign language used to exclude all but the few who use that language. Ultimately, the original purpose of discussing design is lost, and a new useless purpose of egotistical language games takes its place.

Rich Farris cuts to one of our most important roles as discussants in the Committee on Design Knowledge Group, not "what is design" but "how is design." The very nature of process being cognitive suggests that there is no formula that can define it. Certainly, many architects use formulae, or evidence-based design, or defined steps in their process, but ultimately inspiration is an event that is as unique as the individual.

But why do many still feel a need to define that? Do we lose respect or integrity or ego or understanding if we are doing something that can't by its very nature be defined? Or are we trying to bottle up the recipe so we can sell it to others as though they are incapable of being inspired on their own? If all we want to do is share the "how" so others might learn from it and expand their inspirational possibilities, then we certainly don't need to do that in a foreign language.

-------------------------------------------
David Clarke AIA, Senior Architect
Williams Design Group, Inc., Las Cruces NM
President-Elect AIA New Mexico Southern Chapter

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2011 15:59
From: William Farris
Subject: ORGANIC THINKING

I like blunt observations like yours, because it helps to move the fog out of the way of the problem with design discussions. There are those who will write essays about what good architecture should be. This approach is not unlike what most architectural historians do, as they try to analayze our product.  But the problem with this analysis is the tremendous focus on the finished product. It's focused on what was created, rather than how it was created.  It focuses on the ends more than the means. 

Of course, since they have created the ends they see fit in their mind (as a model of efficiency), the means seems clearly logical to them in their highly "function" driven Darwinian world. But I personally believe their confidence in science as an efficicient stand alone symbol of "progress" is far more linear in their minds than it really is. I accuse them of preaching nonlinear thought processes to match their linear utopian visions. For example, if science were as pure and accurate as they make it sound, then our species wouldn't be so threatened as it is today by our many risky scientific innovations in chemical agriculture, antibiotics, air pollution, water depletion, global warming, genetic engineering, or nuclear energy, . . . etc. -- which might not sound like 'progess' anymore if something goes bad, as it did in Japan recently.

If we focus more on how great buildings are made, rather than what a great building should be, then the discussion gets far more broad, more open, and more important, in my mind. If we focus on what great architects do, that is different than what the ordinary pack is doing, not in what they design, but in how they design it, that is where the real learning and sharing comes in. Because utlimately, this is not about me trying to imitate another great architect (which is about all you learn from studying their final product).  This is more about me learning to be the best architect that I can be, by improving my discovery process.

If you were to imagine us architects as songwriters, then think about how we would communicate.  Would we ask each other what the ultimate great song should be?  No, that would be ridiculous. Songwriters would clearly know that in advance.  But as architects, we repeatedly get trapped in this false vision that our work is so incredibly objective, that we should all logically make the same deductions and want to write the same type of song. I have worked with countless user groups in healthcare architecture, and I can say that no matter how objective, smart and certain your clients are, no two groups will ever come up with the same exact program. And no matter how sure your CEO or construction manager is about what is best or most efficient, that vision of 'efficiency' will change they moment they are replaced (which sometimes even happens during a project). Trying to define the final vision is never going to be static, nor should it be. I have designed homes with great foundations and great construction quality, where the customer was far more worried about how many shoes could fit in the closet.  Don't fool yourself. The public is not so easy to sell on what the best 'function' should be. We are never going to be able to see the whole universe from a single point.

But getting back to those song writers, listen to how they share information on how they write their songs. More often then not, they will share process.  They will share how they get inspired, how they develop an idea, and how they got past stumbling blocks or improved a recording process. That's where the real sharing is among professionals. The process of discovery is the journey.  They real analysis should be on the journey, and less on the destination.  Believe me, you will get an ear-full on destination from your clients.  That obssession will be plentiful. But the professional discussion, architect to architect, should be on the creative process. Because no matter how much 'data' you have to justify your goals, if you can't transport those ideas effectively with a form, then you won't have much for the rest of us to look at. Some can put down the "art" of architecture all they want as unimportant, but our art is ultimately the bus that transports the entire package. And when architecture really works well visually, people are drawn to it like flies on . . . well, maybe we shouldn't use flies as a metaphor.  But you get the idea.  

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Architect
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------

I would like to comment on something David Clarke said about how architects communicate with each other. 

To borrow the words of Kenneth Frampton, he told me that all architects should study philosophy. I agree completely, because what we do for a living requires a great deal of thinking and justification. If architecture is the art of building, philosophy is the art of justification. If we want to be good thinkers and good justifiers, philosphy is where we all should be looking to develop those skills. You won't get that from learning how to detail through-wall flashing, nor will you find in the help section of Sketch-Up.

