I met Brian Johnson online. The year was 2005, and I had applied for a tenure-track teaching position at the University of Washington in Seattle. In the back-and-forth communications that are an inevitable part of academic job applications, I came to know Brian, and after the search reached its conclusion he encouraged me to join ACADIA (the Association for Computer-Aided Design in Architecture). My hunt for employment eventually took me to North Dakota State University, where from a vantage point some ten years distant, I can look back on my time in ACADIA and on conversations and collaborations with Brian over the years as critical to my understanding of the issues and questions of design computing.
But what exactly is design computing? In 2014, I invited Brian, Erin Carraher, Ning Gu, JuHyun Lee, and Wassim Jabi to join me in co-editing a special issue of Architectural Science Review on the theme of design computing (issue 58.3). As a group, we worked to define a shared understanding of the rapidly expanding content and the nebulous boundaries of the field. Its disciplinary content is characterized by a range of interests and issues which frequently overlap and cross-pollinate: simulation, visualization, and representation; human–computer interaction, user experience, and cognition; artificial intelligence; fabrication and prototyping; parametric design and scripting; data processing and intelligent modeling; smart environments, controls, and infrastructures; algorithmic thinking; mobile, ubiquitous, and pervasive computing; and cloud computing—just to name some of the most central. Clearly, design computing, which Brian argues exists at the intersection of the built environment, design, and computing, is a content-rich field about which much has been written but which (as of yet) shows no risk of exhausting itself as a robust field of inquiry.
Its boundaries are indeed nebulous and characteristically difficult to define. At times, design computing shares formal methodologies with computer science and mathematics, seeming to succumb almost wholly to algorithmic approaches and the application of logical reasoning. However, considered at other times or looked at in different ways, design computing forcefully calls the value of logic into question: Intuition, aesthetics, and human experience all have their roles to play. To precisely delineate the boundaries of design computing is a Sisyphean task. In one sense, I see Brian’s book as an attempt to define the field’s core values and approaches through comparison with its kindred disciplines. Often, he makes these comparisons explicit, as when he discusses traditional and digital media; but occasionally the comparisons are latent within his text and emerge only after repeated readings.
Like mathematics, design computing is concerned with patterns, whether those are patterns of thought, patterns of practice, or visual or spatial patterns. In particular, design computing is concerned with the computability of patterns—the how and why of algorithmic approaches. But unlike the rigorous discipline of pure mathematics, at its core design computing is about application—and it is a unique kind of application which demands constant interpretation and self-critique. Brian addresses this relationship in his first chapter:
In calculus [he writes] we learn that functions have minima and maxima that can be found by differentiating the equation and solving for the derivative’s zero values. Where such situations exist, that is, where a mathematical expression describes the “value” of a design, there is a direct mathematical, or analytic means of arriving at the best solution. We can, for example, select the best depth for a beam carrying a given load. Automating the improvement of a design is hard. There may be no clear mathematical relationship between the changes you can make to the representation and the performance metrics you wish to improve.
Thus, while design computing is abidingly concerned with the patterns and structures of computing, the questions that drive the field emerge from the needs of design. Quantifiability and computability are indeed essential tools, but there remains a dimension of design computing clearly inaccessible to automation and algorithms. Now, again like mathematics, and also like industrial or product design, the discipline of design computing seeks to identify and solve problems of a wide range and scope. But as Brian acknowledges, every problem isn’t a design problem, and design doesn’t require a computer. Rittel and Webber’s wicked problems (Rittel and Webber 1973) hold special significance in design computing, for like acts of design, these problems are open-ended and resistant to single solutions.
Regardless of their specific discipline, designers rely on media: the material of their work. For example, architects are characterized—at least historically so—by their reliance on drawings and physical models; graphic designers similarly by paper and film; and product designers by physical prototypes. Designers’ media are structured—think about how they conventionally adhere to established rules of representation and the limitations of scale, or how the structure of software influences the direction and scope of inquiry. Design computing recognizes that the structure of media, whether analogue or digital, is often computable and thus inviting of algorithmic analysis. And yet again, there remains a dimension to the field which is not obviously susceptible to a pure-mathematics approach. Brian notes how the “fluidity of interaction and range of expression” made possible by pen and paper is substantially challenging to register through digital tools. With this comment and in his subsequent discussion, he suggests that design computing—perhaps more so than other design disciplines—acknowledges that media and representations are not neutral with respect to their application or their outcomes.
Design computing’s concern with the built environment extends from inquiry into the processes of architectural design, through the exchange of information between constituents, to the logistics of construction, and finally to the mechanics of responsive environments and the management of real-time information about the operation of built structures. Brian touches on all of these aspects in his book. As a field, building science addresses the performance and constructability of buildings, dealing with measurement, logic, and integrated systems. Design computing shares these concerns, but they are viewed through the lens of computation, which means that building performance and constructability are not considered simply measurable, but that they are susceptible to algorithmic processes. Buildings, as Brian writes, are potentially both computer input and output devices—operating both to collect data and to respond in real time, whether physically or numerically.
As counterintuitive as it may seem to a reader new to the field, design computing has a rich historical dimension. Except for a handful of writings from the pre-transistor era (e.g. Thompson 1917), few of the seminal writings in the field (e.g., Sutherland 1963; Alexander 1964; Negroponte 1970; Newman and Sproull 1973; Stiny 1975; Alexander et al., 1977; Hillier and Hanson 1984; Mitchell 1977, 1990) date prior to the 1970s. Yet, distinct facets within the wide field of design computing trace their roots to individuals and movements as varied as Babbage, von Neumann, Turing, Herbert Simon, Deleuze, Gestalt psychology, economics, and genetics. Along with an ever-expanding discovery and adaptation of material from historical sources deemed newly relevant, the horizon of design computing is always expanding outward to encompass new technologies. Along with this rapid expansion of design computing have come serious questions about the designer’s disciplinary identity. When designers come to rely ever more strongly on computational strategies, and as software takes on an increasing role in the production of designerly objects, legitimate concerns arise about what Brian cites as the “protected core” (Archea 1987): To what agency are we to ascribe a designed work when that work registers the hands not only of illustrators and architects, but also of the team that designed the software?
When attempting the explication of such a diverse and far-reaching field, a grasp of its content and boundaries is necessary. Brian Johnson writes with incisive clarity and expert knowledge of his multi-faceted subject. This alone should make you want to read his book: Navigating the deep ocean of design computing is not a task you should undertake without an experienced guide like Brian. But more importantly, he writes with real joy and enthusiasm and an obvious desire to share that enthusiasm with his readers. For this reason, his book is not only informative but is a true pleasure to read.
Mike Christenson, AIA
Associate Professor of Architecture
North Dakota State University
March, 2016
Alexander, C. 1964. Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, and M. Silverstein. 1977. A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Archea, J. 1987. Puzzle-making: What architects do when no one is looking, in Computability of design. Edited by Y. Kalay, 37–52. New York, NY: Wiley.
Hillier, B. and J. Hanson. 1984. The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, W. J. 1977. Computer aided architectural design. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Mitchell, W. J. 1990. The logic of architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Negroponte, N. 1970. The architecture machine: Toward a more human environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Newman, W. and R. Sproull. 1973. Principles of interactive computer graphics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rittel, H. J. and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.
Stiny, G. 1975. Pictorial and formal aspects of shape and shape grammars. Basel: Birkhauser.
Sutherland, I. E. 1963. Sketchpad: A man–machine graphical communication system. Lexington, MA: MIT Press.
Thompson, D. 1917. On growth and form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.