Learning to see the world. . .

[garethace]

To maintain a critical balance imagine Architecture as the pivot point, and artificial world of information technology tools/software on one side with the real world around on the other side. Like the Ying and Yang symbol for instance. People studying 3DS MAX/VIZ, even though dealing with something very artificial such as a computer programme, actually become quite observant of the real world around them. Since the first rule in developing a skill at visualisation is to work from reality to begin with. 3DS MAX/VIZ on the one hand empowers the designer to VIZualise the problem/solution in a very comprehensive way indeed. But it demands of the user of the software, to look at the real world around them more deeply than ever before.

 

For instance, if i model a whole town in 3DS VIZ, it requires me to think about that environment from a point of view of people walking, cycling, busing, using light-rail, cars and so on. It requires me to understand urban density, street level activity and a whole lot of other things, perhaps even outside the traditional skill-set of the architect. If I wanted to design a building or a house even, using a computer generated 3-dimensional model - I should perhaps also define the experience of moving through space and time, from the point of view of a participant in the architecture. Francis D.K. Ching has an excellent chapter about Circulation in his famous book.

 

While studying computer generated 3D modelling, I managed to stumble across a new facit of architecture and space - that of natural light. I began to look particularly at Architects who used the element of natural light in their spaces. This includes a vast array of architects from Louis Kahn, to Richard Meier to Tadao Ando. Indeed, by using a completely artificial software, i suddenly became more aware of an element that was entirely natural. But was something I had never before considered such an important element of architectural design. I also began to notice the views through the openings made by architects, and how each architect has their own very characteristic approach to openings.

 

When I began to try to design using something as artificial as a computer programme like 3DS VIZ. Almost one of the first lessons it taught me, was to pay exact attention to the width of a doorway, the height of a table, the size of a window - and how much small variations can often transform a design. How far is 60 metres, how long does it take to walk that distance. Because in 3DS VIZ, 60 metres often can look exactly the same distance as 10 metres, if you are not careful. In other words, there despite the inherent artificiality of computer software, as some people are suspicious of - it always requires you to start from someplace in the real world.

 

I noticed how small people are really - they really become dwarfed by spaces, even internal spaces. Yet how dynamic in nature people are, how much distance they can cover in shere miles during an average weeks work/living/play. I began to notice how certain dimensions of people are measured in miles, while other in millimeters, others in metres. Depending upon how 'dynamic' the activity was - sitting down at home, driving to work, going for a walk in the evening. I could continue on about how much more 'reality' I am aware of, as a result of using an artificial piece of technology, but I think you all have gotten the idea by now!

 

I suppose, when one decides to use technology, one has to counter-balance this endeavour with something equally as strong on the 'real' end of the equation. If artificial software based technology is not 'counter-balanced' properly - then there are problems. The funny thing is, drawing is supposed to 'make' architects look at reality too, and to study it in exactly the same way. Any particular skill, means or tool out there that empowers the designer to VIZualise, demands you to carefully observe the world around you. The behaviour of people is indeed interesting to watch - but as architects, we need something initially 'to make us see' as it were.

 

The A1 sheet of drawings is the mainstay, there is no doubt about that. Over the centuries Architects have become experts at dealing with A1 drawings. And I predict, will also become experts at using computer 3D models. I only hope that the same routine of using drawing to make one see the world around us, is applied to the use of the 3D computer model. In my first job is was fired before I even started, because I couldn't use a computer. When I was in my second job I had to build a 3D computer model of a town, or else be fired. I managed to stay alot longer in my third job, because I was better at making 3D computer models. However, in all of that time 1998-2003. I did struggle to make computer 3D modelling as much a 'looking and seeing' behaviour as mouse-clicking/windows interface using.

 

Initially, I was very much the IT technician, simply punching in the numbers correctly, taking greater care than an Architect would bother to - and therefore getting this kind of work. However, in time, it became less passive, and more a way to actively learn/see. Something similar to what Ching describes in his book about Drawing for Architects. However, it did take 5 years roughly spending time with computers, and getting used to the notion of digital 'files' etc - for me to feel comfortable with these highly artificial systems/tools.

 

To be able to jump from reality/artificiality in a short space of time. I learned to draw in fact, when I was very, very young indeed - by the age of 13 I was drawing much like an adult would -seeing the world in perspective, rather than flat etc. I had trained my brain to see geometric form and volumes in space. Supposedly useful skills to become an Architect - dambed if I know! Obviously, the sketchbook will never be entirely replaced by 3D computer modelling, because one is designed to be portable, while the other isn't! 2D drawings and A1 sheets are going to remain the staple diet of Architects for the future - but I believe the 3D computer model to be a nice addition too - and just like sketching is best used for 'learning to see'.

