Primitive Parametric

After attending a the opening and the roundtable discussion about the Primitive Parametric Exhibit, it seemed that most, if not all of the discussion revolved around the use of the word “primitive”. While a semantic discussion can be interesting, and allowed each field to contribute to the discussion, I think it avoided talking about the work that was produced. While semantic disputes are inevitable, there should be a point at which contradictory definitions can be accepted within the context of the discussion. If the exhibit were trying to make a radical point about biology, philosophy or anthropology, a debate about semantics would have been warranted but when the context of the discussion is architectural there has to be a line in the sand that forces the conversation forward.

That being said, I do not think that the exhibit was about a singular primitive parametric. Rather, it was about our primitive understanding of the parametric. A point of debate I remember was that the timeline in the back of the exhibit should have been a branching timeline that explored the historiography of the primitive, and that at no point was their a singular definition of a primitive parametric. By focusing the topic on the understanding of the parametric metaphor, a linear timeline makes sense. At every point in time, there was, from an architectural perspective, a singular, or limited definition of biological metaphors. Each piece of work that was created responded to the cultural understanding of biology at the time, and by charting the evolution of understanding the branching historiography can be reduced to a linear timeline. The timeline is not about biology, but the development of understanding, one that grew increasingly sophisticated over time. Looking back from the contemporary understanding of biologic complexity, it was inevitable that our understanding and our interpretation of the biologic metaphor would become more nuanced and responsive to a biologists understanding of the actual thing. Ultimately to keep the conversation moving forward, I think the exhibit needs to own up to a set of presumptions that end certain unproductive debates.