THE ALOOF CREATIVE AND THE ABUSE OF THE TOOL

Architects, are often confronted with delicate moral and operational decisions concerning the tools they use. One common dilemma is whether to use authentic software or resort to pirated versions. While options like open source software and educational versions of mainstream software are always available, many architects (Case of Uganda that I am familiar with) choose pirated software as a shortcut to the extravagant variety of the full authentic versions. This choice, while not immediately obvious, results in a prevalent attitude of tool abuse that has significant consequences, not only in professional practice but also in architectural education.

The first and most adverse outcome of this form of abuse, prevents users from appreciating the tools used — their creation and purpose alike. When software is pirated, users often don’t consider the cost, the intellectual effort, or the development processes behind it, which means the general regard of how to build and maintain the “boat they are sailing in” is often very narrow and shallow. With new versions of software from companies like Graphisoft and Autodesk being released every year — each version touted as more “wonderful” than the last — users (pirate and authentic ones alike, but more-so pirate-users) come to expect constant improvement without acknowledging the philosophy behind the tools. The resultant is failure to consciously engage with the tools and maximise their potential. In this passive drunkenness, users begin to see the tools not as aids to their creative process, but rather as instruments meant churn out creations, which is an obvious blunder.

In architectural education especially, the uncanny suspicion of the CAD tools is the immediate result. The instructors, often troubled by their predicament, respond rather erroneously by suspending the use of tools until at such a time as the students are ready. As such, when the students are “ready” to work with the big-boy tools, the attitude is that the tools are for production and not for the incorporation of the foundational thought that has been cultivated in them all this while. Worse still, if the power to produce is what is praised, then any reference towards open-source and custom tools cannot be given a chance. It is hard at such a time to justify any other reference, when the only “pre-big-boy” exposure the students have had until then has been the CAD course where no guidance was given concerning the ethical use of software (genuine, educational versions and open-source software). All they recall is that an assignment was given and they had to deliver the work with whatever they could find — pirated or not.

Even beyond the classroom, lamentations concerning what we produce with the tools prevail. We question why we’re producing mindless drawings — why our drawings look so industrial and detached from the human experience. We question how we lost the ability to capture memorable experiences within our designs. The reality is that by glorifying the production of drawings/documents/images without a deeper consideration for our unique process of creation, we ourselves have contributed to the perception that Architects are “Drawers of Plans”. We become enslaved by the very tools we are supposed to control, when we fail to appreciate/understand their genesis and the forces driving their manifestation. It is worth noting that the industrial approach to using design tools authentic or not has become pervasive, as architectural software companies seek monopoly and profit, leading to a homogenization of design and the loss of the unique human touch in architecture (Carpo, 2024).

The old tools, such as the T-square, scale rules, specialised pencils and various drawing instruments, demanded attention and hand-to-paper intuitive skill from the architect, fostering a deeper engagement with the craft. This is why traditional architectural education still favours foundational tools — because they enforce a respect for the creative process. Now, instead of trying to turn back the wheel of technology and time to the T square, its unique operational merit not disregarded, we may benefit more in transferring the same respect of the traditional tools to the emergent ones. We can curb the arbitrary/non-reflective use of digital design tools and foster intentional engagement. There is need to reverse the obvious substitution of good intentional design with impressive production of documentation that the tools offer.

There is merit in turning our focus more on open source tools, where we could confidently contribute towards the inclusion of our nuanced needs; or even encourage the development of custom tools tailored to architectural practice. Now while this can be pursued in the tech-ecosystem, it is recommendable to academia where students can be encouraged to contribute to the body of knowledge and innovation in that regard. Architects fancy themselves universal creators, then why not add an element that advances the way they create. This way, we could foster a deeper connection between the tools and the creative process. Richard Sennett (2008) in The Craftsman also discusses the importance of maintaining craftsmanship alongside technological advancements, emphasising that tools should be used to enhance rather than replace human skill (Sennett, 2008). Similarly, Donald Schön (1983) in The Reflective Practitioner advocates for a reflective engagement with tools, where architects actively think about their processes, rather than mindlessly following software prompts (Schön, 1983).

Generative AI has recently become another tool subject to misuse. The outcry from academia over the implications of generative AI, particularly in the research and academic space, is a reflection of this trend. It is worth noting however, that when any educational/creative process leans more toward quantity, we lose the the race against the disruptive sheer productive capacity of tools like Gen AI. Focus has to be placed on re-cultivating interest in genuine innovation and honest love for exploration. I agree with Carpo (2024), that Generative AI, is limited by the “dataset” it is trained on. While it can mimic and produce outputs based on existing data, true ingenuity often lies beyond the boundaries the “dataset”, in original thought that may be inspired but not confined by previous patterns (Carpo, 2024).

