Why is it that the old timers go on and on about how much harder it was back in their time and how easy we have it today especially with computers. Sometimes the old farts even rave about how school was so much better than it is now. The sad thing is I can't stand up (legally) and say how stupid the old guys are cause they are old and don't know any new tricks but they can say whatever they want based on age (legally). WTF?
What do you think the case is? Is old school really better than new school?
I was on the fence (if you will) of the era (most recently) between group of professors who pushed old school values and techniques and the new generation of computer rendering with your programs (3d max, rhino, maya etc.) Therefore, there is something to be said from all this discussion of one versus the other.
From one point I feel that those that are "old school" or archaic, they are just bitter that they don't understand machine language and can sort themselves through it. That's sad! I've met plenty a folk, whom are old-timers, and they embrace the new generation of "kids" who have mastered this as well as fostered their design abilities through old school techiniques.
In essence, I suppose I feel there must be a balance between what the old school generated and taught us, and the new environs which have loads to offer. Hence, there is not clear-cut manner of approaching this subject matter.
masochism is imbedded early in the culture of architectural education.
There is almost always a sense of pride in having survived a particular task, a particular tutor or a particular span of overnights. Torture, suffering and sleep deprivation become a banner ..
This sadomasochistic (tutor(sadist) implants the seeds in the willing student (masochist) who, in turn (sadist) implants it in forthcoming generations)...
Naturally the subjective perception of who has suffered more , in this culture, feeds into self-righteous attitudes. This is occasionely accompanied with latent Ludditism (usually arising out of the laziness to acquaint oneself with the technologies and hips'n'hypes of youth and veneered with sickly middle-age-crisis nostalgia).
We have thus reached the conclusive side of the formula where that culture of torture and nostalgia (akin to surviving a torture chamber) equals self-electing superman status.
The point on tutors and technology is fair, however it must be remembered that the technology is not the architecture, it is a tool. Those students who waste their time concentrating upon the finite detail of CAD and associated technologies will learn nothing about designing buildings and the theories of architecture. Ultimately architecture is about vision, and while information technology is an important aspect of realising a vision, it is only one aspect amongst many.
A CAD monkey with some architectural skills and a computer will never be better than a good architect with pencil and paper.
The key in understanding the old timers is that it was better in the olden days, less regulation, more respect, less work pressure. A the golden age of the 60’s and 70’s where you could fuck up big style, mainly in concrete - get a nice fee, and move on.
There is too a technology of space...of changing spatial arrangements/connectivity. There is a technology of building envelopes that completley and utterly determine the architecture 'within'. There is a technology of intelligent furniture..technology of passive energy&sustainability....technology of sensor-driven services...
There is a space for an technocratically-driven architecture..y not?
Foster's, Roger's, Hopkin's...the experiential quality of most of their buildings ,within, is repetitive and bland..but as a culture of buildings, they are very interesting....they annotate a culture of , especially British, utilitarianism and its visual and spatial markings. I am not 'warmed' by their architectures..but I would not want to do without them...they are far too interesting as modern archeology.
Fuck 'experiential ooo-aaa's...some things you have to to judge within the context they provide themselves within. There is no 'Architecture'.
you implicitly draw opposition between 'CAD monkey' and 'good architect'. Its not whether you use CAD, information technologies or pencil&paper..its how. Your mythical 'CAD monkey' exists as much as the 'Pencil monkey'....and the manner by which u uncritically connect the architect with the pencil and the monkey with computer software ('good' architect vs CAD Monkey) makes you into an architectural 'hooligan' (bashing the other football team fans).
There should be no teams as such...the pencil is as much a technology as the software..and they are both wombs for potential creativity.
I dislike this whole 'CAD Monkey' architect rhetoric..it is juvenile and so general as to almost be a pro-Luddite myth. Either you like someone's work or not..no need to idealize over what u deem to be proper and improper.
I am getting overheated. I need cross- ventilation.
no..not 'how'..scrap that.
'technologies or pencil&paper..its how' ...I meant..to what end...or through which process..or whatever architectural thingiemebob that is more acceptable than 'how' ..
CAD monkey is a derogatory term within practice and is there to be used. I also indulge in the pro-Luddite myth; which is cathartic and often exposes overseen issues within debate – no offence.
With IT in architectural practice you have to ask yourself what is more important, where should your valuable time be spent. Could someone else do this job more effectively (with guidance) for less cost. I would argue that an architect's time is better spent not indulging their fetishistic behaviour with design software. I would compare this to endlessly sharpening my pencils.
here here Shalak..........there's something to be said of those "quick study" chipboard models that computer rendering and or animations cannot capture......
One word: Tangibility
Discernable by touch...that is what clients want. TO TOUCH US!!!
Clients are generally much more 'old school' in their attitudes than Architects. A good card model can still hold it own with new school digital technologies when it comes to Client meetings. Innovation and creativity needs to be tailored to the Architect Client relationship. Sometimes that involves engaging clients with familiar old school design techniques. bloodclot ARCattack the ‘old farts' will always fall back to nostalgia when confronted with difficult change. Adapt or die.
