i think this argument is a rewarding take on indivuality and creativity in architecture. everyone can do it his or her own way.
i personally think the pencil holders though have very little stance so far in this discussion. the idea that a mouse is further disconnected from a pencil isn't very strong considering a computer allows one to draw full scale (details, sections) and allows it to be viewed from a distance (elevations, massing, etc.) which is not disconnected from every scale. The same is true for the pencil, it's just a bit more tedious to try and detail everything. If you really want to get attached to the built object through a pencil, you need to do it 1:1. (And I've done my fair share of 1:1 drafted details. Thank you Mr. Takeuchi) With the computer a tape measure is kept in my drawer and a fare amount of trace has been ripped and crumpled to size an approximate mass. And in the end, the contractor is going to tell you that you have no idea how to put a building together. (Perhaps we should all pick up that nail-gun, etc to really get a sense of scale.)
The arguement that computers and arch education have reduced the value of a "why" in architecture is simply untrue. If anything, by expanding the possibilites it becomes more difficult to be "appropriate" I cite a case that happened our first year in studio. We were building spaces and a group decided to make theirs out of 1/2" steel plate. They took the main piece to a shop bent is, plasma cut it and then welded their platform an everything to it. It was a visually impressive project that had a lot of good spatial qualities to it. However, their crit went down in flames. It was suprising and very alarming. I think it occured to us right then and there that shallow projects would be revealed for what they were. Once out of academia architects are hit with too much crap in order to focus on an ideal. Starchitecture has become an "appropriate" radicalness. That is to say that a strong conceptual process throughout the life of a design project is no longer required to market it, etc. The feasability of a project is fed solely by a name and an image. Frankly, students don't have that. And if they act like it, you're just asking to get hurt in front of your peers.
The argument for scripting that refers to new means and methods in and of themselves a reason for using it is entirely at fault for the sour grapes in this thread. And I agree with both sides. Morons with no concept of history, scale, etc. (insert skill required for present day architecture) are pushing the bounds of architecture by being ignorant. We should praise the students for braving an architecture of uselessness. Pioneering wonderful images of impossibly built meaningless space. Yet, these are still useful as historical images, a reference library of one maybe two good things. There needs to be a conscious choice of how to utilize any tool. Pencil, paper, mouse, digitizer, software. The possiblities that the tool allows should have little to no bearing (we have other things to worry about) on the end product.
Ok this post is getting to long, but...
Two considerations: Designing solely for the digital environment is gaining ground on the physical environment, rapidly. Web design, immersive environments, alternative realities are a "virtual" application of an architects ability. (Why not we stick our noses into everything!)
Second, why limit an architect now? Haven't we shown that anyone can do anything with enough time and effort, research, etc.? Dentists can design buildings! Architects can design web pages. And guess what, they both change the way we think. I think limiting anyones methods or thoughts because they aren't "proper" is foolish. The contractor didn't see a nail gun for the first time (ok, maybe the first time, but not the second or third time) and say "This thing blows" He probably picked it up, framed a wall and said, "Fuck yeah!"
So, I tried to stay in the middle, but it seems like I'm on the software side of things at the moment. But I was recently at IIT in the middle of a battle between the old guard and their 3/8" window stops, and the newer fresher Gang, Urbanlab, etc. And I can say that although I didn't respect everybody. Both sides had considerations that were equally applicable and ignored by the opposite sides.
despite what my previous posts might indicate (yes, i am depressed that the long script post has something to do with architecture, but i'm also depressed that the 4" thick spec book that i produce with a school project does too) i'm probably with postal on the pro-digital side.
but i do have apprehensions - and those have to do with moderation. others have already made the argument that the tools don't replace the thinking, focus on only the tools is a disservice to students, etc.
something not yet discussed is the number of students that can make it out of school now and not be able to draw well, in a way that communicates clearly what they mean. it takes practice, just like everything else, and i wasn't seeing it happening when i was teaching. so, how do you show somebody what you want when you're on a jobsite or at a meeting?
i've always been and always will be uncomfortable with the fact that ANY computer program is essentially a language that must be learned that stands between me and my thinking about a building. doesn't discredit the software, but it is a hurdle. brain-to-pencil is more of a channeling of thoughts into marks than the computer will ever be.
"Both sides had considerations that were equally applicable and ignored by the opposite sides."
i like that way its been put and agree with a lot of what you wrote, postal. there has been too much silly antagonism on both sides against each other, warranted more by personal/professional indignation than practicality and open-mindedness: the brave-new-world revisionist cynic vs the bibilical cast-in-stone smug traditionalist.
"i've always been and always will be uncomfortable with the fact that ANY computer program is essentially a language that must be learned that stands between me and my thinking about a building." steven ward
this assumes you are dismissive of 'language' and of the idea that there is already a language of conceptualization and perception you use in place, one that must be learned and one that has a history of formation. what you say here :
"stands between me and my thinking about a building."
is nonsensically essentialist. next we will talk about you soul and the soul of the building.
I hope I'm not being accused of being antagonistic or narrow-minded here - I'm interested in a discussion, which has occurred and which I'm enjoying very much. I'm definitely not saying the pencil is superior over all methods, if I haven't been clear enough on that point.
postal I agree very strongly with your thought that people who have no concept of history, scale, etc. are not likely to make good architecture no matter what tools they are given.
A thought I had this morning: that digital information isn't physical, thus isn't subject to gravity, and for me everything about architecture has to ultimately relate to gravity. I enjoy having that limit as I think there are infinite challenges within its bounds. That said, I agree, postal, that images of cool, non-gravitational, even non-buildable "spaces" are visual stimuli that have definite value to the discipline - just like John Hejduk's black silhouettes, they are visual poetry that push ideas.
And yeah, as usual, I agree with Steven: being able to communicate an idea via a sharpie on a scrap of 2x4 on site is a tool rchitects really should have.
"that digital information isn't physical, thus isn't subject to gravity, and for me everything about architecture has to ultimately relate to gravity"
liberty, air has to do with earth...this does not mean you dismiss air because earth is all you see. for architects, for professionals, making architecture is a composite of systems of ideas...none of which fall to ground. so with all respect to your person i find your statement autistical. real work is being done by people who work in this ghostly world. even if they do not proceed to the stage of realizing and engineering the project on ground, they fact is they add to the imaginary archive is good enough. architecture, for architects, does not always have to be built. it is more interesting when it does get built, simply because either it flops because it is badly built/not well thought through, or it pushes the parallel disciplines to accomplishment. this might sound rather silly, but i think interesting (as opposed to whatever this good is) architecture (again i stress, for architects) should be already manifest on drawing board or screen. whether it fails empirically is on another (credible)chapter. in any case, anti-gravity is no longer en vogue i think. was it ever?
also since architects have written pamphlets before, designed posters...i don't see why they can't design websites as well.
The fact that these architects "add work to the imaginary archive is good enough" - for them. Agreed, and I think I was saying that in my last post re: Hejduk's drawings.
(It's just not "good enough" for me, as I'd rather be getting muddy on a construction site - that's where my personal passion lies. But I want to understand the digital point of view, because I believe architecture is big enough to hold all of us.)
I love the statement that architecture is made of "systems of ideas" - because of course ideas aren't subject to gravity yet I feel the ideas are as important a component of a built work as the material is - that's what makes it architecture. Good point, and flexible.
Back to the point. I've seen just as many way too cool, way too spaced out hand drawings and presentation drawings for the "non-gravitational" to even be a point.
Lets face it dreamers are dreamers, no matter what tool they use.
I agree with you all completely, there is by far way too much "representation" in both realms, but its a part of the greater picture.
In such a case the issue is being confused. You can create complete bullshit with anything. Sorry if this is too PhD-ish, perhaps you should check out the infamous "what shoes are you wearing?" or the "What color is your bow-tie?" thread if this is the case.
Also, for me...Architecture is not about gravity, but the creation of architypes. For me, saying that gravity is architecture is like saying eating is about teeth.
in the not too distant future this debate may be irrelavent. the continuing development of "other" worlds will allow a person to live most of their lives in a world of their choosing with other likeminded people. in fact, they may decide to not even be people. they be elves or klingons or whatever. in this world they will be able to develop real sitiuations and environments. they will be able to shop to have sex to procreate even. its very near. very very near. get me through the night dreamweaver...
well in the other world you could create a renaissance florence community if you wanted. you could be a saddle maker, a candlemaker, a painter, you could be a medici, it will all be there, even for the pencil huggers.
For my meeting with my Kliingon client tomorrow morning, I think that I am going to show him some code and promise him that his project is in their somewhere. Then I can bill him 100% for schematic design.
Next meeting I will show up with the same sheet of code, and convince him that I have manipulated it and charge him for Design Development.
Eventually, I will send the code to the CNC and it will build them their Klingon poolhouse.
Maybe later you can explain to him that your pancil drawings would be more precise but its hard to zoom into the vellum, therfore your dimensions will be rounded to a half inch, and a radii rounded to the closest fifth degree. No?
You do realize that the craftsmen that build projects round the dimensions anyway, right? What is the point of butthair precision if the company that pours your foundation works with a tolerance of +/- 1/2 inch?
And, if you must know, I don't draw working drawings with pencils either. But in schematic design, I have found that it is significantly more effective to show pencil drawings (not even hard lined) than CAD drawings. Even when I work something out in CAD, I will basically trace it on vellum freehand so that the drawing does not appear too precise.
LB – narrow minded – certainly not! I agree with you (and Steven). The way I see it, a pencil drawing is the first form of conception for which we can utilize technology to extend upon possibilities – but if an Architect can not portray an idea with a pencil, they have no business being an architect. The pencil drawing is at its purest form. This purest form can be extended upon through technology and both methods are utilities we use to create something. So I am pro-pencil and pro-technology :)
the funny thing is that some against using 'too much' physically-removed digital input are using yesterday's digital technology. their arguments could be ,likewise, yesterday's.
this pencil thing is starting to sound facistic. i think a more direct stick-it-in-me means of communication is to finger-bleed Architecture on stone.
"What is the point of butthair precision if the company that pours your foundation works with a tolerance of +/- 1/2 inch?"
I say Hurray! {where I work a 3 or 4 inch tolerance is an every day normality}.
But stil we work with CAD- not scripting, they don't know what that is. becauze is much faster.
Anyway, this is one thred that I really read [not like other ones], though I know it is a bit rethorical - meaning there is no yes or no answear, is a discussion for the discussion per se.
But I think is important to have these kind of discussions - this is the way scripting becomes [slowly] architecture.
Oh, and another thing. People who use scripting and advanced computer programming, they usually don't use the term "beautiful". It is an old, out of fashion expression. They use "interesting", "complex", etc. Something made with/by computer must be more than beautiful to become valuable.
"they usually don't use the term "beautiful". It is an old, out of fashion expression. They use "interesting", "complex", etc."
i think that is just as associatively driven (having a cultural complex) as the traditionalist's dismissal of 'script' or 'parametric'. mathematicians have always expressed their finding beauty in some formulas ...primarily the beauty of the idea and process, rather than of materiality . conjuring a pseudo-scientific language against the old guard's phenomenologically/symbolically loaded language is not equivalent to its outcome (the building/drawing)...it is equally mythical. i find the language used to describe projects sometimes much more disturbing than the design proper could ever be.
