Abstract
This chapter discusses the apparent paradox that the rise of modeling is at the same time the rise of imagery. It not only gives an extensive overview on the state of the art literature, but it also examines changes induced by ubiquitous computing, shows different forms and functions of design models, investigates their epistemic potential, and discusses the new role of imagery. As shown in the chapters of this volume, it is striking that computer-based modeling indeed does not marginalize image practices. Rather, the reverse is the case. Traditional image practices are modified and complemented by new forms of imagery which strengthen their overall relevance even more. On the operative level, images hence constitute crucial instruments of reflection to develop the design in architecture and engineering science – especially in the age of modeling.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Maya Hambly (1988), gives an overview of historical drawing instruments.
- 2.
- 3.
Well-known examples are the wooden models by Balthasar Neumann, the hanging models by Antoni Gaudí, and the models made out of soap bubbles by Frei Otto.
- 4.
- 5.
The latter difficulty is highlighted by Roland Müller (2009: 638).
- 6.
An overview of teaching models can be found in the database of objects of university collections in Germany (“Universitätssammlungen in Deutschland”), http://www.universitaetssammlungen.de/modelle (Accessed 28 Aug 2015); see also Stefanie Bräuer (2015) as well as Oliver Zauzig (2015).
Other forms of depicting models are ‘control models’ used for conversion or as exhibition models in the context of the museum: see Hans Reuther and Ekhart Berckenhagen (1994: 12); a historical curiosity are the cork models of the ruins of Rome: see Werner Helmberger and Valentin Kockel (1993).
- 7.
Especially catalogues raisonnés or (architectural) journals convey photographic archetypes; for the genre of architectural journals see Eva Maria Froschauer (2011); for the genre of architectural photographs in the same book: Rolf Sachsse (2011). One should also mention reconstruction models, as they are discussed by Sander Münster, Peter Heinrich Jahn and Markus Wacker (2017). As the authors show, precisely in the speculative assumptions is a smooth transition to design models to be found.
- 8.
A similar argumentation can be found in Bernd Mahr (2008). He identifies models of and models for both as “the fundamental relations of models” (ibid: 216).
- 9.
The concept of representation can easily be misleading, as it suggests a relation of depiction which is not necessarily given. Hence, representation in the narrow sense means a relation of depiction, representation in the broad sense also embraces also other (non depictive) forms of reference.
- 10.
Nersessian and Patton base their thoughts on a very broad concept of model; they understand model as “a representation of a system with interactive parts with representations of those interactions” (ibid). Model-based reasoning was introduced as an important keyword in the discussion by Lorenzo Magnani, Nancy Nersessian, and Paul Thagard (comp. Magnani, Nersessian, Thagard (Eds.) 1999; Magnani and Nersessian (Eds.) 2002).
- 11.
Ship models are also discussed in Simon Schaffer (2004).
- 12.
An outline for architecture can be found in Philipp Geyer (2013: 235–244).
- 13.
A difficulty for the documentation of designerly working models is that they usually are disposed after using them (in contrast to presentation or teaching models in archives or publications; this is why the latter determine – and distort – the image of scale models); see Oliver Elser and Peter Cachola Schmal (2012); see also fn. 6. A discussion of scale models in theory of architecture can be found in Albert C. Smith (2004), connected with the claim to investigate them as “thinking mechanisms” (ibid: xvi ff.); for the makers perspective see Mark Morris (2006).
- 14.
Architect Günter Behnisch points out the subtle influence of materials for shaping: “Every planning stage has its materials and techniques. […] Card-like, plane, immaterial houses originate in cardboard models, chunks of wood turn into a chunk-of-wood-architecture, and plasticine evocates relatively free plastic buildings” (quoted after Gänshirt 2007: 155). As Christian Gänshirt correctly points out, there is no necessary connection.
- 15.
Different strategies for the implementation of BIM currently compete with each other, be it through modeling a comprehensive global model, the conjunction of different individual models or the establishment of a shared project space. By connecting numerous stakeholders and companies difficult questions arise with regard to copyright and accountability.
- 16.
This is done with standardized interchange formats; IFC (Industry Foundation Classes) is established in the building industry, STEP (Standard for the Exchange of Product model data) in engineering.
- 17.
An interesting case study of an analytical model discusses Michael Weisberg (2013). The San Francisco Bay-Delta Model, a scale model, was built to investigate the consequences of potential new barriers in the bay. As a direct outcome of the investigation, the plans were given up.
- 18.
For an overview see Moritz Hauschild, and Rüdiger Karzel (2010: 44–69).
- 19.
