Ray castigated me for politicising a technical discussion about shape
grammars. Well, what I really intended was:
* A parenthetical point. As I said, I think that shape grammars are an
excellent means of describing things that up to now have been described
only in a vague and unhelpful language. I have absolutely no problem with
that. Same for all such work, such as Bill Hillier's space syntax, which
tries to capture something important about buildings which architects
themselves have been unable to.
* But I AM a sociologist. It is my job to look for the social implications
of technologies (including abstract ones, such as shape grammars). An
important point, as any historian of ideas, let alone a sociologist, would
say, is that often these concepts are motivated by the particular social,
political or intellectual beliefs and values of the people working on them.
They have a particular vision of the world they want, a vision they feel is
assisted to realisation by their work.
>Well, Garry. You are in the land of John Gero. Do you feel the same about
>similar work by that group?
Yes, absolutely. I started off in CAD with John many years ago, became
intersted in the social implications of CAD, and moved pretty much wholly
into the social field. It struck me then-- as it still does now-- that most
technologists have absolutely no idea that their products do have social
implications, often of the highest magnitude, and not necessarily good
ones. The easiest example I can think of is John Ford and the car: what HE
thought the car would do is not quite what actually happened.
If one takes all such work in isolation, as existing in some sort of world
uninhabited by people, then one can only praise it. OF COURSE we need such
things. OF COURSE we need people studying the syntactic properties of
buildings or design in general. But, but, but... the exploration of the
social consequences of these things is, I would argue, a fruitful
enterprise just as much as the exploration of the social consequences of a
supposedly purely intellectual interest in, say, nuclear physics is.
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA
grammars. Well, what I really intended was:
* A parenthetical point. As I said, I think that shape grammars are an
excellent means of describing things that up to now have been described
only in a vague and unhelpful language. I have absolutely no problem with
that. Same for all such work, such as Bill Hillier's space syntax, which
tries to capture something important about buildings which architects
themselves have been unable to.
* But I AM a sociologist. It is my job to look for the social implications
of technologies (including abstract ones, such as shape grammars). An
important point, as any historian of ideas, let alone a sociologist, would
say, is that often these concepts are motivated by the particular social,
political or intellectual beliefs and values of the people working on them.
They have a particular vision of the world they want, a vision they feel is
assisted to realisation by their work.
>Well, Garry. You are in the land of John Gero. Do you feel the same about
>similar work by that group?
Yes, absolutely. I started off in CAD with John many years ago, became
intersted in the social implications of CAD, and moved pretty much wholly
into the social field. It struck me then-- as it still does now-- that most
technologists have absolutely no idea that their products do have social
implications, often of the highest magnitude, and not necessarily good
ones. The easiest example I can think of is John Ford and the car: what HE
thought the car would do is not quite what actually happened.
If one takes all such work in isolation, as existing in some sort of world
uninhabited by people, then one can only praise it. OF COURSE we need such
things. OF COURSE we need people studying the syntactic properties of
buildings or design in general. But, but, but... the exploration of the
social consequences of these things is, I would argue, a fruitful
enterprise just as much as the exploration of the social consequences of a
supposedly purely intellectual interest in, say, nuclear physics is.
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA