This point has been alluded to, but there is research that demonstrates the difference in gross and fine motor skills at the cognitive level. The simple act of how you manipulate different objects like a hammer or pencil are treated differently. If you google gross and fine motor skills, most of the literature points you to adolescent and pre-teen occupational therapy, but that is a critical period in cognitive development.
Juhani Pallasmaa referenced the differences between using a pencil and the mouse in Eyes of the Skin.
It seems like if you go into a building designed on a computer it reveals itself in being sterile and lifeless. You feel as if you are walking through a computer animation, a piece of crap that no one - architect, builder, or user cares anything for in the least.
conversely, do "sterile and lifeless" buildings implicitly point backwards to a computer-centric design process?
Besides that , aren't there good "sterile" buildings. True, I am choosing to interpret that qualification in my own way (and it is quite difficult to know what lifeless means when applied to architecture).
Volunteer, we can both drag this on for ever, both citing good examples of either computer-centric design or hand-drawn design and also bad examples of both.
you don't seem to be willing to confront the suggested conclusions:
1-the presence of good and bad examples, whether hand-drawn or computer-centric, undermine your point that hand drawing inherently adds more quality to a building and guarantees that it is neither sterile not lifeless.
2- contrarily, the presence of good and bad examples, whether hand-drawn or computer-centric, undermine your point that computer-centric design inherently leads to a sterile and lifeless.architecture.
in short, what you are doing is cherry picking your examples to support your thesis which is easily dismissed by merely pointing out to the examples you conveniently choose to ignore.
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.
Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.
As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.
Also, you know, Volunteer, if we are talking about objective design failures, the Sydney Opera House might "not focus the suns rays on nearby objects and cause them to melt or explode." but its acousitcs are supposed to be totally crap. Which is probably much more of a design fault since it contradicts the very purpose of the building in the first place.
It is not improbable that both buildings would have avoided those errors had the process had recourse to (in the Gehry design, more rather less) computer-centric design, calculation and feedback. ;)
quondam "The reason for this warning, and I've seen it happen, is that the moment you leave food on the table unattended, about a dozen or so sea-gulls will "attack" your lunch. Yikes! indeed."
going by what Volunteer said, I thought you were going to say that the building might overheat and overcook your lunch :)
It seems like if you go into a building designed on a computer it reveals itself in being sterile and lifeless. You feel as if you are walking through a computer animation, a piece of crap that no one - architect, builder, or user cares anything for in the least.
This reminds me of when guys say they like girls who are pretty without makeup.
Typically... no they don't. They just like girls who are good at putting on makeup so it looks like they aren't wearing any.
whatever works for you.. if you can design on computer, good for you. If you prefer throwing out a dozen ideas on paper in the time it takes for your program to load up, even better ;P
Fact today is most can't whip up cool designs on computer quickly and suck at drawing also.
Is drawing dead?
This point has been alluded to, but there is research that demonstrates the difference in gross and fine motor skills at the cognitive level. The simple act of how you manipulate different objects like a hammer or pencil are treated differently. If you google gross and fine motor skills, most of the literature points you to adolescent and pre-teen occupational therapy, but that is a critical period in cognitive development.
Juhani Pallasmaa referenced the differences between using a pencil and the mouse in Eyes of the Skin.
Hilarious how these Indian dudes come on commenting with a sly hyperlink.
It seems like if you go into a building designed on a computer it reveals itself in being sterile and lifeless. You feel as if you are walking through a computer animation, a piece of crap that no one - architect, builder, or user cares anything for in the least.
conversely, do "sterile and lifeless" buildings implicitly point backwards to a computer-centric design process?
Besides that , aren't there good "sterile" buildings. True, I am choosing to interpret that qualification in my own way (and it is quite difficult to know what lifeless means when applied to architecture).
The Dulles mid-field terminal compared to the original, and expanded, Saarinen original terminal.
Saarinen Original
Mid-field
one can play that meaningless game in reverse too
nearly all designed by hand (except execution
CAD on a couple)
by FOA, Yokohama international port terminal
Philips Michael Brown Studio, façade study
UN Studio Arnhem Central Station
etc
And the Opera House doesn't even focus the suns rays on nearby objects and cause them to melt or explode.
Volunteer, we can both drag this on for ever, both citing good examples of either computer-centric design or hand-drawn design and also bad examples of both.
you don't seem to be willing to confront the suggested conclusions:
1-the presence of good and bad examples, whether hand-drawn or computer-centric, undermine your point that hand drawing inherently adds more quality to a building and guarantees that it is neither sterile not lifeless.
2- contrarily, the presence of good and bad examples, whether hand-drawn or computer-centric, undermine your point that computer-centric design inherently leads to a sterile and lifeless.architecture.
in short, what you are doing is cherry picking your examples to support your thesis which is easily dismissed by merely pointing out to the examples you conveniently choose to ignore.
Confirmation bias
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.
Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.
As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.
oh looka here
And one can, equaly falsely, claim that the Walt Disney was crap owing to the oprocess of hand drawings (and the models) ...
the only interesting feature of this (il)logic is that it does not recognize direction, it works both ways.
Than you for telling me what I think, I really needed that. Mind where you park when you visit the Disney Hall on a sunny day.
Also, you know, Volunteer, if we are talking about objective design failures, the Sydney Opera House might "not focus the suns rays on nearby objects and cause them to melt or explode." but its acousitcs are supposed to be totally crap. Which is probably much more of a design fault since it contradicts the very purpose of the building in the first place.
It is not improbable that both buildings would have avoided those errors had the process had recourse to (in the Gehry design, more rather less) computer-centric design, calculation and feedback. ;)
quondam "The reason for this warning, and I've seen it happen, is that the moment you leave food on the table unattended, about a dozen or so sea-gulls will "attack" your lunch. Yikes! indeed."
going by what Volunteer said, I thought you were going to say that the building might overheat and overcook your lunch :)
It seems like if you go into a building designed on a computer it reveals itself in being sterile and lifeless. You feel as if you are walking through a computer animation, a piece of crap that no one - architect, builder, or user cares anything for in the least.
This reminds me of when guys say they like girls who are pretty without makeup.
Typically... no they don't. They just like girls who are good at putting on makeup so it looks like they aren't wearing any.
Is drawing dead?
I don't know. Do you think death could possibly be a boat?
whatever works for you.. if you can design on computer, good for you. If you prefer throwing out a dozen ideas on paper in the time it takes for your program to load up, even better ;P
Fact today is most can't whip up cool designs on computer quickly and suck at drawing also.
let me be the first to give a straightforward answer. NO.
curtkram, you can't not-be on a boat.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.