Corpora Blog: Can you hightlight some inspirations sources for Corpora project? Which projects inspired you, which books, movies, theoretical texts had the most influence on the current stage of Corpora?

Max Rheiner: First of all, I was always very interested on sci-fi books, and there are pretty good sci-fi writers around, and for this project, I was really involved myself with Vernor Vinge, he writes about singularity, and also he writes about how technology changes society, and how this technology influences a certain kind of society, and in this case, I was very interested that he built up these sensor systems.

He made a book about how these sensor systems, these mash networks could  actually influence an another kind of spices in a planet.And this was very interesting for me, as he break up the border of what we call an entity: how that would be if different species would merge into a single being? We could say we are different persons each other, we have feelings, we have separate bodies, feet, arms etc., but is it possible to see each other as one, single entity? But could this also be true for a flock or a crowd? – this was quite interesting for me.
I also like the idea of this mash network to act as a nerve system of a bigger being, but still have these small entities what it is made of, which can act independently.
I was also influenced by his new book, the Rainbow’s End, in which the world it totally merged into a augmented reality, actually there is no bordering between, actually everything what you see is somehow one layer of reality.

You can sit here in a park, and besides you , could be hundreds of other people, but the maybe in a different world, in Tokyo, anywhere, but they do not care, and that’s also  why I like the augmented reality part of Corpora,because you see something which is not there, but you can see it, projected back to the real space again. And it is not like 3D graphics, not just an image itself, but also the other fact that the date comes from the real area, which you can also see. This kind of feedback loop was also interesting.

Sota Ichikawa: The Corpora was based on the Cellular Automaton and the Game of Life from John Conway, so I can say maybe I was inspired by the novels of Greg Egan, for example the Permutation City: it is about the issue of combing our reality with the computer simulated world and also biotechnology. In these books, one of the main question is, if how much computing capacity is needed for a person to represent themselves in a computer simulated world as real as possible.

Ákos Maróy: For a long time, I have been interested in self organizing systems, and this is what my PHD was about as well, and even before that I was interested in this area. I was very interested about the project, when I first spoke with Sota, because I immediately saw the opportunity to create something which has a self organizational aspect. I would not highlight any specific piece of background literature, the subject of cellular automaton and similar self organizing systems are already widely covered. But there is not much of research results on ‘emergence’ or gaining new consciousness in these systems, and somehow I lack the scientific interest for this new way to approach to these systems.
I find this area very interesting, and I think and even in biology, these are open issues. For example, it is still an open question, if how is a body forming, how does it evolves – this is also a distributed technology. So basically how your limbs are formed, or any of your organs, is not centrally governed, but it is a distributed process.
Actually this is the research area of Bea Oborny, who wrote a text for our Catalog.
I am interested in these systems, and especially on where the element of complexity enters them – that’s what my PHD is about: if you start to build a system with simple components, and some form of complexity enters the system, and you can measure the complexity in some way, and then you can highlight, what it that you have to add to the simple component so that the complexity level rises. Where it this border located, what is the engine for this change, for this new level of complexity to evolve. So, I have found similar traits in Corpora, and theoretically speaking, this was my core interest in the project.

Kaoru Kobata: I would add what an element what is covered in the Corpora in Si(gh)te Concept Book I: The basic way is thinking on the notation system of Corpora, which has now been thirteen years for now, developed form a single Super-Eye notation point. But maybe Sota can give a better explanation on this:

Sota Ichikawa: The idea for the Super Eye came, when I was a student of architecture. There was a competition by that time, the Foreign Office Architects Farshid Moussavi, Alejandro Zaera-Polo designed the Yokohma International Port Terminal,

Yokohma International Port Terminal, Image copyright: http://flickr.com/photos/wivern/27886127/

And I was in the competition team, and when I saw the first schemes, I have realized that the structure is in fact a carpet, a totally manipulated 3D carpet, and it solves its function very well.
And then I saw these drawings, – and maybe it is a little bit difficult to understand, but there were no walls or roofs, everything is mixed, – I immedietly felt it is like a carpet. So I thought that this space does not fit the usual notation system, and maybe if we use some other ‘language’, we might get a new concept of space from it.

Annie Leibovitz’s portrait of Burroughs / copyright (boingboing.net citing an ebay ad)

And I was also very addicted to read the novels of William Burroughs, actually it is a bit difficult to read it, anyway: one of his story which is about a sect of Islam assassins: the Hashshashin, these highly professional killers are using a special notation system for the space, only usable to them, sort of a different system or language.
I was inspired by these protocol systems, which act as a different language for the space and so came the idea for the Super Eye, which is a basic element of the Corpora.

