Generative
Design. A swimmer in a natural sea frame
Celestino
Soddu
Professor of Architectural Design at
Master in Building Engineering
Director of Generative Design Lab,
Dept. of Architecture and Planning
Politecnico
di Milano University.
Celestino.soddu@polimi.it website: www.soddu.it
Abstract
Generative Design is a logical synthesis of a creative process using
transformation rules (algorithms). It can be realized designing a program able
to simulate this process and to generate outputs as 3dmodels of architecture,
cities, objects. As all creative processes it involves subjectivity in the
definition of how the process runs and how the transforming rules are created
and organized into a system.
As in all creative processes two main factors are involved: the
unpredictability of external factors linked to each design occasion, like the
environmental context and client’s requests, and the subjectivity of designers
when they interpret these external factors.
Being a logical synthesis of this complex dynamical system, Generative
Approach can be successful used in teaching architectural design as
subjectivity-oriented approach.
Morphogenetic Meta-Project versus Project
Generative Design could be represented like a morphogenetic
meta-project, an organized idea of “how to run” a design process. In sixties of
last century meta-projects were the structure of organization of incoming
projects. They were constructed with the aim of identifying the best structure
to answer to “objective” functional needs. It was not possible to full develop
this kind of approach because functional needs, extended to practice functions
but also to symbolic and aesthetical functions, are strongly related to the
subjectivity of customers and to the subjectivity of designers.
Generative Design is a meta-project with two fundamental extension:
1. it involves subjectivities going more in deep into complexity of
(architectural, town environment, industrial objects…) designed artificial
systems.
Perspective versus Axonometric
It’s like moving from axonometric to perspective view. Adding subjectivity you can move from the
axonometric representation, “objective” because free from subjective views but
limited by the dimension of the sheet, to the perspective view that, using
subjective points of view, can represent the infinite in one sheet and,
following that, the increasing complexity of represented systems.
2. it can run the design process a lot of times, being sensible to
little variations of inputs (similar to the different feel of the designer in
different moments) and it can generate a sequence of endless results, all
different but all related to the designer idea.
Anamorphic versus Axiomatic
It’s like moving from
normal perspectives view into anamorphic perspective views. Each different
point of view transform the anamorphic representation into unpredictable
scenarios. Looking at each of these outputs we can discover one of the possible
representation of the idea.
Process versus Output
Generative Design, as subjective operative meta-project, can be used to
design a kind of artificial objects, an artificial DNA of a species of objects
because is oriented to set up a process and not only to reach one result. More,
it defines and renders explicit all the steps of a “normal” design process,
from the first sketch to the final executive project. And, in this way, it’s a
wonderful support for teaching (architectural and industrial) design.
Idea versus Solution
If you are a designer and someone ask you: “which is your idea, which
kind of forms are you thinking to” or “which character do you love for your
architectures” or “ which kind of impact do you prefer to have when you enter
in a unknown city”, you can explain it using words but you cannot show it if
not using a generative approach because it represents an idea and not peculiar
solution of problems. Each idea can be developed with multiple solution but
each solution is not exhaustive of the idea.
Synthesis versus Simplification
Interpretation versus Analysis
The reason is that you cannot use drawings, forms or images able to
explain your thought in an exhaustive way because you have to perform a
synthesis of all your beloved forms, including possible unknown forms that
could fit your needs. You cannot simplify.
More, answering to all these questions, you have to explain the complex
system of relationships and possible interfaces that a town environment must
have for linking your needs and your interpretation of unpredictable user’s
needs.
Generative design is not an analytical process but a synthesis process. The
core of each generative project is the synthesis, using algorithms, of own
subjective approach to context and to own subjective cultural, technological
and functional references. In brief, generative design performs own modus of approaching
the transformation of existent worlds into possible environments more closed to
own idea of quality.
Following that, In generative design processes, but also in all creative
processes, the subjective interpretations of existing world are the main
creative acts.
Subjectivity versus Objectivity
Imitation versus Copy
The role of subjectivity is really important in design activity. Without
subjectivity we loose the main stimulus for evolving our functional scheme into
a project, and we lose the possibility to use our cultural, symbolical,
aesthetical, technological references because these references can be used only
if we have our interpretation of them. If not we can do only copies.
Variations versus Optimisation
In last century we experienced a design approach focused on
optimisation. It came by the need to identify “the best” and realize it with
industrial assemblage chains. This approach belongs to the concept that all
people are equal, all people need the same equal product. This approach is not
more accepted and it’s known that we can realize a product with the best
performances but with different form. These differences fit the need of
personalization of products, fit the need of customers to find his own product,
fit the need of each person to find out a product, a house, a car, a square, a
city, an environment that fit his needs and that is the mirror of his identity
and uniqueness. The subjectivity of designers fit the subjectivity of
customers.
