Mike Migurski makes a very important, if tangential, comment on one of AG's posts:
"Even as I plug jumper wires into my breadboard, I’m aware of how much more powerful and easy it is to do things in software, and how much more reach you get through a web browser. Olinda has physical slots for six “friends” on its hardware social unit - revolutionary for a radio, but a meh replacement for an iChat buddy list that *scrolls*."
Since software people always look at me as if I've uttered some terrible faux-pas when I reply "it's not that easy" to their questions of why people who build buildings can't just do things the same way as people who build software, I'm saving this quote from one of their own titans.
When I try to tell my inquisitors that architecture and information "architecture" are not the same thing, that physicality is a bitch, that 1:1 prototyping with real matter (!) tends to be prohibitively expensive given the way architectural practice is set up their eyes glaze over. Look, I'm as optimistic as anyone else, I love the web, I love software, I've been through those trenches. But if you want to start talking about some serious cross-disciplinary pollination then you better take both sides of that disciplinary divide seriously. When your ubi runs into my building with its boring HVAC, mundane load paths, typical finished floors, plain old foundations, etc etc the transformative powers of comp are bracketed pretty seriously by the realities of the physical world.
Lest I come off as being totally reactionary, I should note that the work of people like MY Studio, and the thinking of Neb, Molly, Adam, et al is very exciting and something I look forward to seeing more of. Just please, follow Mike's advice and give both sides of the physical/digital equal weight. For better or for worse, they're both inescapable.
* insert standard, obnoxious blog claimer about writing more about this later. After thesis... which is just 8 short days away.
