ARCH 5051: PRINCIPLES OF DIGITAL DESIGN

AND FABRICATION IN ARCHITECTURE

REFLECTION PAPER - ASSIGNMENT 1

03.03.2021

Philosophy of Mathematics for Computational Design by Jane Burry

By Asena Seda Ateş, 218355207

Architecture in the last half century has been trying to adapt different approaches to embrace new
ways of thinking through imagination. The advancements within technology and understanding of
mathematics and geometry have led us architects to discover computational design which goes
beyond Euclidean geometry. Theoratical relations of space, geometry and mathematics assist us to
see where computational design can be established and in which we are able to perform it.

Programmable machines used to be based on the binary of logic of Alan Turing’s metaphorical
machine for computation, also according to Kant in Science and Hypothesis, there would be no non-
Euclidean geometry, therefore the 19th- and 20th-century’s geometry was not able to aid us go
beyond Euclidean geometry. Since separating architecture and design from mathematics is neither
logical nor possible; the affect mathematics had on design in these centuries was restrictive in a
sense.

The shift from ordinary kind of design thoughts of the old times to the daring to define a dynamical
space of design possibilities, or state space(set of all possible configurations of a system), is called as
‘computational design’. The rise of computational design modelling is born into the unresolved fight
between intuition and logic.

Even though using mostly imagination; computational spatial design, and design and architecture in
general, maintains its ties to the physical world and stays connected to its models while also leaning
heavily on the figurative side; unlike mathematics.

In conclusion, my opinion on this reading piece is that we, as architects, have to examine and
understand the relationships between mathematics and architecture & design while also embracing
its differences and the basis in which they stand on. In order to create dynamic spatial constructs by
using computational design, we have to understand geometry and the mathematical means. Both
geometry and architecture have the power to express and organise space and although they
constantly affect each other and both are fueled by aesthectics, the main distinctive difference
between them lays in the amount of generalisation and abstraction within them. For example, while
geometry is looking for the greatest generalisations and when found, labels them as ‘truths’ or at
least consistency; architecture selects these generalisations and uses them to create specific spatial
relationships and constructs solutions.

This article had me thinking two things, one from the past and the
other from the future. The first question is ‘’Would architects have
been able to adapt to the computational design many years earlier,
if they did not stick to the restrictive thoughts of the
mathematicians of that period?’’ and the second one is ‘’What can
we do as architects to improve computational design to be prepared
for the requirements of the future?’’ Although the answer to the
first one is controversial and varies from person to person; the
answer to the second is to challenge the ‘’truths’’ we are taught,
look for the universe and be inspired by it when designing and
always question the possibilities of our design while putting our foot
on the ground.

References: Computational Design Thinking: Achim Menges, Sean Ahlquist: Philosophy of

Mathematics for Computational Design by Jane Burry, Pg 168-175.