Thesis statement.
Introduction In this essay I look at Manuel De Landa’s discussion of two types of knowledge and their changing value through history. The first type of knowledge is ‘Conceptual’. This is the where a person would think up an idea, and then impose it on a material to create a form. The second approach is ‘active participation’ where somebody would work with the properties of a material and allow the material itself to help create the form. The conceptual approach to design can be termed ‘know what.’, whereas the active participation approach can be termed ‘know how’.
Openness is fundamental to design
The outcome of both these types of knowledge is openness, which De Landa discusses as being the possibility of multiple realaties. Effectively, openness equals design. Without openness everything is pre determined, and a designer can have no influence on the outcomes. A designer can come influence to create something new and different, rather than things inevitably ending in the same way. The future will mirror the past. ‘If all the future is already given in the past…. Then true innovation is impossible’ (De Landa 4) So openness is fundamental to design knowledge and De Landa picks up on this.
The two types of design knowledge
Know what/Conceptual
When talking about conceptual knowledge, De Landa starts off by giving examples from ancient times. He talks about how a philosopher has ‘know what’ knowledge. A philosopher or scientist thinks through a concept in their head and then turns the physical material they are dealing with into a simple routine of properties. Like what Newton did with mass. Philosophers also saw God as a conceptual being. They imagined that before creation God thought about the world and all that is in it, and then simply commanded that it happen. Let there be light, and let there be form. This is the ‘instant obedience’ idea within ‘know what’ knowledge. Materials are something a designer can control.
De Landa also illustrates with modern examples ie computer assisted design (CAD). When CAD programmes first came out they worked on a ‘know what’ basis. That is the user had an idea in their mind before they start playing with the software. This was because the old CAD programmes were so simple they were only one or so steps ahead of the human mind. Old CAD programmes worked with the simple ‘material’ rigid polygons, using two main functions, Revolving, and Extrusion. These two functions limited the variety of shapes that can be made. ‘The designer may impose his or her will at every point.’ (De Landa 9).
So ‘know what’ knowledge is imposing human ideas on a material. Social constructivism is a different form of ‘know what’. People create their own sense of reality, determined by the concepts within a culture and subculture. Culture makes a difference to what is ‘real’, language makes a difference to what is real, what each individual knows makes a difference to what is real. “Each culture lives in its own world” (De Landa 2). As every culture/subculture has a different reality, there is an ever increasing number of ‘realities’, not only one version of truth. (Hope to add to this section)
Know how/Active participation
‘Know how’ knowledge is where the designer is working with the material to create a form or interacting as an equal partner in ‘problem solving’ (De Landa 9). An example from ancient times is a craftsman ‘whose eyes had seen and whose fingers had felt the intricacies of the behaviour of materials’ (De Landa 5). Craftsmen believe that the properties of a material can not be reduced to a routine, as a philosopher would say. All materials have different properties, craftsmen took complexity of matter into account (a long time ago) because when material wasn’t guaranteed to be the same every week, as they had different sources of materials. In this time, the ‘know what’ approach was valued more than the ‘know how’, because the craftsmen of the day couldn’t articulate what they KNEW into words or directions like philosophers or mathematicians
Deleuze focuses even more on the properties within the material. He says that materials have their own way of behaving Humans can’t control them, but can learn how they work to better work with them. ‘It is a question of surrendering to the wood, then following where it leads you’. (De Landa 7). Change in intensity leads to change in structure. Intensity changes the form. Deleuze talked about materials spontaneously changing at critical temperature changes. An example would be subjecting water to an intense temperature change causing it either to solidify into ice or evaporate into steam.
De Landa discusses Deleuze’s ‘self consistency’, ‘making the world into a creative, complexifying and problematizing cauldron of becoming’ (De Landa 9). Things exist, not because a human makes (conceptualises) or observes (social constructivism) and draws a conclusion from them, but because of their inherent properties. At best, the human is part of the meshwork interacting with them to actualise one of the virtualities within. The future is not given in the past. For example, the spherical form of a soap bubble which is a consequence of how the molecules in it interact, is untouched by human hand. Similarily, in a salt crystal, minimising the salts’ energy results in a cube. This enables openness because the topological forms can give rise to numerous forms. There is not just one form for the molecules to form, they change between a number of states but are still limited within those specific states.
