Grossju - Project 008 Reading Response

This week's readings discussed the algorithm's relationship to the human and the computer.  The formation of the algorithm, as defined by the reading, is not dependent on the computer, nor is it completely known by the human.  Instead, it works as a language between the human and the computer.

The readings provided a number of reasons why architects have been slow  to adopt true algorithmic design for their work.  One of the discussions I found most interesting with regard to this was that architects see fixed relationships between numbers and concepts as "too deterministic."  The practice has always been reliant upon variation and options, and designers feel that they lose that when algorithms are implemented.  Engineers are perhaps after the opposite, seeking solutions in "rationalistic determinism."  To me, the readings seem to imply that this isn't necessarily the only outcome of algorithmic design.  Properly written and structured, the algorithm can provide some of the non-deterministic flexibility that architects need.

Another interesting discussion was that of combination of humanistic theories with computation.  The author claims that by maintaining the same design theories we have used since the 60's, we will never take full advantage of what the computer has to offer.  Concepts such as numerical processing can hardly be justified when the goal of design is to cater to the human.  My initial thoughts on this subject are "Why even bother," but I'm not actually convinced the author is advocating for design that is completely exclusive of the human.  I think he is trying to say that by insisting that all design is justified before it is fully explored, we will never give ourselves the freedom to try everything computation has to offer.  If we instead give something like numerical processing a shot, we might find that it has unforeseen cultural potential.