Toward Innocence

Choreographing Computation in the Shadow of Spectacle

Authors

Downloads

DOI:

10.31182/cubic.2025.8.77

Keywords:

computational design, synergies, DIKW ladder, design innocence, design 3.0

Abstract

Currently, the role of design and its significance is being drowned in gimmicks, as digital technologies Philosophical Grounding – Beyond Digital Gimmickry now play a significant role in shaping the behaviours, performances and standards of societies, communi- ties, organizations and individuals (Denning & Tedre, 2019).

That stark observation, opening the call for Cubic Journal Issue #8, frames the dilemma of twenty-first-century computation. Digital technologies have woven themselves so completely into contemporary practice that it is now possible, and alarmingly common, for the craft of design to be mistaken for a talent show of software tricks (Caetano & Leitão, 2020). Parametric engines pump out ever-thicker lattices, immersive headsets allow us to rehearse projects before they exist, and generative models To move out of the above cul-de-sac, the present issue of Cubic Journal proposes that we “search for innocence” inside the very computational milieu that so often corrodes it.

Innocence here is not a nostalgic return to drafting tables; rather, it is the discipline of approaching each digital operation as provisional. Every line of code must remain open to revision, every data set negotiable, every interface a two-way conversation instead of a one-way funnel. The ambition is straightforward: let the machine’s plasticity remain a servant to human sense-making rather than an autonomous generator of spectacle. pour shapely novelties onto our screens faster than we can develop opinions about them (LÓpez-LÓpezet al., 2023; Oxman, 2017).

Yet the brighter the spectacle, the more easily it obscures the purpose that once animated design: the careful alignment of material possibility, cultural meaning and lived need. Complexity produced first and explained later is the new cliché (Frické, 2009). A script churns overnight, a form appears at dawn, and the day is then spent inventing a story to justify what the algorithm decided while no one was looking. In that moment authorship blurs: is the designed entity the geometry, the code that birthed it, or the opaque commercial platform that still owns the underlying parameters? When the engine is sealed, we are left admiring not insight but vendor capacity.

This editorial argues for a refram-ing of computational design—not as a pursuit of spectacle or optimization, but as a relational, ethical, and materially grounded practice. We call this shift Design 3.0. This editorial unfolds in three acts (fig. 1): first, a critique of spectacle and a call to recover ethical authorship; second, ten case studies of compu- tational design in practice that ascend the DIKW ladder—from data, through information and knowledge, to wisdom (Ackoff, 1989); and third, a proposal for Design 3.0—an open, reflexive, recipro- cal paradigm for the future.

How to Cite

Lo, T. T. S., & Schnabel, M. A. (2025). Toward Innocence: Choreographing Computation in the Shadow of Spectacle. Cubic Journal, 8(8), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.31182/cubic.2025.8.77

Published

2025-12-01

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 8 (2025): Searching for Innocence Through the Synergies of Interactions — Scripting · Sensing · Interacting

Section

Editorial

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

Tian Tian Sky Lo, Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Sky LO Tian Tian's research explores spatial ‘phygital’ interaction and the relationships between virtual and physical spaces, through transdisciplinary methods that combine design, virtual reality technologies, gamification and digital tools. His research emphasizes multi-level sharing and collaboration from basic data to deep intelligence using Mixed Realty technologies to enhance interaction, knowledge transfer and foster innovation in the design process. His research has used the IoT and virtual visualization to advance different interactive fields and open up the potential for future hybrid interactive experiences and to advance Human-VR Interaction (HVRI). Dr Lo joined The Hong Kong Polytechnic University as an Assistant Professor in 2022. He has organised numerous workshops for DigitalFuture, CCD-ASC, and POLAR and published over numerous papers on transdisciplinary research and interactive design. He contributes to the leadership of organisations including CAADRIA, eCAADe, WORLD16, and World CAAD PhD.

Marc Aurel Schnabel, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University

Professor Marc Aurel Schnabel is an expert in digital architecture, immersive design, and intelligent technologies, with over 30 years of pioneering research in architecture and design. As Dean of the Design School at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, he drives innovation in digital design, smart heritage, and extended reality applications. Previously, he was the Founding Director of the ‘FORUM8 Research Lab’ in Tokyo, where he explored virtual city simulations and blockchain applications in the built environment. A recognised thought leader, he has served as president of multiple professional organisations and is a strategic partner in the European Union’s ‘RE-designing Access to Cultural Heritage’ initiative. His work spans curating digital exhibitions, advancing AI-driven heritage research, establishing global research networks, and bridging academia and industry to shape the future of digital design and digital cultural heritage.

References

Ackoff, R. L. 1989. "From Data to Wisdom." Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16(1), 3–9.

Bannon, L. J., & Ehn, P. 2012. "Design: Design Matters in Participatory design." In Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design (pp. 37–63). Routledge. https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/chapters/edit/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9780203108543-4&type=chapterpdf

Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford University Press.

