I wonder if anyone try to model some famous architects' works in order to understand their works and concepts. For example, Coop Himmelblau produced some rather inspiring design in the past and recent. But theirs work is so hard to digest. I think it will help to master their strategy if we model their projects.
i made a model of villa savoye and barcelona pavillion. using random product cardboards with printed info on them. they looked cool and i learned a lot. they helped me get in to sci arc. too bad no record exist. years later, i am attempted to do it again with a graig elwood house using fedex packaging. these were like study models not replica types.
i recommend it.
In school (undergrad) we had a studio prject called "in the manner of" give the students a chance to study and then design a project of one of the BIG heads. Its usually quite cool and good laughs.
I got the most difficult N.Foster - between transition from being a big shot architect to a mega (from Sir to Lord) - obviously i couldn't do him justice
In a studio I took at RISD the premise was to 3d model one of a collection of important buildings as a way to study it before designing an addition. I worked on John Soane's house and I now understand it far better than I would have ever been able to by simply studying the drawings. Being able to cut sections at will through a space as complex as the Soane House was invaluable and an argument for doing it digitally rather than physically. Here are some images from the animation.
Thanks for all your response, guys. I just experienced same joy as you did.
During last two and half weeks, I spent most of my spare time in constructing 4 models which is GuanZhou Opera(Zaha), research center in Princeton( Gehry) and Vienna Rooftop renovation ( Coop Himmelblau), CFA cinema( Coop Himmelblau). Coop's rooftop renovation is extremely difficult, the drawing and picture are not complete at all. Even they are complete, it would still cost me several days to understand thoroughly. For the structure in some place, I just constructed that part based on my guess. It was so great I finally figured it out.
The reason for doing this is to cure my longtime pain. I don't quite understand some famous unusual building like Libeskind and FrankGehry's. one day, I think if I model them, I might begin to grasp some of the design's idea from the process. So after three weeks nervous and excitment, I had four models in front of me. Suddenly I feel those lines, drawings are not that difficult to understand anymore. I just loved this experience.
When I was in Grad shcool 5 years ago, I asked my professor if she understand Libeskind's work. I remembered I showed her one of my El Croquis which feature Libeskind's works. "I dont', he is a musician". That is the answer I got. If I know to use model to understand his works at that time, I guess I would be more happy doing my professional work now. I begin to dance with his lines when I saw his designs.
Lulu Pierrel : I am not familiar with the architects you mentiond. But I went through some of their projects tonight. They have done some interesting projects. I think I need to broaden my eyes now after I tackled Zaha and Coop Himmelblau's projcets.
Rita Novel : some links are bad. The connection is slow. I don't know which one to look. Sorry to say this.
bryan: Oh, so you from GSD. It must be an very exciting experience, right? John Soane is an ancient architect. I guess his building should have sth very unique, otherwise you wouldn't choose him.
i modeled meier's aikerberg house, malibu in triforma. it taught me a lot about his style and about proportion in general (ie how one small part relates to a larger whole and vise versa). i definitely recomend it to anyone. studying what has already been done, especially in model form, is sometimes more valuabel than any amount of literature you can absorb or regurgitate.
Archiphreak: you mean you used 3dmax to model meier's? If I have time, I properly will try to use rhino and 3dmax to model Himmelblau's roof top renovation project.
omygod. i thought all alone you guys were talking about real cardboard models. sorry. i guess i stepped into the mine field.
and yes jlxarchitect, abstracted villa savoye and barcelona pavillion models help me to get into architecture school. but that was late 70's
probably you weren't born or you were an infant but not terrible.
also, i can understand doing a model of modern masters work, but himmelblau? best thing they have done was walking on viana streets with a banner that said architecture must burn (which they did not follow up). i would not waste minute on them..
