Patrik Schumacher, "Parametric Order-21st Century Architectural Order"

[@santiagocarlospenafiorda7812]

Scott Cohen's question about flatness is great. He unmasks the fact that parametricism has yet a lot of personal influence of the architecture studio who is working with it. The question goes way further than the flat floor but it is relative to all the process and all the decisions taken, and you can see this is a weak point in this style of architecture when Patrik starts mumbling around and does not have an answer. I think the lecture is really interesting, but he is clearly selling his product as a reality of the future and discrediting other methods, when saying if you are not into parametricism, you are not up to date or something like that. I would also liked to ask him what about emergency homes or shelters for the less economically capable. Would parametrism help them? Because what I believe is that this gives great sculptural shapes and spaces for big programs, such as museums, etc. But what happens when you design a house? It would be a really interesting paradigm to investigate on.

[@user-eq5ul9mf9i]

Cant agree less. Great comment

[@oyyosef]

@@user-eq5ul9mf9i can’t agree more :) can’t agree less means you disagree

[@Constantinesis]

I really enjoyed the last part of the video when dialog started and i became aware of one thing: A rigid curved line offers less degrees of freedom than a rigid straight line.

[@alauc]

He is the rare bird within people in architecture. If they could try read his book and look him in KZbin it could be revolution in designing our social reality.

[@ickaplak]

This is quite a sophisticated discourse and the theoretical contribution is clearly articulated, even if based on an outdated view of architectural history centered on western exceptionalism. However, I see the problem of incoherency in the desire to transform this social theory into a blueprint for practice: incoherency between the claims of revolution/avantgardism and the outcomes of this approach, which is conservatism at its best. The autopoiesis of architecture makes sense in a functionally differentiated society. But society is constantly evolving, and, as the book "Capital in the 21st Century" by Piketty shows, there is good evidence to belief that functional differentiation does not portray the whole spectrum of today's society and will not in the immediate future. And so, the belief in autopoiesis might not be that revolutionary after all, because it argues along with functional differentiation, rather than helping practice to deal with our present age and problems. It is on the contrary a quite conservative approach, despite the hype and fumes surrounding ZHA's buildings, and as such it helps to not see and neglect what is already obvious and evident rather than manifesting imperceptible relations, addressing relevance and "reducing stupidity", to quote Cedric Price.

[@archangel858]

If you mean for the work, he mentions in the Q/A at the end that it's a variety of design and scripting software tools like Rhino3D, Maya, 3DS Max, and others.

[@mihailamariei609]

Is it evolution when a cannibal uses the fork? (Stanislav Lec)

[@ickaplak]

but then, what is inhuman: the fork or the cannibal?

[@mireylleberenicetellocaver1988]

I liked the video , I have a question to manage the program which uses Zaha Hadid NECESSARY FOR YOUR PYOYECTOS master mathematics 'd really appreciate it ?, THANKS

[@bllemis9161]

1:29:00 Agree that such a space would be great for spatial drama and figure. But i'd hate for that argument to become the scheme for a school or a workplace (or any other program based on the focus of human effort and attention). I'm not adversarial to the notions of parametric analysis being a part of practice - not even a central part (who could be at this point), but the amount of emphasis on circulation worries me. Our attention span is strained enough as it is.

[@hyrocoaster]

1:15:04 It might be unlikely that a cube or a sphere turns out to be the best design solution to a certain problem in the epoch of parametricism, but it's not impossible, right? That's really a dogma.

[@roman2011]

Parametricism is definitely a paradigm shift in design and architecture. As a mid age architect, I feel completely outdated. Sigh...

[@gordonmarkparsons]

As a current architecture student: These programs are very easy to learn for the most part. Mastery is a bit different but in matter of months you'd be able to integrate them seamlessly into your workflow. Besides, a lot of what Cohen says at the end holds a lot of weight. Schumacher throws all of his eggs into one basket.

[@lulabalcha3296]

Gordon Parsons what exact softwares are they using do you know?

[@jerzkid87]

lula balcha Schumacher said they use many but focus on, Maya, Mel scripting, Grasshopper, Revit. In school we commonly used, autocad3d, rhino, grasshopper, revit, maya, and 3dsMax

[@kayem3824]

Parametricism has not yet made a beautiful chair. They look like they are melting. A strong form doesn't melt. In fact Pomo hasn't produced one outstanding object if you are familiar with what Modernism produced. These digital aids suggest that they can replace human imagination. The untalented and the mediocre are the first to rush to them with the hope of some miracle. BTW, in design and art, humor and fun, and paradox always had a role.

[@dimitristsekeris1821]

It seems to me like he has a completely different approach to architecture than Zaha Hadid, even though he worked with her for over 20 years. The point of her style was that she felt free to express herself and she always liked breaking any boundaries. Schumacher on the other hand has an approach like Le Corbusier, trying to organise architecture in boxes and working on a style that is pretty interesting but trying to make it the one and only style in the world. No architecture style could ever be the one and only. This thing people call "uniformity" shall never exist.

[@eriklomeland3278]

if it does not come down to doing more with less, it will not become the next big thing.

[@hyrocoaster]

2:10:35 Patrik does not believe in freedom, life will always be competition.

[@fs7747]

its strictly maya guys

[@rocrbtr]

i think it's powerpoint

[@hyrocoaster]

1:18:20 Do they know trypnophobia?

[@archangel858]

Patrik Schumacher doesn't represent the GSD he's a guest lecturer and his ideas are meant to be provocative.