related article from this month's Metropolis: Asymptote 3.0
2nd to last paragraph: The problem with techno-utopias is that, to borrow a phrase from Le Corbusier, people must learn to live in them. The Alessi store finally opened its doors to the public on a gray, drizzly August afternoon. Asymptote’s design had admirably achieved the feat of disguising the corridor-like space by deploying mirrors and receding polygonal forms to draw the eye to the retail section at the rear of the store. Tourists meandered around the sparkling merchandise as if they were in a space twice the width. But up front, where an espresso bar was intended to pull in street traffic, the atmosphere was surgically sparse. The fluorescent lights bounced off the crisp epoxy, automotive, and metallic fin-ishes with enough glare to make one wish for sunglasses (if not sterile hospital booties). Excellent coffee notwithstanding, the design seemed to have trouble transitioning into the real world and providing a warm analog welcome.
i kind of agree with you about the bleeding on stone thing. i'm not against pencils but they've been outmoded. like those who have stated it above, their value is conveying quick ideas through sketches. i prefer the analogy of a stick-in-the-dirt over finger-bleeding-stone.
maybe the reason this discussion, and then the discussion for the discussion is contentious is because we believe we have the power to determine what tools we use and how we use them. architects and designers have a degree of power but ultimately these things are pushed upon us from the outside. aren't they? please just agree for the sake of the argument.
now it seems that scripting is being pushed upon us. but this is not the case nor will it ever be. right? scripters (it’s beginning to sound derogatory but then maybe it was from the beginning) producing architecture now fall into two fields: those interested in form and those doing workflow things. there is some overlap between the two and maybe the overlap constitutes an emerging third category. anyway, those interested in form scare us because they’ve sided with the klingon empire or worse, are klingons. But don’t fear the dudes because they’re only dreamers/geeks pushing the limits of their technology – their argument isn’t persuasive, as if they are saying, “join us in the klingon empire.†instead they are saying something like, “the klingon empire fucking rocks, take a look.†i suspect their impact on architecture to be minimal, but then we have to wait twenty years.
what i’m saying is…um. well, here’s a simple example: if Joe and I are competing for the same job at a small firm that needs someone to find the size, shape, position and placement of steel sections along a double curve and Joe knows scripting, then I’m sol. not the best example because in most cases an engineer would do that. what it comes down to is the fact that i like double curves and i don’t want to be outmoded. my decision is to sell my horse (wasn’t that fast anyway) and get a VW. the GTI is sweet.
to my knowledge, traditionally, asymptote's design process has not much to do with that of archi-scripters (Archiscript?). also there is no reason to believe that the tech-chic aesthetic is the necessary detemined outcome where digital software is a partner. this is solely an aesthetic choice...the FOA's yokohama terminal roof/surface could have been draped with parametrically tailored and patterened cow hide if it suited their aesthetic. the continuum of structure-to-aesthetic is a 'literary' one...it requires cultural annotation of sorts. you could very well read the barcelona pavilion, an icon of ephemeral irreferential modernism
from the standpoint of staged kitsch (the chrome and shape of the columns, the sheer luxury of materials, the fakery of cladding and walls that have serve no structural purpose). so the digital/industrial link is a cultural one, not deterministic.
"The problem with techno-utopias is that, to borrow a phrase from Le Corbusier, people must learn to live in them."
then
"Excellent coffee notwithstanding, the design seemed to have trouble transitioning into the real world and providing a warm analog welcome."
this is a presumptuous attack on one aesthetic on the grounds of poor design...linking one grand cliche with one little experience. i beg to disagree....dominic perrault's work, who is never warm or welcoming in the pitched house with gables way, makes beautiful spaces using very similair elements/materiality (a given that the syntax cannot be more different). why can't the author of the article descend from the pedestal of grand critic and just say it was a poorly designed space (or fragment of space..that bar end)? writing down his ego...