It's an interesting point you have about chipboard models. I never thought about it until it was brought up here. We occasionaly do both chipboard models and computer renderings in my office. Clients tend to latch onto the chipboard models. Computer renderings are used for marketing but the models make the project seem "real" to them. And there's always an "ooh-ahh" factor there. They always ask with wide eyes, "You built this? Wow." They never question the skill of a computer rendering.
Models are things that stimulate a feeling of passion (good ones, anyway). It's something that a client can 'feel' and touch, giving them a sense that they are paying for something real. A rendering, unless it is framed, looks disposable, and indeed they truly are as you can reproduce as many as you want.
I don't think the general public likes them as much as the clients or architects, though. Perhaps when they have little trees, cars, and water, but a regular basswood model is like a transparent render - 'what material is it'? So this is where renderings come into play. I've done several projects for architects that their clients simly cannot understand the chipboard models and they want to 'see' the space, not the outside.
Personally, I love the one-off nature of models, but they take too many resources (unless you are exploiting students) to do all the time. I think they will both always be here, but CG will continue to dominate as animations become more prevalent.
"...but CG will continue to dominate as animations become more prevalent."
CG will continue to dominate tail end scheme development, but models still have a key place in client liason during sketch scheme and ealier strategic planning.
That's true, BOTS. And I suppose if you got a new snazzy laser cutter you could whip shit out left and right!
It'll be interesting to see. Personally, I love building models and desiging with models, it just takes longer (considering changes, etc.). Not to mention CG pays the bills! :-)
" I love building models and desiging with models, it just takes longer (considering changes, etc.) "
..now that depends on what kind of models you are making, how long does it take to pull off a piece of card and glue another in its place? Although I do accept if it is a fancy plastic model cut with a laser every time then it would take a long time to design stuff.
Jul 4, 04 8:30 pm ·
·
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.
old school vs. new school
Why is it that the old timers go on and on about how much harder it was back in their time and how easy we have it today especially with computers. Sometimes the old farts even rave about how school was so much better than it is now. The sad thing is I can't stand up (legally) and say how stupid the old guys are cause they are old and don't know any new tricks but they can say whatever they want based on age (legally). WTF?
What do you think the case is? Is old school really better than new school?
I was on the fence (if you will) of the era (most recently) between group of professors who pushed old school values and techniques and the new generation of computer rendering with your programs (3d max, rhino, maya etc.) Therefore, there is something to be said from all this discussion of one versus the other.
From one point I feel that those that are "old school" or archaic, they are just bitter that they don't understand machine language and can sort themselves through it. That's sad! I've met plenty a folk, whom are old-timers, and they embrace the new generation of "kids" who have mastered this as well as fostered their design abilities through old school techiniques.
In essence, I suppose I feel there must be a balance between what the old school generated and taught us, and the new environs which have loads to offer. Hence, there is not clear-cut manner of approaching this subject matter.
my $.02 cents for the day!
masochism is imbedded early in the culture of architectural education.
There is almost always a sense of pride in having survived a particular task, a particular tutor or a particular span of overnights. Torture, suffering and sleep deprivation become a banner ..
This sadomasochistic (tutor(sadist) implants the seeds in the willing student (masochist) who, in turn (sadist) implants it in forthcoming generations)...
Naturally the subjective perception of who has suffered more , in this culture, feeds into self-righteous attitudes. This is occasionely accompanied with latent Ludditism (usually arising out of the laziness to acquaint oneself with the technologies and hips'n'hypes of youth and veneered with sickly middle-age-crisis nostalgia).
We have thus reached the conclusive side of the formula where that culture of torture and nostalgia (akin to surviving a torture chamber) equals self-electing superman status.
ayayayay
The point on tutors and technology is fair, however it must be remembered that the technology is not the architecture, it is a tool. Those students who waste their time concentrating upon the finite detail of CAD and associated technologies will learn nothing about designing buildings and the theories of architecture. Ultimately architecture is about vision, and while information technology is an important aspect of realising a vision, it is only one aspect amongst many.
A CAD monkey with some architectural skills and a computer will never be better than a good architect with pencil and paper.
The key in understanding the old timers is that it was better in the olden days, less regulation, more respect, less work pressure. A the golden age of the 60’s and 70’s where you could fuck up big style, mainly in concrete - get a nice fee, and move on.
There is too a technology of space...of changing spatial arrangements/connectivity. There is a technology of building envelopes that completley and utterly determine the architecture 'within'. There is a technology of intelligent furniture..technology of passive energy&sustainability....technology of sensor-driven services...
I think boiling technology down to a dismissive 'CAD and associated technologies' is excatly the clichéd attitude that bloodclot's 'old timers' hang on to.
There is a space for an technocratically-driven architecture..y not?
