1. Picon says, “It is not that the computer in itself
has changed architecture; it is that, because both nature and society have
changed, architecture is confronted with new challenges.” What kinds of
challenges may Allen be referring to when he says this? Clients? Form? Scale
and proportion?
2. Are we as designers/ architects forming a boundary
by involving our practice with computer technology and the virtual realm? Or is
our practice dependent on evolution an investigation using different production
methodologies?
3. Picon says computer-generated forms can’t reach
the same status of architectural form that is derived from after research and
development. What does that say towards parametric design aided by computers?
Or the Data Forms we worked on recently? Do these examples pertain to the
conversation?
4. Allen starts his second hypothesis by saying that
architecture is amongst the disciplines that utilizes computes for their
compatibility with the physical and virtual world. He continues by saying that
computers get even more interesting when you use them to produce things other
than images; referring to milling, fabrication, and plotting. And although this
has been great and aiding with production of models, prints, and manufacturing,
it seems that we are stopping short of what is capable. Is there more that we
can use/do with the technology at hand?
5. According to Allen, we are now in an era in which new
architects are taught solely on the digital platform and first generation digitally
trained architects have evolved their skills into a phase that he says is more mature
and less complex. He says that as designers they’ve found new potentials between
the digital and analog and at the same time they’re realistic with the outcomes
and limitations of the computers. What does this say in regards to the future
of learning and practice of architecture?