Design 
  Community 
  Architecture 
  Discussion 
 

Message - Re: PROJECT ONE (rebuilding WTC)

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

Posted by  Per Corell on December 21, 2002 at 01:49:01:

In Reply to:  Re: PROJECT ONE (rebuilding WTC) posted by Peter Sault on December 20, 2002 at 15:06:16:

Hi
I agrea that when you think about the amount of architecture done without, and the quality of the top of this you are right that there are somthing to compeed. Still from my point of view, this is more a question about tools , tools and emagination, tools and production.
The pen is nothing but a tool for your emagination either, and among tools it's the result that count.
Guess the trouble is, that a computer are a nicer toy, the fact that you can play with forms and shapes , and be fully aware, that as soon as you by chance ,luck or skills have performed a nice shape then it is fully documented in the proframs drawing database.
Guess at the start CAD was announced as a handy tool, to delete a wrong line and offer perfect paper drawings, but as soon as you could link entities with a database, the tool woulf fit with standard job of documenting , ----- that you get an exact account of each window with size, color and cost and that most of the actural succes come from using CAD for this, --- refering a drawing offered as a plot on paper on top, but this _is_ about tools ,but maby also the fact that we forgot how to play.
Now a task as the build-around WTC , is no game, it's a serious matter and also a question about etics. Guess we both are just waiting for the master visionary, that with a few lines will show that to solve as serious a task, you must dare ask questions further than our today horison, but you also need an audiance that is open for Visions, who want the true progress that can never be tight to the spots only ment to be memorials and nothing more, ------ you need to presave the building owners in front the site, that it is better to join a greater vision, than going bankrupt in 4 years becaurse they picked the wrong Visions.
CAD would help there , but what everyone tend to forget, is the history of CAD and how CAM very soon came to be mentioned with CAD.
CAD progressed and truely had the natural conservatism to fight, and even today, intire contries hook onto the 15 years old sayings about rather having a pen than a mouse, and romantic idears about the majic of a piece of wood with a center of coal and clay, still today I am sorry to say, that this discussion work by it's negative porpous ,even everyone accepted the touch of the master with the simplest tool, ------ then the aprentish who still have the joy of playing, suddenly will create wonders no pen will ever perform, ---- by playing.
What scared most architects though, was the fact that some of the things you can draw with a computer, did _not_ mean the freedom or the new form language any student want to explore, Domes and organic meshworks in any shape, started up , showing you exiting formworks that only frustrated everyone, who shuld bring the fantasy out into reality, as first the faces could not be made square but had to be divided into triangles , then the intire image changed and you did not get what you projected, and ontop this , you realised that all you would get, would be an increadible expensive vovered arear, with no structure, only an expensive thin shell ; no wonder it took 10 years to find out CAD had limitations, when you stick to a dead end.
Now please let me outline the vorse CAD scenary ; you create a mesh entity ,think it look smooth as in the program and in the screen hardware , everything are smoothened to nice formed curves ; but when you extract the informations about the CAD entity forming your nice organic climat shell, it turn out as a rough zig-zag mesh, that look aufull and is impossible to build, as each face will be one with double curve ; ------- this is not progress but why shuld it take that many years with expensive test builds, to find out that CAD cirtainly did not offer a lower cost pr.sq, arear.
Now I could continiue with facts that would remove any wish to xplore the CAD oppotunity ,and end up arguing and proving, that today's CAD applications will only tie you up in Lego thinking, and you all know where I would end , promoting my own new method.
But as I also want to give you all somthing to wonder about, just remember that I will not find a job. I never been able to find a place where this knowleage and the hard earned experience of an artist, seriously working with the tools of Digitals been able to make a living , Art is wierd isn't it ; a couple of years ago, everyone was talking about all the possible means while I was furious about the lack of knowleage and Visions. And all that emty talk.
The pen is no more than an extention of your will , it's a tool and as you can not cut a plank in two nice halves with a hammer, CAD been judged as if you shuld be able to do so. Then when a few of the true new tools like 3D-H arive, everyone say, " no we want what we allready can emagine, we want somthing new, but it have to look as what we are used to, and then it must be visionary"
-------- Difficult task don't you think ;))

 
 
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/24370.html