De Landa talks about CAD software programmes for ‘know what’ knowledge he also refers to them when giving examples of ‘know how’ knowledge. The newer versions of CAD are more advanced and work on a ‘know how’ basis. They ‘demand a certain interaction between designer and material.’ There are three main functions used for more modern programmes. First one is the spline curve. The basic idea behind the spline curve is that the designer doesn’t have to specify all the points along the curve. The computer finds the shape with the most streamlined shape. The second function is flow of pixels. Flow of pixels is what is used to create the illusion of fire, water, snow or smoke. There are guidelines the designer has to follow when creating one of these illusions but once they are programmed the form takes on its own shape. The third function is biological evolutionary strategies, genetic algorithms. This function was created not for designers but for biologists, to help them understand the evolutionary process. The designer chooses a DNA like structure for a couple of different objects or forms. He/she then decides which of these forms to ‘mate’ together. The computer then generates the type of outcomes you would get from these two forms based on the ‘DNA’ chosen. The more advanced the CAD programmes, the more designers are going to have to rely on a ‘know how’ approach, because the more complicated the programmes get, the less likely it is that designers are able to visualise them first. Designers who can negotiate the complexity of materials have the secret to nature, not the scientist who sets out to seek law ‘and demand a certain interaction between designer and material’ (De Landa 8)
Comment through history/ Conclusion (to be refined)
So in the past the ‘know what’ approach was valued over the ‘know how’. That’s talking about philosophers over craftsmen, due to the craftsmen not being able to articulate what they knew.
At present with artificial intelligence that because in the past philosophers and such could articulate their ideas through words or on paper, we find that most of what we valued then is not valued anymore. Anything that was able to be articulated then, the computer can replicate now.
What does the future hold in terms of know what or know how? With the increase of cad software will know how become less valuable? What will replace it? ‘Know what’ or ‘know how’. “It will also involve cooperation between the designer and the virtual materials, a process where all parties have a say in the final form produced.’ Manuel De Landa, ‘Philosophies of design, the case of modelling software’.
Is it a linear continuum? From ‘know what’ to social constructivism to ‘know how’ to self consistency.
Or is it circular? Where eventually self consistency comes back around to ‘impose’?
Bibliography (referencing as is shown in the first example)
Morris, William. The Revival of Handicraft, In Poulson, Christine (ED). William Morris on Art and Design. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic press. 1996
Wiener, Norbert. Men, Machines and the world about. Wardrip-Fruin, N & Montfort, N. (Eds). The New Media Reader. Mass.:MIT Press, 2003. TK5102 N556 – Close Reserve
De Landa, Manuel. Philosophies of design, the case of modelling software. Bookazine. Madrid: Actar Press, 2001. NA680 V477
De Landa, Manuel Deleuze and the open-ended becoming of the world. Making Futures: Explorations in Time, Memory and Becoming. Edited by Elizabeth Grosz. New York: Cornel University Press, 1999.New York
Schwartz, Gary. Digital imagery and user-defined art. Journal article by Gary Schwartz; The Art Bulletin, Vol. 79, 1997
Benjamin, Walter. The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. in Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn, London, Fontana, 1992 pp. 211-244
De Landa, Manuel War in the age of intelligent machines chapter 3 – policing the spectrum. New York: Zone, 1992, ISBN 0-942299-75-2 (pbk)
Know What. Know How.
Philosophies of design
The case of modelling software
Manuel De Landa
De Landa is a professor of contemporary philosophy and science at theEuropean Graduate School in Switzerland. Hes mainly known for hisbooks and essays.
‘As a philosopher I am interested in all kinds of phenomena ofself-organization, from the wind patterns that have regulated humanlife for a long time to the self-organizing patterns within ourbodies, to the self-organizing processes in the economy, to theself-organizing process that is the Internet.’
In this paper he talks about two different types of approaches todesign. The first one is Conceptual. This is the where a person wouldthink up an idea, and then impose it on a material to create a form.The second approach is ‘active participation’ where somebody wouldwork with the properties of a material and allow the material itselfto help create the form.