One thing I noticed in philosophy is the many styles of communicating deep ideas. Some philosphers, like Kant for example, literally feel compelled to invent their own vocabulary in order to communicate concepts they feel have no sufficient word in the dictionary to express. The reading is a bit tedious, but interesting in it's own way, if the concepts are fruitful. I can't say those are the kinds of books I am eager to ever read more than once. But a lot of philosophy is a slow read when the paragraphs get overly dense. As much as I love Hannah Arendt, some of her paragraphs can be two pages long. I would never try to read Arendt while riding a train.

If you ever tried to follow a Peter Eisenmann lecture, he will definitely take you to the edge of concentration, trying to keep up with his thoughts and his vocabulary. [Frampton as well.] But that is not to knock them for that. There's probably no architect on the planet I would rather hear lecture than Eisenman, because he amuses to to such extremes, far beyond any other architect I know. And if you study just bit of philosophy, as you should, then you will actually be able to understand him.

That said, some of my favorite and most useful sources communicate in very ordinary language without losing any of their brilliance. I find their writing such a joy to read, I will read it many times. I consider this a real hallmark of communication. That is where I learned that it is possible to be insightful, clear and smart, without having to go too far beyond ordinary vocabulary. I guess Mark Twain taught us all the brilliance that is possible with ordinary communication. In philosophy, Ortega is one of my favorites at speaking smart with simple language.  His writing feels more like a conversation than a thesis paper. In the more scientific camp, one of my favorites would have to be Jacob Bronowski, who has written plenty of things architects should be aware of about the links between art and science. And he can communicate deep ideas in ways that a kid can understand.

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Architect
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 07-07-2011 11:06
From: David Clarke
Subject: ORGANIC THINKING

Thank you, Rich Farris.

As long as I've studied, taught, and practiced architecture I've been reading theses on design. Many of these are easily understood, processed, and critiqued. Some are so obtuse that the words get in the way of understanding. Part of the problem is that architectural writers often like to make up words or use words in ways in which they have not been used before, so it is challenging for readers to dicifer the meaning and conceptual intent. But instead of asking for clarification or challenging writers' concepts, many perpetuate the confusion by joining in discussions using the same vocabulary as though it's a foreign language used to exclude all but the few who use that language. Ultimately, the original purpose of discussing design is lost, and a new useless purpose of egotistical language games takes its place.

Rich Farris cuts to one of our most important roles as discussants in the Committee on Design Knowledge Group, not "what is design" but "how is design." The very nature of process being cognitive suggests that there is no formula that can define it. Certainly, many architects use formulae, or evidence-based design, or defined steps in their process, but ultimately inspiration is an event that is as unique as the individual.

But why do many still feel a need to define that? Do we lose respect or integrity or ego or understanding if we are doing something that can't by its very nature be defined? Or are we trying to bottle up the recipe so we can sell it to others as though they are incapable of being inspired on their own? If all we want to do is share the "how" so others might learn from it and expand their inspirational possibilities, then we certainly don't need to do that in a foreign language.

-------------------------------------------
David Clarke AIA, Senior Architect
Williams Design Group, Inc., Las Cruces NM
President-Elect AIA New Mexico Southern Chapter

The following comment and questions have prompted this response, since it shows that I'm not getting my point across to all readers. I'm working on a response to questions raised in another comment and will have more to say in the future.

 

COMMENT

Creating a work of architecture requires a process, requires tools, requires training, requires learned and inherent skills. If I understand Mr. Hosack's term, then the process is and must be Organic. And always has been. Architects have never been Linear Thinkers. So what is the problem? Why do we create so much crap? Why are we not respected and valued by the "middle class" but revered by the "cultural elite"

 

RESPONSE

I'm always sorry to hear that I've not made myself understood and will try again with the following response.

 

I mentioned that architecture already involves organic thinking, but that it is applied at the tactical level to achieve a special interest objective. Tactics win battles, not wars. These tactics are not part of a strategic architectural plan to contribute to a goal that is an acknowledged public interest, such as design knowledge and decisions that focus on a sustainable relationship between the Built and Natural Domains.

 

The design process results in tactical achievement that can't be repeated without equal talent. It does not focus on strategic knowledge that can be taught, accumulated, improved, inherited and applied by an entire profession in the public interest. Architecture presently serves a special interest that is rarely concerned with public benefit when it compromises profit or the non-profit bottom line. Architecture benefits the middle class in an abstract sense as shelter, but it is taken for granted. Appearance is appreciated or debated but is not a priority to a group that struggles to improve its daily life. The cultural elite may offer reverence (it's debatable) but expect it to be a negotiated cost. This improves their bottom line with reverence a small price to pay.

 

-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------