Parametricism depends on appointed parameters that are deemed relevant. Digital tools are then activated to follow their dictate to the fullest. Parameters and tools are interdependent within this scheme, as it is not possible to talk about Parametricism without its digital tools and the results are inseparably linked to the initial parameters. The two are inseparably bound to each other and exploring their digital realm is crucial to contemplating the implications of Parametricism itself.
A reciprocal relationship must be acknowledged whereby the available possibilities guide the development of a project significantly. To the point that it may be said that the responsibility for the design process is in some way passed on to the computer, albeit through the use of designer-defined algorithms. What often results is the creation of a controlled playpen where evolutionary notions are explored with an array of isolated virtual specimens.
The recurring aspiration of such experiments is optimization. But what actually is optimization other than approximation towards the designated arbitrary parameters that were deemed relevant in some way? And as such endeavours are commonly judged by its efficiency, what comparative advantage does the lack of inefficiency posses? Perhaps the entire exercise is an attempt towards expressing the unifying/balancing role of the architect in mathematical terms?
In any case, Parametricism is in effect a new International style where the local and cultural elements are wholly detached from the created object. But for all its aspirations towards universality, Parametricism is at the same time flawed due to its dependence on highly specialized software. Similarly as hieroglyphs harboured a wealth of knowledge indecipherable until the discovery of the Rosetta stone, Parametricism in its pristine form is often only readable to the author. All others must suffice with a diluted selection of arbitrary excerpts detached from the author’s system that spawned them.
In addition to the author’s unique overview of a digital project profoundly in contrast with the perceived openness of digital projects, individual software packages limit the digital explorer to the limitations of the chosen individual package and often to that specific version thereof. Due to the pace of development of these packages, exploration of design frontiers is commendable and vital to the continuous development, however condemned to instant obsolescence. Cutting edge techniques become basic tools even before they have had time to reach their full potential, becoming instantly (out)dated. But perhaps there is no issue with architecture being dated at all; even it is with a particular version of a piece of software rather a century and architecture is essentially a commemorative activity and less a constructional?
However returning to the involved tools – they do not appear on their own and the capabilities as well as functions of software packages come from their programmers. Complementarily, the inspiration for a design comes from the end user. The digital world is adapted to the mindset of the current populace through this split. To the point that these packages can be explored in a neo-archaeological way, revealing the organization, values and characteristics of the society that has created them.
Much is conveyed through the tools as through the resulting design. Tool marks are inescapable, as, say, any chisel will leave a distinct groove in stone. The texture is inherently linked with amongst others the type of chisel, grain of stone and the stonemason’s skill. The result is a set of forms, which is connected with the material characteristics of stone, available sizes, quality of tools, etc. These forms can then be copied into another material, and even embellished, as the case with the classical Greek temple. However a distinct language eventually develops itself. One which is directly associated with the tools and materials that have been used for its creation – be it a Gothic cathedral carved out of stone, a humble hut made of mud and straw, or a rapid prototype printed model.
The production of virtual objects essentially has very little to do with any existing classical tools. As with other technical innovations, the initial steps are aimed towards recreating a known familiar task before embarking on a route more in tune with the essence of new possibilities. So too, has digital design so far mostly been focusing on recreating the known physical world. The result is frequently a quasi-corporeal cyberspace, which aims to mimic certain physical aspects, while disregarding others. While the physical world is bound to some underlying principles, these do not apply to the digital.
Second Life is perhaps the best known example of this pseudo-real world, where everything is almost real, but not quite. Its success has been limited and at the core of its failure is this notion of copying the existing world along with its dynamics. Social networks, on the other hand, embrace the core traits of the digital realm. Shedding spatial aspects and focusing on the less tangible aspects of an individual. For example, while only direct communication amongst individuals is possible in faux real world, multiple undirected informational flows are the norm on incorporeal networks.
As architecture is a spatial form of expression, the faux world would seem the best bet at first glance. But only until rules govern buildings per se are explored, as is the reasons behind what makes them the way they actually are? These are, amongst others: gravity, sun, climate, materiality, customs, expense, need, etc. But is architecture necessarily conjoined with materiality? As discussed earlier, architecture is less of a material activity than a conceptual one.
It is perhaps Parametricism’s role to bridge this gap between faux buildings and incorporeal networks. It would therefore be wrong to label Parametricism as a style. More than anything, it is an ongoing exploration towards a new role of architecture. After all, what is happening to the digital pseudo-spatial model of a building when the file is not open? Surely a tree falls regardless of anyone hearing the event?