No. That is a big misunderstood. I did cardboard model for the four buildings I mentioned. Modeling computer 3d will never get the feeling by modeling it physically. For the company projects, I model the buildings both in 3d and physical.
i don't know gustav. i am pretty bad at both. i like card board models because they abstract more of the idea and process. computer models tend to be more finished before reality settles in or too far gone in its abstraction. cardboard models immidiately show you the real issues with the physical design whereas computer ones can hide all kinds of issues by tweaking the camera.
also, cardboard models are more fun to built. i think.
abracadabra: You don't like Coop Himmelblau's works? Aren't they also teach at SCI-ARCH? I would say the rooftop renovation project is sophisticated, but it is not necessary mean it is good. The reason I model it is to understand how other people doing sophisticated things.
I don't want to sound pretentious or anything, but working on a project model WITH the famous architect while he does the project is a great experience whichevr kind of model you build. But the 3d model tends to limitate your understanding to the views you are going to choose, and most times tends not to be a strict simulation of the building geometrically. The material model is also an aproximation that has its limits, since the scale of the model realy determines the level of detail you're going to achieve in you're understanding of the project.
in design 1 i did a museum board model of meier's shamberg house....i learned alot from that project. meier is probobly the best arch. to do an ANALYSIS for --- JUST ANALYSIS!
damn-it how do i post a picture of my model to this thread?anyone
jlxarchitect, i should keep my subjectivity about c/h to a low rise. i see an addition to a venice bungalow they did a couple of years back, for speculation. by the time it was finished, the addition looked so dated in comperasant to our local architects' work here in so. california. it does not influance my opinion about them whether they teach in sci arc or anywhere else. i am sure they had great students and good stuff to teach them. i know morphosis was influanced by them in their formative years. anyway this is all i care to comment on c/h. i will look for the rooftop project because of your work and thoughts.
i thought you are doing well with your models, whether they are made with 'points of light' (via gustav), or cardboards.
there is a wim wenders film called 'the state of things', in it, ww asks the old cameraman about color and black and white film. old hollywood cameraman's answer is, 'color is nice but black and white is more real'.
for me, it semi sums it up.
Nov 23, 04 12:56 pm ·
·
For the record, all the links at http://www.quondam.com/01/0048.htm are operable, and, if the connection is slow, I doubt it has anything to do with Quondam's server.
The point of this thread is learning about building designs via model building, and yes one does learn a great deal about a building's design via building a model of it. Whether constructing a physical model or generating a computer model, both processes force one to look very carefully at the (available) drawings, and that is where the bulk of the learning occurs--trust me, after having done all the models at Quondam I know what I'm talking about. Of course, the learning continues once the model takes shape.
I was a professional (physical) model builder while an architectural student in the 1970s, and a professional computer model builder during the 1980s. Quondam's model collection was generated during the 1990s, and, for the most part, represents building designs that were never built.
French:
"the views you choose" makes me think of the very severe and 1 dimensional perspective construction of the renascence. Are you saying computer simulation is more "convenient"- provides quicker viewing/revising... That seems too convenient.
I must apologize. After I switched to Netscape, I can see all your models and they are quick to access. Wow, you surely did alot. Are these for the company or for your personal improvemnt? From the images, you seemed to use Autocad? But those curves and topology are not easy to do it in autocad. Rhino? I doubt it. It seemed your focus is on the mass study, am I right?
Nov 23, 04 1:11 pm ·
·
jlxarchitect,
Quondam's collection is the result of a personal project, one of wanting to "experience" buildings that otherwise do not exist. The software used was/still is ARRIS. The images presently displayed are of line wireframes only; each model also comprises layers of opaque triangles. The opaque triangles facilitate rendered images (from any vantage point), while the wireframe plus triangles set to display=0 facilitate hidden-line drawings (also from any vantage point).
Quondam's model collection is not exactly consistent: a few buldings are complete inside and out, some buildings are within their immediate context, many are fragmentary. The over-riding goal of virtually all the model building was indeed to continue learning architecture.