 

So as I have tried to explain, that a 'specialist activity' such as using a computer programme - one often completely shoved down the throats of young people nowadays, simply because they are 'good at computers' - that very same 'specialist activity' of 3D computer modelling viewed in such a negative way by the profession, can in fact become a very positive way to grow as an Architect.

 

I like to remind myself now, though, since i am using computers since 1998/99 roughly - that some files i have now are 1999 date on them!!!! Even though that file date is like 10 systems back, not even counting all the different systems i have used in colleges, workplaces, web cafes i frequented on hols/living away from home etc, etc.

 

That the data contained in a 1999 file, is still just a useful to me today - and sometimes moreso than it was in 1999. Somehow 1999 data is much more memorable than 1999 hardware! And i assume that is the way it will always be. So computer file formats, as a means of storage, and archiving is much more attractive/fascinating to me, rather than the systems which generated that file - somehow the systems have returned to being invisible to me - just like it was in the beginning.

 

Somehow, that feels strangely right.... Brian O'Hanlon, 29th Aug 2003.

 

[ August 29, 2003, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[garethace]

A nice short article here too:

 

http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0827/tools_1-1.html

 

Dealing with the concepts of design and costing, linked more closely by computer software Revit.

[garethace]

Some rather interesting feed back from tec here:

 

http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2253

[William Alexander]

Brian,

 

Thats a good perspective. In time this media will develop and aid users in developing thier skills, spatialy in what ever media.

 

I've been following the VAST majority of your posts. Kind of alot of whine with the cheese. This post is positive, and relevant, to me anyway. The Max Viz Cad marraige has forced me to look at my specific designs in real terms. Not to mention expanding the discovery process. Enabling real world perspective, not 2D - with a false self percieved understanding. Most important it allows the client and associates to really evaluate a design. Some how, some way, this will become an integral part of the architectural design process, large & small scale. Just exactly how or when is anybody's guess. CG viz is a tough niche market now. Movement to CG speciality is a gamble, with out odds. IMHO

 

When are you going to publish your first Volume of posts. :winkgrin: You have many good pionts and ideas. It would be interesting to read through them in an organized form. WIth of course what your overall approach is to your line of thinking. Respectfully - What is it?

 

brgds

WDA

[garethace]

Here is a history of my thinking upon the subject to date

Well, it recently started off here at cgarchitect where I was just talking about licensing of 3DS VIZ by architectural practices. How this should not be a problem, given that projects cost millions, and VIZ costs a bit over a thousand bucks.

 

Then I discussed this notion at Archiseek About the obstacles to introducing the 3D paradigm to begin with, but it was quickly found, that i was talking more about inter-personnel team working methods, rather than actaul CG specific problems. I.e. That principles could be replaced by cluster based team-working.

 

The notion of the architect as the generalist also raised its ugly head. Meaning that anyone who spends more than five minutes, making a token gesture towards learning computers is waisting their time as a professional. That to be a professional, one must delegate this out.

 

Afterwards, on the same archiseek thread, i proposed some ideas about information management/sharing/knowledge working based on the Microsoft new Science of Knowledge management. I proposed that Architects were indeed, cut off from direct contact with the medium of drawings now - due to a turf war over 'does the draughtsperson or the architect' use the computer. I tried to argue that young architects are now perhaps growing up with less and less contact with the process of how information/drawings are made. And i included examples of where 3D modelling softwares like ADT, Revit, ArchiCAD are a centralised means of containing information about a project. Even though the technology may not be fully figured out yet, that from a knowledge management point of view, the concept was indeed very sound.

 

Then i started a new thread at Archiseek 2 dealing head on with the issue of vocabulary, necessary to define properly how 3DS VIZ might in future develop, was indeed sprinkled around in many different specialisations - that of urbanism especially. And how the definition of space would have to be expanded to include a 4th dimension, that of time, not generally used by architects presently. A dimension which is indeed difficult to get at, because, currently we are so defined by 2-dimensional sheets of paper - and unlike the Urbanist, do not spend nearly enough time experiencing walking. This experience of walking, is central to how i think 3DS VIZ needs to be approached. I think that Francis D.K. Chings book is good at dealing with the 4th dimension, in his circulation chapter.

 

I also proposed a rather fanciful idea, that Le Corbusier was also be into alot of things. If the Architect is such a generalist, then why did one of their most famous heros, get obsessive about technology in the early part of the 20th century, later becoming obsessive about just urbanism, furniture, painting, the Modular, pure forms in light, dynamism of human beings, ramps etc, etc, etc. I think Le Corbusier is indeed a perfect example of what architects shouldn't do - if one were to follow the rules and just be a generalist.

 

Archiseek 3 This is the Learning to see post, and finally, does try to make some kind of peace between architects and visualisation. I needed to feel something conclusive/positive at this point. So I wrote this ying/yang idea of visualisation - which explains, what i said above. That visualisation, expects you, requires you, forces you to nose around, outside the confines of the Architectural profession as it is, and to look in all kinds of dumpsters for clues as to why a 3D computer model is different from a set of 1:200 drawings.

