Thank you very much for your comments, they are great, I love constructive
criticism. Now on to answer some of your questions.
-
> To what extent were you or others involved in these projects interested in
> the possibility of these tele-technologies to re-configure or re-conceptualize
> architecture?
We are very interested in re-configuring and re-conceptualization let us say the
design disciplines of, architecture, landscape architecture and urban design. We
are held somewhat to the terms of the SSHRC grant which is interested in
exploring
networked education. This is the first time they have funded a design related
project. As usual design falls between the cracks between the social sciences
and
the hard physical sciences. This project has some real weaknesses in that it
borrows too heavily on traditional studio pedagogy, and hence my quest to
DESIGNL.
As you are aware this is a traditional trap that happens when new media's meet
traditional programs, for example CAD emulates traditional drafting and
rendering,
this is probably part of a natural evolution, but the project does not posit
enough
counter points to traditional approaches, for example true collaborative work,
process based systems you elude to, or design for virtual spaces, space without
gravity!
Our stuff (CLR) is also time based, in that you can move around in real time,
not
animation's and can be run at the same time by several users. Much of the
programming work has gone into tools and support system not enough into design
exploration.
> I would like to see more of the projects as they evolved, to see how the
> different tele-technologies made an impact if at all on the design. To me
> what is missing is a dialogue about the effect of new technology on
> architecture, positive or negative. In the past we have had some interesting
> discussions from sPN's hypersurface architecture to bc's ae thesis and
> Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants signage as just another node in the mass
> of electricity networks, to JY's e-consulting, etc
I agree getting dialogue and process into design on computer networks which
combine both analog and digital interfaces is critical to the advancement of
this
work.......another 10 year project. What we have to do is aggressively attract
the
existing relationship between computers and design. Which means designing
software
for these tasks as we have attempted over the last 12 years. As Bill Buxton of
Alias Software told me, the problem is we are looking for vanilla solutions all
from one box which is the microsoft addition technique. He likens it to drinking
out of the same place you urinate. If a kitchen can have three types of sinks
then
there needs to be in design computing a multiplicity of hardware and software
support in place to encourage true exploration and dare I say it, play.
Thanks for the links, they help
________________________________________________________________________
Professor Robert M. Wright
Acting Associate Dean, Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design
Director, Program in landscape Architecture
Acting Director, Knowledge Media Design Institute (KMDI)
Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design
230 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 1R2
Tel: (416) 978-6788 Fax: (416) 971-2094
r.wright@xxxxxxxxxxx, wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Faculty supports Netscape 4.0, Word 97 and Excel 97.
Attachments should conform to these programs or be sent in RTF.
criticism. Now on to answer some of your questions.
-
> To what extent were you or others involved in these projects interested in
> the possibility of these tele-technologies to re-configure or re-conceptualize
> architecture?
We are very interested in re-configuring and re-conceptualization let us say the
design disciplines of, architecture, landscape architecture and urban design. We
are held somewhat to the terms of the SSHRC grant which is interested in
exploring
networked education. This is the first time they have funded a design related
project. As usual design falls between the cracks between the social sciences
and
the hard physical sciences. This project has some real weaknesses in that it
borrows too heavily on traditional studio pedagogy, and hence my quest to
DESIGNL.
As you are aware this is a traditional trap that happens when new media's meet
traditional programs, for example CAD emulates traditional drafting and
rendering,
this is probably part of a natural evolution, but the project does not posit
enough
counter points to traditional approaches, for example true collaborative work,
process based systems you elude to, or design for virtual spaces, space without
gravity!
Our stuff (CLR) is also time based, in that you can move around in real time,
not
animation's and can be run at the same time by several users. Much of the
programming work has gone into tools and support system not enough into design
exploration.
> I would like to see more of the projects as they evolved, to see how the
> different tele-technologies made an impact if at all on the design. To me
> what is missing is a dialogue about the effect of new technology on
> architecture, positive or negative. In the past we have had some interesting
> discussions from sPN's hypersurface architecture to bc's ae thesis and
> Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants signage as just another node in the mass
> of electricity networks, to JY's e-consulting, etc
I agree getting dialogue and process into design on computer networks which
combine both analog and digital interfaces is critical to the advancement of
this
work.......another 10 year project. What we have to do is aggressively attract
the
existing relationship between computers and design. Which means designing
software
for these tasks as we have attempted over the last 12 years. As Bill Buxton of
Alias Software told me, the problem is we are looking for vanilla solutions all
from one box which is the microsoft addition technique. He likens it to drinking
out of the same place you urinate. If a kitchen can have three types of sinks
then
there needs to be in design computing a multiplicity of hardware and software
support in place to encourage true exploration and dare I say it, play.
Thanks for the links, they help
________________________________________________________________________
Professor Robert M. Wright
Acting Associate Dean, Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design
Director, Program in landscape Architecture
Acting Director, Knowledge Media Design Institute (KMDI)
Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design
230 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 1R2
Tel: (416) 978-6788 Fax: (416) 971-2094
r.wright@xxxxxxxxxxx, wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Faculty supports Netscape 4.0, Word 97 and Excel 97.
Attachments should conform to these programs or be sent in RTF.