Society. Spaces. Screens

Abstract

From an OOO (Object Oriented Ontology) perspective, we critically analyze the emerging design technology of BIM, which is an embodiment of the Actor-Network Theory (ANT). While a building is an object in reality, BIM is a non-exhaustive simulation of the overall relations contained in this building. BIM brings architects significant benefits, such as improving efficiency, precision, and collaboration in architectural design and construction, and reducing human error and material waste; it also has its downsides. It tends to oversimplify complex architectural objects into functional components or parametric models, undermining the unique cultural, historical, and aesthetic qualities of buildings. This “undermining” occurs as BIM views buildings as technical elements to be broken down, rather than as complete objects with independent significance. The heavy reliance on algorithms and technical rules in BIM can limit designers’ creativity and their ability to express cultural narratives, disregarding the inherent value and complexity of the building as an autonomous object. On the contrary, advocates of OOO emphasize the autonomy and richness of objects, countering the reductionist tendencies of computational design tools. Within the critical framework of OOO, this study aims to investigate how BIM has shifted the way architects think of and work with architecture in their daily working process, with an emphasis on how the various products of architectural design (digital/physical models, drawing, etc.) as objects interact with each other in the past and at present. By contrasting the design process that heavily relies on BIM and that employs a rather object-oriented approach, we aim to find out what we have lost and gained in this technological advancement of the design industry. The argument of this study will be mainly based on theoretical analysis and visual analysis accompanied by a few case studies.