Gustav
I was talking about the good old perspective because that's pretty much the way in which 3d is used by many famous architects (like herzog and de meuron, rem koolhas, early Neil Denari...). And it's deffinetely very renaissance, and bad for the evolution of things, but it seems that somehow these architect find that's a useful tool to decide how their project will evolve. It becomes then a great tool for undestanding the efiiciency of the form toward the will of the architect, becauses he uses it as a tool of conception as much as a geometrical model that would give an exhaustive synthetic information, and sometimes less efficient than the possible of "poetic " formalisation that can be containing in a restrictive 2 dimensional drawing.
French:
For some reason, clients love the perspective, so why not?
Maybe because it seems like a photgraph- more permanent and closer to a built structure than a small "toy" model, oui/non?
I actually don't think that it is because of the realism, but more because of the familiarity of this kind of image to any depiction of an imaginery, prospective world. Like Renaissance painting as you said, but also because that is the medium that prospective architecture from the 60's as used to convey it's ideas (collage of archigram, superstudio, allison and peter smitshon...)
For some reason, the subjective projection of the viewer into this kind of document tends to convey other elements about the project than its geometric and material qualities. I think one of the rezasons why nothing came out of the work of lynn, Kowak or shu is because most of their fascination towards the tool tends to express itself through images more than materiality. Every architect tends to have such a strong relation with image because they are more interested by the meaning of their project than by their geometry.
But to come back to the discussion, I think it does differenciate the 3d modelling of a project from the physical modelling because it's only possible actualisation is through an image, while physical modelling is the actualisation of a form in itself. It does give other understanding towards a project (like the hyper realistic renderings that some guy did of unbuilt project of Corbu and Tatline...) but it is more about intentions behind the project than about it's morphology.
Rita Novel : I think Alias is Maya now. Your works showed they were pretty good even at 90's. No wonder many architects is using them these days. Greg Lynn and his friend in chicago is using them.
Are you still use them?
Nov 23, 04 6:52 pm ·
·
I use ARRIS, not Alias nor Maya.
I'm curious what experience French has with computer modeling other than seeing the images they facilitate.
I've been modeling and rendering projects for many architects, some famous and some unknown outside of this country for the past 6 years. Why? You disagree with my point of view Rita Novel?
Nov 24, 04 9:25 am ·
·
I disagree with the notion that the (only possible) actualization of a computer model is an image. For me (at least) the actualization is the model (and model building) itself, and further actualization occurs each time the model is again utilized and/or manipulated. The (relatively infinite) number/type of images subsequently available because of a computer model are first more a by-product of the model, and potentially an end-product (all its own) as well. Moreover, actualization of computer models comes into play in the incredible ease with which they can be (digitally) replicated, something not at all easy with a physical model. And yet another aspect where actualization of computer models comes into play is the incredible ease with which they can be continually manipulated, where each manipulation manifests the actualization of a whole new/other model (without eliminating the original model).
Rita: Ah, Yes, Arris. I saw them before. It seems it is an version with capability doing everything from 3dmodeling to CD. Can you tell me why you chose ARRIS as your modeling tool? The reason attracts me to contiune this Q is I like the wireframe model they provided. When you model those curve in ARRIS, are they accurate? I doubt it. Because if they can do NURBS line accurately, then there is no market for the combination of AUTOCAD+MAX+RHINO.
Rita Novel
As a statement about a possible use and understanding of 3d modeling I can only agree with you. The problem I was trying to outline with my approximative english is the relation of most architects (including, in my point of view, the 90's blob avant-garde that I've mentioned) to the 3d model, that most people only "see" or understand through their rendering and not through the 3d model in itself, that is most of the time only perceptible through a 3d program interface that doesn't give justice to the quality of the object and it's modelization in most cases (I'm basically talking about the wireframed or shaded approximation that is displayed in the viewport of programs such as 3dsmax, rhinoceros, maya and so on). These model involve a great deal of understanding for those who use em but cannot transmit these information to a viewer, and that makes a big difference in the reception of any spectator (lacking better word).