(book covers copyright owned by their creators, and the images are only being used in the article for informational and educational purposes.)

ÁM:Does the generative method of Corpora considered to be new in the contemporary architecture?
EM: In “contemporary architecture”, it is not new at all, but let me explain this further later. In the education of contemporary architecture it is not new at all, yes. I know at least eight university all around the word, where projects very similar to this one is being developed by students – and I am also teaching something like this. The main difference is, that these students do not have the same programmer background, since the teaching of such skills does not fit into the overall education process. We do use programming in our work, still. We are writing scripts for already developed 3D software, using the algorithms, which are already implemented into these systems, and running simplified (or rather, more complex by such modifications) systems. This has the advantage, that we can choose any unit to be the basic element of the simulation, for example a line-structure, a surface, systems of surfaces, or even any compact unit can be used, depending on the particular software. Those who want to get further into the field, use parametric software’s and script them, which is considered to be more accurate mathematically, and can also be used not only by architects, but engineers to calculate load and strain – but I think these are still not included in Corpora either.

I have reviewed several similar projects, some quite alike to Corpora. For us architects, the key question is if what the analogue input is, what makes the entire system change. The big question-mark is at, where the starting point and the stopping point is – since in this case we mean works which should result in a distinct/realized building/unit. At this point we always encounter the fact that any basic, (…) system needs decisions made by a higher entity, since the “we need a scheme” effect is the starting point, and there are certain rules defined by this higher authority, like to shape of the host environment, etc. We implement the rules, and watch the system evolving, processing, growing, but at a point we will have to stop it. Where is this point? Why there, not anytime, anywhere else? These decisions must be justified quite firmly, especially if our programming skills are not adequate enough.

ÁM: Beata Oborny, biologist in her previous entry asks the question, if what can Corpora offer for the architectural discussion. She mentions the L-systems, (descriptive systems used in formal grammar and biology) from her field as an example which might be similar to this project.

The L-systems are quite handy in this case. Many tries to implement it in generative architecture. What we tech first to our students, is a simple population, made from a single cell, and starting from a two dimensional composition. Then the system can change individual/local cell’s position, rotation, location, and in the case of parametric software’s,  its relative position to each other, – so the whole system changes according to the values and algorithms we assign in our set of rules.

Then we move to algorithms which react on something/responsive (this is the point where we miss the software developer background, and because of this, we rather stick to theoretical rules, derived from the original forms and cells, the limits, if present, and the basic values and equations in the algorithm – but not the real, physical input)
We can hardly have time to cover “evolving systems” in this process, and even if we do, the system can be upheld for a very brief amount of time, since it is becoming so complex, that we are having hard time to discover any architectural order in it.

ÁM: Can you briefly summarize, if why do you consider Corpora to be interesting for the contemporary  architectural scene?

What makes Corpora really different from other, similar projects I know, is:

• It does not openly address the “stopping point” problem, so I can see the system running real time – we can see a constantly evolving architectural project right in front of our eyes. Yet, this issue is a bit slippery by architectural terms. As we are still obliged to use the language of statics, let me explain this: some parts of the building is already changing constantly, but until this point by “generative process” we meant the process of the actual design, which led us to a stage, which we decided to record.

• It is responsive. The element of response controls the constant evolvement – and this is what is being very expressive about Corpora

• It is being realized the Hungarian Pavilion! And this is not a joke! When I was teaching on a workshop in Hungary, I had to realize ‘our’ distance from this kind of architectural thinking. The local, Hungarian architectural scene seems to be frozen in time. The key of this problem is – at least from my point of view – that we lack an overall image on the cultural, philosophical change of the last few decades, which might help this people to understand where contemporary architecture, or even our entire word is heading.                  (On the first days of my workshop, I was constantly facing the question: is it possible, that nobody reads science-fiction here?). What is a even bigger problem, that young talents do see a large number of new forms, interesting structures, but not the underlying concept, motivation behind it. For them, these are only new forms, which we can model with advanced computers, now structural engineers can work with these, now we can make section plans easily, and everything can be divided into units, can be built, can be covered, etc

• It is being realized. Period.