Scripts?
for Katze
i think this argument is a rewarding take on indivuality and creativity in architecture. everyone can do it his or her own way.
i personally think the pencil holders though have very little stance so far in this discussion. the idea that a mouse is further disconnected from a pencil isn't very strong considering a computer allows one to draw full scale (details, sections) and allows it to be viewed from a distance (elevations, massing, etc.) which is not disconnected from every scale. The same is true for the pencil, it's just a bit more tedious to try and detail everything. If you really want to get attached to the built object through a pencil, you need to do it 1:1. (And I've done my fair share of 1:1 drafted details. Thank you Mr. Takeuchi) With the computer a tape measure is kept in my drawer and a fare amount of trace has been ripped and crumpled to size an approximate mass. And in the end, the contractor is going to tell you that you have no idea how to put a building together. (Perhaps we should all pick up that nail-gun, etc to really get a sense of scale.)
The arguement that computers and arch education have reduced the value of a "why" in architecture is simply untrue. If anything, by expanding the possibilites it becomes more difficult to be "appropriate" I cite a case that happened our first year in studio. We were building spaces and a group decided to make theirs out of 1/2" steel plate. They took the main piece to a shop bent is, plasma cut it and then welded their platform an everything to it. It was a visually impressive project that had a lot of good spatial qualities to it. However, their crit went down in flames. It was suprising and very alarming. I think it occured to us right then and there that shallow projects would be revealed for what they were. Once out of academia architects are hit with too much crap in order to focus on an ideal. Starchitecture has become an "appropriate" radicalness. That is to say that a strong conceptual process throughout the life of a design project is no longer required to market it, etc. The feasability of a project is fed solely by a name and an image. Frankly, students don't have that. And if they act like it, you're just asking to get hurt in front of your peers.
The argument for scripting that refers to new means and methods in and of themselves a reason for using it is entirely at fault for the sour grapes in this thread. And I agree with both sides. Morons with no concept of history, scale, etc. (insert skill required for present day architecture) are pushing the bounds of architecture by being ignorant. We should praise the students for braving an architecture of uselessness. Pioneering wonderful images of impossibly built meaningless space. Yet, these are still useful as historical images, a reference library of one maybe two good things. There needs to be a conscious choice of how to utilize any tool. Pencil, paper, mouse, digitizer, software. The possiblities that the tool allows should have little to no bearing (we have other things to worry about) on the end product.
Ok this post is getting to long, but...
Two considerations: Designing solely for the digital environment is gaining ground on the physical environment, rapidly. Web design, immersive environments, alternative realities are a "virtual" application of an architects ability. (Why not we stick our noses into everything!)
Second, why limit an architect now? Haven't we shown that anyone can do anything with enough time and effort, research, etc.? Dentists can design buildings! Architects can design web pages. And guess what, they both change the way we think. I think limiting anyones methods or thoughts because they aren't "proper" is foolish. The contractor didn't see a nail gun for the first time (ok, maybe the first time, but not the second or third time) and say "This thing blows" He probably picked it up, framed a wall and said, "Fuck yeah!"
So, I tried to stay in the middle, but it seems like I'm on the software side of things at the moment. But I was recently at IIT in the middle of a battle between the old guard and their 3/8" window stops, and the newer fresher Gang, Urbanlab, etc. And I can say that although I didn't respect everybody. Both sides had considerations that were equally applicable and ignored by the opposite sides.
...but I am a scripter. so, that's my take.
now that's what I'm talk'n about...thanks Vado:) I haven't heard that song in a million years. I can't stop laughing!
The naivete demonstrated in this thread is both shocking and predictable at the same time.
Thank god for Vado.
nice blouse, gary. i do love that song, though.
despite what my previous posts might indicate (yes, i am depressed that the long script post has something to do with architecture, but i'm also depressed that the 4" thick spec book that i produce with a school project does too) i'm probably with postal on the pro-digital side.
but i do have apprehensions - and those have to do with moderation. others have already made the argument that the tools don't replace the thinking, focus on only the tools is a disservice to students, etc.
something not yet discussed is the number of students that can make it out of school now and not be able to draw well, in a way that communicates clearly what they mean. it takes practice, just like everything else, and i wasn't seeing it happening when i was teaching. so, how do you show somebody what you want when you're on a jobsite or at a meeting?
i've always been and always will be uncomfortable with the fact that ANY computer program is essentially a language that must be learned that stands between me and my thinking about a building. doesn't discredit the software, but it is a hurdle. brain-to-pencil is more of a channeling of thoughts into marks than the computer will ever be.
obviously, in the 21stC, we need both.