So as you said, the potential of these tools is infinite, and has been discussed over and over for the past ten years. Yet, it's impact on buit form hasn't been as great as the expectation everybody had. I'm just trying to understand why, and I was only giving an hypotesis that comes from my own experience while working with architect.
Forgive me for my language mistakes. It's a very interesting thread. By the way, I really like the quondam website. Is it yours?
Rita:
What is the difference between your computer model (as shown on screen) and your computer image (actualized from your computer model) as shown on screen?
Some words you use that may have one or a realm meaning(s) to you that is not used by most people:
notion
actualization
by-product
Nov 24, 04 10:24 am ·
·
I chose ARRIS in 1987 because it was the only CAD software with fully intergated 2d and 3d drawing on a PC. I still use ARRIS because I can play it like a concert piano. [What can I say, we all have limited talents.]
French, I understand your point, and yes you more demonstrate the limitations of how computer models are most often used. Misplaced expectations?
When I was doing all the model building in the early 1990s it did occur to me that I was generating a kind-of museum of architecture, but back then I never expected the Internet/WWW and the eventual 'creation' of Quondam - A Virtual Museum of Architecture online 21 November 1996. And what Quondam displayed in its initial years did have an impact (and the potential for impact still exists).
Gustav, the difference (for me at least) between a computer model and computer image(s) is that they are distinct actualized data files.
(It seems) digital data is never really an end-product because it so easily generates more and more digital data. Computer models facilitate the production of more and more digital data. Architecturally, perhaps only an actual building is an end-product (of the model/drawing).
[Yet, for me, the 'end-product' architecture became a virtual building, specifically a virtual museum of architecture.]
"Gustav, the difference (for me at least) between a computer model and computer image(s) is that they are distinct actualized data files."
So how is that different from a building that has been built with photos generated of that building and a computer model and it's computer generated image (besides convenience)?
Nov 24, 04 11:52 am ·
·
Digital cameras now make it very easy to take unlimited 'photos' of real buildings.
Of course, ever since the invention of the photograph camera, many pictures of a building could be taken, but to take 1000s of pictures of a building was mostly cost prohibited.
oops sorry. didn't want to bother. I'll leave you guys alone
Nov 24, 04 12:24 pm ·
·
So why don't you point out the non-obvious then?
[Funny I do indeed know about 'losing the farm.' My father and I went to Poland in 1990, where he took me to the quondam Lauf farm there, near Konin. It was part of a German-speaking Lutheran village prior to World War II. The Polish family that received the farm after 1945 are still there, we even spent an evening in their living room, which my father recognized as part of the house he grew up in. Does this lose bother me? No, but it does interest me that my grandfather did own a nice piece of farmland in Poland.]
Rita:
That teknique you used has become very hackneyed.
What teknique is that?
How you turned "selling the farm" into a literal event, no?
My family was Swedish royalty in the 1700s until my direct desendant became a drunk and a gambler and was disinherited and ended up a beggar and living in an earthen hut. Do I care, I never met the guy.
Nov 24, 04 1:52 pm ·
·
repeat:
So why don't you point out the non-obvious then?
thanks quondam. i'll be in ottopia as an ottoman envoy. can you put an "ottoman museum of young turks" in bottomopolis? sultan has allocated some property exchange for it, via reenactment vizier.
We've done Rafael Moneo's Stockholm Modern Museum. It was a pretty good way of looking at his sense of composition and how difficult it was to integrate the scheme in a complex topology.
do anyone model some famous architect's works?
I wonder if anyone try to model some famous architects' works in order to understand their works and concepts. For example, Coop Himmelblau produced some rather inspiring design in the past and recent. But theirs work is so hard to digest. I think it will help to master their strategy if we model their projects.
What is your opinion?
i made a model of villa savoye and barcelona pavillion. using random product cardboards with printed info on them. they looked cool and i learned a lot. they helped me get in to sci arc. too bad no record exist. years later, i am attempted to do it again with a graig elwood house using fedex packaging. these were like study models not replica types.
i recommend it.
