The Use of Computers In Designing Buildings

[newdirection]

Its difficult to know where your tutor is coming from without knowing him. But my experience was that the tutors were hard on us for 2/3 years to make us question every facet of the design instinctively. I think it worked. I also think that in the first year, the tutors do try to make you analyse your workflow. Pencil and paper IS irreplaceable. You say that the renders show the space better than drawings i the renders you posted. I would totally disagree. Th renders show the space more EASILY, but do not show any indication of your style. Your tutors are trying to nurture you as a designer. Those spaces look dead. They dont convey any design impotus whatsoever. I totally agree with your tutor. You are a first year: They dont want to see product, they want to see CONCEPT and PROCESS. You will not get this from renderings.

 

No one in year one has communicated their interior better. There is spatial design and play of light in these renders. They are communicating spatially. I'm sorry, I disagree.

[aaron-cds]

I agree. My old practice did very simple paint bucket jobs in photoshop from perspectives. It gives you an idea. I could have in fact rendered these, traced and coloured them. I am certainly going to build up more techniques. Practicing perspectives technically makes you sketch in perspective also. I have made some progress and I am going to take some drawing classes.

 

Doing that is missing the point. You just need to learn to draw, not to make your computer presentation look hand drawn.

 

Actually, a good way to practice perspectives would be to take a few of your wireframe models, print them out and try to redraw them. You could do that until you get the feel for vanishing points, which is the easiest thing to mess up on a perspective.

 

When I design, I sometimes do a massing model that I can sketch over. I have the skill to create a perspective by hand, however, tracing over a massing model is quicker. If you were to trace over a massing model you could be more confident with your finished perspective and you wouldn't be as inhibited in your design.

 

A few more threads and you'll graduate from CGA University

[alexg]

Thanks for your support and info. I have been trying to find some interviews with these guys on them talking about the use of the computer.

 

Here's an something from Hani Rashid's interview, it does describe of how he works.

http://architettura.supereva.com/files/20040913/index.htm

 

There are architects that got their ideas from computer imageries (not just 3d) Hani Rashid (Asymptote) is one of them, and there are those that uses computer only as tools of communication, documentation, and feedback (Gehry and Calatrava belongs in this category)

[aaron-cds]

I also think that in the first year, the tutors do try to make you analyse your workflow. Pencil and paper IS irreplaceable. You say that the renders show the space better than drawings i the renders you posted. I would totally disagree. Th renders show the space more EASILY, but do not show any indication of your style. Your tutors are trying to nurture you as a designer. Those spaces look dead. They dont convey any design impotus whatsoever. I totally agree with your tutor. You are a first year: They dont want to see product, they want to see CONCEPT and PROCESS. You will not get this from renderings.

 

BINGO! I agree, the process is hidden in a computer rendering. You should be evaluated on the process more than the outcome at this point in your education.

[newdirection]

Here's an something from Hani Rashid's interview, it does describe of how he works.

http://architettura.supereva.com/files/20040913/index.htm

 

There are architects that got their ideas from computer imageries (not just 3d) Hani Rashid (Asymptote) is one of them, and there are those that uses computer only as tools of communication, documentation, and feedback (Gehry and Calatrava belongs in this category)

 

 

Excellent. I will check this out.

[aaron-cds]

Here's an something from Hani Rashid's interview, it does describe of how he works.

http://architettura.supereva.com/files/20040913/index.htm

 

There are architects that got their ideas from computer imageries (not just 3d) Hani Rashid (Asymptote) is one of them, and there are those that uses computer only as tools of communication, documentation, and feedback (Gehry and Calatrava belongs in this category)

 

Again, you have to learn to walk before you can run. Adam is a first year architecture student.

[newdirection]

Concept. Now it seems to me that the tutors were critical of designs that had no visual link back to the concept. The concept should be a driver for the design but why do you have to adhere to it?

[alexg]

BTW, you will need to spice up your design. Remember it is an educational process, and a good lesson is not to play safe. The design you show is still too safe, too sterile for a studio project.

 

Play more with the elements. Walls doesn't need to look like walls, does not need to stand up right like normal walls, and stairs does not always need to be like a stair.

 

What I see now is just a normal stair, normal balustrade, so-so walls, and a hole in ceiling we call skylight. Yes there are lines in the skylight, but do you have a special story about it? I can't see it from the image

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

My old practice did very simple paint bucket jobs in photoshop from perspectives.

 

i think that is the problem. you have already worked in an architecture firm. you feel you know what you need to learn to be successful. you need to abandon most of that. in a firm, the projects you do, are going to be built. they need to meet codes, they need to be technically accurate, etc... in school, especially the first year or two, it is about learning to design, and learning the process of design.

[newdirection]

After seeing your work, I wonder if you supply enough information of how you get to that 'design' of yours?

In education, unlike the real world, we are more interested in discussing of 'how' the space created, the idea behind your lines, and not in how beautiful they are rendered.

 

Some drawings have the capability to 'speak the design of themselves' but I can't seem to find that in your images. Ok, it's a void and there's some accentuation of the stairs using the light features on the wall. But is there something more?

 

You will need to build up a story to lead up to that image. It can be a text, a diagram, sketch or whatever.

 

Certainly there are concept sheets for this. Concept to design, it was OK but not great. Was there a reflection of the concept spatially, probably not? I struggled with it. It is reflected in the facade more. Translating concept to design is one of the hardest elements. But there can be many different drivers for design.

[alexg]

Translating concept to design is one of the hardest elements.

 

Welcome to architecture!

[aaron-cds]

If you're interested in the role of computers with design take a look at this.

