The Position of Digital Fabrication in Architecture: Architectural Construction in Relation to the Epistemological Determination of Digital Fabrication

Digital fabrication is not only a field based on technical knowledge, but it can also be examined from the perspective of epistemological foundations. Unlike the results of technical research, which provide solutions to solve problems of architectural construction, the epistemic foundations of this field by directing the discourse of digital fabrication directly affect the architectural construction and its result. Thus, it is necessary to determine its position in relation to architecture. In response to the question "what is the position of digital fabrication in relation to architectural construction?" this research, in a framework based on the critical analysis of digital discourse by examining the underlying assumptions, will attempt to present images of the position of this discourse in relation to architecture at two levels of superstructure and infrastructure. The first part of this paper analyzes these texts in two ways, content and structure, by limiting the field of discourse superstructure to the books available to the readers. The results of the content analysis define a framework consisting of elements such as form, material, strategy, technique, and tools, which guides reader understanding of digital fabrication. The results of the structural analysis show that reflecting the framework provided by the discourse at the level of these texts, it is possible to construct anything in this field, including architecture. This finding places digital fabrication as an independent field, with its own framework, in a free relationship with architectural construction, which indicates the media role of discourse. The second part, at the infrastructural level, critically examines the digital history in architecture, through the theories of Mario Carpo. This critical reading separates two key dates: first, the history of the digital revolution in architecture, and second, the history of the formation of the digital discourse in architecture, which shows the moment of the formation of the digital discourse in relation to the postmodern theories of architecture such as formalism and deconstruction. Such a result suggests that digital fabrication is dependent on architectural construction and following its theories, which indicates the instrumental role of this discourse in architecture. Finally, the comparative analysis of these results will determine that digital fabrication has a relationship with architectural construction in two places. First, digital fabrication is a field with an independent subject in which anything can be constructed, including architecture, and it determines what architectural construction is and how its issues should be. Second, this field is not an independent subject of architecture, but a field that derived from architectural theories, which solves the problems related to the construction of architecture. The separation of these two positions through the distinction between media and tool foundations in architecture defines a field for construction research whose problems are derived from architectural theories and the answer to them develops digital fabrication with architecture. On the contrary, the confusion of the two leads to a field whose problems are determined by digital fabrication, and solving those problems develops digital fabrication by taking architecture out of its theoretical framework. Between these two seemingly similar actions, there is a gap as big as an epistemological difference that needs to be taken into account.