(ab- + diff-) realism ™ | big+AI digital – sketching

To situate (us) and put (us) a bit in the context of the present, I consider that we are in what I call the era of ‘r-evolution’. It is no longer a question of ‘revolution’, understood as a process of ‘totalitarian’ change from ‘one’ reality to ‘another’. Rather, we are immersed in the era of constant evolution at all scales, levels and sizes, which, in short, makes up a panorama in a permanent state of change, of search, of ‘r-evolution’.

Starting with software, present in (almost) all human professions and tasks, the ‘r-evolution’ of technology leads us to a new way of being in the world, that of the transitory, the updates, and, in short, the constant transformation of ways of thinking, acting and functioning. Today the idea of permanence cannot be maintained, nor of the definitive, nor of the stable. Rather, we are in the endless moment of the next enhancement, the latest bug fix, and the next version.

In the field that concerns me personally, design in general and architectural and urban design in particular, there is no longer a place for the ‘definitive design’, nor for the ‘masterpiece’, for some time now, decades.

Personally, I have never believed in what some call ‘Architecture with capital letters’. Every time I hear it mentioned, I get the feeling that the term is only trying to confuse and/or deceive, both to those it is addressed to and to the one who uses it. Claiming to be the bearer of such an arrogant privilege is trying to deceive the whole of society in favor of oneself or of some kind of pretentious ideology. I doubt that any architect who has really faced (head on, naked, without the ‘help’ of doctrines, idealized ‘references’ or supposed ‘truths’) the process of architectural design, dares to grant himself the title of the bearer of such a fallacy (I do believe, however, in the unfortunate existence of ‘architecture’ that does not deserve that name: constructions that clutter our cities, that force many people to live in conditions that deserve to be described as inhumane and for which they will have to pay for the rest of their days).

Today, more markedly than ever before, architectural creation processes, like all creative processes, are full of errors, failed tests, failed attempts and disproven false ideas. The creative process is an endless chain of correcting mistakes, not accumulating successes. Only by making mistakes can we perhaps be right. Only by trying can we perhaps achieve. Nothing else.

Also personally, I have never expected to have (nor have I waited for it) a ‘good’ commission or ‘client’ to show off my skills, one of those that many of architects dream of. One of those wealthy ‘commissions’ or ‘clients’ who will pay for their dreams of greatness and will pay them their thanks with wealthy (in turn) fees, homage and admiration that will elevate them to the Olympus of the ‘gods of architecture’.

Rather, I humbly intend to serve society by improving my abilities day by day, correcting my mistakes, learning not to expect rewards and daring to fail time after time without changing my personality or my way of thinking, and without deceiving anyone (starting with myself).

This personal process that I undertook when I finished my studies (at which point I stripped myself of all mental artifice, all ideological construction and all false appearance) has led me here, to this day, to the present moment in which ‘artificial intelligence’ breaks in to once again stir up all kinds of preconceived ideas, methodologies and approaches to the design process as we understood it.

During these last few months, I have dedicated myself to investigating this new ‘intelligence’ to better express my ideas, to achieve better and more attractive representations of them with which to try to communicate them with more clarity and forcefulness.

I believe that, even today, ‘artificial intelligence’ is a great support tool for exploring and evaluating alternatives, but always based on the search for a clear and concrete prior conceptual objective. This new tool offers us (can offer us) a multitude of results at breakneck speed. How to choose/decide between so many possibilities, alternatives and variations offered by this new ‘intelligence’? Therein lies the difficulty. Therein lies the challenge.

In my personal case, I have an objective and some specific ideas/concepts to communicate/express:

I believe that the way forward for architecture at this time is its integration with engineering and urban design, in what I have come to call ‘macro-cities’ through what I call ‘urban engitecture’.

The objectives of ‘urban engitecture’ are clear: to contribute forcefully to achieving sustainability and quality of life in cities.

My basic (disruptive) idea is that buildings are obstacles that condition, limit and hinder us: both mobility in general and the quality of public spaces are directly affected by them in a very negative and permanent way. The solution I propose is to free the ground level by ‘elevation’. This simple idea also provides another series of additional advantages of great importance with respect to security, stability and quality of life conditions in general:

I explore the actual possibilities in architecture and urban planning starting from simple issues such as building another type of city, drastically reducing pollution while improving living standards, guaranteeing structural stability despite considerable heights in high-rise building, fostering transportation and mobility at different heights, offering multiple escape alternatives in emergency cases, freeing the ground level for its use as public space, having good lighting, ventilation and viewing qualities for everyone, generating a feeling of community. In brief:

• improving structural stability
• safety
• free ground-level
• green mobility (easy, economic, ecological)
• more and better urban public-spaces
• better and wider architectural living-conditions
• social/community feeling/belonging
• improving quality of living standards

I arrived at these ideas and concepts at the time not by ‘divine inspiration’, nor by possessing any kind of ‘extraordinary capacity’, but by experimenting with numerous geometric and organizational possibilities. In fact, I always emphasize that none of my designs can or should be understood as an isolated product, but as a link in a long chain of trials and errors.

For years (long before ‘artificial intelligence’ appeared as a tool within the reach of the majority) I devoted myself to exploring computer generated geometry. For decades, computer-aided geometric generation has offered us ‘infinite possibilities’. My job for decades has been to explore these possibilities. It could be said that for decades I myself have functioned as an ‘artificial intelligence’ producing a large number of geometric variations, configurations and possibilities.

The ‘ab-realism’ section of my work contains my latest designs made using ‘conventional’ 3d generation techniques, and pursues the objectives described above for the integration of engineering, urbanism and architecture. Its purposes, in turn, are those mentioned above to improve the quality of our urban environments from multiple and basic perspectives and objectives.

At present I continue in the same line, but also assisted by ‘artificial intelligence’. My previous work (my personal and professional process) continues, but now at a much faster speed and with much more interesting and visually appealing results.

Now I can contribute my previous drawings (some of my architectural and urban designs, contained in my previous publication with the title ‘hyperrealism’, and in ‘ab-realism’) to ‘artificial intelligence’ to serve as ‘inspiration’ and generate new variations, new configurations and new possibilities.

The ‘diff-realism’ section of my work contains the result of the interaction of previous ideas and concepts that drive my work as an architect and ‘artificial intelligence’.

Most probably, complete projects (planimetry, construction documentation, etc.) will soon be able to be produced with the help of ‘artificial intelligence’. What is today a visualization/conceptualization tool will soon be a production/construction tool. We will soon see how other computer technologies and techniques will be integrated by ‘artificial intelligence’ allowing us to connect a ‘digital sketch’ with a constructive reality. The most immediate thing that we will see will be how 3D printing, digital production (mechanical cutting, assembly, etc.) and robotics are integrated with these new current ‘sketch’ and ‘brainstorming’ tools.

In the not-too-distant future we will have hierarchical ‘artificial intelligences’. We will have ‘artificial intelligences’ of ‘direction’ and ‘production’ interconnected, forming authentic teams of ‘artificial intelligences’ for the generation of reality.

At diffjustdiff.com can be found some of my ideas and concepts (the ones I consider to be of most interest) without (hyperirrealism, ab- realism) and with (diff- realism) the help of ‘artificial intelligence’ for the generation of ‘digital sketches’. Perhaps soon they can become projects and realities that help part of humanity to live in better conditions and with less impact on nature, the environment and the planetary ecosystem in general.