Design 
  Community 
  Architecture 
  Discussion 
 

Message - Re: opinion on getting back into architecture

    Responses | Architecture Forum | Architecture Students | Architecture Scrapbook | ArchitectureWeek    
   

Posted by  Per Corell on November 16, 2002 at 04:55:02:

In Reply to:  Re: opinion on getting back into architecture posted by steve on November 15, 2002 at 07:38:54:

Hi
Steve please don't get offended when I point to what you write.
But when you say that CAD are just a detail to catch up with, you say a lot about the obvious conflicts , that I se at the main problem of architecture going into this new millinium.
What you say is that there allready for centuries been devellobed methods to project whatever and that CAD are just a mirror of these proceses that anyone with the specific brance knowleage shuld be able to find paralells to, on the CAD screen , ------- and this is true.

But can't you se the limitations, can't you se how CAD, that othervise could handle all this documenting and ordering almost automaticly ,are bound within a rigid idear ,where the only new thing about new-tech are the acturly calculator ---- this time with a screen.
Computer programs are written by programmers not architects, or shuld I say not by creative artists as there are very little creativity within tradisional architect applications. Now I am acturly registrated application develober with AutoCAD ,and I know how simple these computers that a lot of people think are _sooo complicated n are acturly quite simple mashines. Still architects think that you don't need to know your tools being creative.
Realy I find these discussions so depressing on the behave of the architects who have a positive will, to create beauty and progress, but you don't create this without innovations and as you se how it is easyer to attack new idears compared trying them out ,even the old Geostatic method that hounted visionary artists within the architects crafts are now again wakened into life, and those critisising forinstance the 3D-H for cirtain theoretic issues accept what they critic 3D-H for, to be used just forming Bubble dome forms .
--------- As if the world forgot why "organic" structures didn't catch on ; they didn't have the structural abilities and one millimeter wrong at the bottom ,make you add repairs as a part of the building process.

Now as expected I driftet into 3D-H , but exchouse me when I point to the fact, that architects still rather stick to seing CAD as an addition to the methods develobed before computers, with the same idear mirror in the software said to show the top develobment in architecture.

But you are right, architects do a lot of paperwork and that's proberly why a different creative idear find it difficult to catch on , guess 10 years ago you needed more knowleage to even run a computer, as today you just hit the button and find a screen somone force you to use as the only true architectural tool.

 
 
ArchitectureWeek     Search     Buildings     Architects     Types     Places     Pix     Free 3D Models     Store     Library

Search GreatBuildings.com by name of Building, Architect, or Place:   
Examples:  "Fallingwater",  "Wright",  "Paris"           Advanced Search

Responses:




Post a Response -

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:


This is an archive page. Please post continuing discussion to the new Architecture Forums.

To post successfully to the new membership-based DesignCommunity Forums:

    1) Go to the new forums area.
    2) Register with a valid email address.
    3) Receive and respond to the confirmation email.
    4) Then login to the new forum system.



 

Special thanks to our Sustaining Subscribers including BuilderSpace.com .

Home | Great Buildings | CAD Outpost | DesignWorkshop | Free 3D | Gallery | Search | ArchitectureWeek
This document is provided for on-line viewing only. /discussion/23478.html