The conceptual approach to design De Landa talks about ive interpreted as ‘know what.’ Whereas the active participation approach ive interpreted as ‘know how’.De Landa starts off this reading by giving some examples from ancienttimes. He talks about the philosopher verses the craftsman. (talk about the handicraft reading here.) A philosopher or scientist thinksthrough a concept in their head and then turn the physical materialpart into a simple routine of properties. Like what Newton did withmass. Whereas a craftsman would argue that the properties of amaterial could not be reduced to a routine. All materials have different properties. Craftsmen always took complexity of matter intoaccount especially a long time ago when material wasn’t garenteed tobe the same every week as they had different sources of where theygot their materials. In this time the know what approach was valued more than the know how, because the craftmen of the day couldn’t articulate what they KNEW into words or directions. Philosophers also saw God as a conceptual being. They imagined thatbefore creation God thought about the world and all that is in it,then simply commanded that it happen. Let there be light. And letthere be form. This is the ‘instant obedience’ idea from the ‘knowwhat’ type of people. Who see materials as something they cancontrol. Not all philosophers thought this way though. You heard Luketalking on Gilles Deleuze on Tuesday. Deleuze talked about materialsspontaneously changing at critical temperature changes. The idea thatmaterials have their own way of behaiving, you cant control them, butyou can learn how they work to work with them. Deleuze says.. Change in intensity change in structure. Intensity changes the form. like an intense temperature on water cause it either to solidify into ice or evaporate into steam.
De Landa then goes on to talk about digital software or artificialintelligence. He talks about computer assisted design (CAD). When CADprogrames first came out they worked on a ‘know what’ basis. That iswhere you have the idea in your mind before you start playing withthe material. This was because the old CAD programes were so simplethey were only one or so steps ahead of the human mind. Old CADprogrames worked with the simple ‘material’ rigid polygons. Using twomain functions. Both of which im sure you would have heard of. Firstis Revolving, and second is Extrusion. Pretty much all of industrialhave used both of these in the last month. If not everyone in firstyear. With these two functions there isnt much variety of shapes thatcan be made. The newer versions of CAD are more advanced and work ona ‘know how’ basis. They ‘demand a certain interaction betweendesigner and material.’ There are Three main functions used for theCAD version. First one everyone knows, and that’s the spline curve.The basic idea behind the spline curve is thawt the designer doesn’thave to specify all the points along the curve. The computer findsthe shape with the most streamlined shape. Second function is flow ofpixels. Flow of pixels is what is used to create the illusion offire, water, snow or smoke. There are guidelines the designer has tofollow when creating one of these illusions but once they areprogrammed the form takes on its own shape. The third function isbiological evolutionary strategies. Or genetic algorithms. Now thisis cool. If we had this on our computers at school design 104 the onewhere we had to create 81 different models would have been a piece ofcake! This function was created not for designers but for biologists,to help understand the evolutionsry process. The idea is that thedesigner chooses a DNA like structure for a couple of differentobjects/forms. And then he decides which of these forms to matetogether. The computer then generates the type of outcomes you wouldget from these two forms based on the DNA chosen (video here)The more advanced the CAD programes get the more we are going tohave to rely on a ‘know how’ approach. Because the more complicatedthe programes get, the less likely we are to be able to visualisethem first.
Designers who can negotiate the complexity of materials have the secret to nature. Not the scientist who set out to seek law.
So in the past the know what approach was valued over the know how. That’s talking about philosophers over craftsmen, due to the craftsmen not being able to articulate what they knew.
At present with artificial intelligence that because in the past philosophers and such could articulate their ideas through words or on paper, we find that most of what we valued then is not valued anymore. Anything that was able to be articulated then, the computer can replicate now.
So just to leave you now with a point that ive been mulling over since this reading. What does the future hold in terms of know what or know how? With the increase of cad software will know how become less valuable? What will replace it?
Philosophers vs craftsmen
Info….
Major books: War in the Age of Intelligent Machines; A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History; Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy.
He has written extensively on nonlinear dynamics, theories of self-organization, artificial life and intelligen ce, chaos theory as well as architecture, and history of science
Manuel DeLanda is a professor of contemporary philosophy and science at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, where he conducts an Intensive Summer Seminar.
Deleuze and the open ended becoming of the world
De landa says that Deleuze says If you create something on the computer (virtually) then its created in reality, even though its not really.
