ARCH'IT files / Interview with Douglas Garofalo

	GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR WAY OF THINKING OF DIGITAL ARCHITECTURE MATTEO ZAMBELLI: I know that you, Michael McInturf and Greg Lynn were among the first architects who introduced advanced modeling software in designing (e.g.: Maya, Softimages, 3DS Max, Form-z, PhotoShop), which were not originally meant for architects and architecture. Has advanced modeling software changed your way of designing and thinking architecture? DOUGLAS GAROFALO: Absolutely; I would say that these tools affect our vision—what kinds of issues we address in the projects, and how we can build/fabricate more precisely.	[31mar2002]
	When does computer intervene in the creative and designing process? Since the beginning or after you have decided your intention? Does computer ever suggest design themes and new ideas during the designing process or lead to new paths that you had not previously conceived? Does computer introduce chance? We try in my office to employ animation programs from initial concept sketches all the way through construction, to CNC machines for example. The nature of the programs open up a new array of forms and surfaces not previously available (at least not since the renaissance/baroque!). We tend to now think in terms of systems, ecologies, movement, change and time, whereas we previously were more occupied with objects, sculptural form, etc. Which are the innovations and the most important breakthroughs introduced by "digital architecture"? I think it is to be found in the fabrication possibilities. We can now send data directly to many kinds of machines to precisely fabricate variation. Which are the most interesting future prospects, yet to be developed, in digital architecture? This is a hard question—in a way, ALL projects are interesting in light of these new issues and techniques. I do not think the technology makes 'new' projects—I think architects, designers, planners make new visions…
	It seems to me that in the saic. NAB you are not interested, as in your previous projects, in architectural experimentations with advanced CAD software. It seems that you are not interested in using CAD software as a creative partner in generating ideas and forms. It seems that you are more interested in creating smart, interactive, ever changing "spaces" that react with the users rather than in working on formal issues. Is this a new path in your research? Do you think, as in Italy some critics say, that research on "blob architecture" (I am using "blob architecture" as a general term to indicate all experimentations on architectures generated by advanced modeling software) is exhausted? I don't think 'blob' architecture is finished, unfortunately—but it is not so interesting because it refers only to itself. This does not mean that we are uninterested in form, quite the contrary. I think, as evidenced in the saicNAB project, that we now understand formal issues as integral to larger fields: spatial, environmental, economic, educational, etc. You are quite right about the idea of interactivity and growth-the only constant is in fact change. Could you point out some projects that you consider really innovative in digital architecture? There are very few 'digital projects' built just yet. Of couse the work of Gehry is amazing, but the fabrication processes his practice is opening up are truly innovative. I am interested currently in practices that have found beautiful and elegant manifestations of our new digital tools. Last night we had Alberto Francini present to the UIC school of Architecture here in Chicago, and the Bolzano work is incredible, particularly since it is completed by a young group—work normally produced by larger, more established and conservative firms. QUESTIONS ON SAIC. NAB
> GAROFALO, MCINTURF. SAIC	What do you mean when you talk about the metaphor of the "field"? Is it possible to compare the notion of field with Guattari's and Deleuze's notion of rhizome, when they say that "any point of the rhizome might and should be connected to any other", so that there are not fixed hierarchies, as you also say, but always new and different relations among the parts (spaces) and the way of using architecture? Yes, this is one very interesting notion of 'field.' But field can refer to any system, pattern, spatiality, etc. that changes over time. Again, it is important to note that a field is not an object; but objects may exist in a field condition. The term 'epigenetic landscape' applies here as well—any force or change applied to any part of the landscape affects the entire system, to greater and lesser degrees. Singularity (formal uniqueness, for example), is therefore never disassociated from context in this model. Hiearchy is dynamic and multiple, definetly not centered and stable (except in local instances). When you say that "architecture is a dynamic, interconnected network of elements", are you saying that these elements are merely physically interconnected or are connections influenced by information technologies? Do you think that perception of the building and its elements could constantly change thanks to information technologies? Both; and I would add they are influenced by human interactivity and feedback as well. Perception changes with culture; technology certainly affects culture, and visa versa. To be more particular in the case of this project, we wished to provide enough accessibility to spaces imbued with technological tools so that the inhabitants (students and faculty) could experiment and speculate on their environment. What is it for you the Big Idea, what do you mean when you say that "we believe that instead of relying on the older, hierarchical model of the Big Idea, pursuing constellation of smaller ones brings us closer to creating a truly open field"? Instead of a singular vision for the project, a 'master plan' that all must conform to, we are interested in the degree to which radically different, even opposed sensibilities can coexist in close proximity. Think of the world wide web as a metaphor: one can go from sites on agriculture to shoes to pornography to government to… anything. This constellation of content is both rich and frustrating, exciting and maddening. It is the kind of space where experimentation is more likely to flourish.


	> GAROFALO ARCHITECTS CHICAGO > GAROFALO, MCINTURF. SAIC

	files