|
Hi Jan,
I feel we understand things very differently on this.
As I see it, the whole of 'Notes' and its discussion and proposals derives
from the decomposition model and its assumptions. A test of the is whether
the derivation of wicked or any other problems into the decomposition model
and difference tree is valid, representative and can be derived into a
singular solution, without patching around the problems of the method using
human intervention.
In other words, it's a fudge that breaks the method of 'Notes' as a design
method if one has to patch over its problems by using human intervention m-
whether this is disc=guised as 'using the method to assist the human
designer'. It appears that this is the way you have been going? The
alternative, in the spirit of the method, is to make the decomposition and
difference method work via better science and better mathematics. It is a
pointer but to work requires a more sophisticated mathematical foundation
rather than shifting the role of the method to the human problem solver.
Others have since Notes gone the same path but avoiding the limitations of
the simple decomposition - eg Coyne, Gero and others publishing in AIDAM
At heart of this issue , is whether you see the aim of Notes as removing
the human designer from the design process as much as possible. My
understanding is that this was an underlying intention of the method. This
also aligns with the spirit of what was happening in design research at the
time 'Notes ' was written. I'm travelling at present but I'll try to get a
copy of Notes and check as soon as I get to a Uni library.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Terry
From: Jan Coker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2008 3:32 AM
To: Terence Love
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: another pattern language
Dear Terry, Anne, and everyone on this topic.
I have been wishing to respond to this thread but this is the first chance I
have had. First off a bit of a weasel, I may have missed some essential
point as I haven't read all on this thread. That said, this is the
foundation of some of the theoretical and practical work I have been doing.
First off there is a significant difference between Pattern Language and the
work Alexander was first doing as explained in Notes on the Synthesis of
Form. They serve different purposes. PL is a language for use in
architectural and planning design. So it can be discussed as one discusses
any language or set of symbolic representations of concepts or needs, or
ideas.
However in Notes Alexander talked about the use of another way of thinking
and designing which engages mathematical, paradigmatic and systematic
processes in combination with visual, metaphoric and intuitive processes. He
proposed a way of doing this at a time when these two groups of processes
were thought to be incompatible with each other. Alexander's methodology was
taking advantage of the mind's ability to think in a linear paradigmatic
way, a narrative way, a visual and aesthetic way, a non-prescriptive way,
and allowed the mind to make full use of all these powers in a structured
enough environment so as to actually systematically approach a 'wicked'
problem with more probability of a better solution (in terms of outcomes
that address the constraints of the problem). The process as described by
Alexander allowed the freedom to define constraints without preconceiving
organized categories for them to fit within; and described them in terms of
forces which act on the system and 'tend' to stimulate reactions. Something
which I see as particularly vital when approaching a problem which has no
beginning, no discrete end point, and is constantly in the process of
changing. It is a process which begins with force-tendency statements,
evaluates the importance of the relationship of groups of two statement,
creates sets of statements and the hierarchical semi-lattice which describes
the order of the development of the movement of individual statements into a
form description of the whole system solution. During the movement through
the semi-lattice the problem solver(s) shifts their working process to
diagrammatic metaphors of the frictions and fits of the constraint
interactions which they resolve using the minds capacity for Aesthetic
verisimilitude.
On a practical level I have continued on with this direction (although
Alexander may or may not agree) to develop and apply this methodology to
collaborative work on 'wicked' problems. And by collaborative I mean
developing actual consensus decision made solutions to design problems with
a multiplicity of participants, interested parties, and those affected by
any decision. These solutions have proven to be more innovative, more
successful and more capable of maintaining the allegiance of all
participants and interested parties to an un-compromised completion of the
project throughout its entire development and evolution into a reality. This
methodology is both one of group processes and design processes. The design
processes derive from Alexander's original work in which he states the
importance of the diagrams cannot be overstated. To assume they are merely a
language however, and conform only to the rules of language is to miss the
reality of their nature. And Terry as an Australia you may be able to
understand what I mean when I say they are similar to the significance of
the way Aboriginal "paintings" which carry the significance of culture,
geography, history, the law, communication and are a living record of a
society.