Delanda then goes on to talk about two
Social constructivism-where people create their own reality in a sense-
whats real is determined by the concepts within a culture and subculture. For example cultural relativism, linguistic relativism. Epistemological relativism.
What culture youre in makes a difference to whats real, what language yoy speak makes a difference to whats real. What I know is different to what you know. How do we know what we know.
“each culture lives in its own world”
By the time you have every culture/subculture with a different reality you have an ever increasing number of what is real. Not only one version of truth. Delanda says the problem is you want the world to be open, but do you want it to be that open?
Don’t want it to be that open or that closed. How do we deal with this?
Two extemes. What exists by itself. What exists because of humans.
-Kemp
Deleuze says Things exists not because a humans observe them and draws a conclusion from them, but they exists by themselves. The future is not given in the past. Processes of self organisation. For example, the spherical form of a soap bubble which is a consequence of how the molecules in it interact. Untouched by human hand. Or a salt crystal, where minimising the salts energy results in a cube. Topological forms can give rise to numerous forms. don’t just have one option but move between a number of states. Changing between a umber of states but still limited between those specific states.
Over all question? Whether the past determines the future or whether the future is open. True innovation impossible? Delandas saying that we have to have something in the middle. Intermediate form. Reverse causalities. Feedback loops. Ie thermostate. Doesn’t get too hot or too cold, stays in specific options. Still numerous realities but in a contolled…. Can be static like thrermostate, stay stable. Or they can be dynamic.
Consitencey. Creates new structures.
Delanda calls mesh works. Example is animals have some choice in how the behave, can entre into
Dog and human being walking down the beach and not interacting with eachother then the human throws a stick and they are bound. This can happen in animals whose behaviour is not rigidly programmed In their gene-acts purely on instint. Doesn’t think and respond to a situation.
If animals act completely on instinct then their futures are pre determined, acting like programmed machines.
Metals; up to the 1900 there was no hylomorphic material. So the blacksmith didn’t think of himself as imposing a form upon the matter but teasing out the potential that was within the metal. But its not just humans that do this, catalysts can. And metals are a ‘the most powerful catalysts on the planet.’ Not all components ‘productivity’ the key ingredient is the being different element. The more different components you have the more variety you can get out of it. But its not just how many different bits you’ve got, its also the number of processes that can link those elements. Like if you have many animals all programmed in the one way then you don’t have much variety to what they can do but if the can think and react by themselves then the outcome is unknown.
Delandas mesh works. combine different elements. You can get things that don’t mesh well, and you need something else to link them together. Like olden day market, before they had money. Allowing complementry goods to find eachother at a distance, allowing meshing. Process makes a difference.
Carbon bonds with 4 things at once so makes for more options. Two things that give you more optios with your mesh work. More choices of what might be. Recognising that somethings have more options. each mesh member has for combining with other mesh member. And also idf there is anything in the mesh network that helps mesh tow things together (ie money)
Head towards the pre determinded when there isn’t many options
deleuze proposing top get rid of the distinction between the real and virtiual and the actual. Everything that has been imagined is real, but then there are the real things that have happened(actual) and the real things that only have potential to happen(virtual). Then goes a step further, everything that has happened is accidental, becausae its just a fluke that what happened happened and what had potentional to happen didn’t happen. Within actual there is ordinary and special. The singular and ordinary are objective, nobody decides whether somkthing is special or ordinary, the matter itself decides that. The unusual is special because it happens less often.
Delanda says that the quote . makes the point that humans come along and recognise that that is less common and therefore more special and so you get a link with the human perspective again. So its not special because the humans know it, humans end up knowing it because its special.
Deleuze. When considering how do we know something he says truth applys primaryily to problems. He doesn’t see problems or problem solvig as a human activity. Problems posses their own objective reality. So for example the molcules in a think layer of soap have a quote ‘problem’ which is to find the minimal point of energy. Which they do by forming a sphere and minimising surface tension. However what maybe pecularly human is not problem solving but problem posing. Which is about distingusing in reality the distribustions between the special and the ordinary. And grasping the objective problems that these distributions condition. The molcules solve the problems for themselves. The objective problem is the soap problem. Independent of nay human contact-object problem. But then the human annalasis that concludes that theyre doing it to minimise energy is subjective.
