I saw recently on the NASA channel the first airplane completely made of
paper. Big one, 12 meters wide (aprox.).
he flew about 200 feets (or more. don't remember exactly...)
a real paper design. designed on paper, entirely made with paper.
tubing and areas papaermade, only some glue added.
a first ?
also, the japanes architecture used for centuries paper made separations or
"windows" . they had no glass then. But needed light inside, and also more
intimacy than with transparent glass is used. Dutches, their windows with
complete vision from outside to the inside, were probably amazed.
From: Howard Ray Lawrence <howardl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Paper Architecture.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course, we have used the term "paper architecture" to mean an
architectural proposal on paper that likely could not be built. This reminds
me of present-day virtual architecture. I had mentioned in an earlier post
that virtual architecture could not be built without a mathematical
connection between its' 2-space representations and a 3-space reality. This
is the very same problem of designing 3-space in 2-space. I would say that
the most successful way of designing 3-space concepts is in 3-space. It is
there that they can really be seen and developed. I am not saying that
drawing is unimportant. It is important. It's an easy starting place for
3-space concepts. So, I guess we could many times call virtual architecture
an improbable "electronic or energy-based architecture"
>>>some point here is the inner vision. After a drawing on paper, a good work
creates "inside" the brain of the viewer the Idea of what is the
tridimensional.
of course the work must be comprehensible and the viewer as clever as the
conceptor. And it's valid also if you use a PC... the pc shows you a 2 d
image on the screen the movement possible with a render on maya gives you
the 3d, but your brain must see it. If the image is still , on the screen,
or on a paper sheet, what's the differecne: there is NO 3 D then. the moving
imaginery/machinery gives your brain the illusion of some 3D. Stop/pause the
image and you'll need again your brain to see , eventually, some 3d, isn't
??? As with a painting of old flemish masters, you then need to see the
perspective, or feel it, to be amazed by the work done.
the virtual - electronic - on energy relying - concept seems a little bit
overdevelopped here. You also use , as an architect, probably more energy
(carbohydrates) when you're drawing a good perspective of some building
than the energy actually used by your Autocad. And your brain uses also
some energy....
And the improbability of the energy is non existent per se. energy is always
a positive value per se , and therefore never improbable . Working on
something always requires some energy. Architecture is a good consumer, as
any applied art. Be it developped by hand or machinery, some brain is
always behind, there. Glucosed or ethanolised - sometimes, energy is found
any way ( or anyways).
(:-D)
¼?ß
paper. Big one, 12 meters wide (aprox.).
he flew about 200 feets (or more. don't remember exactly...)
a real paper design. designed on paper, entirely made with paper.
tubing and areas papaermade, only some glue added.
a first ?
also, the japanes architecture used for centuries paper made separations or
"windows" . they had no glass then. But needed light inside, and also more
intimacy than with transparent glass is used. Dutches, their windows with
complete vision from outside to the inside, were probably amazed.
From: Howard Ray Lawrence <howardl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Paper Architecture.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course, we have used the term "paper architecture" to mean an
architectural proposal on paper that likely could not be built. This reminds
me of present-day virtual architecture. I had mentioned in an earlier post
that virtual architecture could not be built without a mathematical
connection between its' 2-space representations and a 3-space reality. This
is the very same problem of designing 3-space in 2-space. I would say that
the most successful way of designing 3-space concepts is in 3-space. It is
there that they can really be seen and developed. I am not saying that
drawing is unimportant. It is important. It's an easy starting place for
3-space concepts. So, I guess we could many times call virtual architecture
an improbable "electronic or energy-based architecture"
>>>some point here is the inner vision. After a drawing on paper, a good work
creates "inside" the brain of the viewer the Idea of what is the
tridimensional.
of course the work must be comprehensible and the viewer as clever as the
conceptor. And it's valid also if you use a PC... the pc shows you a 2 d
image on the screen the movement possible with a render on maya gives you
the 3d, but your brain must see it. If the image is still , on the screen,
or on a paper sheet, what's the differecne: there is NO 3 D then. the moving
imaginery/machinery gives your brain the illusion of some 3D. Stop/pause the
image and you'll need again your brain to see , eventually, some 3d, isn't
??? As with a painting of old flemish masters, you then need to see the
perspective, or feel it, to be amazed by the work done.
the virtual - electronic - on energy relying - concept seems a little bit
overdevelopped here. You also use , as an architect, probably more energy
(carbohydrates) when you're drawing a good perspective of some building
than the energy actually used by your Autocad. And your brain uses also
some energy....
And the improbability of the energy is non existent per se. energy is always
a positive value per se , and therefore never improbable . Working on
something always requires some energy. Architecture is a good consumer, as
any applied art. Be it developped by hand or machinery, some brain is
always behind, there. Glucosed or ethanolised - sometimes, energy is found
any way ( or anyways).
(:-D)
¼?ß