You mean you were accepted into the B.arch program into SCIArch by modeling Corbuzia's works?
I have three time done in dept model making of " famous" architect's works ( José Luis Sert, Vilhelm Lauritzen, Enrique Miralles) and find the knowledge I gained, is the most valueable way I used my time in School- Basicly I keep returning to the expierince, and see new facets in the work of these architects (Constructive, Philosophic, etc) and the puzzle of making the model (scaled 1:33) from plans, photos, and turning scales into metric from foot really gives a 3D memory in great detail- The problem is it's time consuming as hell, and you get the greatest benefit by doing models of architects who haven't written alot about their own work. To sum up the more "mysterious/complex" the project, the more you get time wise out of doing the model, so choose the subject carefully
In school (undergrad) we had a studio prject called "in the manner of" give the students a chance to study and then design a project of one of the BIG heads. Its usually quite cool and good laughs.
I got the most difficult N.Foster - between transition from being a big shot architect to a mega (from Sir to Lord) - obviously i couldn't do him justice
In a studio I took at RISD the premise was to 3d model one of a collection of important buildings as a way to study it before designing an addition. I worked on John Soane's house and I now understand it far better than I would have ever been able to by simply studying the drawings. Being able to cut sections at will through a space as complex as the Soane House was invaluable and an argument for doing it digitally rather than physically. Here are some images from the animation.
Thanks for all your response, guys. I just experienced same joy as you did.
During last two and half weeks, I spent most of my spare time in constructing 4 models which is GuanZhou Opera(Zaha), research center in Princeton( Gehry) and Vienna Rooftop renovation ( Coop Himmelblau), CFA cinema( Coop Himmelblau). Coop's rooftop renovation is extremely difficult, the drawing and picture are not complete at all. Even they are complete, it would still cost me several days to understand thoroughly. For the structure in some place, I just constructed that part based on my guess. It was so great I finally figured it out.
The reason for doing this is to cure my longtime pain. I don't quite understand some famous unusual building like Libeskind and FrankGehry's. one day, I think if I model them, I might begin to grasp some of the design's idea from the process. So after three weeks nervous and excitment, I had four models in front of me. Suddenly I feel those lines, drawings are not that difficult to understand anymore. I just loved this experience.
When I was in Grad shcool 5 years ago, I asked my professor if she understand Libeskind's work. I remembered I showed her one of my El Croquis which feature Libeskind's works. "I dont', he is a musician". That is the answer I got. If I know to use model to understand his works at that time, I guess I would be more happy doing my professional work now. I begin to dance with his lines when I saw his designs.
Lulu Pierrel : I am not familiar with the architects you mentiond. But I went through some of their projects tonight. They have done some interesting projects. I think I need to broaden my eyes now after I tackled Zaha and Coop Himmelblau's projcets.
Rita Novel : some links are bad. The connection is slow. I don't know which one to look. Sorry to say this.
bryan: Oh, so you from GSD. It must be an very exciting experience, right? John Soane is an ancient architect. I guess his building should have sth very unique, otherwise you wouldn't choose him.
i modeled meier's aikerberg house, malibu in triforma. it taught me a lot about his style and about proportion in general (ie how one small part relates to a larger whole and vise versa). i definitely recomend it to anyone. studying what has already been done, especially in model form, is sometimes more valuabel than any amount of literature you can absorb or regurgitate.
Archiphreak: you mean you used 3dmax to model meier's? If I have time, I properly will try to use rhino and 3dmax to model Himmelblau's roof top renovation project.
omygod. i thought all alone you guys were talking about real cardboard models. sorry. i guess i stepped into the mine field.
and yes jlxarchitect, abstracted villa savoye and barcelona pavillion models help me to get into architecture school. but that was late 70's
probably you weren't born or you were an infant but not terrible.
also, i can understand doing a model of modern masters work, but himmelblau? best thing they have done was walking on viana streets with a banner that said architecture must burn (which they did not follow up). i would not waste minute on them..