The possibility to manage variations is inside the quality of a design
process. Generative projects face
directly this need generating unpredictable, but recognizable outputs.
Identification versus Homologation
Because the recognizability of outputs is the explication of the
architect’s (or artist’s) imprinting. But it’s also a function that each
customer appreciates when looking for something facing his own subjectivity. We
can recognize a print of Piranesi, also
if we never have seen it before, because we recognize the style or, we can say,
the DNA of his drawing process, his stratified interpretations of surrounding
environment that makes unique his drawings.
Recognisable versus Anonymous
In the some way we need to identify our home when we go home, to
identify our city and to love the link between its unique character and our way
to look at the future.
Generation versus Cloning
Generative Design realize a species and not only single outputs. It’s
like in Nature. Generation is strongly different from cloning, like art craft
is different from assemblage chain. But now an industrial production of all
different objects is technically possible using the existing industrial
equipment and generative projects. More, variations, as in nature, enhance the
recognizability and peculiarity of each idea facing, in the meantime, the need
of personalization of each customer. In this era, when someone tries
to clone, like in the last century industries, the natural events, we
like to rediscover, in the artificial world, the uniqueness of generation, like
in Nature.
Unpredictability versus Repetition
The unpredictability of variations of natural objects, like a rose or a
cat, enhance the rose and cat concept, the identity of these species, like the
unpredictability of a each variation of Bach enhance the identity of his music
and our ability to identify and appreciate it. On the contrary, repetition
destroys identity. A compound of all
equal houses has less identity (and is less fascinating) of a compound where
all the houses are different but each one follows a recognizable common idea of
quality. Variations as mirror of the
subjectivity of each inhabitant.
Random of requests versus Random of outputs
The use of random factors is important in constructing this process as
software. It follows two different approaches. Random as possibility to create
unpredictable requests, constrains, needs as occasions to improve the
complexity of the process and testing the recognizability of the idea in all
generated events, or random as generator of casual forms. The difference is,
substantially, the recognizability of the artist/architect/designer imprinting.
Teaching How versus Teaching What
I am teaching architectural design from 30 years and, after having
developed my first generative software in 1987 and published the related book
in 1989 (C.Soddu, Citta’ Aleatorie
(Random Cities), Masson Publisher), It was me clear that, as my Argenia
Generative Software worked simulating the design processes and generating
architectural outputs able to fit different occasions and client’s needs, so I
would have been able to use Argenia as model for investigating about designing
process. It is, in fact, an effective logical synthesis of normal design
processes.
So I used it as base of an operative and effective teaching structure
for Design Studio Labs in architecture, environmental and industrial design.
Outputs of students were soon really encouraging because based on
discussions about “how” develop their work and not about “what” they are
designing, giving tools for managing their work without discussing about their
partial and temporary results but looking at them as a first step of a
transforming process. This teaching approach enhanced their subjectivity and
the possibility to use at the best their own cultural references. In other
words they succeed in using all their previous learning work by interpreting
these references as transforming codes. But this aspect created also some
difficulties. We can synthesize these difficulties as belonging to the
student’s denial to render explicit his subjectivity, his cultural peculiarity,
also if only in the field of design approach. The common request of some
students (but only in the first steps of the learning path) was the request of
a more “objective” teaching process were each student can work “analytically”
for reaching a surely acceptable result. But design process is not an
analytical process. If teacher don’t talk about subjective approach (as done by
design teaching in the last century for ideological problems) he misses the
possibility to enter in deep into discussion on design processes.
It was also difficult to clear to the students that the assessment of
their projects developed in the Design Studio Labs is done valuating:
1. the congruence between the aims indicated by each student at the
beginning of their work and the structure of the transforming rules that they
designed during this experience.
2. the progressive transformation path in terms of increasing-complexity
difference between the initial sketch and the final drawings.
3. The possibility to manage again, in different design occasions, the
same reached quality. This point is the main point because it demonstrates the
increasing professionalism of the student.
Teaching structure. A subjective oriented design
approach for teaching design.
Transforming versus Forming
The steps for running a generative approach in teaching design are:
1. Each student is required to identify the character of his idea by
interpreting his references into transforming rules. First the student can list
a sequence of characters using words, like adjectives. Each student is required
to identify 3 adjectives for describing his design aim. (3 and not less or more
because it’s interesting to make synthesis and to be not too much axiomatic.
The choice of three adjective was used, the first time, by E,Colabella that
experienced in her courses the same logical process). Students have to identify
some references as representation of each character.
