Archi
Creative Abstraction as a Shortcut to Logical Solutions​
​
Some designers start their design process by outlining the problem before them and trying to address each component of the problem to develop a solution, this is functionalism in a nutshell and also Buckminster Fuller's Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science.
​
Christopher Alexander identified the difficulty of this approach in his thesis text Notes on the Synthesis of Forms in which he provided a numerical description of the challenge of designing something as simple as a tea kettle. In essence, the number of design decisions involved in developing even this basic object is so astronomical that it is sheer arrogance for humans to claim they can do it from scratch, as the modern movement pretended to. Alexander's solution to this was to modify, not create, to take the forms that had been evolved over the course of human history and subtly alter them with an eye always on the effects of these modifications.
There is another class of designers who rebelled against the bottom up approach to design. A class that choose to start by brainstorming possible solutions. Once they have intuited their preferred direction, their parti, only then do they look back at the initial problems and the success of their design in addressing them. Engineers and other analytical types then try to identify and address deficiencies, to fit the problems to the solution. This process could be labeled intuitive design thinking or creative abstraction.
In general the final product from this method will appear much more elegant as it evolved from one idea rather than many problems, but it is will likely be a less efficient and effective solution to the myriad problems presented. To achieve a higher degree of effectiveness one must sacrifice some of the elegance.
​
The overall success of the solution is therefore dependent on the ability for the initial brainstormed solution to accomplish most of the goals, which is hardly distinguishable from a lucky guess. On the other hand, could this method of abstract brainstorming present solutions that would have been difficult to arrive at from a problem oriented starting point?
“The computer can only calculate what is already conceptually inside of it; you can only find what you look for in computers. Nevertheless, you can find what you haven’t searched for with free experimentation.” - Frei Otto
​
Most architectural problems are multifaceted and it may be difficult to start with ten problems and synergistically resolve all of their aspects, the success of a pieced together solution would in that case be dependent on the designers capacity to mentally put together all of the pieces.
​
So is it better to rely on a lucky guess resolving all of the problem's aspects or should we demand our designers have the mental capacity to juggle as many components as are necessary. Both systems have their downfalls and it is unlikely that either will result in the best of all possible solutions.
​
In reality, most designers probably use a combination of the two approaches, starting with an overall idea and breaking it down into components simple enough to piece together, or brainstorming elegant solutions for a group of interested components and piecing together these systems. I suspect the best approach is to build a rough design by piecing together the many problems and then using abstraction with this parameter in mind.