With this concept Sybille Krämer encompasses scripts, maps, and diagrams (2009).
- 20.
For the distinction between generative and instrumental operativity using the example of façade design see my chapter in this volume; comp. also Sabine Ammon (2015).
- 21.
- 22.
Their emphasis is on naval architecture, vehicle construction, and aircraft construction in Great Britain.
- 23.
In connection to Evans, within theory of architecture the question of the relevance of forms of projecting has been raised by several people; comp. Alberto Pérez-Gómez, and Louise Pelletier (1997) who discuss the relevance of the perspective; Marco Frascari, Jonathan Hale, Bradley Starkey (2007); Mario Carpo, and Frédérique Lemerle (2008). Christopher Hight (2012) makes an effort to transfer Evans’ argument to the conditions of digital design.
- 24.
A similar account regarding the usage of models is given by Albena Yaneva (2009).
- 25.
Comp. the extension of the concept against the background of positions in art theory in Reinhard Wendler (2013: 168–177).
- 26.
This research received support from the European Union (Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellowship, Grant Agreement No. 600209, Project IPODI).
References
Alberti, L.B. (1755). The Architecture of Leon Batista Alberti in Ten Books, printed by Edward Owen. London. http://archimedes.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/docuserver/images/archimedes/alber_archi_003_en_1785/downloads/alber_archi_003_en_1785.text.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2015.
Ammon, S. (2015). Einige Überlegungen zur generativen und instrumentellen Operativität von technischen Bildern. In H. Depner (Ed.), Visuelle Philosophie (pp. 167–181). Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
Baynes, K., & Pugh, F. (1981). The art of the engineer. Guildford: Lutterworth Press.
Beyer, A., & Lohoff, M. (Eds.). (2005). Bild und Erkenntnis: Formen und Funktionen des Bildes in Wissenschaft und Technik. München/Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag.
Black, M. (1962). Models and archetypes [1958]. In idem, Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy (pp. 219–243). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Blau, E., & Kaufman, E. (Eds.). (1989). Architecture and its image: Four centuries of architectural representation: Works from the collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture. Montreal: Centre Canadien d’Architecture/Canadian Centre for Architecture.
Booker, P. J. (1963). A history of engineering drawing. London: Chatto & Windus.
Boon, M., & Knuuttila, T. (2009). Models as epistemic tools in engineering sciences. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, Handbook of the philosophy of science (Vol. 9, pp. 693–726). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Boumans, M. (1999). Built-in justification. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 66–96). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Bräuer, S. (2015). Modelle von Bauwerken und baulichen/technischen Anlagen. http://www.universitaetssammlungen.de/dokumentation/vertiefendes/modelle/bauwerke. Accessed 28 Aug 2015.
Bredekamp, H. (2010). Theorie des Bildakts: Frankfurter Adorno-Vorlesungen 2007. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.
Bredekamp, H., Dünkel, V., & Schneider, B. (Eds.). (2015). The technical image: A history of styles in scientific imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carpo, M. (2001). Architecture in the age of printing: Orality, writing, typography, and printed images in the history of architectural theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carpo, M. (2011). The alphabet and the algorithm. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carpo, M. (Ed.). 2013). The digital turn in architecture 1992–2012, AD Reader. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Carpo, M., & Lemerle, F. (Eds.). (2008). Perspective, projections, and design: Technologies of architectural representation. London/New York: Routledge.
Duden. (2005). Modell. In Das Fremdwörterbuch (8th ed., p. 669). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
Elkins, J. (2003). Visual studies: A skeptical introduction. New York/London: Cornell University Press.
Elser, O., & Cachola Schmal, P. (Eds.). 2012). Das Architekturmodell: Werkzeug, Fetisch, kleine Utopie/The architectural model. Tool, fetish, small utopia, Ausstellungskatalog DAM Deutsches Architekturmuseum, Dezernat für Kultur und Wissenschaft, Stadt Frankfurt am Main, 2012. Zurich: Scheidegger & Spiess.
Evans, R. (1995). The projective cast: Architecture and its three geometries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Evans, R. (1997). Translations from drawing to building [1986]. In idem, Translations from drawing to building and other essays (pp. 152–193). London: Architectural Association.
Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The Role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30.
Ferguson, E. S. (1992). Engineering and the mindʼs eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ford, B. J. (1993). Images of science: A history of scientific illustration. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fox Keller, E. (2000). Models of and models for: Theory and practice in contemporary biology. Philosophy of Science, 67, 72–86.
Frascari, M., Hale, J., & Starkey, B. (Eds.). (2007). From models to drawings: Imagination and representation in architecture. London/New York: Routledge.
Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2012). Models in science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/models-science. Accessed 17 Apr 2015.
Froschauer, E. M. (2011). Architekturzeitschrift: Enzyklopädisches, spezielles, selektives und manifestierendes Wissen, oder: Architektur als vermittelte Mitteilung. In W. Sonne (Ed.), Die Medien der Architektur (pp. 275–301). München/Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag.
Gänshirt, C. (2007). Werkzeuge für Ideen: Einführung ins architektonische Entwerfen. Basel/Boston/Berlin: Birkhäuser.
Geyer, P. (2013). Von der digitalen Linie zum Systemmodell: Information und Wissen in der Entwurfsmodellierung mit dem Computer. In S. Ammon & E. M. Froschauer (Eds.), Wissenschaft Entwerfen: Vom forschenden Entwerfen zur Entwurfsforschung der Architektur (pp. 231–265). Munich: Fink.
Giere, R. N. (1996). Visual models and scientific judgment. In B. S. Baigrie (Ed.), Picturing Knowledge: Historical and philosophical problems concerning the use of art in science (pp. 269–302). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Gleiter, J.H., Korrek, N., & Zimmermann, G. (Eds.). 2008), Die Realität des Imaginären: Architektur und das digitale Bild, 10. Internationales Bauhaus-Kolloquium Weimar 2007. Weimar: Verlag der Bauhausuniversität Weimar.
Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: The vis kids of architecture. Design Studies, 15(2), 158–174.
Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Hambly, M. (1988). Drawing instruments 1580–1980. London: Sotheby’s Publications.
Harré, R. (1999). Models and type-hierarchies: Cognitive foundations of iconic thinking. In R. Paton & I. Neilson (Eds.), Visual representations and interpretations (pp. 97–111). London: Springer.
Hauschild, M., & Karzel, R. (2010). Digitale Prozesse. Planung, Gestaltung, Fertigung. München: Institut für Internationale Architektur-Dokumentation.
Helmberger, W., & Kockel, V. (Eds.). (1993). Rom über die Alpen tragen. Fürsten sammeln antike Architektur: Die Aschaffenburger Korkmodelle. Landshut/Ergolding: Arcos.
Henderson, K. (1999). On line and on paper: Visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics in design engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hentschel, K. (2014). Visual cultures in science and technology: A comparative history. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Hight, C. (2012). Manners of working: Fabricating representation in digital based design. In C. G. Crysler, S. Cairns, & H. Heynen (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of architectural theory (pp. 410–429). Los Angeles: Sage.
Hubig, C. (2010). Leistung und Grenzen der Virtualität beim Wissenserwerb. In K. Kornwachs (Ed.), Technologisches Wissen: Entstehung, Methoden, Strukturen (pp. 211–225). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Johannes, R. (Ed.). (2009). Entwerfen. Architektenausbildung in Europa von Vitruv bis Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts: Geschichte – Theorie – Praxis. Hamburg: Junius.
Krämer, S. (2009). Operative Bildlichkeit: Von der ‚Grammatologie‘ zu einer ‚Diagrammatologie‘? Reflexionen über erkennendes ‚Sehen‘. In M. Heßler, & D. Mersch (Eds.), Logik des Bildlichen: Zur Kritik der ikonischen Vernunft (pp. 94–122). Bielefeld: transcript.
Kulvicki, J. V. (2014). Images. London: Routledge.
Langer, B. (2011). Computerdarstellung: Vom Programm zum digitalen Ökosystem. In W. Sonne (Ed.), Die Medien der Architektur (pp. 157–168). München/Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag.
Magnani, L., & Nersessian, N. J. (Eds.). (2002). Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values. New York: Kluwer.
Magnani, L., Nersessian, N. J., & Thagard, P. (Eds.). (1999). Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. New York: Kluwer.
Mahr, B. (2008). Ein Modell des Modellseins: Ein Beitrag zur Aufklärung des Modellbegriffs. In U. Dirks, & E. Knobloch (Eds.), Modelle (pp. 187–218). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Maynard, P. (2005). Drawing distinctions: The varieties of graphic expression. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.
Morgan, M. S. (1999). Learning from models. In: idem, Morrison, M. (Eds), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 347–388). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Morris, M. (2006). Model: Architecture and the miniature. Chichester: Wiley-Academy.
Morrison, M., & Morgan, M. S. (1999). Models as mediating instruments. In idem (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 10–37). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Müller, R. (1983). Zur Geschichte des Modelldenkens und des Modellbegriffs. In H. Stachowiak (Ed.), Modelle: Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit (pp. 17–86). Munich: Fink.
