Co-Creative Agency: An Insider Perspective on Generative Design through Differential Growth

Year 2026, Volume: 7 Issue: 1 , 72 - 93 , 30.03.2026

F. Aslı Yalçın

https://doi.org/10.53710/jcode.1860642

https://izlik.org/JA39FF69RR

Abstract

The aim of this article is to examine how creative agency in architectural design has transformed in the context of the second digital turn, through interactions between architects and digital environments in generative design settings. It discusses how the human-centered notion of the creative subject, grounded in the Renaissance figure of the “quasi-divine creative architect,” has been challenged by generative algorithms, parametric modeling, and digital fabrication technologies, redefining creative agency as a hybrid “co-creative agent.” The theoretical framework is structured around three axes: (i) Margaret Boden’s approach to creativity, defining it through novelty, surprise, and value, and through combinational, exploratory, and transformational modes; (ii) literature on human–computer co-creativity, including concepts such as human–computer symbiosis, creative provocateur, curator architect, hybrid intelligence, and composite subject; and (iii) 4E cognition theories (embedded, embodied, extended, and enactive), which conceptualize cognition as distributed across body, tools, environment, and action. Together, these axes support the argument that creative agency does not reside in a single mind but emerges relationally across the architect–digital environment–material–production technology network. The study adopts a research-through-design approach that treats design as a mode of knowledge production. An installation produced for the International Architecture Biennial 2025 [institution omitted for blind review] served as both site and research instrument. Interaction processes between the researcher-architect and Rhino–Grasshopper, a differential growth algorithm, AI-assisted visualization tools, and multi-scale 3D printing technologies were documented throughout the process. The resulting dataset—design journals, digital process logs, visual documentation, and technical notes—was analyzed using reflexive qualitative methods, timeline mapping, and thematic analysis. The findings show that the design thinking embodied in the installation satisfies Boden’s criteria of novelty, surprise, and value. Reproducing the traditional abundance motif through a differential growth algorithm enabled: at the combinational level, the unexpected fusion of a familiar motif with organic algorithmic patterns; at the exploratory level, the investigation of new formal spaces through parametric variation; and at the transformational level, the generation of previously impossible forms by rewriting the motif’s defining rules. From a 4E cognition perspective, the process is revealed as embedded in context, shaped by body–tool interaction, extended through digital environments, and constituted through architect–algorithm action loops. The study argues that after the second digital turn, creative agency in architectural design has shifted from a singular human-centered activity toward a hybrid co-creative agent emerging from architect–digital environment interaction. By concretizing this hybrid agency in both process and spatial output, the installation demonstrates that design should be understood as a relational cognitive action enacted through reciprocal human–machine performance. Integrating differential growth–based generative design with parametric modeling and multi-scale 3D fabrication provides an original empirical contribution to the JCoDe special issue, advancing understanding of how cross-scale generative design intelligence is produced.

Keywords

Co-creativity , Research through design , Installation , Generative design , Human–computer interaction

Ethical Statement

This study does not require ethics committee approval. The research was designed and conducted by the author in accordance with scientific and ethical principles, and it is hereby declared that no unethical practice was involved in any stage of the study.

Supporting Institution

-

Thanks

-

Birlikte Yaratıcı Faillik: Diferansiyel Büyüme Üzerinden Üretken Tasarıma İçeriden Bakış

https://izlik.org/JA39FF69RR

Abstract

Bu makale, ikinci sayısal dönüş bağlamında mimari tasarımda yaratıcı faillin niteliğinin nasıl dönüştüğünü sorgulamaktadır. Rönesans’tan bu yana demiurgic, “yarı-tanrısal” yaratıcı mimar figürü etrafında şekillenen insan-merkezli yaratıcı özne anlayışının, üretken algoritmalar, parametrik modelleme ve sayısal üretim teknolojileriyle birlikte geçerliliğini yitirmeye başladığı ileri sürülmektedir. Kuramsal çerçeve, Margaret Boden’in yaratıcılık ölçütleri ve kipleri, insan–bilgisayar birlikte yaratıcılığı literatürü ve 4E biliş (bütünleşmiş, bedenleşmiş, genişletilmiş, enaktif) yaklaşımlarına dayanmaktadır. Çalışma, tasarımı özgün bir bilgi üretim pratiği olarak ele alan tasarım yoluyla araştırma yöntemiyle yürütülmüştür. Uluslararası Mimarlık Bienali 2025 [kör hakemlik süreci gereği kurum adı belirtilmemiştir] için üretilen enstalasyon, araştırmanın hem alanı hem de aracı olarak kullanılmış; geleneksel bereket motifinin parametrik ortamda diferansiyel büyüme algoritmasıyla yeniden üretilmesi ve çok ölçekli 3B baskı süreçleri, araştırmacı-mimarın içeriden deneyimiyle belgelenmiştir. Tasarım günlükleri, sayısal süreç kayıtları, görsel dokümantasyon ve teknik notlardan oluşan veri seti, refleksif nitel bir analizle çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, ortaya çıkan tasarım düşüncesinin Boden’in yenilik, şaşırtıcılık ve değer ölçütleriyle uyumlu olduğunu; kombinasyonel, keşifsel ve dönüşümsel yaratıcılık kiplerinin tasarım sürecinde iç içe geçtiğini göstermektedir. 4E biliş perspektifiyle okunduğunda yaratıcı faillin, mimarın zihninde değil, mimar–sayısal ortam etkileşiminde dağıtık biçimde ortaya çıktığı görülmektedir. Sonuç olarak çalışma, yaratıcı failliğin tekil yaratıcı mimardan melez birlikte-yaratıcı faile kaydığını ve tasarımın insan ile makinenin karşılıklı icrasında gerçekleşen ilişkisel bir bilişsel eylem olarak kavranması gerektiğini ileri sürmektedir.

