Comments on: What gives you the right to call what you do “computational design”?

By: MARKUS LERNER - NEWS

MARKUS LERNER - NEWS — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:29:53 +0000

[...] Thinking about the topic of my diploma next year and what I’m doing or trying to, I read a discussion about Computational Design at http://www.generatorx.no. [...]

By: Markus Lerner

Markus Lerner — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:43:19 +0000

Computational Design

Thinking about the topic of my diploma next year and what i’m doing or try to, i read a discussion about computational design at http://www.generatorx.no. As more and more of us begin to call themselves Computational Designers, i think i…

By: markus

markus — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:07:59 +0000

Very interesting dicussion. I myself was never really sure on how to use the term properly, though i started calling myself one of that kind, too. ^^ I think fighting is pointless; i don't mind the term being used in a tolerant way. at the same time we can try to take it to the point. hence i created a wikipedia article on Computational design. You're all welcome to enhance it, i'm going to try the same.

By: jussi

jussi — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:09:58 +0000

To me it seems that the polarisation of opinions on this discussion seem to derive from somewhat differing definitions of the word “design”. In the domain of evolutionary computation, for example, design is most commonly used in the context of engineering design of various kinds and the aim or the target is often in optimisation through computation. Art&design type of design has very different starting point and objectives, though often enough computation does end up playing role similar to the engineering design targets.

By: Digitale Klasse

Digitale Klasse — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:10:04 +0000

computational design?

What gives you the right to call what you do �computational design�?…

By: blprnt

blprnt — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:21:22 +0000

I am checking back on this post after reading it when it first appeared on generator.x a week ago.l I suspected that there might be a dialogue in the comments, and it seems that there is.

Regardless of the intended or non-intended tone of the original message from the research associate, I’d like to thank him for pointing us towards Dr. Nadin’s work. I will certainly follow up on the links.

I think Dr. Nadin himself put it pretty well just up the page when he said “If anyone contributes to Computational Design the cause is served”. Any kind of infighting and/or acedemic sword-measuring seems to be futile at best.

Thanks also to Mr. Reas for the pointers to the texts… I could build a sizeable library over the books recommended by Casey alone!

By: casey reas

casey reas — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:36:48 +0000

I know of two texts about computational design predating the use of the term by Mihai Nadin. In both of these texts, the term “computational design” is not used, but the idea is prevalent throughout. I’m sure there are more.

1. Alexander, Christopher. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press. 1964
2. Coyne, R.D. et al. Knowledge-Based Design Systems. Addison-Wesley. 1990

By: Mihai Nadin

Mihai Nadin — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:15:19 +0000

Someone made me aware of this discussion. Computational Design is NOT “just a juxtaposition of two common words.” There is a definition that expresses the goals of such a discipline:
1. development of a computational theory of design;
2. the design of products and processes through the use of digital means.
These products and processes themselves integrate digital technology (they are embedded systems). I do not care about credit. Keep it if it makes you happy. But “hokus pokus” qualifiers, from ignorants too busy to read but not busy enough to actually perform, undermine the intellectual quality of the dialog. If anyone contributes to Computational Design the cause is served. But to believe that someone working in chemistry and using a laptop is a Computational Chemist means to miss the point. Knowledge acquired and expressed in computational form is different from knowledge acquired and expressed in other forms. I respect John Maeda (and his enthusiastic followers), but I do not want to become subject to a discussion on how to please my ego (or that of others). If my work is unknown, so be it. If it makes a difference I will be happy (whether I AM GIVEN CREDIT OR NOT).
Wish you all well.And if you READ some of my work and would like to argue with me, be my guests. i will treat you with respect.

By: watz

watz — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:02:49 +0000

I guess it’s capital C, otherwise it wouldn’t be worth claiming ownership of. Personally I don’t think there’s much of a case here – “Computational Design” is just a juxtaposition of two common words that could mean a number of things in different contexts. Feedback from ACG alumni says that John Maeda certainly never claimed to have coined the term, but no clear history has emerged.

By: Daniel Brown

Daniel Brown — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:41:13 +0000

Just to clarify here, are we talking about ‘computational design’ with a capital C or a lowercase one?