BIM Splitting: BIM Splitting

Gordon Matta-Clark has been a favorite artist of mine for several years. He's often been an inspiration for looking at design and construction from various psychological ways. To me, his message is peculiar in the world of digital architecture because he's often known with dissociatively connecting architectural space with data. This is exactly what I feel the BIM movement should hearken, and take more into the mainstream.

Ever since being a pre-architecture student at School of Visual Arts, in Manhattan, and being exposed to both his and James Wines’ work, I recognized that their exercises are a kind of symbology to addressing both design, design criticism, social commentary and the contemplations (or preoccupations) with spatial exercise. Learning this as a 26 year old sculpture student was a profound experience - via several instructors (some of whom were brought up in architecture families, or received professional architecture degrees of their own.)

While this blog may serve as a somewhat biographical and tangential exercise: as a current Building Information Modeling (BIM) practitioner, I sometimes can’t help but feel a virtual connection to his renown performance, Splitting, from 1974, done in Englewood, NJ (especially when "splitting" a 3D model from within a BIM program.)

In case you’ve never heard of this artist (non-architect; or anarchitect,) Matta-Clark (1943-1978) was a ground breaking “de-constructivist” who executed intricate carvings out of readymade architecture (buildings) that were (most often) soon to be demolished. His best known works were created, internationally, over a period of 10 years - between 1968 and 1977.

How ironic that, today, with all of our latest computer architecture technology, BIM somehow fits into the concept of de-constructivist theory and contextualization. For me, BIM is somewhere in between CAD and the mind's eye of Gordon Matta-Clark; BIM is Post-CAD.

Because the very solution that all “modeled information”, with BIM technology, may now be that which is virtually carved, sliced, chopped, dissected, examined; and as tangibly as Gordon Matta-Clark might have chosen to do so (from within real situations): takes his method into the cyber-realm. Or, at least, this is what I feel.

It’s almost as though this renegade artist had foreshadowed the future of digital architectural design (process) from within an inert architectural psyche: dealing with deep contemplations of architectural vicissitudes. Usually he's considered as doing this from within socioeconomic contexts: within blighted neighborhoods (in cities), while exercising more artistic or poetic commentary. Yet, had he still been alive today, these works may have also had vast implications for digital-human-ecological reasoning, architectural forensics, sustainability-green building, etc. Could these exercise have also come from his practical sense of addressing traditional drafting techniques vis-à-vis breaking down "real space" through de-constructive method? Was he making renovations of "the virtual" while being inside the reality of his own design, carving; sculpting within the core? Was he thinking similarly, then, to how progressive CAD programs allow users to operate now? In terms of virtual decon - I would argue yes to the above.

This is why I feel he was performing autonomous "computerized" methods as an extension of his cuttings. Some may say this is speculative and not well grounded, or well suited for "art" theory. Whatever the case, there are still arguments to be made, comparitively (with technology), beyond the archetypes of his accomplishments and imagination.

This possibly proves that (as sometimes was suspected) he might have been a visionary to modern computer architecture – as well as being a prolific artist working in the medium of architecture; on the fringes of an inept society.

But, while not all architectural circles agree that BIM technology is a viable resource, [enough that it should even be widely accepted (as often Matta-Clark's renegade behavior was not)] the indications that BIM is, in fact, gaining ground (as phenomenological methodology) fastidiously overrides conservative ferment that it is mere nonsense. The splitting taking the foreground [place] shall not be the same Splitting that’s archaic to the fact-of-the-matter. Cultural splits are never what they automatically appear as, and can make huge imprints on our minds because they haunt us with unearthed truths about autonomous technological advancement.

It should come as no surprise that preeminent architect, Frank Gehry, who has been on the forefront of BIM technology, is also widely influenced by Gordon Matta-Clark.

Like those recognized, who’ve staked their own place within a design theory, the fragments of these findings are usually only initially visible to a select few: my advisors at SVA, for instance. But, as in art and design, as well as in controversial technologies, simple forms can delight and surprise and reflect the very nature of why we perform in such ways.

Recently I visited the Gordon Matta-Clark: You are the Measure retrospective at the Whitney Museum, last spring. I was delighted that the New York Times chose to state at the top of their March 3, 2007 article; that it "should be required viewing for any architect born in the age of the computer screen." This confirmed exactly what I walked away feeling, after attending the exhibit twice.

