Corpora in Si(gh)te

This part of the FAQ focuses on the architectural usage and possibilities of Corpora. Ákos Maróy, software artist is answering to the question of Enikő Márton, architect.

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….