abracadabra (sorry I'm dyslexic):
what do think the difference is between cardboard models and those made by points of light?, really.
abracadabra:
No. That is a big misunderstood. I did cardboard model for the four buildings I mentioned. Modeling computer 3d will never get the feeling by modeling it physically. For the company projects, I model the buildings both in 3d and physical.
i don't know gustav. i am pretty bad at both. i like card board models because they abstract more of the idea and process. computer models tend to be more finished before reality settles in or too far gone in its abstraction. cardboard models immidiately show you the real issues with the physical design whereas computer ones can hide all kinds of issues by tweaking the camera.
also, cardboard models are more fun to built. i think.
abracadabra: You don't like Coop Himmelblau's works? Aren't they also teach at SCI-ARCH? I would say the rooftop renovation project is sophisticated, but it is not necessary mean it is good. The reason I model it is to understand how other people doing sophisticated things.
I don't want to sound pretentious or anything, but working on a project model WITH the famous architect while he does the project is a great experience whichevr kind of model you build. But the 3d model tends to limitate your understanding to the views you are going to choose, and most times tends not to be a strict simulation of the building geometrically. The material model is also an aproximation that has its limits, since the scale of the model realy determines the level of detail you're going to achieve in you're understanding of the project.
in design 1 i did a museum board model of meier's shamberg house....i learned alot from that project. meier is probobly the best arch. to do an ANALYSIS for --- JUST ANALYSIS!
damn-it how do i post a picture of my model to this thread?anyone
how about use your yahoo accout to post a quick image?
jlxarchitect, i should keep my subjectivity about c/h to a low rise. i see an addition to a venice bungalow they did a couple of years back, for speculation. by the time it was finished, the addition looked so dated in comperasant to our local architects' work here in so. california. it does not influance my opinion about them whether they teach in sci arc or anywhere else. i am sure they had great students and good stuff to teach them. i know morphosis was influanced by them in their formative years. anyway this is all i care to comment on c/h. i will look for the rooftop project because of your work and thoughts.
i thought you are doing well with your models, whether they are made with 'points of light' (via gustav), or cardboards.
there is a wim wenders film called 'the state of things', in it, ww asks the old cameraman about color and black and white film. old hollywood cameraman's answer is, 'color is nice but black and white is more real'.
for me, it semi sums it up.
For the record, all the links at http://www.quondam.com/01/0048.htm are operable, and, if the connection is slow, I doubt it has anything to do with Quondam's server.
The point of this thread is learning about building designs via model building, and yes one does learn a great deal about a building's design via building a model of it. Whether constructing a physical model or generating a computer model, both processes force one to look very carefully at the (available) drawings, and that is where the bulk of the learning occurs--trust me, after having done all the models at Quondam I know what I'm talking about. Of course, the learning continues once the model takes shape.
I was a professional (physical) model builder while an architectural student in the 1970s, and a professional computer model builder during the 1980s. Quondam's model collection was generated during the 1990s, and, for the most part, represents building designs that were never built.
French:
"the views you choose" makes me think of the very severe and 1 dimensional perspective construction of the renascence. Are you saying computer simulation is more "convenient"- provides quicker viewing/revising... That seems too convenient.
Rita Novel :
I must apologize. After I switched to Netscape, I can see all your models and they are quick to access. Wow, you surely did alot. Are these for the company or for your personal improvemnt? From the images, you seemed to use Autocad? But those curves and topology are not easy to do it in autocad. Rhino? I doubt it. It seemed your focus is on the mass study, am I right?
jlxarchitect,
Quondam's collection is the result of a personal project, one of wanting to "experience" buildings that otherwise do not exist. The software used was/still is ARRIS. The images presently displayed are of line wireframes only; each model also comprises layers of opaque triangles. The opaque triangles facilitate rendered images (from any vantage point), while the wireframe plus triangles set to display=0 facilitate hidden-line drawings (also from any vantage point).
