featured
why the term open-source architecture is profoundly wrong
It actually shouldn’t be, yet it’s contemporary usage is slightly misleading. Geraldine Juarez and Adam Bobette use the term open source architecture to describe their “cocoon” while in fact it merely allows for reprogramming.
“Coocon” by Geraldine Juarez and Adam Bobette; image: We Make Money Not Art
“Reprogramming” coined (in relation to design) by William J. Mitchel in Me ++ describes the possibility of changing the usage, and perhaps the shape, of an object to a certain extent over time; but this possibility of change is limited due to it only happens after actualization. Open-source, on the other hand, relates to a product, which is constantly evolving. If one uses it in relation to design, it conveys that the object is constantly evolving not only in the actual, but also in the virtual. The very term open-source comes from a hackers’ culture of the 80’s and initially was used in relation to both hardware and software. At some point a split occurred between the two; the first evolved into corporate giants preoccupied mainly with brand identity (and user experience to be fair), the second working within a collaborative methodology.
More importantly, Linux and other software are being developed by groups of dedicated enthusiasts. The contributions are likely to be of a very high quality, since the contributors are able to decide which portion of the code they wish to develop. They basically choose the component they like, so there is enthusiasm in the air, instead of 9 to 5 desk job boredom. Tapscott and Williams pointed this out as the most important feature of peer production (which is a mode of production of open-source products in general).
Open – source therefore demands a “whole” capable to be subdivided into small parts. And the parts need to be manageable by a single person. An architectural project (with all it’s consultants from different fields) seems to be exactly the opposite of that. After all, can we imagine designers who wish to spend their free time on developing staircases in “open-source” architectural projects, because the staircase is actually his or her absolutely favourite part of the design? Currently there are no peer produced objects or spaces. Meaning that there are no object or spaces developed in a truly open-source manner (if we wish to keep the original meaning of the term; and I personally believe it is quite helpful to be clear in terms of semantics).
We are not there yet; but it doesn’t mean that we are not going to be there soon. The code becomes truly ubiquitous in our everyday life, so it might be just a question of time before Bruce Sterling’s remarks on how “model becomes the message” turn into reality. If the virtual model is going to be much more important that the physical actualization, there will be just one more step towards the definition of this model entirely by the code. If so, “the code will become the message”. It will become the representation of the actualization as well. Some designers deploy code as a medium of representation already.
United Visual Artists; Museum Darwin’s Canopy competition
Needles to say, the nature of the code enables any open-source development, so the peer production of the representation of actualization (the code, equal to the virtual model) will arrive to the scene. “Open – source” might then get it’s meaning back, even if used in relation to the designs in the actual.
Tags: Discussion
3 comments for “why the term open-source architecture is profoundly wrong”
Post a comment
Very interesting. I want to read more. How long did you write it??
[...] “why the terms open-source architecture is profoundly wrong?” is my first post up there. I aims to frame the term open-source as used by the designers now in relation to the origins of the term. I truly don’t think we, designers, use it properly now, but on the other hand, we might not be very far away from it’s correct meaning. I argue that only when the code will become the representation of the tangibles (be it architecture or design) and it will be available for free to develop by everyone, we might talk about open-source objects. It requires the generative processes to become ubiquitous then. I hope you will enjoy the read. [...]
Thanks Bob! If you would like to read more - please visit my blog. The very text above didn’t took much of my time, but I’m only at the very beginning of research into some of the issues outlined there.