Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Architectural Representation 2
Neil Spiller criticizes that animation programs have undermined the representation of space, failing to really communicate the essence of spatial arrangements and disabling the possibility of the viewer to interact with them since everything it’s given. On the contrary drawings allow us to adapt and imagine space to our own experience making them visually more powerful.One of the problems I believe that as architecture students we are confronted is that we tend to forget that computer applications are tools that enable us to generate forms or design spaces, however the reality is that we allow these programs think for us calculate and generate forms for us, which result in the generation of forms and buildings with geometrical complexity but without a true spatial and conceptual understanding and of course without transcendental originality. Because computer technologies in architecture have been only developed for two decades we still need to understand how to elaborate a process of design and thought instead of just learn how to use them by inertia. (I least I do)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree, and I feel that is why it is so difficult to create successful animations. I feel it can be done, and again, gets back to my rant this morning about getting more in touch with your software of choice so you can use it to do exactly what you want to do. I still feel that as an age of architectural students, in a school where we grew up with a pedagogy of hand drawing and orthographic representation, we think and design in those methods, and we are not ready to breach the design process by dealing strictly with software. I think we all might feel differently about this if we came from a digital design school pedagogy like what I have heard schools like Columbia and even Syracuse have delved into. If we can tackle both sides of this approach, I feel that we could create some amazing designs, and produce the sexy, while informative, graphics necessary for adequate representation.
This brings up a good point. It's the overlap of the two media that generate good design. But it doesn't matter which side you start from. You could either approach the solution to a design problem through the computer, or through pencil and paper. What matters is that you combine the two methods. This allows a designer to view their solution from a different point of view that will hopefully allow them to make objective decisions.
I also love the idea of "learning through inertia." Looks like we're already gaining some speed in this class.
Post a Comment