Quondam's model collection is not exactly consistent: a few buldings are complete inside and out, some buildings are within their immediate context, many are fragmentary. The over-riding goal of virtually all the model building was indeed to continue learning architecture.
Gustav
I was talking about the good old perspective because that's pretty much the way in which 3d is used by many famous architects (like herzog and de meuron, rem koolhas, early Neil Denari...). And it's deffinetely very renaissance, and bad for the evolution of things, but it seems that somehow these architect find that's a useful tool to decide how their project will evolve. It becomes then a great tool for undestanding the efiiciency of the form toward the will of the architect, becauses he uses it as a tool of conception as much as a geometrical model that would give an exhaustive synthetic information, and sometimes less efficient than the possible of "poetic " formalisation that can be containing in a restrictive 2 dimensional drawing.
French:
For some reason, clients love the perspective, so why not?
Maybe because it seems like a photgraph- more permanent and closer to a built structure than a small "toy" model, oui/non?
I actually don't think that it is because of the realism, but more because of the familiarity of this kind of image to any depiction of an imaginery, prospective world. Like Renaissance painting as you said, but also because that is the medium that prospective architecture from the 60's as used to convey it's ideas (collage of archigram, superstudio, allison and peter smitshon...)
For some reason, the subjective projection of the viewer into this kind of document tends to convey other elements about the project than its geometric and material qualities. I think one of the rezasons why nothing came out of the work of lynn, Kowak or shu is because most of their fascination towards the tool tends to express itself through images more than materiality. Every architect tends to have such a strong relation with image because they are more interested by the meaning of their project than by their geometry.
But to come back to the discussion, I think it does differenciate the 3d modelling of a project from the physical modelling because it's only possible actualisation is through an image, while physical modelling is the actualisation of a form in itself. It does give other understanding towards a project (like the hyper realistic renderings that some guy did of unbuilt project of Corbu and Tatline...) but it is more about intentions behind the project than about it's morphology.
jesus, I think it's one of my longest post!
Rita Novel : I think Alias is Maya now. Your works showed they were pretty good even at 90's. No wonder many architects is using them these days. Greg Lynn and his friend in chicago is using them.
Are you still use them?
I use ARRIS, not Alias nor Maya.
I'm curious what experience French has with computer modeling other than seeing the images they facilitate.
I've been modeling and rendering projects for many architects, some famous and some unknown outside of this country for the past 6 years. Why? You disagree with my point of view Rita Novel?
I disagree with the notion that the (only possible) actualization of a computer model is an image. For me (at least) the actualization is the model (and model building) itself, and further actualization occurs each time the model is again utilized and/or manipulated. The (relatively infinite) number/type of images subsequently available because of a computer model are first more a by-product of the model, and potentially an end-product (all its own) as well. Moreover, actualization of computer models comes into play in the incredible ease with which they can be (digitally) replicated, something not at all easy with a physical model. And yet another aspect where actualization of computer models comes into play is the incredible ease with which they can be continually manipulated, where each manipulation manifests the actualization of a whole new/other model (without eliminating the original model).
Rita: Ah, Yes, Arris. I saw them before. It seems it is an version with capability doing everything from 3dmodeling to CD. Can you tell me why you chose ARRIS as your modeling tool? The reason attracts me to contiune this Q is I like the wireframe model they provided. When you model those curve in ARRIS, are they accurate? I doubt it. Because if they can do NURBS line accurately, then there is no market for the combination of AUTOCAD+MAX+RHINO.
Rita Novel
As a statement about a possible use and understanding of 3d modeling I can only agree with you. The problem I was trying to outline with my approximative english is the relation of most architects (including, in my point of view, the 90's blob avant-garde that I've mentioned) to the 3d model, that most people only "see" or understand through their rendering and not through the 3d model in itself, that is most of the time only perceptible through a 3d program interface that doesn't give justice to the quality of the object and it's modelization in most cases (I'm basically talking about the wireframed or shaded approximation that is displayed in the viewport of programs such as 3dsmax, rhinoceros, maya and so on). These model involve a great deal of understanding for those who use em but cannot transmit these information to a viewer, and that makes a big difference in the reception of any spectator (lacking better word).