Splitting progressive CAD is an extensively tough-love (labor-of-love) task. However, there are parallels that, while seemingly are far-off, ostensibly, make perfect sense when looking beyond CAD. BIM is what's most progressive and is splitting into more diverse systems interoperably - especially under the microscope of palpability: as it now is.

Perhaps exemplary pieces of art, as Matta-Clark's, offer reflective qualities in ways only a select few in digital architecture may appreciate. To those modeling with BIM, who exist in the here and now, it’s great to have them compiled and recognized as offerings to their own prodigal examinations. For others, it's still a house divided.

-JJ Nicholson 9/22/07

BIM as Cyberpunk Providence!

So I'm fast away working on a parametric model listening to the re-released Daydream Nation (Geffen) by Sonic Youth, and recollecting on a recent job relocation I made from Manhattan to Denver almost a month ago. I'd just caught the live performance of this very album by the band in Greenpoint, Brooklyn before I left from New York to work here, in Colorado. Now, working on a BIM platform I much prefer, I draw parallel the usage of such technology to that of the innovative post-punk, avant-garde, rock music contained in this late 80's masterpiece. What melodies and harmonies of grunge style guitars (and the manufacturers thereof) have in common with BIM technology are somewhat apparent within their controls and cyberpunk undertones.

But the most important thing to compare is the "post" emphasis. Sonic Youth is considered "post" punk, or cyberpunk, in genre/sub-genre formats. Can it then also be said, if we understand that "CAD" is what's now being superceded: that BIM is also "post"; revolutionary; eclectic, even from progressive CAD? Like post-punk, BIM constitutes a departure from the "norm", in software, and in digital-architecture categories.

I tend to metaphorize about these things, I know. However, working on virtual 3D projects, for me - at least, are like the musically created compositions I enjoy listening to most.

Did you know that the Library of Congress has the Daydream Nation album in its collection as one of the most innovative albums of our time? With the musical style of such a band that both epitomizes the necessity and advancement of technological innovation, (that others surely follow) is, without a doubt, the same direction I feel BIM technology should be heading in - as parallel.

The parallelisms to controlled information (within a studio social order) are absolutely the very next thing generations of designers, engineers, and constructors should be aware of - as a movement. When information is managed flawlessly and effortlessly, and virtual deconstruction is witnessed, then what's attempted is the same as what's resolved. Thus, deconstructivism can be an über attaché for the BIM cause by association of virtual similarities to artistic and architectural process. This deconstructivism, not necessarily the deconstructivism of Gordon Matta-Clark (although the assessment of virtual buildings are easily sliced up with tools similar to his mind's eye,) is, arguably, without the support of the AEC status-quo.

If BIM can be thought of as a haven for the cyberpunk CAD drifters and grifters, the fringe techno-heads working in AEC, or the architecture grads who echo the sentiments of Matta-Clark's AIA, then all focused on BIM right now should carry what seemingly is considered "self interest" to the next level. They should be motivated upon by being as much a self proclaimed evangelist of BIM, as being a pragmatist; and to foster cybernetic awareness at all costs. If you think you fall into this category, you have safety with those who think and behave the same.

If you're not around too many, then, by default, you may have to be the one who is sticking your neck way out there. I was in just this situation recently for a past employer. But this story is not unique, from what I'm finding. We're probably just seen as CAD slackers...if we're using, or attempting to, use BIM - if you're in one of "those" offices.

Even if you're being pleasant about it, fear for your own job being on the line - if you're executing BIM awareness successfully to your peers, it most likely is. It's a risk you take (acting autonomously,) but if you really think you know your stuff, you should prevail in some small way. You'll turn others on to BIM, possibly better than you are aware of. Simply experimenting with BIM programs reveal the secrets because they are developed intuitively to how designers and constructors think alike. Make provisions to others by sharing what you know. Sharing simple tricks of the trade can go a long way - and influences wider usage in AEC.

Be courageous. What have you got to lose? Push the envelope a little. The corporate backing is already there by industry types of the same vein - who know the validity of BIM. They're making it happen.

Change is never going to be widely accepted thing, but before you know it, the strength in numbers thing is more of a reality. If you're getting flack about trying to introduce a new technology within your firm, start a user group. Tell your higher ups it's a good thing - what your doing. If there is no motivation whatsoever to move to at least a small percentage of BIM seats in your firm, maybe it's time you found a new firm. Your bosses will understand. Tell them to think about it in their sheltered corner offices (maybe while listening to Barry Manilow) - hey, I actually like Barry Manilow.

