Surfacade?

"Between Surface and Substance"

Technology can (help) produce surfaces. But is technology also the sole formal generator of the surface?

"Yet in some circles there seems to be a strange inclination to produce art by virtue of some sort of esoteric knowledge. May see fit to recognize art - to be sure, art f the most 'sublime order' - ss something deeply mysterious, something enigmatically transcendental, understandable only by the selected few. Such an attitude of exaggerated self-consciousness - where the artist himself frequently plays the role of an innocent tool in the hands of purveyors of esthetic intricacy and commercial humbug - brings art easily into artificial depths and self-deceptive snobbishness." (re-quoting Saarinen, as quoted by author)

The meaning of the product, or even the philosophical underlay of the product, is what elevates the quality of the thing--maybe.

Without meaning, then perhaps the value of the object is lost. Or is it possible for something to be so powerful that the exact meaning is not relevant?

Or is it perhaps the underlying nature of man to seek meaning in things, or else he can no longer identify with what is around himself.

But back to the subject of surface generation... The Aegis Hyposurface is
product of a process that is only feasible with digital technology. It is generated by a medium that can simultaneously coexist at multiple timezones and many locations, and be generated and produced at the same time and in non-congruent methods. But then, is this project an identifier of technology/process or is it a symbol in its production, where its value is in its meaning and methodologies?

Is it meaningful to have a sketch for an architecture to begin a process, and accept that the form rendered is inherently restricted by existing technology and methods? Or would it be more meaningful to generate a form that is not yet visualized, but its creation is already predetermined by the capacity of technology?