• There is a firm programmer background behind it. That’s the point, where all the similar projects run ashore. The designers usually imagine a building which reacts on every aspect of the surrounding, and since they have a limited knowledge of programming, all of this is being simplified down to single element, which is still very interesting to study, but already lost its connection to the physical reality. This is a philosophical, architectural, ethical problem – lets highlight it with an example:                                                                                                                                                   The “card game” was first introduced on MIT, but included into the curriculums of design studio workshops on many other universities. Each and every student is given a deck of cards. The cards are all individually marked and are the elements of a system, yet all of them are specific – a certain set of rules are bestowed on them. But these rules have a different role than in any other card game, as it is about the possible the cards folding, incisions, and their relations to each other. Three dimensional structures should be created by folding, cutting, setting up rules of connectivity from this deck of cards – and this is for understanding the essence of all of this.

EM: In one of your texts, you state on Corpora: „(…)it is establishing a number of structures, which are seeking a constant harmony with the elements of their surroundings.” How does this system adopts to the environments? What do you intended to mean with the term “harmony”? Who decides if what is a “harmony”? The programmer/architect or the system itself? How does this all become a “perfect symbiosis” as you state in the texts.

ÁM: I would rather say Corpora “extends” into the surroundings, become part of it, like a tree or a bush melts into the landscape. Or the same way as vegetation does overgrow an area, for example an abandoned building or a ordinary wall entangled with creeping ivy. On the contrary, buildings rarely “melt” into the environment.

EM: Is there a set of rules, defined by the architect preliminary? For example, is the effect of certain inputs set to change a predetermined location? Is the number of points are defined to a sensor to join with? What is the communication between the architect and the structure? The architect instructed the structure to bend left if strong wind is blowing constantly from the right, for example? Or support its right side by building up some more modules in the same case?

ÁM: With Corpora, the ‘architect’ is in fact the part of the team, not an outsider. Sote Ichikawa himself. He is not asking for any special set or rules, rather forming and building the system all by himself.
Our intentions were not so much well articulated as you presumed until now; we were focusing on some much more basic elements of the Corpora system. For example, we were working on different aspects of the basic nodes of the system: consistency, height, number of neighbors, their intentions to procreate, and aging (this later two is linked, as older nodes becoming passive, infertile, and slowly die away.) So, the model, which you referring in your question, is in a much earlier (lower) stage of development.
When we are using Corpora for architectural purposes, then the algorithm is running with some limits implemented, and we stop it at a certain point, and take the given result as a point of origin for a architectural project. That’s why Max keep saying that we have an architect already in the project, since this is already some form highly automated design process, still a rather new and unfamiliar one. The role of the architect in this case is to assign attributes/parameters to the model and using of its results.

EM: What kind of architectural aspects you had in mind during the development process? For example: open-closed, space like-wall like, accessibility (public/private), structure/skeleton, surface/skin issues, etc.

ÁM: Yes, that’s what I am also keen to explore further. The current stage of the project, at the moment does not take most of these aspects into account. It might be interesting, as Sota, the only “traditional” architect in the group does not consider these aspects important. He rather insist that public space is used/defined in a different way even by this project. You should ask him about these later.
There are many interesting and challenging area to explore, which might lead to architectural or any other field. Yet, we are limited to a simple artistic project like this one, which cannot simply answer all of these questions – solving the problems is not what art is for, and we cannot accumulate so much resources to an artistic project, and therefore find some real, pragmatic answer to these questions. I wish we could do that….

BO: What are the basic elements of the Corpora creature? One dimensional rods? Or some sort of 3D structure, like a cube which could be bent for this purpose?

ÁM:The basic elements are simple nodes, “cells”, which are linked together. The links are defined by relative distance – those which are close enough to each other, are becomes linked.

BO: How to address this virtual being? For example, when I would say “X is growing”? X=Corpora?

ÁM: We usually refer it as Corpora Structure.

BO: You are using the term “evolution” in a different way than we, the biologists do. There is nothing bad with this – physicists are using the term also in a different context, by meaning simply “change” with this term. Yet, if we are approaching it from a biologist perspective and looking for an analogy in the field of biology, we have to conclude that what is happening to this creature, is could not be described with the word evolution, but ontogenesis, escpecailly the ontogenesis of a psychical creature.

ÁM: Yes, you are right, this process is much more an ontogenesis, then an evolution by biologist’s terms. But we are using the English term “evolve” for this process, which means singular growth, evolution.

