Antinomy is a narrative device that is used in literature and in philosophy. An
\nantinomy is a self contradicting sentence or a paradox between two beliefs. These
\ntwo beliefs are inherently correct, but when put together they contradict each
\nother.
\nThis project will delve into the belief that antinomy can be a spatial feeling or
\nexperience within the field of architecture. To be better able to understand this idea,
\nthe project is based on the architectural \u2018image\u2019 and how everything becomes\/is
\nalready an image.
\nSince the subject is architectural images, I took an interest in the architectural
\ntools and media, such as CAD, Rhino and Revit, but I also wanted to expand this
\nframe with less conventional tools such as Blender and Aftereffects. One tool in
\nparticular stood out, Artificial Intelligence. The subject of AI has become very
\ndebated in the last couple months since it has become a very visual and accessible
\ntool thanks to Midjourney, Dall-e and StableDiffusion.
\nA paradox happens between the AI images and the view of an architect. AI can
\nbe seen as a sort of collective consciousness of the digitized world and since
\neverything is an image, we can say the AI contains a vast amount of information. At
\nthe same time the architect has his own collection of information, which on a
\nsurface level is less than that of an AI. Although this information or knowledge is
\nbased on experience, skills and feeling, which is something the vast database of AI
\nlacks. So when asked to make architecture, the AI would give you exactly that and
\nnothing more, the architecture stays on a surface level since it can only be in an
\nimage format and lacks any context. The paradox happens when the AI generated
\narchitecture touches the architect’s view. Even with the vast amount of information
\nused to create architecture it seems to take away information that should be there.
\nHow does this theory apply to practice? I started out with generating AI images and
\nselecting irregularities within these images. These images I would model out in
\nsoftware and thus define them more. Having done this, I could once again extract
\nirregularities and images once again in the form of renders and plans. Due to the
\nprocess of deconstructing ,reconstructing and connecting the architectural image I
\nwould eventually arrive at the spatial antinomy, which takes the form as a new
\nnarrative space. This fulfills the purpose of the antinomy, to be a narrative device,
\nonly now in an architectural, experiential and spatial sense.<\/p>\n