2. Second step is identifying the different design moments, when the
designer have to choose how to fit the incoming functional, aesthetical and
symbolical requests. These moments can be identified like:
How to fold an element
How to divide an element into different parts
How the element ends
How the element lean on
How make holes into elements
How …
3. the third step is the more creative one and each student is required
to explain and use his design subjectivity.
Each personal reference can be interpreted as transforming rule applied
to each different design moment. The request is: how I can transform the
previous step of my project into an incoming one fitting a concrete request and
reaching, in the meantime, the identified character? For example, if the
student have to open a door into a wall, to divide a wall into parts, to shape
how his building can end, and so on, how he will manage these incoming
transformations using his own references? He will identify previously a
sequence of transforming rules that could be applied to the project in progress
for fitting different requests. The result of this creative work is a set of
rules that could be considered like designer’s subjective DNA. The reference to
DNA is correct because these rules, when used, bring the project to be
transformed in progress fitting two main questions: the increasing
functionality of the project referring to the client’s requests and the
increasing identity and recognizability of the project by fitting the
characters representing the designer’s
imprinting.
4. the subsequent step, that is the fist one directly linked to the
starting a particular project, is to set up a paradigm of organization able to
support the transforming path increasing its peculiarity and its functionality.
The main difficulty regarding this stap is to design an open system, really
adaptive but, in the same time, really characterised.
5. Now we have the two engines: the paradigm of organization and the set
of transforming rules. It’s time to run the generative process using the rules
in front of each incoming request, This action will generate a scenario. That
is only one of the possible results. This work is exactly the same of normal
design activity. But the structure is really clear: these scenarios are
generated using predefined transforming rules (focused on defined characters)
into a peculiar field of relations designed for representing the project
functions. The interesting question is that this design path is clear and
understandable by each student that can open a discussion with the teacher
referring to his peculiar interest and references. Also if the students, as
normally happens, don’t use a software to manage this path but run the process
with “normal” tools.
6. The last moment is the possibility to generate variations. Using the
defined rules in different moments of the evolving design history, each student
discovers that he can reach his own aim with different results. More, students
discover that variations are a good representation of their idea that cannot be
represented by only one result. And they discover that they can manage the
reached quality of their project also in other incoming projects, because the
transforming rules that they have designed are useful to be used again reaching
the same character and imprinting. They have discovered how to manage their
professional identity and recognizability when managing their incoming
projects.
7. In practice, each student have done his subjective meta-project that
represent his identity as architect.
Using this approach, finally, teachers and students can discuss about
design process, about how each designer can go ahead with his ideas, following
his specific means, needs and aims and not only discussing on the (final)
output.
Layering versus Permutation
One of the interesting quality of generative approach is that students
learn how to manage the complexity using layering of different transforming
rules. As it’s known, complexity cannot be reached in only one step. The
quality of architectures and cities spring up from history, from the personal
history of a design path when the designer fill the project with different
feelings of different moments (the more interesting example is that architects,
when they need to go ahead with a project that don’t seems to grow, turn the
drawings to the opposite site for having a different view of their work, for
finding out a unpredictable point of view) and, regarding cities, from the
history of different cultural moments.
More, the generative approach using transformations instead of solutions
give a further possibility: a good work for a team of different people with
different field of interest. If each partner of a design team gives his
contribution with a solution, it’s really difficult to put together all the
contributions into a final output. Forms/solutions cannot be stratified but
only permutated. But if each partner gives his contribution with a transforming
rule it’s easy to run, one after the other, each rule. At the end each partner
will find, in the final result, the representation and attainment of his own
idea.
This teaching approach was experienced by around two thousands of
students of Politecnico di Milano, Faculty of Architecture, Industrial Design
and Engineering in the courses held by me and by Enrica Colabella starting from
1989. In 1992 E.Colabella and me wrote the book “ Il progetto ambientale di
morfogenesi” (the Morphogenetic Environmental Project) published by Esculapio
Progetto-Leonardo Editor, Bologna, explaining this teaching approach. In the
meantime more then one hundred of master thesis with my and E.C. supervision
were made using this approach. All the student’s experience were, staring from
1995, posted in the website www.generativedesign.com.
The main results, as confirmed by students that are now running their
professional activity, are:
1. they are facilitated to increase in progress the quality of their
projects because they know how to reach, in each subsequent project, the
quality already reached in the previous ones.
2. they succeed in realizing their projects in less time, because they
use the experienced transforming codes. In this way they can find time for
increasing their transforming rules taking advantage from the peculiar requests
of each project.
