In general, media is a well established term that relates to human ability to communicate with self and others. Since the rise of humanity, media has referred to some material or technique used for communication (Bennett 2005). No matter what type of media was used; whether a cave stone or a clay tablet, each was used for many years to enable the communication of ideas and messages.
Although such communication was carried out through different types of strokes, pictures, or writings, they were all considered to be one system of communication. Eventually, advances in technology brought new methods of communication (i.e. photography, recorded sound, and telegraph). These methods revolutionized communication but each method still used one medium to send a message. This single medium was finally broken with the introduction of sound and motion. In this form, several different mediums were being used simultaneously, and a medium became media (Bennett 2005). The next big influence on what would become “new media” was the debut of the computer as a tool for communication (Breen 2004). To this end, Bennett (2005) describes “new media” as a combination of old media in ways that enable new methods of presentation. Media evolution took two different directions: one where humans started to use more than one medium to communicate and the other where technological developments fed our cognitive abilities with support and choices to communicate with self and others (Bennett 2005).
Following the same line of thought, computers have been seen as a revolutionary tool that would change design on different levels of practice, education and research. Breen (2004 p. 436) argued that the computer has become a platform for various media, many of which can be used in combination. Therefore, using
“new media” in design entails two critical features of used methods: variation and combination.
3.1.1 The evolution of the CAAD as a new media
In describing computer systems in academia, Achten (1996) established some common ground in so-called computational issues (i.e. database structures, exchange formats, programming techniques, interface design, etc.) and difference in so-called architectural issues (cost calculations, facility management, production drawings, simulation, evaluation building analysis, design synthesis, form generation, etc). CAAD researchers and developers emphasise either the formal computer science point of view or the architectural design point of view (Kalay 2004) in developing or designing new or other appropriate CAAD systems. The variation of the philosophical perspectives of solving the problem of how to integrate architectural issues is what marks the distinction of CAAD generations. Moreover, this aspect of CAAD’s philosophical evolution is the main reason attributed to CAAD research complexity and diversity, since CAAD research is characterised by the increased frequency of new ideas emerging that have not been grounded in early work (Maver 1995; Reffat 2006; Kalay 2004).
The modern concept of CAAD was introduced by the scholars Sutherland and Coons (1963) by developing a graphical system, “Sketchpad”. This system formed the basic concept for the first generation of CAAD and it was designed to integrate the evolving design (from initially sketch drawing with a light pen then refining it with built-in shape assumptions into a perfect drawing) and analysis programs (numerical analyses). Through this process, the designer could interfere with an optimisation procedure (Coons 1963, cited in Kalay 2004). Also this could be seen as one of the integration concepts between computing analytical capabilities and architectural design. In contrast, the Architectural Machine Group (Negroponte and Groisser 1964, cited in Kalay 2004) at MIT took an artificial intelligence approach to developing architectural computing applications, in which the environment itself could originate actions on its own by sensing the needs for building inhabitants and incorporate changes without any interference from the designers. It is obvious that
the main argument between the two approaches is the designer’s role in a computerised environment.
The second generation emphasis was the graphical aspect of CAAD systems. This included new improvements in modelling and rendering capabilities, but in terms of building design, systems were less capable than before.
The third generation witnessed grouping of the significant characteristics of the previous two generations. Although the philosophical perspective might be the same as the first generation, the representational aspect is improved. However, it was improved successfully mainly because of technological advancements (computer graphics, minicomputers, and input devices). Also, based on the recent advancements in information technology that are taking place in both CAAD research and education, Reffat (2006) proposed a fourth generation. This proposed approach would envisage architectural designing to be carried out collaboratively and synchronously within smart and real-time 3D virtual environments to include the current successful computational experiments, i.e. situated digital design (Gero 2002; Reffat 2000), smart 3D virtual design environments, designing with agents (Gero 2002; Reffat 2003; Saunders 2001). This review of CAAD evolution shows that CAAD’s development was not sequential, but underpinned by different perspectives and developed through hardware and software advances. However, the resulting systems were classified in academia under four main categories: Social systems, Professional systems, Educational systems and Innovative systems.
3.1.2 Computer systems in academia
Before reviewing the incorporation of CAAD in the teaching curriculum and the traditional studio, a definition of computer systems in architectural education is sought. Based on the different rationales behind teaching information technology in architectural education (Plomp 1996, cited in Achten 1996), a computer systems classification was first described by the Design Methods Group (Achten, Dijkstra, Oxman and Bax) of the Department of Architecture at Eindhoven University of Technology. Their work distinguished four computer systems in education: social systems, professional systems, educational systems and innovative systems (Achten 1996) as shown in Figure 3-1.
Social systems are computer tools, which all students should be able to use within any higher education curriculum. Professional systems are computerised tools which are used in architectural practice (that is AutoCAD, 3ds Max). Usually these systems are off-the-shelf software, that is, software developed by standard software companies (that is Autodesk, Microsoft). Educational systems are modified professional systems to convey specific pedagogical purposes and are developed within or for a specific architectural institution and sometimes result from research.
Innovative systems are computer systems that reach beyond current state of the art professional systems (that is automated plan recognition, virtual reality design systems) and are always the consequence of research work, hence they are so-called “home-made” software.
Figure 3-1 CAAD systems in architectural teaching curriculum and computer literacy.
Most architectural schools consider the integration of computer literacy and CAAD as one concept (Mark, Martens and Oxman 2003), which involves the teaching of two types of computer systems: social and professional. However, this can be extended to include the other two systems (Achten 1996) but this depends on the institution’s pedagogical approach and the proposed role for CAAD in design. In recent years, Garcia et al (2007) challenged professional (commercial) systems by proposing an educational system that has the same aspects of (Auto)CAD commercial software and an easy learning curve for engineering design students compared to AutoCAD. However, the students preferred to learn and use AutoCAD
Educational systems Innovative systems
Professional systems Research
Practice Offthe-shelf Software
Education
Social systems
Bespoke Software
GeneralITcourses
Architecturalteachingcurriculum
Architecturalcomputerliteracyinarchitectural education
CAAD emergent developments
although it is more difficult to learn for two reasons: CAAD’s advanced technical aspects and its role in their future career (Garcia et al 2007 p.779). This also reflects the common perspective of why these systems are important in design schools and design teaching.