182 EAAE no 35 Teaching and Experimenting with Architectural Design: Advances in Technology and Changes in Pedagogy
No program or specific site is presented at the inception of design. So this is not a
conventional model of design from problem to solution. Once a generic system or a
formal structure has been developed for research (see figures below), there is a need to
demonstrate the functional potential and applicability of this system/formal structure.
The exploitation of models and their transformative potential becomes a focus
of the search for a dynamic design medium. Rather than a conventional program-
matic orientation of the studio, the experimentation is based upon the search for
a structural mechanism-frequently a morphological, cellular, or a spatial, structural
mechanism- that supports a potential for differentiation in response to performance
requirements. The structural qualities of repetitive assemblies are experimented and
their ability to react and respond to local forces through deformations and geomet-
ric transformations is explored. For example, such “natural responses” are view as
attributes of the structure.
Given that the orientation is towards exploration and research rather than the
production of a final product in the form of a one-off finished design, each student
can be assigned a research task appropriate to his own interests and aptitudes. All
work is in the form of multiple short design experiments which are finally produced
by each student as a research report.
Acknowledgement
This chapter presents the work of the DDGR experimental group at the Faculty of Architecture
and T.P. at the Technion, Israel. My students, Farah Farah; Tal Kesten, Alex Eitan, Shoham Ben
Ari and Roey Hamer are acknowledged for their contributions.
References
Burry, M., & Murray, Z.:1997, Computer aided architectural design using parametric variation and
associative geometry Challenges of the future, ECAADE conference proceedings, Vienna
Emmer, M.: 2005, Mathland: the role of mathematics in virtual architecture, in Nexus Network
Journal, Birkhauser, Basel, Vol. 7 No. 2 pp. 73-88
Frazer, J. H.: 2002, Creative design and the generative evolutionary paradigm, in Bentley and
Come, pp. 253-274
Kolarevic B.: 2003, Digital morphogenesis, in Architecture in the Digital Age, in B. Kolarevic,
(ed), Architecture in the Digital Age, Spon Press, New York
Kvan T., Mark, E. Oxman Rivka E. and Martens, B.: 2004, Ditching the Dinosaur: Redefining
the Role of Digital Media in Education, in International Journal of Design Computing, No.5,
MIT Press, Cambridge
Liu, Y.T (ed.): 2005) Demonstrating Digital Architecture, Birkhäuser, Bern
Lynn, G.: 1999, Animate Form Princeton Architectural Press, New York
Oxman, R.: 2006, Theory and design in the first digital age in R.Oxman (ed), a special issue
on Digital Design, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol 27 No 3.
Oxman, R.: 2006, Digital design thinking: in the new design is the new pedagogy, in the pro-
ceedings of the international conference of CAADRIA 06, Kumamoto Japan
Schön, D.: 1983, The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. A and Wigging G.: 1988, Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing, in Design
Studies Vol. 13 No. 2 135-156