I agree that the choice of software has little to do with one's ability to
think critically. However, by making AutoCAD a requirement, a message is
sent that it is the software that should be used. Here at UPenn, a big push
was made to bring digital media into the studios just this past year (before
this, there was 1 digital studio offered each semester). The way our
program is set up is that the computer is not to be introduced as a design
medium until after the first year, where students are expected to learn how
to draw.
I attribute the successes of bringing digital media to our studios to having
the addition of a fantastic digital design faculty member who brings a lot
of energy and enthusiasm to the program and to the diverse choices of
software that we are able to explore. On my machine I have Form.Z, 3D
Studio, Premier, Photoshop, Illustrator, Director, Dreamweaver, Flash,
Microstation, PageMaker, Quark, and, yes, AutoCAD. The packages that are
least used here, I feel I should note, are AutoCAD and Microstation. In
fact, of the software I've listed, those are the only 2 that I haven't used
at all this semester. The other packages that we have access to are much
more useful for illustrating the idea. I have seen entire projects done in
AutoCAD, and while the job gets done, the ideas do not communicate as well
as in projects that use multiple tools. Unlike the presentations that Kurt
alluded to, our digital work is presented through the machine quite often.
As for the laptop vs. desktop issue, I think the question of the desired
status of the studio must be answered. Once all your students have laptops,
they do not neccessarily need to be in studio to work, and so there is a
decreased level of interaction between them. For myself, I prefer the
company of studio. I would be unlikely to have the spontaneous discussion
about Kwinter and Tschumi at 3am if I were sitting in my apartment with my
laptop. The other issues are that of cost. A laptop simply costs more than
a comprably eqipped desktop, and the top of the line laptop isn't as
powerful as a desktop in the same price range. The hardware options in a
desktop are more diverse, and more advanced, and upgrading a laptop is not
nearly as easy or cost effective as upgrading a desktop. Don't get me
wrong, I'm not against using a laptop--I'd love to have one of my own, in
addition to my desktop, but when the choice is one or the other, I'll take a
desktop.
Thomas Lenar
GSFA
tlenar@xxxxxxxxx
thomas.lenar@xxxxxxxx
think critically. However, by making AutoCAD a requirement, a message is
sent that it is the software that should be used. Here at UPenn, a big push
was made to bring digital media into the studios just this past year (before
this, there was 1 digital studio offered each semester). The way our
program is set up is that the computer is not to be introduced as a design
medium until after the first year, where students are expected to learn how
to draw.
I attribute the successes of bringing digital media to our studios to having
the addition of a fantastic digital design faculty member who brings a lot
of energy and enthusiasm to the program and to the diverse choices of
software that we are able to explore. On my machine I have Form.Z, 3D
Studio, Premier, Photoshop, Illustrator, Director, Dreamweaver, Flash,
Microstation, PageMaker, Quark, and, yes, AutoCAD. The packages that are
least used here, I feel I should note, are AutoCAD and Microstation. In
fact, of the software I've listed, those are the only 2 that I haven't used
at all this semester. The other packages that we have access to are much
more useful for illustrating the idea. I have seen entire projects done in
AutoCAD, and while the job gets done, the ideas do not communicate as well
as in projects that use multiple tools. Unlike the presentations that Kurt
alluded to, our digital work is presented through the machine quite often.
As for the laptop vs. desktop issue, I think the question of the desired
status of the studio must be answered. Once all your students have laptops,
they do not neccessarily need to be in studio to work, and so there is a
decreased level of interaction between them. For myself, I prefer the
company of studio. I would be unlikely to have the spontaneous discussion
about Kwinter and Tschumi at 3am if I were sitting in my apartment with my
laptop. The other issues are that of cost. A laptop simply costs more than
a comprably eqipped desktop, and the top of the line laptop isn't as
powerful as a desktop in the same price range. The hardware options in a
desktop are more diverse, and more advanced, and upgrading a laptop is not
nearly as easy or cost effective as upgrading a desktop. Don't get me
wrong, I'm not against using a laptop--I'd love to have one of my own, in
addition to my desktop, but when the choice is one or the other, I'll take a
desktop.
Thomas Lenar
GSFA
tlenar@xxxxxxxxx
thomas.lenar@xxxxxxxx