students should learn all of the drawing practices and disciplines by hand and perfect it before moving onto computers, same goes for modelling.... but schools should be spending more resources on technology then they are...

I sarcasticly stated that we should revert to charcoal sticks and bark to do our drawings. My point is that we shouldnt hold ourselves back, embrace technology. many people resist the laser cutter, and discard it as lazy. i have heard that it effects the creative process because we build finished models rather than schematics. I say that the process hasnt been lost but it has changed, and people are always finding new and creative ways of using the laser.
are there any professionals still using ink on mylar?

....and i also must add that I feel there is nothing more valuable than the ability to sketch.

i disagree. there are ways of using the computer that are as fluid and responsive as drawing with a pencil--not that more traditional drawing and modeling techniques should be tossed out. Working between medias is common in architecture, and besides, some people are likely to work better on the computer than by hand. personally, I learned a lot about drawing through drafting on the computer.

i can do ten sketches that say more about an idea or the prospect of an idea faster than you can do one 3d sketch... any day.

if you haven't experienced it in school, you'll surely find out quick enough in a work environment that the interactive nature of sketching with your coworkers, clients, consultants and even by yourself becomes far more valuble than computer 'sketches'

and its not just about speed... a sketch has SO many more layers to it. it invites interpretation, critique and introspection, where computer images often seem predeterminate and final.

that said, i love my computer. i love rhino. i love moving back and forth between the hand sketch and the computer model. i hardly ever 'render' now (although i can, its left to the specialist) but i make geometry just as fast as the best... and its FUN to see an idea become real.

just don't take away my trace.

We believe that within each media type [sketches, hand-drawings, computer CAD drawings, 3D models, virtual modeling, etc] there are both known intrinsic characteristics and undiscovered potentials for form-making, programmatic configuration, and architectural manipulation. We propose the introduction of an oscillation between various media types as a method to help students explore these characteristics to foster a better understanding of how specific media impacts design process. We propose the introduction of an approach that employs an oscillation between media types through each successive phase of project development. In the end, we hope this will generate what we call a hybrid-media solution, similar to the core experiments within our own work.

you can't be hindered by technology itself, only by using it inappropriately.

there are pitfalls that one will fall in to when discovering technology. pencil, brush, knife, paper, strawboard etc are as much a technology as the computer, laser cutter, cnc mill, etc. you have to study these things, come to understand them intimately. once you have done that you have the knowledge to decide what and when a particular technology will work to your advantage, or to your dis-advantage.

there is a trend in the world today where when one does not become 'proficient' with the technology of pencil, brush, knife, strawboard etc they see it as a failing in themselves...."oh well, i mustn't be an artist"...

but when they don't become proficient with the technology of computer, laser cutter, etc they see it as a failing in the technology itself.

if you can't paint, do you blame the brush?

i for one don't think students are in any way hindered by technology, if they know how to use it correctly. perhaps it is a just another part of my ideology brainwashed into me in undergrad, but i believe there is an order to things; in how one learns to approach the issue of technology. people i've worked with who learned to draft by hand first produced much better cad drawings, and the same could be said with regard to physical models vs. digital ones. the first two years of my education we weren't allowed to use my school's woodshop, and everything was drawn out by hand. the second two years, we had full access to the shop and programs like formz. people who've learned in steplike fashion similiar to this seem to me to be more agile designers; they can translate their ideas from one medium to the next more easily. the reason why this is important is that the act of going from one medium to another is as much one of moving between different thought processess, allowing one to see their work in a different way. i do think that students who get into the digital stuff and laser cutters and all that too quickly are hindered, however, but only because they tend to limit themselves to a smaller set of design options. people should learn to work by hand first, but by the time one is finished with one's education, he or she had better of accumulated a proficiency with the widest array of media possible, in order to make themselves a more effective designer.

Isn't it the job of the tutor to fail anyone who is unable to understand and present the issues in a given project. Also to support and continously critique the work of a student guiding them to the steez necessary.

I dont think there is a natural order in design. Draw => model => Cad
To force people who are "close" to the machine to work by hand seems inefficient. As long as the can think and present reasonable work the technique seems irrelevant

what's reasonable work? where do you draw the line between the abstractness of a sketch and the ability of a tutor to interpret it? the language is common, but only up to a certain point (or number of pints).

i've been thaught by a semi-god of uk modernism who couldnt read my sketches, while they were perfectly understood by all the other tutors...so cad became the only language to comunicate in, but the translation wasted time...maybe we should slow the process down and all draw in cad...

or get a wacom and draw in photoshop.

wacom tablets it are good. I've been using mine for years.

http://www.wacom.com/graphire/images/lg_graphire.jpg

sorry, wacom tablets are good!

What is a wacom tablet?

Honestly, I think the problem that some (not all) students are running into regarding technology is that they get bogged down in learning representational techniques before developing their conceptual skills to a point where those techniques can be used very effectively to communicate their ideas...

Well, this is not always the case... Some people who focus on computer technologies early use them as conceptual tools from the start... But there is always the danger of using flashy computer graphics to obscure a lack of depth.

My point of view is that digital technologies are an incredible tool, that they cannot replace hand sketches or physical models, but they are simply another new medium that opens up a huge range of new possibilities in both design and representation and of course in how quickly you can produce drawings...

I have no problem with the tool, I think its how schools teach students to use the tool that is the key... Do they teach them to use them effectively in design, imagination, conceptualization first before representation? Or do they teach digital representation techniques first, as a "smoke and mirrors" technique to obscure how weak their projects really are?

quote: "There seems to be some discussion on technological resources in schools and the effects that they have on students.
When should students be allowed computers?
Has craft been replaced with laser cutters?
Should schools be spending their money on such resources?"

Craftmanship is not limited to physical work with your hands... Craftmanship exists in an approach to work, in processes of consptualizing. This is certainly possible in digital mediums, just as in hand built models or hand drawings...

Hi

"bRink
Craftmanship is not limited to physical work with your hands... "

Exactly and it is not limited by what tools-- except some new tools offer options never realised before. Still also the feel for the material the creative process and ------ experience is what make the real Visions.

But Laser cutters is just a new tool and you need to realise that each new tool is another option .Fact is that they will not ship bricklayers to Mars and fact is that it is no bad thing if houses become four times stronger by structure and will cost a third. But a new tool also is the first step in a direction that can be the promise architecture not realy profited ,as much of what we se as new gadgeds and high-tech, is when you check the code, just the old methods written into fast and more reliable computer code -------- but just doing that make no invention there are nothing new making the old rutines even more boring even the acount become more accurate.
The new tools will make the change from 2D to 3D, but not before it is realised that it is the basic 3D model, that must be the basis for the projecting ------ not just the old floor flanes.

P.C.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/3d-honeycomb-open/

I agree with those who stated that "technology" is merely one more tool in our basket. Personally, I believe that the more tools for representation we have, the better. Some ideas are better brought across by carefully crafted hand drawings that encourage thought and analysis; in other cases, a very clear 3-D rendering is more appropriate.

One thing I noticed last year in school, though, was that sometimes critics favored one method over another, and this was made obvious during reviews. For instance, a student might be praised for a drawing simply because it was done with ink on mylar, not because of any particular merit. A Cad drawing, plotted on mylar and looking virtually identical, would receive no comment. Why? Because it was seen as though the student who had done the hand drawing had spent more time on it and, thus, more effort. Eventually, a tension developed between those who did their work primarily by hand and those who preferred computers. I believe that this occurence, not the use of the technology itself, ended up hindering students because people ended up communicating mostly with those who were using their own medium and losing potentially valuable input by those using the other medium.

Technology can definitely be a lazy man's way out, a way to get flashy images with minimal effort...but that should not be the default attitude about it. Any tool is useful and valid, given the right amount of care and thought.

"I think that guy should be punched in the face, but perhaps it is a sign that you can't resist the tide."

I had a tutor who recommended the above..to add 'life' to a drawing. Either a drawing is strong enough to suggest more than what it stands for (it has not just representational merit but exceeds that through idioysynchratic sugggestion - 'ceci n'est pas une pipe') or a drawing is a drawing is a drawing...Personally, I like dryness and restraint in a drawing...a sort of technicality. I could not understand why a hand-drawing was preferable over a characterless computer line drawing...and one of my favourite architect-scribblers..Cedric Price, draws (and 'thinks' ) like an engineer. It is not true that computer drawings (line) cannot achieve subtelty...there is much to be said for the balance between scale and drawing (adding/subtracting details according to scale) and pen assignment (some greys, black and the occasional red) and colour blocks.

I can almost wretch when I see the hand drawn line wandering over the texture of stone or wood...trying to emulate the porosity, the 'erotics' of miniscule concavities. It also reminds me of walt whitman (I hate him, I hate him, I hate him)..a poetry not of the erotic but of the pornographic...of trying to milk an udder after it has no more to offer. Cruising for sperm across the expanse of the masculine as landscape. A drawing is just a drawing is just a drawing...It is better to have constipation than diarrhea, overused pathos leads to a continual state of whoredom. Morality morality....

Not to mention being entangled in a beard, in a 'progressive' love of manhood for itself, an american tragicomic Pan, sick to the point of being almost tantric, pathological pantheism..but only for male deities. And if females were to be elected to that universie, it is only because they too, like Whitman like Verlaine and Rimbaud, all have asshole. I hate him I hate him I hate him.
It is far better to be a refined nectar (never allowed to mature into honey) castrato than a walt whitman yukiness.

10 years later....when should students be allowed computers?

right away! Why limit them?

We wouldn't ask whether students should be prohibited from presenting work drawn manually. Somehow people associate an old technique with being more primal - but is it? Sketching (versus drafting/CAD/3d modelling) is certainly a more direct way of recording unformed thoughts to discover an idea - but once a student gets to the presentation, it becomes about documenting an idea in a legible way. Though really we're quite close to the point where digital sketching is just as fluent.

As to the notion that there is more craft in manual drafting / modelling - that seems both uninformed and irrelevant.

Uninformed in that digital modelling done well requires real care in organizing components, layers, etc and an understanding of the methods used to generate surfaces or solids which is its own craft. The quality of a digital model is easily apparent to anyone who opens it to explore or adjust.

And the notion is irrelevant in that architecture ideally is about built space and the ideas that form them. Whatever craft goes into the presentation is just decoration. In some ways a good presentation can cover up a tepid architectural idea. Which may be useful professionally, but shouldn't be the focus of an education.

I say all this as someone who graduated from a 5-year program where we were limited to manual presentation for the first 2 years. It was silly, and simply slowed down becoming familiar with the presentation techniques I actually use as a designer now. Sketching, both by pen or rough models, remains an essential tool for developing ideas, but that level of rough development was never the focus of a final presentation.

What do think, another 10 years and the cute little black sketch books architects keep and the process of doodling will be irrelevant as well? Lets say in 10 years you can think the architecture into the computer, would you bother drawing then? After all aren't drawings only one of many forms of Representations of architecture?

Anyone can learn to CAD and BIM is great at creating lazy drafters. Conveying an idea quickly via sketch is a far more important skill than knowing which buttons to press.

The University I'm currently studying at actively discourages computer drawing.  I can appreciate why they take this approach, however my concern is that it may be out of touch with what employers are searching for.  I have no doubt that developing drawing and design techniques by hand in 1st year was beneficial, however it seems absurd to carry this approach into 2nd and 3rd year.  My biggest concern is that for my placement year employers are more likely to be seeking computer skills rather than design or hand drawing skills and that the focus on the latter could potentially hinder my progress in this regard.

there won't be architects in 10 years.  the older generation teaching the next is too hung up on their fascination with rapidograph pens or whatever to teach about the buildings we're supposed to be designing.  the people who hire architects are typically interested in buildings, which could sometimes be a taco bell or an apartment complex for people who can't afford $10,000,000 houses. while it's certainly important to be able to communicate with your clients, the people who hire architects probably don't care what your opinion on rapidograph pens is.  they need a building, so they're going to find a contractor who can design a building instead of the architect telling them about their traditional presentation techniques.

That is the problem with this profession. The old geezers are too busy trying to keep traditions alive, while failing to realize the world around us is leaving us behind. I do agree that sketching is an important skill for any designer to have, but learning to draft with a may-line is an obsolete idea. 

Architects are slowly losing its grip on the profession as a whole, the technology is available but we still hesitate to use them. Yes some are a waste of time, but others can really help us expedite the process and make it profitable.

Olaf - I think there will always be a role for sketching. There is always a point where the idea of a building - or even a detail - where that idea isn't clearly formed, and the designer needs to experiment in a rough way to feel it out. I don't think a computer will ever be able to translate a rough notion into a useful image / model. But I expect more and more architects will do some of their sketching digitally, on an ipad or some not-yet-invented sketch-in-the-air device.

Essentially digital sketching is just an evolution of pen on paper sketching - it's still using your hands to make marks in space.  The idea of a mind-reading pen that does the sketching is intriguing, but it seems like the thought process would be similar. A bit like those setups that allow victims of paralysis to type using their eye movements.

The moleskine notebooks and german pens: they'll still be here. Sometimes people just need a break from looking at a screen.

I don't think that there is a correct answer - sketching vs digital is part of one's personal design process.  I've known people who can whip out their sketch book an jot down a sketch that would give da Vinci some competition and others which can open Rhino and after a couple booleanunions have a pretty convincing design.  School should be a place where students are exposed to multiple design tools/processes and collect the ones that work for them.   

I personally lean digital but depending on the project, I'll sketch the initial idea > 3D model > print > break out some trace and sketch over the massing > refine 3D model > repeat.  To me it boils down to creating the best design solution in the most efficient manner.    

http://metamechanics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/42ZZ.jpg

Spatialsojourner I agree with your last point and curtkram you ate unfortunately spot on........more doodling and rough ideas http://archinect.com/people/project/5808858/doodling/93750155

I disagree with the analogy emmexxthree. Lets say you can do math very fast in your head, then pencil is a waste of time. The calculator is only there for explaining your fast math to those who use pencil instead. So where most are taking time to understand the space slowly others have not only understood the space but imagined the lighting, what it looks like on a rainy day, and how it would sound and feel to walk into a space if the wall was this color and 3 people were in the space playing trumpets...this can all be viscerally imagined. Now 10 years ago to express that in the computer was a great hurdle, still somewhat of a challenge, but its easier now. Lets say students could imagine spaces in realtime in the computer wouldn't that illustrate their design skills better? If we are talking communication skills maybe a sketch is better? Obviously no need to eliminate both mediums, but is the hand drawing method for training spatial aptitude really more effective then the virtual world in a computer? Are there not more limitations to understanding space in 2 dimensions than in 4 dimensions? I really do not see the connection between making 4D into to 2D to understand space better? Why not ask students to model the public buildings instead, that would at least require 3D thinking ar higher level than can be expressed in paper?

I'll second what Chris says. Part of teaching is teaching students to become fluent in their techniques. If the instructor insists on only manual drawing, then students become good only at manual drawing. Given the chance, the better students will figure out what works for them and adopt it quickly, whether that's sketching, drafting, model building, or digital modelling. They should be encouraged to experiment and find this for themselves. Sketching is an important part of this, but not the only suitable method to study space.

There's no magic connection between the hand and the mind. Try sketching with your foot and you'll realize your body itself is a medium that impedes expressing what's in the mind. It's only because most of us with an interest in design grew up sketching that we tend to have developed this fluency by the time we are students. Sketching like CAD is just one of many skills that needs to be learned through practice.