Cheers Jan
Jan Coker, Phd
1 /174 East Tce.
Adelaide, SA
Australia
0403855539
[log in to unmask]
'Lift up your hearts above the present and look with eyes of faith into the
future!
On 10/12/2008, at 5:14 AM, Terence Love wrote:
Hi Anne,
Thanks for your message and your clarification of what you are doing. Thank
you also for the references.
Thinking about what you wrote I feel work in this area requires especial
ontological care.
Alexander is talking about a pattern _language_
You are talking about a categorization model of 'patterns'
The term 'language' is significant. A 'language' requires nouns (names of
'things')) and verbs (operators). Nouns are the essence of categories and
typologies. However, typologies, taxonomies and category schema are
essentially 'noun-based' (they name things as belonging to a particular
'type' and do not require the existence of 'verbs'.
It means that with a pattern _language_ Alexander et al were looking at
things in terms of an 'entity-relationship' model in which the relationships
were the verb, 'doing' words or operators. This is foundational if you want
to link this work to the shape grammar research and the idea of an
artificial intelligence engine that would generate building designs from
premises. Another significant dimension of Alexander and colleagues work
was that they proposed a) that the solution should evolve via 'rules' and b)
that the 'pattern language' was syntactically similar to a procedural
computer language and AI-base CAD system that could follow as a simple
technical development and c) that they had scope for human interference or
initiation of the rules chosen as the basis for evolving a solution. In a
hidden subterfuginous manner, they offered non-technical design theorists an
easy to understand introduction to AI-driven development of shape
grammar-based designs.
In contrast, what you are describing is a taxonomy, typology or categorical
schema NOT a language.
Essentially, however, the difference between them depends on the relative
level of abstraction at which you view a specific taxonomy. Any
entity-relationship model can be categorized in a purely typological fashion
(e.g. we can give a verb a name thus capturing a 'doing' as a category. Of
course, it completely loses its value as a language from that view point.
Similarly, we can take any noun category and associate it with the actions
necessary to achieve it. For example, the category of 'red' can be
transformed into the 'doing' of 'redden'. In this case, in this new
language-based viewpoint, we lose the benefits of the other category-based
viewpoint (and we cannot be in both at the same time).
Thoughts?
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
A.B.Thorpe
Sent: Monday, 8 December 2008 10:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: another pattern language
Hi Terry and list,
yes this is an interesting question and one that I am struggling with a bit
in my current research on design activism. I now have to make the shameful
admission that I have not read (any of) Alexander's work on pattern language
(although it's on my list -- certainly moving up). As a side note regarding
Damian's original DNA question, I wonder if the work of Stewart Brand, "How
Buildings Learn" would also be of interest, taking the evolutionary idea a
bit further--across time, or if the biomimcry guild (Janine Benyus et. al.)
has looked into it at all.
My own struggle seems somewhat simple in comparison to the discussion
regarding DNA, but it centers on the issue of creating a viable typology.
This question does not so much concern knowing that a pattern element does
what is claimed, but more "proving" that there are indeed certain "types" of
patterns. In this regard I've looked at a range of work on typology. As one
author writing about urban typologies (Marshall) notes, "In general there is
a balance to be struck between having too few broad categories or too many
narrow ones." The types must actually mean something to the field in which
they are situated.
Along these lines one might have practical/actual types (eg building types)
and theoretical types, as you imply Alexander et al.'s might be. Actual
typologies are generally inductive, built through an iterative process of
examining empirical cases, whereas a deductive approach relies on a theory
that defines all the theoretically possible variables and types in advance.
In most cases typologies do rest, at least initially, on empirical cases and
in this sense typologies are as much art as science.
In addition to theory driven typologies, I also learned that there are
typological theories, for example in explaining historical events. While a
historical theory describes a specific set of circumstances that help
explain why an event happened, a typological theory explains the various
pathways that an event might take based on set of available types. George
and Bennett explain, "Instead of focusing on the 'Russian revolution' per
se, a typological theory would explain this revolution as one example of the
type of revolutions that, for example, follow an international war; replace
weak state institutions; and take place amidst an economic crisis. Even if
there is only one revolution fitting this type, by identifying the
conjunctive effects of its underlying causal mechanisms, we can generalize
in a limited way to possible future revolutions that fit the same type. Such
generalized pathways are what is distinctive about typological theory."
It strikes me that pattern languages are in a sense both theory driven
typologies of patterns, but also typological theories, in the sense that
they suggest pathways that a building (or a conservation economy) might (or
perhaps should) take based on a set of available or acceptable types.
Typologies of course can't ever be proven absolutely, as Schneekloth
observes regarding the problem of the "odd" type. Typologies are both
"prison and promise because they will always be open and closed at the same
time." But then, the odd type can be a sign of innovation or evolution.
In the end typologies can perhaps be judged as to their meaningfulness or
usefulness given their purposes...does the typology help us order and
compare things in systematic study?
Here are a few references for what it's worth:
Bailey, Kenneth D. (1994). Typologies and Taxonomies: An introduction to
Classification Techniques. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-102. London, Sage Publications Ltd.
Franck, K. A. and L. H. Schneekloth, Eds. (1994). Ordering Space: Types in
Architecture and Design. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
George, A. L. and A. Bennett (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in
the Social
Sciences. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Lawrence, R. J. (1994). Type as Analytical Tool: Reinterpretation and
Application. Ordering Space: Types in Architecture and Design. K. A. Franck
and L. H. Schneekloth. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Marshall, S. (2005). Urban Pattern Specification. London, Institute of
Community Studies.
Robinson, J. W. (1994). The Question of Type. Ordering Space: Types in
Architecture and Design. K. A. Franck and L. H. Schneekloth. New York, Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Best,
Ann
Ann Thorpe
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials
Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom
Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London
Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom
[log in to unmask]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net)
& blog: http://designactivism.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Fri 12/5/2008 12:41 PM
To: 'A.B.Thorpe'; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: another pattern language
Hi Ann,
Thanks for posting about the Ecotrust website.
An interesting question for me is to ask 'how does one 'prove' a pattern?
How does one prove, know or guarantee that a pattern does what it is claimed
it does? Hoiw does one know that a pattern isn't just something that someone
thought was a good idea because of some moral, fanciful or idealistically
conditioned beliefs about how the world works?
Alexander et al made some speculative suggestions demonstrating how the
start of a pattern language might go. For their introductory example, it was
ok that the demonstration didn't prove every feature. They demonstrated the
early basis of tool and indicated that it was only a starting point by their
use of a star system indicating whether there was substantial proof for
particualr theories underpinning some patterns or whether it was simply
speculation.
I read speculative claims such as 'Health is the most fundamental need of
all' unjustified and uncontextualised and wonder whether I can trust the
reliability of the patterns any more that a speculation of a pattern from an
alternative ecological view that 'war is the primary function of being
human'?
Thoughts?
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
A.B.Thorpe
Sent: Friday, 5 December 2008 7:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: another pattern language
perhaps this is a bit off the DNA topic but along the lines of sustainable
development, Stewart Cowan (in association with Ecotrust) also developed a
pattern language for a "conservation economy," see
http://www.conservationeconomy.net/
They say,"On this site, fifty-seven patterns provide a framework for an
ecologically restorative, socially just, and reliably prosperous society.
They are adaptable to local ecosystems and cultures, yet universal in their
applicability. Together they form what we call a Conservation Economy."
Regards,
Ann
Ann Thorpe
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials Open University, Walton
Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom
Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London Wates House, 22
Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom
[log in to unmask]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net) &
blog: http://designactivism.net
---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt
charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt
charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
|