"Both sides had considerations that were equally applicable and ignored by the opposite sides."
i like that way its been put and agree with a lot of what you wrote, postal. there has been too much silly antagonism on both sides against each other, warranted more by personal/professional indignation than practicality and open-mindedness: the brave-new-world revisionist cynic vs the bibilical cast-in-stone smug traditionalist.
"i've always been and always will be uncomfortable with the fact that ANY computer program is essentially a language that must be learned that stands between me and my thinking about a building." steven ward
this assumes you are dismissive of 'language' and of the idea that there is already a language of conceptualization and perception you use in place, one that must be learned and one that has a history of formation. what you say here :
"stands between me and my thinking about a building."
is nonsensically essentialist. next we will talk about you soul and the soul of the building.
I hope I'm not being accused of being antagonistic or narrow-minded here - I'm interested in a discussion, which has occurred and which I'm enjoying very much. I'm definitely not saying the pencil is superior over all methods, if I haven't been clear enough on that point.
postal I agree very strongly with your thought that people who have no concept of history, scale, etc. are not likely to make good architecture no matter what tools they are given.
A thought I had this morning: that digital information isn't physical, thus isn't subject to gravity, and for me everything about architecture has to ultimately relate to gravity. I enjoy having that limit as I think there are infinite challenges within its bounds. That said, I agree, postal, that images of cool, non-gravitational, even non-buildable "spaces" are visual stimuli that have definite value to the discipline - just like John Hejduk's black silhouettes, they are visual poetry that push ideas.
And yeah, as usual, I agree with Steven: being able to communicate an idea via a sharpie on a scrap of 2x4 on site is a tool rchitects really should have.
I'm always uncomfortable with the fact that a sharpener will always stand between me and the usefulness of my big red pencil.
"that digital information isn't physical, thus isn't subject to gravity, and for me everything about architecture has to ultimately relate to gravity"
liberty, air has to do with earth...this does not mean you dismiss air because earth is all you see. for architects, for professionals, making architecture is a composite of systems of ideas...none of which fall to ground. so with all respect to your person i find your statement autistical. real work is being done by people who work in this ghostly world. even if they do not proceed to the stage of realizing and engineering the project on ground, they fact is they add to the imaginary archive is good enough. architecture, for architects, does not always have to be built. it is more interesting when it does get built, simply because either it flops because it is badly built/not well thought through, or it pushes the parallel disciplines to accomplishment. this might sound rather silly, but i think interesting (as opposed to whatever this good is) architecture (again i stress, for architects) should be already manifest on drawing board or screen. whether it fails empirically is on another (credible)chapter. in any case, anti-gravity is no longer en vogue i think. was it ever?
also since architects have written pamphlets before, designed posters...i don't see why they can't design websites as well.
"they fact is they add "= the fact that they add
swap autism for dyslexia?
The fact that these architects "add work to the imaginary archive is good enough" - for them. Agreed, and I think I was saying that in my last post re: Hejduk's drawings.
(It's just not "good enough" for me, as I'd rather be getting muddy on a construction site - that's where my personal passion lies. But I want to understand the digital point of view, because I believe architecture is big enough to hold all of us.)
I love the statement that architecture is made of "systems of ideas" - because of course ideas aren't subject to gravity yet I feel the ideas are as important a component of a built work as the material is - that's what makes it architecture. Good point, and flexible.
Back to the point. I've seen just as many way too cool, way too spaced out hand drawings and presentation drawings for the "non-gravitational" to even be a point.
Lets face it dreamers are dreamers, no matter what tool they use.
I agree with you all completely, there is by far way too much "representation" in both realms, but its a part of the greater picture.