Delanda is saying deleuzes complex theory draw one connection between human knowledge and the open ended and that truth is an open ended relation of isomorphism (different shapes out of the same building blocks) between problems actualised in reality and problems as actualised in our bodies and minds.
that the world/future is very open. Because all the living molecules/animals/metals/plants/people solve problems themselves. Not because of the humans, because of the wherever you have things wiulling to interact you have the abilty to come up with new things.
Contrasting social constructivism which talks about the world being open because we can all see reality as different, with deleuze who says the world is open whether we see it or not.
Delanda never really takes a side between social constructivsm and deleuze.
War in the age of intelligent machines chapter 3 – policing the spectrum. Delanda
In the aftermath of the methodical destruction of Iraq during the Persian Gulf War, the power and efficiency of new computerized weapons and surveillance technology have become chillingly apparent. For Manuel De Landa, however, this new weaponry has a significance that goes far beyond military applications: he shows how it represents a profound historical shift in the relation of human beings both to machines and to information. The recent emergence of “intelligent” and autonomous bombs and missiles equipped with artificial perception and decision-making capabilities is, for De Landa, part of a much larger transfer of cognitive structures from humans to machines in the late twentieth century.
What does de landa discuss about in his two papers ‘philosophies if design, the case of modelling software’, ‘deleuze and the open-ended becoming of the world’, and a chapter from his book ‘war in the age of intelligent machines’ called policing the spectrum.
1. Know how. 2. Know what. 3. So what
1. Creating something by letting the material youre working with help guide the outcome.
2. Being able to think about through all aspects of something before creating it.
3.
Over the last 500 years, what relative value has the Western society put on design skills compared to mathematic, writing and scientific skills? Is the value placed on design skills starting to increase?
In the 1500s there was a big importance placed on art.
Michaelangelo Buonarroti was born in 1475. He is someone that is well remember from this time, as was Leonardo Da Vinci. Who was born in 1452. Leonardo was and is best known as an artist, the creator of such masterpieces as the Mona Lisa, Madonna of the Rocks, and The Last Supper. Yet Leonardo was far more than a great artist: he had one of the best scientific minds of his time. He made observations and carried out research in fields ranging from architecture and engineering to astronomy, anatomy and zoology to geography, geology and paleontology. Because Da Vinci was both an artist and engineer/inventor the idea of technical scientific ideas were merged in with art and possibly had a hand in started up a culture that began to look more deeply into science. Before Da Vinci’s time the type of science that was being developed and study was called “natural science”. With Da Vincis enthusiasm towards science aswel as art, things started to chang in the science world. Issac Newton helped with this focus on science. Newton was born in 1643. This was the time when the world started to differentiate into alchemy and science/engineering/technology. Issac devoted years to studying alchemy and developed calculus, which he used to formulate the laws of motion and gravitation that we all know and love.
In 1440 Johann Gutenberg created the printing press. This helped create the rise of the text over the image. The Gutenberg Bible, printed in 1455, was the first Bible ever printed and the first book ever printed in Europe. Having bibles printed effected society of art dramatically. Images from biblical stories and holy images were painted and placed around churchs in the 1500s.These days you don’t see nearly as many elaborate paintings on the walls of churches. Unless they are very traditional as Catholic churches are.
From 1500s to 1800s you had a small number of designers and it took a lot of people to build something. Industrilsation in the 1800s changed things around again, and was possibly the start of art/design making its come back in modern day society. Industrialisation made it possible for designers to get their products made by machines rather than spending time creating them themselves. This enabled designers to excel in designing specifically.
"Painting is poetry that is seen rather than felt, and poetry is painting that is felt rather than seen."Leonardo da Vinci
Bibliography
Morris, William. “The Revival of Handicraft”, 1888
Wiener, Norbett Men, Machines and the world about
Heskett, John. Toothpicks and Logos: Design in everyday life. 2002
De Landa, Manuel Philosophies of deisgn, The case of modelling software
De Landa, Manuel Deleuze and the open-ended becoming of the world
Schwartz, Gary. Digital imagery and user-defined art
Steele, James. Architecture and computers
Von Wodtke, Mark. Design with Digital tools
Fletcher, Alan. The art of looking sideways
Benjamin, Walter. The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction.
http://geekymom.blogspot.com/2005/01/art-vs-science-form-vs-function.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100527/Art
