Archinect
anchor

diagrams

tnarch

lokking for resources on diagrams (web or print). appreciate the help. thanks.

 
Aug 24, 06 5:17 pm
garpike

print: Edward Tufte

Can you be a little more specific?

Aug 24, 06 5:24 pm  · 
 · 
e

tufte rocks. i just got mapping: an illustrated guide to graphic navigational systems. have not had a chance to look it over, but it looks interesting.

Aug 24, 06 5:56 pm  · 
 · 
ooid
http://www.visualcomplexity.com/
Aug 24, 06 7:00 pm  · 
 · 
garpike

Pretty much the same diagram over and over, but a pretty cool graphic reference.

Aug 24, 06 7:05 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

this is all u need to know...

Aug 24, 06 7:29 pm  · 
 · 
tnarch

garpike, i'm looking for theory on diagrams: analysis, criticism (rem=diagram...), and history too.

made the post before making the search. thank you for all the responses, regardless.

Aug 24, 06 8:41 pm  · 
 · 
tnarch

garpike, i'm looking for theory on diagrams: analysis, criticism (rem=diagram...), and history too.

made the post before making the search. thank you for all the responses, regardless.

Aug 24, 06 8:41 pm  · 
 · 
hobbitte

don't 4get Eisenman

Aug 24, 06 11:33 pm  · 
 · 
Hasselhoff

Does anyone know that name of that software that allows you to put in data, then it creates a interactive network diagram? I saw someone at school using it, but forget the name. It's much like the Visual Thesaurus. My mom does family tree stuff and I thought it would be really useful.

Aug 25, 06 2:34 am  · 
 · 
trace™

Eisenman (diagram diaries is a great buy)
Hadid
Libeskind
Morphosis

Aug 25, 06 8:40 am  · 
 · 
garpike

Theory on diagrams. I'll try to whip up some articles, but unfortunately I just sent a huge book of goodies to a friend - was a class reader for a Theory of Arch class. Give me a minute or two...

Speaking of Diagram Diaries, anyone want mine? I've spent about 54 seconds on that nonsensical fluff. It makes nice work, but it's just an arbitrary method - then again, aren't all methods arbitary? I just happen to like Hadid's less-BS-is-more approach.

Aug 25, 06 3:34 pm  · 
 · 
trace™

Yes, it's all arbitrary. All theory is and it's all bs, imho, but I dont' care.

But, it's pretty stuff, inspiring and fun to do. Sometimes, it actually helps the process too (Sometimes).

I am with ya. I appreciate strong intuition and true architectural investigations much more than over intellectualized essays.
Hadid's diagrams/paintings are just amazing. They certainly had a phenomenal impact on my education (found her first El Croquis in Manhattan in '95 - good times).

A pretty picture is a pretty picture, though, and everyone likes pretty.

Aug 26, 06 10:59 am  · 
 · 
tnarch

everyone can make pretty...

trace, are you saying we shouldn't theorize architecture at all or just not on aesthetics?

Aug 26, 06 11:22 am  · 
 · 
trace™

I don't think everyone can make pretty. In fact, I think it is one of the most difficult things to do in any creative profession.

I've seen tons more people that can write up some good bs, but not many that have the intuition/eye for making something look good (either buildings, diagrams, graphics, etc.). It's talent, and there isn't much out there (generally speaking).

No, I am not saying we shouldn't theorize, but I do think schools go way over board, and the students follow blindly (I know I did, to some degree). It's not that it's bad stuff, 'cause some of it is fun to read and is inspiring (whatever works for you is good with me), but I just think that schools bring in too much theory and sacrifice too many other things.

I should note that 'theory' is open to interpretation. There is a difference between 'inspiration and ideas' and quoting Derrida or someone else.

Aug 26, 06 4:20 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.

  • ×Search in: