We gain a lot…but what are we losing? A critical reflection on the implications of digital design technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Highly sophisticated digital technologies have distanced architects and designers from intimate and immediate hand-drawing practices. Meanwhile the changes they rapidly bring come with undetected changes in cultural and social norms regarding the built environment. The growing dependence on computers calls for a more holistic, socially inclusive and place-responsive design practice. This paper aims to shed light on what we are losing in the design process as we rapidly transition to communicate architecture using digital media. The authors contemplate the paradigms in which the human body and physical objects still play an important role in today's design environment. Design/methodology/approach The paper looks at current trends in developing and establishing “computer imaging” within architectural education, and the architectural profession through parametric design and the area of sustainability. In order to reveal novel and hybrid ways of architectural image-making, it also looks into art forms that already experiment with bodily practices in design by taking an artisanal animation project as a case study. Findings The renewed longing for craft, haptic environments, tactile experiences and hand-crafted artifacts and artworks that engage the senses can be exemplified with the success of the documentary Last Dance on the Main, an animated film on the endangered layers of human presence in one of Montreal's downtown neighborhoods. The open possibilities for creative hybridizations between the handmade and the digital in architecture practice and education are exposed. Originality/value The influence of film on the perception and consequent design of cities is well documented. There is little literature, however, on how the materiality and process of artisanal film animation can provide alternative, if not additional, insights on how to communicate various aspects of the built environment, particularly those rooted in the human body. Furthermore, handmade film explores a broader understanding of sustainability, which includes considerations for social and cultural contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".