So as you said, the potential of these tools is infinite, and has been discussed over and over for the past ten years. Yet, it's impact on buit form hasn't been as great as the expectation everybody had. I'm just trying to understand why, and I was only giving an hypotesis that comes from my own experience while working with architect.
Forgive me for my language mistakes. It's a very interesting thread. By the way, I really like the quondam website. Is it yours?
Rita:
What is the difference between your computer model (as shown on screen) and your computer image (actualized from your computer model) as shown on screen?
Some words you use that may have one or a realm meaning(s) to you that is not used by most people:
notion
actualization
by-product
I chose ARRIS in 1987 because it was the only CAD software with fully intergated 2d and 3d drawing on a PC. I still use ARRIS because I can play it like a concert piano. [What can I say, we all have limited talents.]
French, I understand your point, and yes you more demonstrate the limitations of how computer models are most often used. Misplaced expectations?
When I was doing all the model building in the early 1990s it did occur to me that I was generating a kind-of museum of architecture, but back then I never expected the Internet/WWW and the eventual 'creation' of Quondam - A Virtual Museum of Architecture online 21 November 1996. And what Quondam displayed in its initial years did have an impact (and the potential for impact still exists).
Gustav, the difference (for me at least) between a computer model and computer image(s) is that they are distinct actualized data files.
(It seems) digital data is never really an end-product because it so easily generates more and more digital data. Computer models facilitate the production of more and more digital data. Architecturally, perhaps only an actual building is an end-product (of the model/drawing).
[Yet, for me, the 'end-product' architecture became a virtual building, specifically a virtual museum of architecture.]
"Gustav, the difference (for me at least) between a computer model and computer image(s) is that they are distinct actualized data files."
So how is that different from a building that has been built with photos generated of that building and a computer model and it's computer generated image (besides convenience)?
Digital cameras now make it very easy to take unlimited 'photos' of real buildings.
Of course, ever since the invention of the photograph camera, many pictures of a building could be taken, but to take 1000s of pictures of a building was mostly cost prohibited.
Digital impact continues.
So the impact is convenience and it's brother inexpensive. Any other differences?
POTENTIALLY infinite
Thanks for the obvious.
I think most of us here have read the same books. Funny how some people are afraid of losing the farm.
oops sorry. didn't want to bother. I'll leave you guys alone
So why don't you point out the non-obvious then?
[Funny I do indeed know about 'losing the farm.' My father and I went to Poland in 1990, where he took me to the quondam Lauf farm there, near Konin. It was part of a German-speaking Lutheran village prior to World War II. The Polish family that received the farm after 1945 are still there, we even spent an evening in their living room, which my father recognized as part of the house he grew up in. Does this lose bother me? No, but it does interest me that my grandfather did own a nice piece of farmland in Poland.]
Rita:
That teknique you used has become very hackneyed.
What teknique is that?
How you turned "selling the farm" into a literal event, no?
My family was Swedish royalty in the 1700s until my direct desendant became a drunk and a gambler and was disinherited and ended up a beggar and living in an earthen hut. Do I care, I never met the guy.
repeat:
So why don't you point out the non-obvious then?
reading the same books?
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109908/
. the obvious might be more interesting.
Q: What do you call the day before Thanksgiving?
A: Ax Wednesday
all for
The Dinner of Thanksgiving in the Age of American Reenactment
"Eat everybody."
thanks quondam. i'll be in ottopia as an ottoman envoy. can you put an "ottoman museum of young turks" in bottomopolis? sultan has allocated some property exchange for it, via reenactment vizier.
No, no, no, all the "in" books that will be out at half price books in 3 years, yes, I mean no.
We've done Rafael Moneo's Stockholm Modern Museum. It was a pretty good way of looking at his sense of composition and how difficult it was to integrate the scheme in a complex topology.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.