ON THE RELEVANCE OF BLIND-VARIATION-AND SELECTIVE-RETENTION AS A MODEL FOR ARCHITECTURAL PROBLEM SOLVING

The main aim of the present study is to examine and discuss the relevancy of blind-variation-and-selective-retention as a model for architectural problem solving within the context of architectural education.

As it was stated by Donald Campbell (1960) blind-variation-and-selective-retention is essential for all epistemic activities such as thinking, learning, and general problem solving. This idea is fundamental to the conception of “creative thought” in “evolutionary epistemology,” particularly in the works of Karl Popper and Campbell. The main thesis of the present study is that we can expand this model for the (re)conception of problem solving and “creative thought” or “creativity” in architecture, with some minor modifications. Its second thesis is that the model will be particularly profitable for architectural design education, for teaching/learning how to design and for gaining architectural knowledge.

The architectural adaptation of the model is based on following main assumptions: In architectural problem solving, like all other problem solving processes, a blind-variation-and-selective-retention process is fundamental to all creative achievements. This intrinsically implies that making always comes before selection and modification. Any shortcut bypassing this process, such as the adoption or creation of initial solution-in-principle, is dependent upon earlier solutions and already existing knowledge or wisdom –in a great extent- inherent in them. This also concerns adaptation of the earlier knowledge or wisdom to the new conditions which requires blind-variation-and-selective-retention process.

The Blind-variation-and-selective-retention model of architectural problem solving seems to be contrasting with the conventional view(s) in two accounts. Dwelling on these widely accepted issues may help us to clarify the model: First, it is argued that some sort of already achieved knowledge and wisdom reduces the frequency of blind search, or trial-and-error is not random or blind at all (See Simon 1969, Akın 1986, Newell, Shaw & Simon 1958). It is true that knowledge of earlier solutions is essential to architectural problem solving, but the use of earlier forms for the conception of new ones is not about basic repetition or imitation but requires interpretative/creative modification prior to their application to new conditions which require blind-variation-and-selective-retention. In addition, “creativity” means going beyond what is already known, therefore it should be blind. Second, architectural design is purpose-oriented and teleological. A view of architectural design, which is best illustrated in the functionalist doctrine of Modern Architecture, proposes that the program and the functional considerations is the only legitimate and neutral source and origin of the form, which directly imply the formalization process and the solution, omitting the active preference and intervention of the architect. Although program is fundamental in architectural problem solving, it is misplaced in this conception: Program is only good for selection, not direct formalization. These two arguments (re)locate the tradition (or earlier knowledge) and program in architectural problem solving process.

If blind-variation-and-selective-retention model will be employed for architectural problem solving, particularly within the context of architectural education, following essentials must be (re)considered: First, there must be methods and strategies and also tools for the analysis and understanding of the existing works for gaining already existing knowledge and wisdom as the basis for creative investigation. In architectural problem solving, reliance on tradition is inevitable: one must start where his or her predecessors left. Second, there is also a need for methods and strategies and also tools for variation-creation process. Existence of methods and strategies -although they still do not guarantee the success- is what makes the difference between “blind” search and “random” search. Tools help methods and strategies work or even make them available to this process. Third, there is a need for rigorous selection process which is dependent upon problem formulation and program. Selection-and-retention is the only way for reaching teleological achievements in architectural problem solving and design. Fourth, we need methods, mechanisms and tools providing the continuity of the evolutionary process, for preserving the successful-so-far solutions, and informing the next generation of variations.

(Selected) References:
Akın, Ö., Psychology of Architectural Design (London: Pion Limited, 1986)
Campbell, D.T., “Blind Variation and Selective Retention in Creative Thought as in Other Knowledge Process,” Psychological Review, Vol. 67, No. 6, (1960), pp.380-400.
Campbell, D.T., “Evolutionary Epistemology,” in P.A. Schilpp (Ed.) The Philosophy of Karl Popper, (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1974), pp.413-463.
Newell, A. et al, “Elements of a Theory of Human Problem Solving,” Psychological Review Vol. 65, No. 3 (1958), pp.151-166.
Popper, K.R., Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1972)
Popper, K.R., Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, (New York: Basic Books, 1965)
Simon, H., The Sciences of the Artificial, (Cambridge, London, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1969)