From my own testimonials, and from others, I've concluded stories of a delimited BIM profession. Some, attempting to break out of a mold by using this technology (while getting their wrists slapped frequently) are perhaps seen as "renegades" - occurring especially in firms not fully embracing BIM: perhaps they fear some kind of "conspiracy" or movement against them. Of course, this is as much ridiculous as it is amusing to most BIM users who've already seen the benefits of working in the next generation of proverbial CAD, some of whom have been at it since the mid 90's, or even earlier. Perhaps those who oppose BIM sense BIM as some kind of placebo effect within the industry.


Perhaps it's all about the first glances our ruling class AEC professionals our having on us, the next generation of design professionals. They hold disdain over us for our "business casual" attire. They question our effectiveness with an "out-of-the-box thinking" technology, even though we're quickly absorbing it & proving our proficiency. But we shouldn't be worried about anything to the variables of their underadvancements. After all, we're the generation of Malcolm Gladwell, we listen to Sonic Youth, we love movies like BladeRunner and own the Matrix trilogy. (Ironically, in Denver, the studio apartment I almost rented was "#303", while unrelated: I was assigned seat '#4D' on the flight from NY to Denver, when I first interviewed for a "4D" job.) Coincedence? Perhaps. Although, I still think there's a force to be reckoned with.

BIM is instinctual to a carefully planned chaos - as an approach to conceptualizing, sketching, designing, cost calculation, clash detection; using 3D, 4D, 5D, and beyond.

Did anyone ever consider how environmentally correct BIM is? Paper use, for example, for printed sets is decreasing largely because of its electronic drawing file management system and with IAI's IFC classification structure. This will help conserve our natural resources in a big way.

Just a reminder, while my own wrists have been slapped for using BIM technology, I am hopeful that many others come forward to the fact that many folks are more frightened by our cyberpunk determination (more so than being hypersensitive to the fact that they'll soon be embracing what we already know). One thing I've taken away from witnessed misconceptions, and imperceptibilities, is to persuade that the thinking behind BIM is the only substitution to better designing - from the misconception that it's not. This only because the design is made virtual, and can me managed from infinite amount of angles and explored interstitially that way. It most certainly is "better designing", because BIM allows you more time to design. In studio culture - time is of the essence. Graphically, you can work cumulatively, with parametric controls, not having to go "back to the drawing board" always. What a waste of time that use to be. Not everyone agrees on this, nor will they ever. Still, this is OK because of how that whole horse-water saying goes....

Perhaps the BIM technology preference is not for every AEC professional, just as the music of Sonic Youth is not for every listener. However, the intelligence behind BIM should be acknowledged, historically, whether one feels it's correct or not.

Users of corrected, improved-upon, advanced methodologies usually are on the exits of banal function, as they live/work on the fringe. Perhaps they listen to post-modern music while doing this. BIM users are no strangers. But are these users also going to be leaving a "trail of dead" in their wake? Who knows?

Some BIMheads may know this is a possibility, and either gloat and revel, or take quiet pride in it. There are so many new opportunities out there for us now, why should we take a back seat to CAD traditionalism? Who are the CAD traditionalists? They're most often the architect who just finally learned how to use CAD three years ago and think they're knocking 'em down. Which is fine (I learned much of my architectural skills doing hand drafting and then going to CAD - a valuable experience), it'd also be fine if CAD were the future of design, but it's not anymore. And many established architects are just plain stubborn and don't want to meet, halfway, the promise of Building Information Modeling. They won't change. There's a lot of risk at stake for them, obviously.

Just as a side note, when I used to work back in New York, I'd often gauge BIM use, demographically, by visiting Barnes and Nobles stores to see if any books on Revit where on sale. In about a dozen attempts, in NYC, I came up empty every time. In my first few weeks here in Colorado, I've found 2 different B&N's that carry the book. Interesting, I thought NY would have a greater need, I guess not...

There needs to be providence for correct thinking in the technological exploration of BIM - in the workplace. Until then, it will remain somewhat cyberpunk (just as post-punk rock itself). This is also alright with me - just as long as it's accessible for my own use, wherever this may be: Colorado, (hint, hint).

-Joseph Nicholson