Ostwald, M J (2010) Ethics and the auto-generative design process. Building Research & Information, 38(4), pp. 390-400. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
In the last decade, the rise of sophisticated software tools has enabled a growing number of designers to experiment with new processes for the creation of architectural form. Several of these processes, which are loosely grouped under the rubric 'auto-generative', rely on the computer to evolve extraordinary biomorphic or topographic forms. In the years since the rise of this approach, prominent members of the architectural community have embraced the computer-generated buildings produced in this way and praised them as being the products of an innately ethical or moral design process. This supposition is tested through a critical textual analysis of several high-profile architects' statements and is focused exclusively on accounts of the design process and not on the buildings that are produced in this way. A three-part conceptual framework is developed for the ethical analysis of a creative or constructive process. Evidence is used selectively to interrogate the claims made about this movement from a moral or an ethical standpoint.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | computer-generated design; design philosophy; design process; digital architecture; ethics |
| Index terms: | conceptual framework, generative design, evidence, architect, ethics, philosophy, experiment, designer, design process, movement |
| Subjects: | ethical practice, design methods, health behaviours and lifestyles, profession, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, philosophical studies, design process, theoretical framing |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here