Monday, March 29, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Autotecture by Taylor Cornelson
“I got 99 problems, but my pitch ain’t one.”
Autotune is considered by many to be the downfall of the music industry. In case you’re not familiar, this seemingly-revolutionary technology is something which is used in contemporary music – especially pop music – on an alarmingly regular basis. Initially released in 1997, Autotune has actually been around for a very long time. It’s used mostly by contemporary artists – think Cher, Britney Spears, T-Pain – to alleviate vocal warbles and disfunctions encountered in the recording studio. Sonically dysfunctional samples come in one end, and pitch-perfect melodies emerge from the other. While Autotune has been the secret behind many hit singles in the past, it is only now gaining attention as a destructive force in the music industry.
Indeed, autotune has come under fire recently for its corruption of the music industry by removing much of the “talent” of vocal performance. No longer does a platinum-selling signer need to exhibit any of the traits normally associated with talent; autotune gives any American Idol reject the voice of a trained professional. This paradox of talentless perfection continues to fuel controversy – why use this technology if it removes the only prerequisite to becoming an incredible vocal artist? Doesn’t mechanized perfection remove a sense of artistry and honesty from this once-venerated craft?
Though this particular debate is something from which many architects are far removed, a similar technological revolution is happening in architecture today. Advancements in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) and Building Information Modeling (BIM) have given architects an ability to execute mechanized perfection of design on a broad scale – from creating sensuous curves with a single loft to generating intricate tectonic details en masse. Indeed, these technologies remove the personal search for artistry and replace it with computer-generated perfection.
This embrace of technology assumedly presents architects with the opportunity to expand their craft into the digital realm, alleviating the painstaking repetition once associated with building design. No longer must designers slave for hours in darkened rooms drawing window schedules or draft forty sections to explain a complex curve; the power of the computer reduces these menial tasks to a script which takes mere seconds to execute. Designers are now free to invest their time in meaningful design work, and to see the outcome of their choices without laborious interludes of production. Perhaps no better is this power exhibited than 3D printers – hours of delicate model building are curtailed to a single print command. The process is painless, and the results exhibit an unparalleled level of craft.
These advantages have spawned the propagation of digital design and production in recent years – but at what cost? Like Autotune, the digital production of architecture has a tendency to “iron out” details which would normally require careful consideration of the architect in question. Autotune – while producing ear-pleasing results – requires a dramatic reduction in traditional artistic talent from the vocalist. Similarly, computer-aided design requires a marked reduction in what fifty years ago would have been considered some of the fundamental artistic merits of an architect. Pen and paper have almost entirely been replaced with screen and mouse. No longer is an architect’s vision limited by his ability to communicate design by physical means – it is the creation and manipulation of digital content which now proves king in the architect’s toolkit.
While many would argue that this shift from physical to digital removes much required talent from the design process, I would argue that it is merely a natural progression in the means by which architects communicate their intention. Though CAD and BIM eliminate some of the traditional challenges involved with the production of a finished design, they largely shift focus from more traditional focuses of tectonic design towards the increasingly experimental as found in the contemporary architectural world. While not immediately apparent upon their introduction, the integration of CAD and BIM have sparked a renewed emphasis on language of design throughout the contemporary architectural practice. This shift is seen in the emergence of increasingly complex forms and design techniques – "lofted" surfaces, sweeping forms, complex curves. Aspects of a building’s construction, such as the delineation of skin and envelope, have experienced a resurgence in interest from architects, leading to increasingly unconventional and complex design conditions.
If it at first appears as though Autotune and the advent of so-called Autotecture represent the displacement of artistic talent in favor of technology, the later is somewhat misleading. Traditional notions of artistic merit may change, but they merely represent a shift in focus of the a portion of the architectural community. Fifty years ago, the study of tectonics was considered paramount in contemporary architecture; the emergence of digital means of design has sparked a reexamination of the macro, the envelope, and an increasingly digital approach to concept.
Perhaps what this demonstrates above all is the introduction of technology in an artistic field rarely yields similar results. While both Autotune and computer-generated design are similarly remarkable advancements in technology, both serve to alter their respective fields in remarkably different ways. Indeed, a close examination of any new technology is needed in order to truly assess its benefits or detriments. The influence of computer-based architectural design is still in its infancy, and we have likely only seen the beginning of what these new technological advancements have to offer.