In such a case the issue is being confused. You can create complete bullshit with anything. Sorry if this is too PhD-ish, perhaps you should check out the infamous "what shoes are you wearing?" or the "What color is your bow-tie?" thread if this is the case.
Also, for me...Architecture is not about gravity, but the creation of architypes. For me, saying that gravity is architecture is like saying eating is about teeth.
in the not too distant future this debate may be irrelavent. the continuing development of "other" worlds will allow a person to live most of their lives in a world of their choosing with other likeminded people. in fact, they may decide to not even be people. they be elves or klingons or whatever. in this world they will be able to develop real sitiuations and environments. they will be able to shop to have sex to procreate even. its very near. very very near. get me through the night dreamweaver...
NAW... pencilhuggers will always exist
well in the other world you could create a renaissance florence community if you wanted. you could be a saddle maker, a candlemaker, a painter, you could be a medici, it will all be there, even for the pencil huggers.
For my meeting with my Kliingon client tomorrow morning, I think that I am going to show him some code and promise him that his project is in their somewhere. Then I can bill him 100% for schematic design.
Next meeting I will show up with the same sheet of code, and convince him that I have manipulated it and charge him for Design Development.
Eventually, I will send the code to the CNC and it will build them their Klingon poolhouse.
Maybe later you can explain to him that your pancil drawings would be more precise but its hard to zoom into the vellum, therfore your dimensions will be rounded to a half inch, and a radii rounded to the closest fifth degree. No?
oh nevermind you're using scripts...
I was joking, but since you asked. . .
You do realize that the craftsmen that build projects round the dimensions anyway, right? What is the point of butthair precision if the company that pours your foundation works with a tolerance of +/- 1/2 inch?
And, if you must know, I don't draw working drawings with pencils either. But in schematic design, I have found that it is significantly more effective to show pencil drawings (not even hard lined) than CAD drawings. Even when I work something out in CAD, I will basically trace it on vellum freehand so that the drawing does not appear too precise.
I was refering to a zoom in-out comment some one made earlier.
It was a joke at any rate....
LB – narrow minded – certainly not! I agree with you (and Steven). The way I see it, a pencil drawing is the first form of conception for which we can utilize technology to extend upon possibilities – but if an Architect can not portray an idea with a pencil, they have no business being an architect. The pencil drawing is at its purest form. This purest form can be extended upon through technology and both methods are utilities we use to create something. So I am pro-pencil and pro-technology :)
the funny thing is that some against using 'too much' physically-removed digital input are using yesterday's digital technology. their arguments could be ,likewise, yesterday's.
this pencil thing is starting to sound facistic. i think a more direct stick-it-in-me means of communication is to finger-bleed Architecture on stone.
"What is the point of butthair precision if the company that pours your foundation works with a tolerance of +/- 1/2 inch?"
I say Hurray! {where I work a 3 or 4 inch tolerance is an every day normality}.
But stil we work with CAD- not scripting, they don't know what that is. becauze is much faster.
Anyway, this is one thred that I really read [not like other ones], though I know it is a bit rethorical - meaning there is no yes or no answear, is a discussion for the discussion per se.
But I think is important to have these kind of discussions - this is the way scripting becomes [slowly] architecture.
Oh, and another thing. People who use scripting and advanced computer programming, they usually don't use the term "beautiful". It is an old, out of fashion expression. They use "interesting", "complex", etc. Something made with/by computer must be more than beautiful to become valuable.
"they usually don't use the term "beautiful". It is an old, out of fashion expression. They use "interesting", "complex", etc."
i think that is just as associatively driven (having a cultural complex) as the traditionalist's dismissal of 'script' or 'parametric'. mathematicians have always expressed their finding beauty in some formulas ...primarily the beauty of the idea and process, rather than of materiality . conjuring a pseudo-scientific language against the old guard's phenomenologically/symbolically loaded language is not equivalent to its outcome (the building/drawing)...it is equally mythical. i find the language used to describe projects sometimes much more disturbing than the design proper could ever be.