Becker, C., Chitchyan, R., Duboc, L., Easterbrook, S., Mahaux, M., Penzenstadler, B., Rodriguez-Navas, G., Salinesi, C., Seyff, N., Venters, C., Calero, C., Kocak, S. A., & Betz, S. 2015. The Karlskrona Manifesto for Sustainability Design (No. arXiv:1410.6968). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1410.6968

Beuys, J. 2007. What is Art?: Conversation with Joseph Beuys. Clairview Books.

Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. 2012. "Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges." Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00165

Boden, M. A. 2004. The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Routledge. https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/books/mono/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9780203508527&type=googlepdf

Caetano, I., & Leitão, A. 2020. "Architecture Meets Computation: An Overview of the Evolution of Computational Design Approaches in Architecture." Architectural Science Review, 63(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2019.1680524 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2019.1680524

Coyne, R. 1995. Designing Information Technology in the Postmodern Age: From Method to Metaphor. Mit Press. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/212656 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2373.001.0001

Crawford, K., & Calo, R. 2016. "There Is a Blind Spot in AI Research." Nature, 538(7625), 311–313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/538311a

De Laat, P. B. 2007. "Governance of Open Source Software: State of the Art. " Journal of Management & Governance, 11(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-007-9022-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-007-9022-9

Denning, P. J., & Tedre, M. 2019. Computational Thinking. Mit Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11740.001.0001

Douglas, D. M., Howard, D., & Lacey, J. (2021). "Moral responsibility for computationally designed products." AI and Ethics, 1(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00034-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00034-z

Escobar, A. 2018. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Duke University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822371816

Floridi, L., Cowls, J., King, T. C., & Taddeo, M. 2021. "How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors." In L. Floridi (Ed.), Ethics, Governance, and Policies in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 144, pp. 125–151). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81907-1_9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81907-1_9

Frické, M. 2009. "The Knowledge Pyramid: A Critique of the DIKW Hierarchy." Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551508094050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551508094050

Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. G. 2019. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. Mit Press. https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/4328/Value-Sensitive-DesignShaping-Technology-with DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7585.001.0001

Koyama, Y. 2017. Computational design driven by visual aesthetic preference [PhD Thesis]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tokyo, 2017. (Year: 2017).

Kroll, L. 1987. The Architecture of Complexity. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press. http://archive.org/details/architectureofco0000krol

Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001

Latour, B. 2012. We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press.

Lawson, B. 2006. How Designers Think . Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780080454979/designers-think-bryan-lawson DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080454979

Leslie, D. 2023. "The Ethics of Computational Social Science." In E. Bertoni, M. Fontana, L. Gabrielli, S. Signorelli, & M. Vespe (Eds.), Handbook of Computational Social Science for Policy (pp. 57–104). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16624-2_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16624-2_4

Lo, T. T., Schnabel, M. A., & Gao, Y. 2015. "ModRule: A User-centric Mass Housing Design Platform. "In G. Celani, D. M. Sperling, & J. M. S. Franco (Eds.), Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures. The Next City—New Technologies and the Future of the Built Environment (Vol. 527, pp. 236–254). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47386-3_13 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47386-3_13

López-López, D., Serrano-Jiménez, A., Gavilanes, J., Ventura-Blanch, F., Barrios-Padura, Á., & Díaz-López, C. 2023. "A Study on the Parametric Design Parameters that Influence Environmental Ergonomics and Sustainability." Sustainability, 15 (7), 6304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076304

Manzini, E. 2015. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9873.001.0001

Mökander, J. 2021. "On the Limits of Design: What are the Conceptual Constraints on Designing Artificial Intelligence for Social Good?" In J. Cowls & J. Morley (Eds.), The 2020 Yearbook of the Digital Ethics Lab (pp. 39–52). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80083-3_5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80083-3_5

Nakagaki, T., Yamada, H., & Tóth, Á. 2000. "Maze-solving By an Amoeboid Organism." Nature, 407(6803), 470–470. https://doi.org/10.1038/35035159 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35035159

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763

Oxman, R. 2017. "Thinking Difference: Theories and Models of Parametric Design Thinking." Design Studies, 52, 4–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.06.001

Rowley, J. 2007. "The Wisdom Hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW Hierarchy." Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506070706 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506070706

Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. 2008. "Co-creation and the new landscapes of design." CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068

Simon, H. A. 1988. "The Science of Design: Creating the Artificial." Design Issues, 67–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1511391

Suchman, L. A. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-machine Communication. Cambridge University Press.

Tan, A. G. 2014. "Creativity in Cross-disciplinary Research." In Creativity Research (pp. 68-85). Routledge.

Winograd, T., & Flores, F. 1986. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design (Vol. 335). Ablex Publishing Corporation Norwood, NJ. https://www.academia.edu/download/47371275/0004-3702_2887_2990026-920160720-10432-pfc563.pdf

Wood, J. 2017. Design for Micro-utopias: Making the Unthinkable Possible. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315258157/design-micro-utopias-john-wood DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315258157

Zins, C. 2007. Conceptual Approaches for Defining Data, Information, and Knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(4), 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20508 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20508