As a student and someone who was first introduced to drafting via hand and T-rulers, I can say that even today with Revit/Rhino/Maya etc, I do all of my initial ideas on paper first. That way, I can, for myself, get a quick grasp of my ideas. If I can't get it out on paper first, then the idea is flawed fundamentally and I have to go back inside my mind to correct it. I can scribble and scratch at the paper until it starts to form, but that, to me, is a waste of time. I usually go another direction entirely and then decide if it works. If it does, then I go digital to bring my idea into a more realized form.

Learning to sketch first (not exclusively) is in my opinion better than going straight and only digital. It's a give and take for me really. I'm learning Revit and Rhino to be better suited for employment, but a sketch, whether architecturally related or not, gets my ideas across to others faster. Also, being able to place notes as you go along is invaluable.

".Part of teaching is teaching students to become fluent in their techniques." Absolutely agree..........BrandonWarner what is funny I do not start until either I think I can sketch it or I take a walk or wash dishes or something. So like you say for yourself if you can not get it on paper first the idea is flawed, I am not sure why but if I do not at least have the urge to put it on paper I will not do anything in the computer........so its a strange scene - a guy sitting in front of blank screen and paper, stands up and walks around a few times, sits back down, scribbles 2 lines on the paper and and a few hours later super realistic renderings and plans and construction details (often what I design first) I had a lot of problems in studio explaining the leap....

Chris Teeter: I had a bit of training in conceptual design from some of the big name guys on conceptart.org and that really helped me with getting that first pencil stroke on paper. It's not so much as making mistakes getting the ideas out, it's getting the idea out. I learned to just draw my ideas and refine later. If I can later make that leap into digital (and it is very hard going manual to digital), then my idea just becomes more rich from the more readily available materials. The end result is the product of hours of thinking sketching, refining, critiques, and other things. I'm lucky to be able to just "sketch" my ideas out without need to wander first or what have you.

But in my studio, not everyone can draw or sketch, so they take freehand classes to learn that skill. It's highly emphasized here but not required. While I can do my work through sketching, they are better apt at the digital side of things. I use them to learn the programs better, and I help them with my skills in sketching to make their work better.

Should screenwriters be made to go back to using typewriters or construction professionals go back to using sun dried bricks and stones on sticks?

Semi-old geezer here... Technology is a tool and like any tool, it has it's pitfalls and comfort levels.  It's finding those tools that allow you to design freely; I don't care what you pick as long as you find something to express yourself.  Think of it as your artistic medium.  Dictating what tools you use is the issue with those controlling that.  Using a tool that limits you is a personal issue.  Somewhere you will hopefully discover the balance.

So, I might hash an idea using pencil and trace.  Explore it using sketchup (replacing clay massing models).  Then refine perspectives going back to graphite rendering and/or photoshop.  Or mix it all up scanning back in my hand sketches overlaying the computer generated or photo backgrounds.  Once I like it and sell it to the client, then I start AutoCAD to make it 'real'.  I could pick a single tool; but why limit myself like that.

What I notice is younger folks limiting themselves to using a single tool to explore, then getting entirely too wrapped up in the 'exactness' that tool can do.   Design should be sloppy then refined... you can't start by refining a piece of that puzzle.  If you do, you tend to become to invested in using it like it's the critical element... I've seen younger architects latch onto some piece and then try to force the rest of the design to revolve around it.

Current job seeker, recent grad...  It seems the be all end all deal breaker for me is that I am not a master at Revit coming out of school.  But if there's one thing I can say regarding that program is that it takes all the design out of design.  Most people who had a boner for Revit in school also had the most mundane projects because they never tried to bend the program to their will, and there was no one around to teach us how to do that.  I became pretty skilled with Sketchup and ACAD, and have had a talent for drawing that I try to keep sharp, which allowed me to be pretty flexible in form.  But if I knew that my job prospects hinged entirely on me being able to click around on Revit in a halfway coherent manner I guess i would've focused on that instead of playing around with architecture.