Interview: Sir Peter Cook's questions to Marjan.
Partly published in Peter Cook's book: Drawing: The Motive Force of Architecture, 2nd Edition, Wiley, 2013.
Q1. What current
development of the digital representation process excites you most AT THIS
MOMENT.
My premise is that simulation is
representation, too. I therefore disagree with those that would like to split
the digital world into those who use the computer to depict, and those who
generate. But there is a difference between those who engage in a feedback with
digital and computational techniques and those who simply use them as tools.
At this
moment in time I am excited by postdigital, postgeometric complexity and
postfunctional paradigms. By Neomaterialism. I support the current trajectories
towards high fibrosity, porosity, permeability, fuzziness. I have always been
intrigued (or frustrated) why so much architecture was discussed and drawn
without any material properties and capacities, without any atmospheric
phenomena and performativity.
Q2. What earlier stage of the evolution of digital
creativity was the key breakthrough ?
Clearly: digital theory! A large
number of people are savvy with computer-aided design (CAD) software, many dig
deep into programming, and develop novel techniques and languages to create
repositories of computational research. But only a few manage to be
theoretically propositional (not only analytical) and experimental (original,
innovative).
I have
always been interested in digitality because it refreshed the architectural
debate in the 90s when I was studying. After Postmodernism, Deconstructivism,
High Tech, Dutch Diagramism, architecture seemed to be stalled. The virtual and
the cyber only confused us more by promising total disembodiment. Digital
theory brought back dynamism, philosophy, smoothness, textures, elegance,
exuberance. And more recently, bio-geometries, Neo-ornamentalism, etc… Digital
skills and computational techniques are merely the developing of a craft that
follows on to an intellectual shift in architecture. Extremely liberating….
Q3. Do you still scribble by hand ?
Of course I don’t. There are 4
reasons for this: 1) Since my architecture is convoluted and layered I need a
tool or medium that is capable of handling such complexity and which is dynamic:
I demand immediate visual and 3D, even 4D, feedback from drawings; 2) I am more
intimate with the mouse than the pen, thus I use the computer as it allows me
to communicate more efficiently; I do not want to rely on the ‘gifted hand’ and
prefer to push the boundaries of what can and what cannot be drawn – or better:
modeled, simulated, constructed; 3) furthermore, a CAD program allows me to
control geometries, but foremost material properties and phenomena (such as
light, transparencies, colour etc.).
I think
that having taught for a considerable amount of time I can describe ideas and
architecture also only by language; but you can do this only if your
architecture is not a mere diagram of functionality, but a vessel for phenomena
(and a strategic setup for mundane and idiosyncratic moves and gestures). Nonetheless,
sometimes I have to scribble down some doodles to some students (but somehow they
all end up looking the same…I guess I do not make enough effort to be precise;
or: can you scribble with a Rotring pen how light is being refracted by a
spongy CNCed semigloss surface – or similar?).
Q4. What is your equivalent of ‘scribbling’ or ‘exploration’
or ‘trying it out ‘ ?
3D sketching and physical model
making. By directly handling data, I do not have to abstract as much and can
transfer more information (and intuition) into a measurable and evaluative
medium: bites and bytes. The great advantage is that I (or a colleague) can
manipulate something more malleable – no: ‘palpable’ – if I have a digital
model. Besides, I can forward it straight to a machine, say a 3D Rapid
Prototype printer, which can give me further feedback. Or an engineer, who can
use it to calculate its fitness.
I
would assert that we are in a Neomaterialist society, in the sense that matter
matters, especially considering the extreme pressure architecture is put under in
order to perform better in terms of energy consumption, implementation of
sustainable materials, more efficient processes etc. Material intelligence and
novel fabrication processes (e.g. by industrial robots) are paramount. Physical
model making is back. But not with white cardboard or balsa wood…
Q5. Does digital activity and ‘hand-drawn’ inter-folding
interest you. …….If so, how ?
Absolutely. However, I see the
potential more in the hybridization of analogue and digital/computational in
the domain of digital fabrication, than in ‘mixed’ drawings. Besides, these
days the term ‘by hand’ is referring to ‘by mouse’: hand-modeled, as compared
to scripted.
On the
one hand I am very curious to see what the results of a ‘screen-less studio’
would be (a revamped paper-less studio of early days that would push scripting
to its limits). On the other hand I am still convinced that the hand (the
mouse), as much as the eye, the brain, the heart, the belly and the nose (your famous
‘sniff’, Peter) matter in producing, translating and formatting bits and bytes.
There is still necessity for authorial intent and intelligence in understanding
data (big and small).
Q5. What software
offers the greatest CREATIVE potential at this time …or appearing on the
horizon ?
Hardware more than software. I am
hopeful that building-scale RP machines, advanced CNC processes and industrial
robots will allow us to make architecture more intelligent, more 21st
century.
At
the same time, I expect most software to be controlled by multitasking gestures
(as in touch-screens); the contrary of the ‘screenless studio’ I mentioned
above. No keyboard, no mouse, but touch-sensitive, intuitive devices with
easily implementable postgeometrical complexity and immediate access to cloud
intelligence.
Q6. What should I
have asked you?
Hey, where are you. Let’s meet up
sometime soon?