Müller, R. (2009). The notion of a model: A historical overview. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, Handbook of the philosophy of science (Vol. 9, pp. 637–664). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Münster, S., Jahn, P. H., & Wacker, M. (2017). Von Plan- und Bildquellen zum virtuellen Gebäudemodell: Zur Bedeutung der Bildlichkeit für die digitale 3D-Rekonstruktion historischer Architektur. In S. Ammon, & I. Hinterwaldner (Eds.), Bildlichkeit im Zeitalter der Modellierung. Operative Artefakte in Entwurfsprozessen der Architektur, des Designs und Ingenieurwesens (pp. 255–284). Munich: Fink.
Nerdinger, W. (Ed.). (1986). Die Architekturzeichnung: Vom barocken Idealplan zur Axonometrie: Zeichnungen aus der Architektursammlung der Technischen Universität München. Munich: Prestel.
Nerdinger, W. (Ed.). 2012). Der Architekt: Geschichte und Gegenwart eines Berufsstandes, Ausstellungskatalog Architekturmuseum der TU München in der Pinakothek der Moderne (München 2013, Vol. 1 and 2). Munich: Prestel.
Nersessian, N. J. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nersessian, N. J., & Patton, C. (2009). Model-based reasoning in interdisciplinary engineering. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, Handbook of the philosophy of science (Vol. 9, pp. 727–757). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Peddie, J. (2013). The history of visual magic in computers: How beautiful images are made in CAD, 3D, VR and AR. London: Springer.
Pérez-Gómez, A., & Pelletier, L. (1997). Architectural representation and the perspective hinge. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
Picon, A. (1992). French architects and engineers in the age of enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reuther, H., & Berckenhagen, E. (1994). Deutsche Architekturmodelle. Projekthilfe zwischen 1500 und 1900. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft.
Robin, H. (1992). The scientific image: From cave to computer. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
Sachs-Hombach, K. (Ed.). (2005). Bildwissenschaft: Disziplinen, Themen, Methoden. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Sachsse, R. (2011). Architekturfotografie: Das analoge Bild der klassischen Moderne – zur gegenseitigen Historisierung von Fotografie und Architektur im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. In W. Sonne (Ed.), Die Medien der Architektur (pp. 85–97). München/Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag.
Schaffer, S. (2004). Fish and ships: Models in the age of reason. In S. De Chadarevian, & N. Hopwood (Eds.), Models. The third dimension of science (pp. 71–105). Standford: Standford University Press.
Scholz, O. R. (2009). Abbilder und Entwürfe: Bilder und die Strukturen der menschlichen Intentionalität. In K. Sachs-Hombach (Ed.), Bildtheorien: Anthropologische und kulturelle Grundlagen des Visualistic Turn (pp. 146–162). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Scholz, O. R. (2012). Bilder in Wissenschaften, Design und Technik: Grundlegende Formen und Funktionen. In D. Liebsch & N. Mößner (Eds.), Visualisierung und Erkenntnis: Bildverstehen und Bildverwenden in Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften (pp. 43–57). Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Smith, A. C. (2004). Architectural model as machine: A new view of models from antiquity to the present day. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Spiller, N. (2008). Digital architecture now: A global survey of emerging talent. London: Thames & Hudson.
Spiro, A., & Ganzoni, D. (Eds.). (2013). Der Bauplan: Werkzeug des Architekten. Zurich: Park Books.
Stachowiak, H. (1973). Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Wien/New York: Springer.
Tversky, B. (2005). Visuospatial reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 209–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Fraassen, B. C. (2008). Scientific representation: Paradoxes of perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Weisberg, M. (2013). Simulation and similarity: Using models to understand the world. Oxford/New York/Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Wendler, R. (2013). Das Model zwischen Kunst und Wissenschaft. Munich: Fink.
Yaneva, A. (2009). The making of a building: A pragmatist approach to architecture. Bern: Peter Lang.
Zauzig, O. (2015). Modelle von Maschinen, Fahrzeugen, Geräten und Instrumenten. http://www.universitaetssammlungen.de/dokumentation/vertiefendes/modelle/maschinen. Accessed 28 Aug 2015.
Zwart, S. D. (2009). Scale modeling in engineering: Froudeʼs case. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, Handbook of the philosophy of science (Vol. 9, pp. 759–798). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ammon, S. (2017). Epilogue: The Rise of Imagery in the Age of Modeling. In: Ammon, S., Capdevila-Werning, R. (eds) The Active Image. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56466-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56466-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56465-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56466-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)