Autotune is considered by many to be the downfall of the music industry. In case you’re not familiar, this seemingly-revolutionary technology is something which is used in contemporary music – especially pop music – on an alarmingly regular basis. Initially released in 1997, Autotune has actually been around for a very long time. It’s used mostly by contemporary artists – think Cher, Britney Spears, T-Pain – to alleviate vocal warbles and disfunctions encountered in the recording studio. Sonically dysfunctional samples come in one end, and pitch-perfect melodies emerge from the other. While Autotune has been the secret behind many hit singles in the past, it is only now gaining attention as a destructive force in the music industry.
Indeed, autotune has come under fire recently for its corruption of the music industry by removing much of the “talent” of vocal performance. No longer does a platinum-selling signer need to exhibit any of the traits normally associated with talent; autotune gives any American Idol reject the voice of a trained professional. This paradox of talentless perfection continues to fuel controversy – why use this technology if it removes the only prerequisite to becoming an incredible vocal artist? Doesn’t mechanized perfection remove a sense of artistry and honesty from this once-venerated craft?
Though this particular debate is something from which many architects are far removed, a similar technological revolution is happening in architecture today. Advancements in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) and Building Information Modeling (BIM) have given architects an ability to execute mechanized perfection of design on a broad scale – from creating sensuous curves with a single loft to generating intricate tectonic details en masse. Indeed, these technologies remove the personal search for artistry and replace it with computer-generated perfection.
This embrace of technology assumedly presents architects with the opportunity to expand their craft into the digital realm, alleviating the painstaking repetition once associated with building design. No longer must designers slave for hours in darkened rooms drawing window schedules or draft forty sections to explain a complex curve; the power of the computer reduces these menial tasks to a script which takes mere seconds to execute. Designers are now free to invest their time in meaningful design work, and to see the outcome of their choices without laborious interludes of production. Perhaps no better is this power exhibited than 3D printers – hours of delicate model building are curtailed to a single print command. The process is painless, and the results exhibit an unparalleled level of craft.
These advantages have spawned the propagation of digital design and production in recent years – but at what cost? Like Autotune, the digital production of architecture has a tendency to “iron out” details which would normally require careful consideration of the architect in question. Autotune – while producing ear-pleasing results – requires a dramatic reduction in traditional artistic talent from the vocalist. Similarly, computer-aided design requires a marked reduction in what fifty years ago would have been considered some of the fundamental artistic merits of an architect. Pen and paper have almost entirely been replaced with screen and mouse. No longer is an architect’s vision limited by his ability to communicate design by physical means – it is the creation and manipulation of digital content which now proves king in the architect’s toolkit.
While many would argue that this shift from physical to digital removes much required talent from the design process, I would argue that it is merely a natural progression in the means by which architects communicate their intention. Though CAD and BIM eliminate some of the traditional challenges involved with the production of a finished design, they largely shift focus from more traditional focuses of tectonic design towards the increasingly experimental as found in the contemporary architectural world. While not immediately apparent upon their introduction, the integration of CAD and BIM have sparked a renewed emphasis on language of design throughout the contemporary architectural practice. This shift is seen in the emergence of increasingly complex forms and design techniques – "lofted" surfaces, sweeping forms, complex curves. Aspects of a building’s construction, such as the delineation of skin and envelope, have experienced a resurgence in interest from architects, leading to increasingly unconventional and complex design conditions.
If it at first appears as though Autotune and the advent of so-called Autotecture represent the displacement of artistic talent in favor of technology, the later is somewhat misleading. Traditional notions of artistic merit may change, but they merely represent a shift in focus of the a portion of the architectural community. Fifty years ago, the study of tectonics was considered paramount in contemporary architecture; the emergence of digital means of design has sparked a reexamination of the macro, the envelope, and an increasingly digital approach to concept.
Perhaps what this demonstrates above all is the introduction of technology in an artistic field rarely yields similar results. While both Autotune and computer-generated design are similarly remarkable advancements in technology, both serve to alter their respective fields in remarkably different ways. Indeed, a close examination of any new technology is needed in order to truly assess its benefits or detriments. The influence of computer-based architectural design is still in its infancy, and we have likely only seen the beginning of what these new technological advancements have to offer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)