Foster's, Roger's, Hopkin's...the experiential quality of most of their buildings ,within, is repetitive and bland..but as a culture of buildings, they are very interesting....they annotate a culture of , especially British, utilitarianism and its visual and spatial markings. I am not 'warmed' by their architectures..but I would not want to do without them...they are far too interesting as modern archeology.
Fuck 'experiential ooo-aaa's...some things you have to to judge within the context they provide themselves within. There is no 'Architecture'.
minus number two 'within'
uneDITed
I did mean CAD and information technologies, as in those used in Pracice to inform design.
Apart from that i agree.
old school vs. new school? i'm a fan of hybrid
BOTS, I don't think you agree :)
you implicitly draw opposition between 'CAD monkey' and 'good architect'. Its not whether you use CAD, information technologies or pencil&paper..its how. Your mythical 'CAD monkey' exists as much as the 'Pencil monkey'....and the manner by which u uncritically connect the architect with the pencil and the monkey with computer software ('good' architect vs CAD Monkey) makes you into an architectural 'hooligan' (bashing the other football team fans).
There should be no teams as such...the pencil is as much a technology as the software..and they are both wombs for potential creativity.
I dislike this whole 'CAD Monkey' architect rhetoric..it is juvenile and so general as to almost be a pro-Luddite myth. Either you like someone's work or not..no need to idealize over what u deem to be proper and improper.
I am getting overheated. I need cross- ventilation.
over here thats called Comprehensive School (educational joke for UK)
no..not 'how'..scrap that.
'technologies or pencil&paper..its how' ...I meant..to what end...or through which process..or whatever architectural thingiemebob that is more acceptable than 'how' ..
CAD monkey is a derogatory term within practice and is there to be used. I also indulge in the pro-Luddite myth; which is cathartic and often exposes overseen issues within debate – no offence.
With IT in architectural practice you have to ask yourself what is more important, where should your valuable time be spent. Could someone else do this job more effectively (with guidance) for less cost. I would argue that an architect's time is better spent not indulging their fetishistic behaviour with design software. I would compare this to endlessly sharpening my pencils.
“……..how stupid the old guys are cause they are old and don't know any new tricksâ€
You can judge your age by the amount of pain you feel when you come in contact with a new idea.
Peal S. Buck
well lets take this cad-monkey-cost-effective-production-hull-a-ba-loo out of the discussion...
lets say you are talking architect to architect
here here Shalak..........there's something to be said of those "quick study" chipboard models that computer rendering and or animations cannot capture......
One word: Tangibility
Discernable by touch...that is what clients want. TO TOUCH US!!!
(sorry for the bit of humore there)
humor even, sorry!
Clients are generally much more 'old school' in their attitudes than Architects. A good card model can still hold it own with new school digital technologies when it comes to Client meetings. Innovation and creativity needs to be tailored to the Architect Client relationship. Sometimes that involves engaging clients with familiar old school design techniques. bloodclot ARCattack the ‘old farts' will always fall back to nostalgia when confronted with difficult change. Adapt or die.
It's an interesting point you have about chipboard models. I never thought about it until it was brought up here. We occasionaly do both chipboard models and computer renderings in my office. Clients tend to latch onto the chipboard models. Computer renderings are used for marketing but the models make the project seem "real" to them. And there's always an "ooh-ahh" factor there. They always ask with wide eyes, "You built this? Wow." They never question the skill of a computer rendering.
Models are things that stimulate a feeling of passion (good ones, anyway). It's something that a client can 'feel' and touch, giving them a sense that they are paying for something real. A rendering, unless it is framed, looks disposable, and indeed they truly are as you can reproduce as many as you want.
I don't think the general public likes them as much as the clients or architects, though. Perhaps when they have little trees, cars, and water, but a regular basswood model is like a transparent render - 'what material is it'? So this is where renderings come into play. I've done several projects for architects that their clients simly cannot understand the chipboard models and they want to 'see' the space, not the outside.
Personally, I love the one-off nature of models, but they take too many resources (unless you are exploiting students) to do all the time. I think they will both always be here, but CG will continue to dominate as animations become more prevalent.
"...but CG will continue to dominate as animations become more prevalent."
CG will continue to dominate tail end scheme development, but models still have a key place in client liason during sketch scheme and ealier strategic planning.
"....but they take too many resources (unless you are exploiting students)"
Not necessarily, our company employ a full time modeller. He more than earns his keep and he loves his job
That's true, BOTS. And I suppose if you got a new snazzy laser cutter you could whip shit out left and right!
It'll be interesting to see. Personally, I love building models and desiging with models, it just takes longer (considering changes, etc.). Not to mention CG pays the bills! :-)
" I love building models and desiging with models, it just takes longer (considering changes, etc.) "
..now that depends on what kind of models you are making, how long does it take to pull off a piece of card and glue another in its place? Although I do accept if it is a fancy plastic model cut with a laser every time then it would take a long time to design stuff.
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.