 

I have a series of papers written myself this year, mostly in very ranting-like tracks of text. About issues like Planning, with hundreds of people commuting, circulation inside a building of a individual, circulation on the scale of a town, or a public park/public buildings.

 

Then ideas to do with density of living, how environments can sprawl/be dense.

 

Then ideas about interior space, about the treatment of light/openings by Louis Kahn, Richard Meier, Steven Holl and so forth. How these people integrate dynamic motion and light/openings/views together. (All covered well in Ching)

 

Then just looking at various skins of buildings, treatments, materials etc.

 

I said, the using 3DS VIZ really does necessitate you to understand these real aspects more, to input some of yourself into the computer program. Like in the movie AI, where finally they put the ability 'to love' into David the artificial child. It is what we put in of ourselves is important - not what 3DS VIZ gives us back. See the DVD edition of AI and Steven Spielberg's closing statements in the extra features disc.

 

I order to generate an design solution in 3DS VIZ, then one must first of all, 'input' all parts of the problem. Generating the solution, then becomes the easy part to do. But 3DS VIZ, makes it extra difficult for people to define the problem in the first place, because you need to comtemplate so many aspects of reality in advance, and define the problem very, very, very well in all dimensions. This is tough to do, given the timescale available to architects in normal practice. In other words, the 2D methods are more efficient in terms of simplicity of design time/effort. Though much less efficient in terms of information coordination, sharing and collaboration.

 

Furthermore i did instigate a 'fake' gollum-type of discussion, inventing a character called 'tec' who tried to be the Architect, and i 'garethace' tried to be the visualist. And I proceeded to let the two talk with one another. What came out of this discussion, was that tec mentions how an architectural project drags on for years, and while the architect would begin a project with a 66mhz Pentium 1 running DOS and AUtoCAD Version 1.0. He might only finally build/realise the final design using a Pentium 4 with VIZ R4.

 

While on the one hand 10 years is common timeframes for Architectural projects, and even longer sometimes. 10 years in computing terms is the equivalent of 100 years in architectural design terms.

 

Latest of all, i have finally coined this notion about how the profession tends to operate on either side of the Atlantic ocean. In the States, web sites such as www.cyburbia.org would indicate the existence of a fully fledged specialised profession called urbanist/planner. Here in Ireland, the planners are just civil servants with little or no formal planning university qualifications.

 

A profession that does not even exist here in Ireland/Europe. Yet in Europe/Ireland there is something called a property economist, or quantity surveyor, which doesn't exist in America - the Architect measures alot and costs alot by himself/herself.

 

The accounts given to me, by men/women who have worked in AMerica would tend to suggest buildings do get built much, much, much quicker. And there is a suspicion in AMerica of projects draging on too long in design, being assoicated to corruption, over-spending and overall lack of efficiency. Unlike Europe also, AMerica is the home of the service industry. And there is a specialist available around the clock for practically everything. So it is no wonder that the Architectural profession, is any different.

 

Dwright proposals and bids thread

 

I think AMerica is a place defined by huge distances too. That is why the internet is so important. I imagine CHina will be a huge market for IT in the future too - since it is vast. IT is already quite popular in places like Eastern Europe.

 

So this leads me back to an observation i made of CG visualists ways to view architecture. Open any architectural monograph, and you will not see an pictures of the street where the building was built. You will never see any people using the building or spaces. The photographs of the building normally crop out everything other than the building. THis is the way the architects wants to present his portfolio of work to the world. If you want to really experience the context, the environment of the architecture - get on a plane.

 

Now, with CG visuals the sequence of 'seeing the building' is different. You are first presented with a nice photograph of the context of the proposed CG building. THen there will always be people using the avenue, park, site or street the CG building is montaged into. Then you finally look at this CG visualisation of a building not yet built.

 

Notice the difference between the Architectural monograph and the Architectural visualisation? The Architectural visualisation is a document, you can email to a planner/urbanist/client miles away on the other side of the United States, and without anyone, actually driving/flying to see the site, you can already discern alot of information from the CG photomontages.

 

It indicates that clients are now more sophisticated, planners are more sophisticated - the people outside of the architectural profession - to whom the architect passes visual information are now more sophisticated. And keep that flow of sophisticated visual information flowing out to the clients/planners for approval/discussion is becoming increasingly difficult - since the architect is delegating stuff to engineers, economists, clients, planners, contractors.... hence the need to have an inhouse visualisation specialist, who is not an architect.

 

This person might/might not be a technician - but like the technician/draughtsperson specialises in inputing 2-dimensional data... the visualist, should i think understand the full 4-dimensional nature of architecture itself.