 

http://www.bsu.edu/portfolio/0702/klinger/

http://www.bsu.edu/imade/

 

Kevin Klinger was a grad student at UIUC when I was in my 4th year under grad. He's doing some very interesting research into digital architecture. It's a lot more relevant than the argument that computers should be used as a presentation tool because presentation drawings are out-dated. The computer definately is shaping the direction of architecture, it just has little to do with pretty picture done with vray. You're stair rendering is just that, a rendering. Without seeing the process, the idea is hidden. Having said that, it's just as pointless for you to learn how to do a perspective with markers and colored pencil. Architecture school is about learning how to formulate ideas into space. Drawings are the baby steps that you need to take as an architect.

[newdirection]

If you're interested in the role of computers with design take a look at this.

 

http://www.bsu.edu/portfolio/0702/klinger/

http://www.bsu.edu/imade/

 

Kevin Klinger was a grad student at UIUC when I was in my 4th year under grad. He's doing some very interesting research into digital architecture. It's a lot more relevant than the argument that computers should be used as a presentation tool because presentation drawings are out-dated. The computer definately is shaping the direction of architecture, it just has little to do with pretty picture done with vray. You're stair rendering is just that, a rendering. Without seeing the process, the idea is hidden. Having said that, it's just as pointless for you to learn how to do a perspective with markers and colored pencil. Architecture school is about learning how to formulate ideas into space. Drawings are the baby steps that you need to take as an architect.

 

Thanks I will look at this.

[jackb602]

There's been a lot of general discussion of the merits of using CG to present architectural ideas, but it seems that you have a more pragmatic problem to solve. Unfortunately, your professor sounds very set in his ways. You mentioned that other students have found this to be true, and you worry that he might fail you if you don't give him what he wants, and you obviously don't want to repeat a year.

 

Speaking from experience, trying to win over someone like this is a lost cause. It's late May so I assume your semester is nearly over. So why not just do what he asks, pass the class, and move on? Even if it's distasteful to be forced into a position like this, isn't it better to put it behind you than risk having to deal with this guy for another year?

 

Both you and your professor's arguments have merit, but he gets to assign the grade and he therefore has all the power. Best of luck in finishing your term. Let us know how things turn out.

 

Jack

[newdirection]

Yep, thanks all. An interesting discussion. I better go and do some work or I will fail!

 

One last render for the front of the house.

 

BTW Regardless of the architecture can anyone see merit in the renderings. I need to earn some cash to pay off the priveledge of being a student.

 

I'll follow up links people have given and post back.

 

Cheers.

[JamesTaylor]

I've been through an identical scenario whilst at university, 1st studying Product and Furniture with the tutors not being prepared to accept CG / CAD work and infact being marked down for it. And secondly, having lost my rag with them, passed the year and moved to study multimedia design only to face not being being able to push my work towards arch viz projects because they didn't beleive it to be a "proper" or "recognised" industry. I know how infuriating and wrong it felt...

 

However, having had a few years working and time to look back and reflect i now think and understand how right they were.

 

design is about ideas, form, feel, texture, freedom and expression of oneself. University is about exploration, development and experiences that will lend themselves to your designs in the way of ideas, expressions and forms.

 

what your tutors want to see primarily are hand drawings starting from the 10 second sketches on a beer mat through to the 1 or 2 hours sketches with your quick, rough shading and etched expressions of light flooding a space. They want to see this because when you are using a pencil and paper so more is expressed than simply what the lines depict. The tuor can see life in the images, they way the pencil moved across the paper, the speed it moved, the strength it had applied to it, the no. of times the line was drawn over to give the strength it has... it gives the images atmosphere and expression - the imagination senses so much more information than you can imagine from a single line.

 

It allows you tutor a way to have an insight to the way your mind has worked and your design evolved

 

by using the computer you are restricting yourself to creating forms/spaces that you can model (be it consiously or more likely sub conciously), the forms that "you design" become driven by what you can generate with the software rather than by your imagination. Even if this isn't the case, and i think you would have to be an architectural genius and CAD genius for it not to be, CG renders are so clinical in there representation of spaces and forms that the tutor can no longer see your expression in the design, he doesn't have all that extra information which is giving by a hand drawn line and that is what you are getting marked on.

 

As CG artists everyone on this board from Ernest (who's spent his lifetime working in this industry) to Strat (who most likely has the most posts!) and all the Competition finalists this year are striving to achieve images that convey all the information, expressions and soul that is shown in an architects design sketches... it very rarely occurs that someone truly pulls it off, when they do there will be a thread as long as this where everyone else looks on realises how much better they need to become.

 

Your tutor is your client... you may not like him, you may not agree with what they want and again we've all had clients like this but the bottom line is give them what they are asking for and you'll get paid your fee or in this case given marks.

 

by all means produce some CG images but make them the icing on the cake, you will get marks for using technology but only when used for the right things and at the right point of the process

[Tommy L]

bravo

[newdirection]

design is about ideas, form, feel, texture, freedom and expression of oneself. University is about exploration, development and experiences that will lend themselves to your designs in the way of ideas, expressions and forms.

 

My portfolio reflected this with other forms of work. The CG was the icing on the cake, the last image to back up the design. I personally believe CG can reflect this. I believe it can be valid artistic expression, perhaps not in my renderings and I don't necessarily mean photorealistic renderings. I also produce quick renderings of forms with light in Vray that are inspiring, conceptual exploration.

 

If you look at Zahas books and the paintings she produced in the 80/90s you could argue they were vacuous, titilation and mere graphics. Or you could argue they were exploration into new forms and ways of thinking. Whatever. To be completely dismisive of computers as artistic expression is akin to derision that most artistic movements have faced when they subsequently become hailed as pioneering.

 

I'm not making the rules at Uni but it shouldn't mean I have to be a passive observer about the education I pay for.