Keywords

Birlikte yaratıcılık , Tasarım yoluyla araştırma , Enstalasyon , Üretken tasarım , İnsan-bilgisayar etkileşimi

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma etik kurul izni gerektirmemektedir. Araştırmacı tarafından tasarlanan araştırma sürecinde bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uygun hareket edilmiş olup, çalışma kapsamında etik dışı herhangi bir uygulama bulunmadığı beyan edilmektedir.

Supporting Institution

-

Thanks

-

References

• Alberti, L. B. (1988). On the art of building in ten books(J. Rykwert, N. Leach, & R. Tavernor, Trans.). MIT Press.
• Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press.
• Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
• Boden, M. A. (2010). Creativity and art: Three roads to surprise. Oxford University Press.
• Bono, G., & Guerrieri, P. M. (2021). Digital anonymity: Human-machine interaction in architectural design. TECHNE – Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, (2), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.13128/techne-10705
• Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Polity Press.
• Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (2018). Practice-based research in the creative arts: Foundations and futures from the front line. Leonardo, 51(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_01471
• Carpo, M. (2023). Beyond digital design and automation at the end of modernity. MIT Press.
• Chai, H., & Yuan, P.-F. (2023). Hybrid intelligence. Architectural Intelligence, 2, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44223-023-00029-w
• Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7
• Davis, N. (2013). Human–computer co-creativity: Blending human and computational creativity. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, 9(6), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1609/aiide.v9i6.12603
• Davis, N., Hsiao, C.P., Popova, Y., & Magerko, B. (2015). An enactive model of creativity for computational collaboration and co-creation. In N. Zagalo & P. Branco (Eds.), Creativity in the digital age, (pp. 109–133). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6681-8_7
• Engelbart, D. C. (1962). Augmenting human intellect: A conceptual framework. Stanford Research Institute.
• Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 1–5. https://antle.iat.sfu.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2018/08/Frayling.pdf
• Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge.
• Hoffmann, O. (2016). On modeling human–computer co-creativity. In T. Nishida (Ed.), Knowledge, information and creativity support systems, 37–48. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27478-2_3
• Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
• Kantosalo, A. (2019). Human–computer co-creativity: Designing, evaluating and modelling computational collaborators for poetry writing [Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki].
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press.
• Licklider, J. C. R. (1960). Man–computer symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, HFE-1(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/THFE2.1960.4503259
• Negroponte, N. (1970). The architecture machine: Toward a more human environment. MIT Press.
• Negroponte, N. (1975). Soft architecture machines. MIT Press.
• Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. MIT Press.
• Özel, G., & Ennemoser, B. (2019). Interdisciplinary AI. In Proceedings of ACADIA 2019: Ubiquity and Autonomy, 380–391. https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.acadia.2019.380
• Pask, G. (1976). Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology. Elsevier.
• Picon, A. (2011). Digital culture in architecture: An introduction for design professions. Birkhäuser Architecture.
• Picon, A. (2020). Beyond digital avant-gardes: The materiality of architecture and its impact. Architectural Design, 90(5), 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2618
• Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard University Press.
• Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.
• Yang, Q., Steinfeld, A., Rosé, C. P., & Zimmerman, J. (2020). Re-examining whether, why, and how human–AI interaction is uniquely difficult to design. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376301
• Yuan, P. F. (2023). Toward a generative AI-augmented design era. Architectural Intelligence, 2, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44223-023-00038-9