Design training and education using an evolutionary process: training experiences in technological design

We believe that design is innovative only when based on scientific knowledge. The ideas behind so-called “artistic” design, often seem to come from nowhere, without real quality control over the design choices and results. In our opinion, this kind of design might be novel, but not better. Vice versa, scientifically-controlled design uses knowledge; the outcome is a design similar to research based on the evolution of knowledge itself. In this case, the creative process can lead to a better idea-solution compared to previous ones. To be innovative, the end result of this kind of design should prove it is both new and better, and this is possible only through effective quality control. This modus operandi leads us to Leonardo, a great artist, but also a scholar who studied nature scientifically. When designing, Leonardo didn’t rely only on experience, he searched for new knowledge, characterising his design work as research and experimentation. Adopting these principles means assuming the scientific evolution of nature, developed today using generative and non reproductive epigenesis and followed by experimentation involving quality control. Modern architecture provides numerous examples, one of which is the innovative wooden structure of the Scottish Parliamentary Assembly Hall by Miralles. The architect has merged different traditional structures, making the Hall a natural evolution of those structures. Application in education The evolutionary process activated during a workshop including hands-on experimentation will allow the students to think innovatively about architecture. This work, proposed in several of our courses, initially focuses on the basic techniques and data/knowledge required to experiment with this evolution. The problem (topic of the course) is analysed by studying typical and model solutions. The student chooses both a “mother” and “father” technique or solution to study how to become smart creators of “offspring” solutions, experimenting with every possible combination. This approach stops creative paralysis in students during the early stages of the course. As the “offspring” solutions are considered as alternatives to something which already exists (and should naturally evolve from them), the student gets used to working with the overall and details, above all using certain tools such as content maps and simulation models. This stage is crucial so that the details develop gradually and their effect on the overall project be evaluated. The student will learn to carry out detailed quality control on the overall project (e.g., energy consumption, natural lighting, usable surface areas, construction deadlines, costs, etc.) which will be assessed as the result of the evolution of the details. The student will continue to work to develop simple and routine solutions which will gradually become more complex. They will also tackle special projects with several preconditions (e.g., using one kind of material, like a creative cook forced to use just what’s in the fridge). These tests are carried out to improve general quality (e.g. increasingly small houses, buildings with more glass, flexible buildings, automatisms, etc.) using different tools already employed by professionals and which students have to learn to use creatively (e.g., Vensim system or other modelling tools). The study will focus on details, bringing the student into the realm of his chosen profession while the teacher emphasises the link between this work stage and the abstractions required to create real innovation. Conclusion In architecture we often speak of design research. We believe that by referring to Leonardo and his work method we can combine artistic creativity and scientific rigour in a design characterised by research and experimentation, in other words, by precise procedures to elaborate and use dependable knowledge to achieve innovative design, harbinger of real quality results