Instead of allowing generative AI to dominate our creative processes, we should see it as an opportunity to refocus on the unique qualities of individual designers and how they can maximise their potential with it. Each student, each architect, brings a unique perspective that cannot be replicated by AI but which could be bolstered by it. While we refine what our unique styles and strengths are, AI could support us by covering the base of the prodigious analytical effort meant to make that journey a reality . By focusing on the unique individual potential of each student or architect, we can cultivate a richer and more nuanced creative output (Turkle, 2011). This attitude will ensure that we maximise the supportive aspects of Generative AI rather than the disruptive ones.

The second consequence of the aloof abuse of the tools we use is that we end up disregarding the people who create them. When we dismiss the value of these professionals — the computer scientists, we fail to appreciate the significance of their work. This lack of respect makes it difficult for us to justify the value of our own contributions. If you, as a creative, do not respect the work of others, it becomes almost impossible to convince yourself or others that your creative efforts matter.

I must mention that this attitude also affects the way we interact with other key allied creatives within the construction industry especially artists. There was a time when sculpture and painting were a valued part of the building industry, today, we ourselves having failed to live up to the renaissance architect, underestimate the role of artists, which ultimately undermines our own standing — funny, isnt it?

This attitude of disregard of other creatives makes it hard to justify our work to clients. In Uganda, for example, we have struggled to make people understand that Architects are not just “Roadblock Items” enforced by the law, but are in fact, a relevant part of every person’s space creation process .

Back to the Digital Tool abuse issue, the ripple effect of failing to acknowledge the efforts of software developers is that we neglect the importance of collaboration between creative fields, which could be a vital component for the redemption of our work processes. Carpo (2024) also points out that the creative process should not be about passive consumption but about active involvement with the tools we use, which is lost when we disregard their origins and creators.

In the context of Uganda/East Africa/Africa (whichever you choose), we have a unique opportunity to rethink our approach to digital tools, given their ever-consistent nascency in our context where the consumption of the tools is absorbed quicker than the participation in their production. Instead of relying solely on tools developed by large western corporations like Autodesk or Graphisoft, we could invest in the development of local tools that cater specifically to our needs. Generative AI makes this leap-frog quite possible especially where case has to be made for local capacity in the Computer Science Domain. Using or adapting open source tools and locally made/supported tools can foster innovation that is both contextually relevant and financially accessible. This could be supported through public procurement policies that favour the use of locally developed or open source software. For example, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) could encourage the use of locally made tools in projects, thereby fostering a culture of intentional and innovative tool use.

Finally, the recent award of the Nobel Physics Prize in Physics to Computer Scientists; Geoffrey Hinton and John Hopfield (NobelPrize.org, 2024) for their contributions to machine learning and artificial neural networks has exposed the importance of cross-disciplinary collaboration especially at the overlap of computer-based operations. This recognition of worthy contributions of members of an often academically slighted field under the Physics Category highlights a change in the global perspective toward collaboration assisted by the overlap that digital tools and systems provide. My hope is that the field of architecture, will rise to this challenge and adopt a broader sense of collaboration, embracing insights from AI, software engineering, and other disciplines to enhance itself.

Rather than waiting for the threat of Advanced tools like Generative AI to become as perversive as the CAD tools seem to have become, there is an opportunity to control the narrative, master the body of thought concerning their creation and use, and harness them as catalysts for change in the educational and creative sectors. By investing in our own local intellectual capacities and fostering a deeper appreciation for the tools and the creators behind them, we can redefine the role of architects in the 21st century — not merely as “drawers of plans”, but as true creators of experientially rich space.

Bbumba
12th October 2024

References

Ø Carpo, M. (2024). Generative AI, Imitation, Style, and the Eternal Return of Precedent. John Hejduk Soundings Lecture, Harvard Graduate School of Design. Retrieved from https://mariocarpo.com/talks/https-www-gsd-harvard-edu-event-mario-carpo-generative-ai-imitation-style-and-the-eternal-return-of-precedent

Ø NobelPrize.org. (2024). The Nobel Prize in Physics 2024 — Geoffrey Hinton and John Hopfield. Retrieved from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2024/hinton/facts/

Ø Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.

Ø Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. Yale University Press.

Ø Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books.