[@kilymi]

Patrik uses a puritanical phenomenology to beat the dead and fossilized steel and mortar constructions of classism and recast them with an accretion of winsome geospatial order that displays itself as as dative of disclosure of human ambition and vision to collage space and time.

[@andrewmadrick6253]

jargon on jargon!

[@zbzb-ic1sr]

This is what happens when someone misuses Grasshopper, it's plain sad. Rutten himself derides it.

[@kayem3824]

Pregnant or phallic towers.

[@user-pz9rj8fk4g]

General principles of parametricism is that really future for 30-40 years, won't you or not. Maybe style that your saw will mutate, and change visual characteristics, but main principles will not change. Patrik Schumacher are not an artist. Patrik is an analyst. His work it's analitical effort. But your saw only pictures, and doesn't heard what he says.

[@omartinezcasielles]

Maybe the good question, instead of what kind of software he's using, would be what kind of architecture he proposes. One of strictly regulated territory, where normative social types are applied. A dangerous stupidity. And the philosophical collapse of architectural ideas.

[@Manika0207]

EPIC;;

[@druperti]

But the designs are about as elegant as alienware computers. Even Schumacher's graphic presentation is clumsy with that horizontally stretched font. Why does the style focus on this particular kind straining techy mucous aesthetic?

[@kayem3824]

I noticed the font too, in blue as well. I've become allergic to curves now.

[@gnognosdejardin3325]

I like a lot of this architecture, as well as the theoretical / technical processes behind it, but I find the speaker pretentious and elitist.

[@lilianacoloski2837]

A line is the shortest distance between two points, and I guess is not a curve...Nevertheless, overqualified for the job!

[@dkdude]

"A line is the shortest distance between two points" it is indeed the correct answer... mathematically. however, architectural design* exists to serve comfort for human beings, achieving that takes way too many aspects such as psychology... with regard to that, humans tend not to walk from a point A to a point B by a straight line, we would follow curve-linear trajectory... I hope I had brought enough sense to you, so you could understand perspective of an architect. I am just a student though, correct me if I am wrong. cheers

[@mihailamariei609]

cultural evolution ?

[@AdityaPatilR]

HYPEBEAST.

[@MiguelAngelJD]

So bad for cutting him

[@dlwatib]

He rushes through all the interesting stuff with the nice images and then bogs down on the boring philosophical stuff with the crappy PowerPoint slides nobody is interested in. He needs to revise his lecture to do just the opposite. Skip entirely the words-only slides and lovingly describe each and every sinuous curve of every sculptural form.

[@ickaplak]

I disagree. I think you should ask yourself instead why don't you find an interest in listening to the "philosophical stuff" and whether your boredom works for your own interest or that of somebody else.

[@therubixtesseract]

far too intellectualized. this guy believes his own monologues on differentiation and offerings.. it's just mindless use of tools with no vision. that's all, i do it because i can. it's mindless; it is because because the instruments allow it. why are we waiting on the next version of maya to determine what we can make.. is there that little faith in human vision..

[@rbw6969]

FFS Why are the people in this audience so freaking adversarial? WE GET IT, flat floors...so human beings can walk on them, STFU. Schumacher is clearly brilliant and the work they're doing is absolutely genius.

[@FlorianKahn]

Because he insults others' intelligence, trying to sell an ordinary product in a pompous philosophic package. In fact, their architecture has no other "philosophy" than Zaha's formal preferences and... a good commercial sense. And, despite Zaha's talent and some very spectacular projects (I can't contest any of these) their innovations are limited to the skin, they didn't change nothing fundamental in the architecture (what would be really extraordinary!). No problem with this, but don't trick!

[@trevormckay8845]

Maybe because the last time another person uses philosophy to further his party's agenda, it was a disaster. When Nietzche's philosophical concept of ubermensch met Hitler's desire to acquire lebensraum, it was war of attrition on a global scale - WW II, Auschwitz, Dachau. Or maybe, Herr Schumacher would like to revive Marxist social theory in the hope it may, perhaps work this time via architecture vice economics or politics?

[@nihilistarchitect]

It's true that his style and discourse is a little freaky, but there is no doubt that parametricism is the new overall paradigm for architecture. The a vanguard architect of today is an algorithm designer. Zaha is not necessarily the best example of this. I imagine for example Norman Foster's towers to have a higher degree of parametric optimization than any of Zaha's projects. And I also imagine Arup right there on top too. But a lot of interesting work in parametric design is still being done at a level for things that are less complex than an actual building. Some great work is still closed in the academia sphere. Algorithms will be one of the key assets of architecture in the very near future. I imagine contests being won because of better algorithms, that incorporate a greater and better set of constraints. I also imagine that the evaluation of a project (even a contest entry) will be done by computational analysis. All the evaluation criteria (except PERHAPS aesthetics) will be translated into an automated digital process. Just as many other fields of knowledge, architecture is going thru a major paradigm change, only compared to what the drawing represents since the Renaissance. We are so much inside the drawing paradigm that we cannot imagine architecture without it. But I see a lot of architects that don't even have drawing paper in their desks anymore. Eventually drawing in architecture will be about the "drawing" and implementation of algorithms. Resistance to these ideas is just the result of centuries of practice based on "normal" pen and paper drawings. But there is no turning back. Mathematics, thermal physics, structural physics, programming, biology etc will be way more important to the architect of the future. And let's not even go right now, to the moment when artificial intelligence becomes a reality.....

[@maxieduardoapariciom.3181]

It sound all BS to me, Sorry.