Posted by Per Corell on January 05, 2003 at 04:32:06:
In Reply to: Re: Wire mesh structures posted by Chris on January 03, 2003 at 09:18:56:
Please let me ask you a few questions ;
Now from your post, I get the idear that you think that construction systems topped with profile steel and hangers , --- now please don't get offended that I ask this, but don't you think that first timber structures, then brick structures then horisontal/vertical steel structures is just steps on the way, and that the rigid boxworks of modern high rise buildings already showed their limitations.
Now I know you could be offended, but I simply have to ask ; don't you think that the master timber builder said this was the top, that the master brick master could prove this to be much better than the trash timberworks, and that the architect / ingeneer whit the first steel beam framework thought this to be top of technology.
The argument against the saw was, that "we do not need it" , we can build our Longboats without this Roman gadget so what do we need it for. The argument against the Car was, that there was no place for the hey blocks so how would the horse eat. The argument against 3D-H is that you already have 20 different steel beams, and 30 different special fittings needing each a special mashine to be produced ,meaning an enourmous amount of individual parts, --- so what do you need a method with just one type of material and one type of cutting mashine for.
I tell you why ; as why did anyone start building timber framed buildings, why didn't progress stop there . Why even start building in steel when we have bricks, ------ and why start building organic shape, when nice Lego boxworks fill in the papers as papers have been filled in from the start.
Now there are many aspects in this, also the true role of the creative artist, today and in art history. What most offended talk about is not the arguments of the artist but those of the engineers, and most of these acturly get offended ,not by the visions but from the fact that the creative process are different than before computers came in place. Maby you think as the engineers, that the computer shuld be left to those who will then just scratch the surface with a program that only offer a limited access with what the programmer think an architect need to know about enginering with the only true and accepted building method ; ----- but try think it thru, it's the same idear that made computer art a scrapped artform here in Dk. and it is the same chains that make sure ,that a creative artist must only perform a building, as rigid boxwork ,leaving the forms to be nothing but Decor in a technology that was interduced 25 years ago.
Why is it creative artists are not allowed to experiment with new form languages that allow the building to perform it's own experssion except this expression have to be squeezed into bulky square "this is how we allways did this" , way of thinking. Who are those who dictate the expression and tigh your limitations, ------ why is it, artists allway's had this resistance . Well I do not expect that you ansver all these questions, but please se it like this, that if I made a true 3D project, then this can be manufactored and assembled, ---------- othervise you can simply not place it in a 3D program.
Then as it seem that this very simple system , even in the primitive frameworks I have shown, been that challanging towerds the "accepted" technikes used way before computers, that if I had contribuated a structure with floors (with no hangers or bolts ) , engineers been so stuck in the 3 plane projections, that it mean that they must open their mind to se that production will gain, ------- still when engineers are stuck in this, how do you expect them to supervise architects about this new building system.
A 3D model is used simulating trips to the Astroides, to show tension in math. models of buildings, ---- but you can not "simulate" a simple new building method ?
Did any other architect need to build a fysical model _before_ the drawings , ------- who?
Free 3D Models