Report comment

I can’t help but think that by referring to parametrics as a style rather than a tool, this shows that it is just being used to intellectually justify building the blobs that Zaha and Patrik find pretty. How do 'fluid fields' or 'swarms' come into problem solving for a building? Surely they are manipulated inputs that give the resulting shape the architects’ desire? Calling 'parametricism' the great new style after modernism is therefore just an attempt to play up their own importance in architectural theory. Ive also noticed that this argument presents nothing that justifies why parametricism will provide a better building for the people that use it- but instead just uses lots of big words in the hope of impressing intellectual peers, and deliberately confusing those that don’t understand it. This consequently gives supporters of parametrics a good put down against arguments like mine. Good work BD on the digested digest!