Philosophy versus technology
The generative design approach is not a technology but a philosophy. It
identifies a particular approach to understand, design and manage the incoming
complexity of artificial systems, cities, architectures, environment, objects. It
can be easily transformed in technological tools because it uses transforming
rules that can be easily written in algorithms.
Rules versus Forms
Organizing versus Choosing
The creativity is focused on logical processes and not on results, on
organizing the system and not on choosing solutions. Choosing the emergent
event using random forms could bring to shape a good result but, in this case,
the quality is not repeatable.
Impervious versus Flat
Occasion versus Obstacle
The client requests, the constrains, the difficulties of a project are
welcome. Each new request open the possibility to increase the final quality. Complexity
is considered as the ability to answer to the different, sometimes
contradictory, unpredictable needs of users.
Organic versus Minimalist
The design process is similar to processes in Nature. It uses something
like artificial DNA performed like a set of transformation rules. The aim is a
natural organic architecture able to answer to unpredictable requests through
complexity, as natural events. On the opposite side we could find minimalism if
we consider it as an attempt to fit
different needs with something that looks like an optimisation.
The design approach is focused on transforming and not on forming. This
approach is considered related to the
real approach experienced by designers. The generative philosophy of design can
be synthesized by:
Proportions versus Grids
Dynamic versus Static
Parameter versus Measure
The design approach focused on transforming and not on forming have a
long history in Renaissance. The attention, experienced in the past industrial
era, to modules and to grids change into a new, but traditional, attention to
proportions and parametric definitions because they are more closed to the
management of dynamical evolutions. Modules and fixed measures are not more
useful for managing the industrial production that uses numerical control
equipments and robots.
Permeable versus Waterproof
Improving versus Substituting
Facilitation versus Hindering
And versus Or
Transformed versus New
Memory versus Lost
Palpable versus Untouchable
Contaminate versus Pure
Perfectible versus Perfect
The quality of a design process can be valuated through complexity, that
is not complication but synthesis of different and contradictory abilities. This
complexity can be reached through layering of different inputs, needs,
references, feelings. And the project in progress have to be read, to be
improved, transformed, contaminated without loosing his character and identity.
But enlarging its own memory. This is possible only if the identity is managed
by the modus of running the process and not by the used forms.
Works of my students at their Master Thesis (www.generativedesign.com):
Interpretation of a tree from Van Gogh and generation of 3D trees. Emilio
Molinaro 1996
Interpretation of “Le Carceri” by GB Piranesi and construction of
subjective 3D model. Enrico Mazzei 1996
Transformation of 3D car models following identified codes. Luigi
Martinetti 1997
Interpretation of sections and geometries and design of Gaudi’ codes for
generating endless “Gaudi’” buildings. Matteo Codignola 2000.
Construction of generative transformation rules of Manhattan identity. Four
steps of evolution. Mariateresa Capodici, Marco Melino 1996
References
(for more references www.soddu.it)
Books:
C.Soddu, ‘L’immagine non euclidea’ (the not Euclidean
image), Gangemi publisher, 1987
C.Soddu, ‘Citta’ Aleatorie’, (unpredictable cities),
Masson Publisher. 1989
E.Colabella, C.Soddu, ‘Il progetto ambientale di
morfogenesi’, (the environmental design of morphogenesis), Progetto Leonardo
Publisher 1992
C. Soddu, “Milan, Visionary
Variations”, Gangemi publisher, Rome 2005
Articles:
C.Soddu, ‘Simulation tools for the learning approach
to dynamic evolution of town shape, architecture and industrial design’, in
‘Proceedings. International Conference on computer aided learning”, published
by Press Polytecniques et Universitaries Romandes. Lausanne 1991.
C. Soddu, "From Forming
to Transforming", proceedings of Generative Art Conference, Milan, Alea
Design Publisher, December 2000
C.Soddu, “Recognizability of the idea: the evolutionary
process of Argenia” in P.Bentley & D. Corne (edited by), "Creative
Evolutionary Systems", Morgan Kaufmann Publisher, San Francisco US, 2001
C.Soddu, “New Naturality: a Generative approach to Art and
Design”, Leonardo Magazine 35, MIT press, July 2002
C. Soddu, "Generative Design / Visionary Variations -
Morphogenetic processes for Complex Future Identities" in the book Organic
Aesthetics and generative methods in Architectural design" edited by P.
Van Looke & Y. Joye in Communication&Cognition, Vol 36, Number 3/4,
Ghent, Belgium 2004
C.Soddu, E.Colabella, "A Univesal Mother Tongue",
Leonardo Electronic Almanac Vol.13,
Number 8, August 2005
Websites: