Of course not, They're out of business

The idea of designers using “programism” to design is a phenomenon that I have recognized throughout my high school and college career. I see the students using what should be simple diagrammatic models to create a form for their project. This makes the form governed completely by locational logic rather than functional logic. This concept for the most part is encourage through schooling when a professor will see a diagram and the plan, then praise the student for the direct relationship. Another issue with “programism” is that the diagrams have the general form of previously seen spaces, making the idea of question the design not occur to the student as often (what worked for the past, may not be the best for the future).

“Thematization” as he calls it, does try to put a project to what seems to be out of context. The idea of trying to add the characteristics of one are project to another makes the architecture seems like it is trying to “trick” its user. The building at that point is out-of-context and therefore not as efficient as it could be. It is an attraction, and should only be treated as so, it should be within a place of actual architecture scope as it brings down the architectural intent of the surrounding space.

After the idea of “thematization” is blob work. An idea that blobs of work can be created just because I am the designer and I said so. Is this really the mentality we as architects with no regard to the client, to the culture, and to the site? Then there are students of Eisenman, for example Greg Lynn that believe design (and blobs) can be given from calculus-based equations for design. At that point, I believe if an equation can give a design, you have done yourself a disservice and pretty much are saying an idiot can be an architect all you need is a number. At this point the intent is outside of the architect’s hands, there is no point for the architect.