you and per-corell should hang out

Thanks.
I have not known per-corell.
I have been influenced by Marcos Novak.

blackharp, don't pick on the man's english.

Cool stuff hidenori.

I'm sorry, my English is not good.

i'm not picking on him. i was serious. per corell is all about the 3dh graphics. these things seem similar to me. i wouldn't pick on anyone for learning english as a second language, i think its great. i only speak english and a little spanish, so wouldn't be in the position to criticize.

i actually didn't notice english was the second language until you mentioned it, ap.

Thank you, blacharp. I want to write accurate English.

I had studied about architecture in graduate school, and had worked in SCE (Sony Computer Entertainment) for designing "Architecture in gaming space" at the same time.

Thinking about architecture of physical-space and that of gaming-space at the same time was very meaningful for me.

I think that "physical" architecture can be criticized from "virtual" architecture. It can be especially said in present age, because Information-space and physical-space overlap mutually in 21st century.

Thank you for your posting.

You wrote 'I think that "physical" architecture can be criticized from "virtual" architecture.' Can you expand on that, or find another way to state it ?

For instance, I think that purer "Architectural idea" can be developed by planning "Architecture" in the place without restriction of gravity etc.

There is architectural activity "unbuild" by the drawing in the past, too. I think that Second Life is its present age version.

I am not "a virtual ideologist".
I think that "architecture in metaverse" can be reflected in "idea of architecture" of the real world.

For me the most important issue about virtural architecture, has been to know that if it can be drawn 3d , then it can be made. Then measures can be taken , then views can follow construction planes and things can be plottet or cut. "Then it can be made" offcaurse refere the problem that in 2D you can fool the eye in an Eschers way, but try draw an Eschers construction in 3D, not possible.
Just let's get it over -- I did spend near 4 years at the acadamy, no I was not registrated as student but I guess it speak it's own reson, when someone are allowed to use the facilities just like that, why that could happen and yes , a few teaching at the place couldn't understand why I did not register when there was professors willing to support the case.
--- After my years there, I was allowed 4 projects at some very famous workshops, doing some qoute advanced design studies --- Must I say the allowance there , required very high skills and projects out of the ordanary. Now you know.

I am sorry about the 3dh -- but back then every architect, everyone having expertations to the computer, reconed that it would have a structural importance. That the computer as seen with the impossible bur fancy polygonmeshes, offcaurse shuld deliver a tool a new tool allowing the architect a new freedom and a chance to act some structural competance. I sort of took the challance knowing that offcaurse that shuld be possible, And I learned myself the total AutoCAD manuals to be sure I could realy use and understand the computer, I took on the most difficult organic shaped structur, a boat hull -- studied the tradisional way's became a boatsbuilder -- translated all those rutines into computer code, and found out no one wanted hightech wooden boats.

So one day, realising my failour and bad economy, but knowing a tradisional craft from the bottom and able to translate that, into something even better and digital, it suddenly stroke me, how tigh up in tradisional thinking this boats building essence realy was, what a boats hull is, what structural entities has a reson and what reson, knowing the a structure and how it behave in water, how to allow it to fly on air bubbles , 3dh came after yars of study, multible test builds, loads of advanced Lisp programming in a glimpse. That vision maneaged in less than one second to tell me down to least detal why 3dh would work -- that it will work huge and small, --- that it is not something to make an outher surface only, but something that can transverse a structure delivering structural support for floors and walls.

Please don't think 3dh came easy -- it did in the sense realising it -- but it was years and years of perfection and studying.

And this shuldn't be about me -- and a lot of people think I am totaly in to 3dh ; I am not but sorry, 3dh realy has advanteages I must put forth. But tell me what gurantie an artist can put up, before you Romans realise that this guy do his things profesional ? You want boats wll , let me display boats build in highest quality crafts , combining advanced programming and skilled crafts. Want Desogn to prove, just check where I has been allowed -- placed a student would bite off his right arm to be allowed. Want art , painted pieces ; please look for the new methods I havn't published yet, what they deliver in terms of bautifull lady's and Stakit Kunst, what you guy's call Street Art. And must I continue explain my skills and how it happened, before architects realise that cutting edge designs has to be genuine, not a picture of what you emagine modern architecture to provide.
Explain that 3dh is not just structural Goo, but something not realised before, -- as it would b impossible to calculate slices out of the tradisioanl construction planes, before the computer, Before 3d.

Please -- It is not me, it's you who has these images in your mind. About 3dh about me -- but please study 3dh before, please realise it before, You see 3dh is just the delivery I made, a delivery based on what architects was asking , what architects expected the computer could maneage -- generate the trivial structure underneath, a structure with it's own structural beauty, a tool different than using the computer to mimic the trivial logistics. A real paragime shift.