BO: You are also using the term “Cellular Automaton” in a different way than originally intended – or at least, this is how I have seen the word used in your texts: the cellular automaton is discrete in space and time, and is made of identical, regular cells; and the cells might have a limited number of status (finite state machine).
Corpora has “cells” and is an “automaton” in the same time – but for me, it is all, but a Cellular Automaton – at least not in the wide sense of this term.

ÁM: We are using the term of Cellular Automaton in the sense, that Cellular Automatons are systems mode of a large number of cells, and all cells are making local decisions, based on the local set of information.
So, what makes Corpora different to the traditional model of Cellular Automaton are:

• the space structure is not discrete

• there are non-deterministic elements in the rules

• The possible thresholds of statuses which the nodes (cells) might have are limited, even despite the threshold is quite large.

That’s why I would not say Corpora is much different form a regular Cellular Automaton.

OB: If I get this right, all nodes in this structure is in fact considered to be a sensor, therefore “perceives” its surroundings, and the status of adjacent nodes. How does these “virtual sensors” relate to the real ones, which are set up in the actual field, and taking measurements on temperature, wind-force, etc?

MÁ: In Yamaguchi we set up the system like this; for each nodes to use the nearest “real” sensors data. (As we know the location of the node in the space, we can relate to the closest real, psychical sensor, therefore we could decide which one is the closest.) Now, here in Venice we are planning to interpolate the information we get form the sensors, therefore we could project a much detailed image to every space-node, based on the measurements.

BO: Does the algorithm calculates if what the virtual sensors might perceive at the a certain point of the space, based on the data which comes from the real sensors? Is this going to be their own input?

ÁM: See as above. This year, in Venice, we would like to do it like this, if we can manage.

BO: It is hard for me to understand, why you call the pitches in a spatial structure “something which is pitch/point-like” a “cell”.

ÁM: We call them “nodes” actually.

BO: I don’t think it is a good metaphor then. In a biological structured creature, the spatial polygons creates by these points could be considered as “cells”. Even by the terms of the model terminology, it is hardly fits the description, since in the “Cellular Automaton” the cells are not point-like, and join each other by their side (surface), and not hovering far away from each other.

ÁM: Yes, we might only call these cells by the definition of “Cellular Automaton” (that’s how we call them actually). The spatial system is little different, not grid-like, but still has a distinctive, univocal relation amongst the adjacent nodes.

BO: The only way I can imagine is, if you execute a 3D tessellation around each and every point, therefore creating a “cell” from the ‘tessellation polygon’ defined by these points. But in this case, the current definitions for adjecent nodes are not valid any more. So, what makes a point to be a “cell”?

ÁM: The spatial model is different, but Corpora is still a Cellular Automaton in the wide sense of the term. As I perceive, you are limiting the definition of Cellular Automaton into a cubic like form. Therefore, this one is something different.

BO: What effects implement barriers (limits) during this evolving process? I assume it is not possible to grow any way possible. For example, is gravity has an effect? Or any mechanical limits?

ÁM: We defined a certain, limited space, from which for the node it is impossible to expand further. It is possible for nodes to “overage”, after a certain amount of time, the node will not produce any offspring. Some parameters are defined by the data we collected by the surrounding environment, for example: the density of the nodes, (how many neighbors a node might have), or the “endeavor factor” – how high the entire structure might grow.

BO: Does chance plays any role in this process? Or the set of rules you defined are determining the structure, and it is only the outside environment, which implements an element of randomness and abrupt into the evolving process?

ÁM: Yes, there is an element of randomness in the algorithm. New nodes are created by the processing of data we get form the sensors, later modified by the age of the node, and then some elements of chance.

BO: One of your text, on the website states: “Every sensor is linked only with adjacent it.” How does their collected data implemented in the overall process (evolutionary step)? They remain in a local level, or effect the whole structure?

Yes, there is a analogy between the three dimensional model and the real space. The particular nodes are corresponding to the environmental effects around them. If they are located in a warm environment, or a dominantly sunny area, then they will respond accordingly, and if others are located in a cold area for example, those will respond likewise. Therefore, yes, we might say, that basically all decision are made locally in this structure.

BO: Is there any global control (supervisor) over the system? To put the question in a different way: does the right hand know what the left is doing?

Nope :)

BO: It might be convenient to think about Lindenmayer in the case of Corpora.

ÁM: The L-systemsare automatons which making parallel rewritings in the words (in one step more then one rules might be implemented, not just one, which is the case with a normal automaton.) But this could be a Cellular Automaton with parallel rewriting, if we consider it as a formal language automaton.