Style is a broad term that could potentially refer to any features of a work, as well as a fluid concept that is subject to change and disagreement, yet approaches to representing it too often seek either a pre-defined set of generative rules or list of measurable features. Instead, a general and flexible method of retrospectively and automatically representing style is proposed based on the idea of an archetype, to which real designs can be compared, and tested with examples of architectural plans. Unlike a fixed, symbolic representation, both the measurements of features that define a style and the selection of those features themselves can be performed by the machine, making it able to generalise a definition automatically from a set of examples. This process is implemented in analysis, and coupled with a generative algorithm to produce plans in a learned style.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChomskyN: 1957, Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague.
2.
HerseyGL and FreedmanR: 1992, Possible Palladian villas: (plus a few instructively impossible ones). The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
3.
KoningH and EizenbergJ: 1981, The language of the prairie: Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie houses, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 8 pp. 295–323
4.
StinyG and MitchellWJ: 1978, The Palladian grammar. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 5 pp. 5–18.
5.
DudaROHartPE and StorkDG: 2001, Pattern classification. John Wiley & Sons, NY.
6.
GibsonJJ: 1979, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
7.
GombrichE H: 1960, Art and Illusion. Phaidon, London.
8.
StinyG: 1976, Two exercises in formal composition. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 3 pp. 187–210.
9.
StinyG: 1980, Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 7 pp. 343–351.
10.
PratsMEarlCGarnerS and JowersI: 2006, Exploring style through generative shape description, AIEDAM Journal, Cambridge University Press, 20(3).
11.
KnightTW: 1998, Shape Grammars, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Anniversary Issue, 1998, pp. 86–91.
12.
ChanCS: 1994, Operational definitions of style, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 21 pp. 223–246.
13.
AlexanderCIshikawaSSilversteinMJacobsenMFiksdahl-KingI and AngelS: 1977, A Pattern Language, Oxford University Press, New York.
14.
KoileK: 1997, Design conversations with your computer: evaluating experiential qualities of physical form, CAAD futures 1997, pp. 203–218.
15.
KoileK: 2004, An intelligent assistant for conceptual design, in GeroJS (ed), Design Computing and Cognition '04. Kluwer, Dordrecht. pp. 3–22.
16.
JuppJ, and GeroJS: 2003, Towards computational analysis of style in architectural design. in ArgamonS (ed), IJCAI03 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Style Analysis and Synthesis, IJCAI, Acapulco, pp 1–10
17.
GeroJS and KazakovV: 2001, Entropic-based Similarity and Complexity Measures of 2D Architectural Drawings, in GeroJSTverskyB and PurcellT (eds), Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design II, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, Sydney.
18.
JuppJ and GeroJS: 2004, A Characterisation of 2D Architectural Style, Journal of the American Society of Information Science.
19.
GoodmanN: 1975, The Status of Style. Critical Inquiry, vol. 1. Reprinted in GoodmanN: 1978, Ways of Worldmaking. Hackett Publishing Company Inc.Indianapolis.
20.
Vitruvius: 2001, Ten Books on Architecture. Cambridge University Press.
21.
ArthurWBDurlaufS and LaneDA: 1997, Process and Emergence in the Economy, in ArthurWBDurlaufS and LaneDA (eds.) The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1997
22.
HillierB and HansonJ: 1984, The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press.
23.
DuarteJPDucla-SoaresGCaldasJG and RochaJ: 2006, An Urban Grammar for the Medina of Marrakech: Towards a Tool for Urban Design in Islamic Contexts. In GeroJS (ed.) Design Computing and Cognition '06, Springer, pp. 483–502.
24.
CopeD: 2001, Virtual Music: Computer Synthesis of Musical Style. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
25.
TillmannBAbdiH and DowlingWJ: 2004, Musical style perception by a linear auto-associator model and human listeners, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Mucic Perception & Cognition, Evanston, IL.
26.
TurkM and PentlandA: 1991, Eigenfaces for Recognition, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3(1) pp. 71–86.
27.
BurgessC and LundK: 1997, Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimensional semantic space. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, pp. 1–34.
28.
Durrant-WhyteH: 2004, Autonomous navigation in unstructured environments, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision.
29.
TurnerADoxaMO'SullivanD, and PennA: 2001, From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(1) 103–121.
30.
HillierBHansonJPeponisJHudsonJ and BurdettR: 1983, Space Syntax, Architects Journal, 178(48), pp 67–75.
31.
DesyllasJ and DuxburyE: 2001, Axial Maps and Visibility Graph Analysis, Proceedings, 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta.
32.
PeponisJHadjinikolaovELivieratosC and FatourosDA: 1989, The spatial core of urban culture, Ekistics56(334/335), pp. 43–55.
33.
HillierBPennAHansonJGrajewskiT and XuJ: 1993, Natural movement, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 20 pp. 29–66.
34.
SpiliopoulouG and PennA: 1999, Organisations as Multi-Layered Networks, Proceedings, 2nd Intl. Space Syntax Symposium, pp. 1–24.
35.
DesyllasJ: 2000, The Relationship between Urban Street Configuration and Office Rent Patterns in Berlin, PhD thesis, Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, UCL, London.
36.
HillierB and ShuS: 2001, Crime and urban layout: The need for evidence, in BallintyneSPeaseK and McLarenV: Secure Foundations: Key Issues in Crime Prevention and Community Safety. IPPR, London.
37.
DaltonR C, and KirsanC: 2005, Small Graph Matching and Building Genotypes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design (forthcoming).
38.
Robles-KellyA, and HancockE R: 2003, Edit Distance From Graph Spectra. Proceedings of the ninth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV2003).
39.
WestonR: 2004, Key buildings of the twentieth century: plans, sections, elevations. W W Norton & Co. Inc., New York.
40.
TurnerA: 2005, An Algorithmic Definition of the Axial Map, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(3) 425–444.
41.
HannaS: 2005, Where Creativity Comes From: the social spaces of embodied minds, in GeroJS and MaherML (eds.) Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative Design, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, Sydney.
42.
TangH-H and GeroJ: 2001, Sketches as affordances of meanings in the design process. In GeroJ. S.TverskyB. and PurcellT. (eds), 2001, Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design II, University of Sydney, Australia, pp. 271–282.
43.
BrockmanJB and DirectorSW: 1991, The Hercules Task Management System, in Procedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided design.
44.
VapnikV: 1995, The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer-Verlag, New York.
45.
RosenblattF: 1958, The Perceptron: A Probabilistic Model for Information Storage and Organization in the Brain, Psychological Review, 65(6) pp. 386–408.
46.
KohonenT: 1982, Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps, Biological Cybernetics, 43(1) pp. 59–69.