It maybe sound strange that I turned to Stakit Kunst and huge pictures, but that to is exiting and art, can be exiting. 3D and programming, building wonderfull small wooden boats and develobing new solutions can be exiting -- but you guy's set particular demands ; art is like this as some dead guy performed his art like this way, that way that is now accepted, and then this Per Corell shal not come here and be different, thau is nat allowed and therefore not arts Basta.

This is what I do these day's -- and yes there are new methods there to:


http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9173/billeder8021copylp3.jpg

Sorry I don't conform, I know artists must conform that's what I been critics most for, not to conform.

HW -- Yes, I believe that is true. There is the Ideal, and the Real. Artists, critics and philosophers have always looked to the Ideal for inspiration and confirmation; the artist's challenge is always to translate the Ideal into the Real.

Guess you are right, but who's ideal, and when evaluated , will a fresh new aproach has a chance ,when everyone expect a particular entrance and in fact expect the new and unique as something they can understand, something they allready has an oppinion about and "know" , and when it is not what is expected -- will that be spoken against it, that the new and unique, realy is so.
These ideals allway's bothered me , the ideal thing is to produce something that please everyone, when everyone think they seen what they would expect from , when images are dull enough and the words wide spread, -- then you delivered something no one will question. But when you deliver something that put up new ideals , then everyone become an expert in what is and blame the new to be different than expected, even your bad spelling or what people emagine in their own mind can talk against change.
Guess that is why there are particular things about art -- it is something new, it is unique and often not seen before, ontop it is beauty.

An important point is, the author of architecture that I showed is "Actual
architect" Please read my blog entry again,

http://archidemo.blogspot.com/2008/07/museum-of-globe.html

They had a lot of architectural works in physical-world.
ex)
http://www.linkclub.or.jp/~aga/sitemap1.html
(It is 3DCG of a "real" architecture)

And also, now they are making "imaginary" and "useful" architecture in Second Life.
http://www.arcg.net/simdesign/web-content/kireina.html

But "Museum of globe" is not a useful architecture but a symbol of the ideal. This is an image of "architecture" that is liberated from "function". Therefore, it has the criticism.

I think we're at the nub of the argument about "what is architecture." First we might distinguish architecture from building.

The job of anyone who builds a structure for human habitation has to be concerned with safety. It is the responsibility of the architect, the engineer, the builder. Then, there is function, and cost, and beauty.

Let's say that we agree it is possible to build an effective building without the input of an architect.

A builder we need, obviously. If the builder is competent and experienced, maybe we can do without an engineer. An architect will bring different training and experiences to the job -- no one can argue that the building will not be better for his participation, if he is any good.

But the architect's real forte is art. A builder, or an engineer, can be an artist, but it is really the specialty of the architect to be a professional artist.

Because of the factors mentioned above -- safety, function, cost -- art alone is not sufficient to make a good building. Few buildings have been built only because they were objects of art. Yet there is one architect, a self-proclaimed artist (or "poet," to use his term), who managed to build hundreds of structures over a long career, each of which is primarily an object of art, and secondarily a useful building. That architect is Frank Lloyd Wright.

The joke about a Frank Lloyd Wright building is that the roof leaks. This is significant because, I believe, the function of keeping water out is just one of many functions that Wright, bless him, really couldn't have cared less about. That, and structural integrity, comfort, accommodation, and durability were just so many taiking points to him -- sometimes one, and then another, would be mentioned in connection with any particular project. But I think, along with historian William Cronon, that what Wright really wanted was to see each design built, so that he could look at the finished product, once -- perhaps to learn from it, perhaps to see his idea of the design realized in the round.

In other words, the object was art --and he had the audacity to convince one client after another to bankroll his artistic ambition, and the daring to believe that whatever consequences would follow from the pursuit of building as -- primarily -- art, he could deal with. Despite the obvious and shocking irresponsibility of such an approach to the building, he was right: he could deal with it. Even more surprisingly, we are still thanking him for doing as he did, more than a century after he began.

Naturally, any normal self-respecting architect cannot be heard to praise such a willfull self-indulgence, operating at the expense of his clients and of society at large. Architects who lived and worked during Wright's lifetime were understandably critical and dismissive of the man, for the very good reasons stated. Yet again and again they pointed to Wright when asked which architects had inspired them.

For better or worse, it would certainly not be possible for anyone today to do as he did. We can only look back in wonder that anyone could get away with such a building career -- with such single-minded determination to build artistic objects that also functioned, more or less, as habitable structures.