- - The original note follows - -
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Path:
psuvm!news.ysu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!stanford.edu
!rock!taco!rwzobel
From: rwzobel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rick Zobel)
Subject: Re: architecture, not sculpture
Message-ID: <1993Feb20.071319.3519@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: news@xxxxxxxx (USENET News System)
Organization: North Carolina State University Computing Center
References: <churayj-190293220344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 07:13:19 GMT
Lines: 82
churayj@xxxxxxxxxx (raymond Chung) writes:
>Here's a little self-analysis for us architecture types:
>In one of my classes I was told that architecture is distinct from the
arts
>of sculpture and poetry because it deals with ideas that must be
>represented, predominantly in drawings, while sculpture and poetry
provide
>the object and the words themselves to be examined. My teacher then
went
>on to say that architects have to know how to tap the power of
drawings,
>and it is this ability to deal with ideas through representation that
puts
>us in a class above sculptors and poets. It's as if we're superior
because
>we can imagine things other people have to see and read in person.
No, I disagree completely with what your professor is trying to sell to
you. Architecture is distinct from the other arts because its primary
purpose is to shelter and protect animals, specifically humans. The
way architecture is (typically) learned in this nation is as though it
WERE sculpture, or more correctly, as product design, not as
architecture. The fact that we use drawings as much as we do is
because of the Renaissance discovery of linear perspective and a
lack of any good tools in which to explore the experiential and
spatial ramifications of a design. I do not believe that we are in a
class above any of the other arts, if anything, just the opposite. We
have not yet learned how to directly control the medium in which
we work except through abstractions and scaled down three
dimensional jewel boxes of models. I have found numerous quotes
from architects at all levels in their professional carrer who admit
to being quite surprised when they first enter a building that they
have designed. (Even Le Corbusier.) Should this be so?
There is a disturbing gap between how architecture is designed and
represented, and how it is used. We, as users do not understand a
building in terms of sections, plans, elevations and perspectives. Nor
do we see buildings as small jewel like objects to be viewed primarily
from a bird's eye view. Plans, sections and elevations are
organizational descriptions of a form. They are good for arranging
proportions and dimensions, but are not extraordinarily helpful for
the understanding of the spatial or experiential qualities of an
architectural space. Perspectives are single experiential moments in
time and space, and if there are enough of them, just BEGIN to give
clues as to the spatial qualities of a design. (Our perceptual systems
do not deal with the world, or understand space as a photograph or
perspective. We are mobile creatures whose perceptual systems
involve our legs, bodies, necks and head as much as it involves the
eyes.) Models do not allow for us to "place ourselves" perceptually
into them. Researchers call this the Gulliver Gap, and is an area of
active research at many schools.
I would propose that we, as architectural designers lack the
appropriate tools to adequately accomplish spatial design and
spatial/experiential representation in anything more than two
dimensional media, and so we are stuck saying that we are somehow
better because we can do the same kinds of things as sculptors but
without ever seeing what we are actually doing until it is far too late
to do anything about it.
I am interested to hear what others think of this position. I am
(probably as you read this) working on my masters thesis which
examines the existing media that enable the representation of the
experiential qualities of architecture. These media are: perspectives
(somewhat), models (somewhat), non-interactive screen based
animation's (video, pre-established walk throughs), interactive
screen based walkthroughs (VIRTUS WalkThrough and other
interactive animation's) and finally computer generated immersive
environments (VR, Head mount displays, etc). The last one has
appealed to me as a possible media for (finally) 3d design and
representation, and although it is still in its infancy, there is
tremendous potential for its use by architects.
Now the lines have been drawn and the opposing sides have made
their opinions known. What do you all think?
Rick Zobel
NCSU School of Design
Architecture Department
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Path:
psuvm!news.ysu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!stanford.edu
!rock!taco!rwzobel
From: rwzobel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rick Zobel)
Subject: Re: architecture, not sculpture
Message-ID: <1993Feb20.071319.3519@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: news@xxxxxxxx (USENET News System)
Organization: North Carolina State University Computing Center
References: <churayj-190293220344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 07:13:19 GMT
Lines: 82
churayj@xxxxxxxxxx (raymond Chung) writes:
>Here's a little self-analysis for us architecture types:
>In one of my classes I was told that architecture is distinct from the
arts
>of sculpture and poetry because it deals with ideas that must be
>represented, predominantly in drawings, while sculpture and poetry
provide
>the object and the words themselves to be examined. My teacher then
went
>on to say that architects have to know how to tap the power of
drawings,
>and it is this ability to deal with ideas through representation that
puts
>us in a class above sculptors and poets. It's as if we're superior
because
>we can imagine things other people have to see and read in person.
No, I disagree completely with what your professor is trying to sell to
you. Architecture is distinct from the other arts because its primary
purpose is to shelter and protect animals, specifically humans. The
way architecture is (typically) learned in this nation is as though it
WERE sculpture, or more correctly, as product design, not as
architecture. The fact that we use drawings as much as we do is
because of the Renaissance discovery of linear perspective and a
lack of any good tools in which to explore the experiential and
spatial ramifications of a design. I do not believe that we are in a
class above any of the other arts, if anything, just the opposite. We
have not yet learned how to directly control the medium in which
we work except through abstractions and scaled down three
dimensional jewel boxes of models. I have found numerous quotes
from architects at all levels in their professional carrer who admit
to being quite surprised when they first enter a building that they
have designed. (Even Le Corbusier.) Should this be so?
There is a disturbing gap between how architecture is designed and
represented, and how it is used. We, as users do not understand a
building in terms of sections, plans, elevations and perspectives. Nor
do we see buildings as small jewel like objects to be viewed primarily
from a bird's eye view. Plans, sections and elevations are
organizational descriptions of a form. They are good for arranging
proportions and dimensions, but are not extraordinarily helpful for
the understanding of the spatial or experiential qualities of an
architectural space. Perspectives are single experiential moments in
time and space, and if there are enough of them, just BEGIN to give
clues as to the spatial qualities of a design. (Our perceptual systems
do not deal with the world, or understand space as a photograph or
perspective. We are mobile creatures whose perceptual systems
involve our legs, bodies, necks and head as much as it involves the
eyes.) Models do not allow for us to "place ourselves" perceptually
into them. Researchers call this the Gulliver Gap, and is an area of
active research at many schools.
I would propose that we, as architectural designers lack the
appropriate tools to adequately accomplish spatial design and
spatial/experiential representation in anything more than two
dimensional media, and so we are stuck saying that we are somehow
better because we can do the same kinds of things as sculptors but
without ever seeing what we are actually doing until it is far too late
to do anything about it.
I am interested to hear what others think of this position. I am
(probably as you read this) working on my masters thesis which
examines the existing media that enable the representation of the
experiential qualities of architecture. These media are: perspectives
(somewhat), models (somewhat), non-interactive screen based
animation's (video, pre-established walk throughs), interactive
screen based walkthroughs (VIRTUS WalkThrough and other
interactive animation's) and finally computer generated immersive
environments (VR, Head mount displays, etc). The last one has
appealed to me as a possible media for (finally) 3d design and
representation, and although it is still in its infancy, there is
tremendous potential for its use by architects.
Now the lines have been drawn and the opposing sides have made
their opinions known. What do you all think?
Rick Zobel
NCSU School of Design
Architecture Department