related article from this month's Metropolis: Asymptote 3.0
2nd to last paragraph:
The problem with techno-utopias is that, to borrow a phrase from Le Corbusier, people must learn to live in them. The Alessi store finally opened its doors to the public on a gray, drizzly August afternoon. Asymptote’s design had admirably achieved the feat of disguising the corridor-like space by deploying mirrors and receding polygonal forms to draw the eye to the retail section at the rear of the store. Tourists meandered around the sparkling merchandise as if they were in a space twice the width. But up front, where an espresso bar was intended to pull in street traffic, the atmosphere was surgically sparse. The fluorescent lights bounced off the crisp epoxy, automotive, and metallic fin-ishes with enough glare to make one wish for sunglasses (if not sterile hospital booties). Excellent coffee notwithstanding, the design seemed to have trouble transitioning into the real world and providing a warm analog welcome.
i kind of agree with you about the bleeding on stone thing. i'm not against pencils but they've been outmoded. like those who have stated it above, their value is conveying quick ideas through sketches. i prefer the analogy of a stick-in-the-dirt over finger-bleeding-stone.
maybe the reason this discussion, and then the discussion for the discussion is contentious is because we believe we have the power to determine what tools we use and how we use them. architects and designers have a degree of power but ultimately these things are pushed upon us from the outside. aren't they? please just agree for the sake of the argument.
now it seems that scripting is being pushed upon us. but this is not the case nor will it ever be. right? scripters (it’s beginning to sound derogatory but then maybe it was from the beginning) producing architecture now fall into two fields: those interested in form and those doing workflow things. there is some overlap between the two and maybe the overlap constitutes an emerging third category. anyway, those interested in form scare us because they’ve sided with the klingon empire or worse, are klingons. But don’t fear the dudes because they’re only dreamers/geeks pushing the limits of their technology – their argument isn’t persuasive, as if they are saying, “join us in the klingon empire.†instead they are saying something like, “the klingon empire fucking rocks, take a look.†i suspect their impact on architecture to be minimal, but then we have to wait twenty years.
what i’m saying is…um. well, here’s a simple example: if Joe and I are competing for the same job at a small firm that needs someone to find the size, shape, position and placement of steel sections along a double curve and Joe knows scripting, then I’m sol. not the best example because in most cases an engineer would do that. what it comes down to is the fact that i like double curves and i don’t want to be outmoded. my decision is to sell my horse (wasn’t that fast anyway) and get a VW. the GTI is sweet.
did you ever get an answer swampat?
digital information's relationship to gravity
isn't that the holy grail of physics
e.g. unified field theory?
to my knowledge, traditionally, asymptote's design process has not much to do with that of archi-scripters (Archiscript?). also there is no reason to believe that the tech-chic aesthetic is the necessary detemined outcome where digital software is a partner. this is solely an aesthetic choice...the FOA's yokohama terminal roof/surface could have been draped with parametrically tailored and patterened cow hide if it suited their aesthetic. the continuum of structure-to-aesthetic is a 'literary' one...it requires cultural annotation of sorts. you could very well read the barcelona pavilion, an icon of ephemeral irreferential modernism
from the standpoint of staged kitsch (the chrome and shape of the columns, the sheer luxury of materials, the fakery of cladding and walls that have serve no structural purpose). so the digital/industrial link is a cultural one, not deterministic.
"The problem with techno-utopias is that, to borrow a phrase from Le Corbusier, people must learn to live in them."
then
"Excellent coffee notwithstanding, the design seemed to have trouble transitioning into the real world and providing a warm analog welcome."
this is a presumptuous attack on one aesthetic on the grounds of poor design...linking one grand cliche with one little experience. i beg to disagree....dominic perrault's work, who is never warm or welcoming in the pitched house with gables way, makes beautiful spaces using very similair elements/materiality (a given that the syntax cannot be more different). why can't the author of the article descend from the pedestal of grand critic and just say it was a poorly designed space (or fragment of space..that bar end)? writing down his ego...
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.