Well, I'll apologize for a hasty dismissal of your artistic endeavors. (Some might say that my use of stencils and spray paint is lazy and conceals lack of talent, after all, so I should be careful in criticizing others.)

I take up this conversation in public because it has suddenly become easier, in recent months, to have a reasoned dialog with you, and I'm sure others have noticed this too. This seemed to come about during the 3DH (lately, 3dh) competition thread. I am myself perplexed by the emotions that are raised when one tries repeatedly to engage with someone who has been "backed to the wall" and, for whatever reason, cannot or will not address the questions repeatedly asked of him. I guess the hope springs eternal, that the very obstructive language barrier -- which gets much worse during heated argument -- and the odd unwillingness to confront directly the challenges given you on matters of which you are the sole expert, will at any moment be replaced by clarity and light -- and, frankly, truth and honesty. For it is difficult to trust, much less respect and honor, a man who seems intent on avoiding responsibility for the very thing he is trying so hard -- painfully hard -- to promote and defend.

Whatever the reason for your recent "recovery" and a corresponding relaxation of temper and defensiveness, I applaud it -- and wish you the best. The struggles of so many to understand and cope with your difficulties here on the Web will be put behind, it is hoped. it may be too much to hope that you can actually acknowledge these difficulties and your part in them, but I know there have been a number of people here who were willing to give you every benefit of the doubt.

I can say that I sympathize with the pain of someone who feels his contribution to society is both misunderstood and dismissed. If I were a more empathetic person (and I confess I am not) I would have been one of those, perhaps. It seemed to me that getting at the truth was more important even than your feelings, or mine. I will have to be judged on that decision, for better or for worse.

Thanks for asking my opinion !

Best wishes, Stephen

SDR, that was an exceptionally gentlemanly response. Cheers to you.

sweet

You are quite right , What is most destructable for a good discussion, is when the oppoments respect to one another kind is sort of forgotten , I agrea to be very much into issues at stake there , and to often has done what you see others ,engaged in simular creativity ha done -- been so much into the works, the not yet baken theori or possible impac of it, please do't take this as an exchouse -- but so often with so many other things , the creative person simply get so much into his vision about it, I hope you reconise this as nothing but what it is, --- problems come when a develober , a designer or whatever I can call myself, see this contribution --- while as you SDR often stated there ought to be a proto type.
Yet and here come the dicussion , if a method visulised by best avaible means, by the sheer money an artist is able to spend , shal disqualify an idea a vision so many in fact has found most interesting.

But let me repeat that some of the best inputs, some of the most realistic and let me state this clear , as nomatter how the discissions has been, I all the time has known SDR's honest aproach ; I think I said this before .

You see ,with all these discussions , they often ended just there ,"backed to the wall" --- backed to the wall , trying to explain that with a personality as mine, "proving" things , by sheer nessery became explaining , that thruout history, artists, inventors , one man shows, ---- has limited finansial support -- there the huge company often has all the recurses but not allway's the brave idears. And being an artist, you often think more about beauty and cheap houses for normal families , --- you realy become that revolusionary, who destill the idelogy into "Kill the brick" , suddenly you realise , that you spended so many years and day's , trying to become better ,as driven by some strange force , a force one can not ecape , not at all to become famous, but simply to realise the beauty and what lay beyond. --- A lone but quality travel.

No one want to be the guy with a fantastic new idea, when he first realise what it realy take , --- in fact I want to warn everyone who carry that picture about it.
Don't do it, you can not emagine what it take , how much are expected , and even you try keep a low profile , be sure you will be blamed by the picture people has ,you will stand trial for what people think is your resons, for what people think is your drive , and that crritic is both harsh and unforgiving , even you share by the good of your soul , than even that will also be wrong.

But I will stop my exchouses here, I am glad I has the chance to repeat my respect for SDR , SDR's engagement and good advises has been apriciated more than SDR think --- but still no one can remove the zebra's pattern, and realy who would profit . The Zebra can't ansver for how it is born , and realy -- the world be a poor place, without the zebra's beauty ?

Please let me add, that about 3dh I am now startinf a small project .
------ I has this chinese text ,a 5000 word article in english and chinese, and I realised I newer tried make use of it . Here the zebra's stripes are wrong, and the critic will newer end before the zebra's stripes are removed . And as I find so much pleasure in my painting and don't intend to learn chinese , then how difficult could it be to scan the pages, do a few new designs and then focus on publishing the english text plus the chinese one, with some cheap graphics.

That also make more silence, so I can focus on the quality of painting. Maybe even become better painting, maybe even develob something new painting, as how it allready happened in small scale , just develobing a few of my own "masters secrets" there, -- and maybe combining the old and the new wok better there.

Advanced 17' century cutting edge technology.

SDR;

"I am myself perplexed by the emotions that are raised when one tries repeatedly to engage with someone who has been "backed to the wall" and, for whatever reason, cannot or will not address the questions repeatedly asked of him."

What questions is that -- you kept repeating this as if it was a fact for years, -- what questions are those ; I asked you this repeatly over a period of years ,and you newer answered me what questions these are -- , why is that ?

Is it becaurse you stated so many times, that I don't answer your questions , that you forgot what questions you are talking about ?

Now -- you said that today "all you need to be an architect is a computer , and all you need to be an artist is a projector" , then I wonder, as that was said very arogant ; do that corespond to your attitude of discussion generaly , how you engage these discussions about art, innovation and architecture ? Reson I ask is that in my discussions with others about arts, I newer met the attitude written in these lines ;

"someone who has been "backed to the wall" and, for whatever reason, cannot or will not address the questions repeatedly asked of him."

Is this an argument SDR or is it what you are looking for in discussions about art and architecture , I been wondering for years.
As if you forgot what question you been asking all these years, and on top ,claim that all you need today to be an architect is a computer, and all you need for being an artist is a projector or a stencil-- then didn't you back to the wall -- by not answering the obvious argument about technology in arts in the picture above ? Where are your answer SDR.

Insulting each student using a computer and each artist since the 17' century for using the technology avaible ,that's not discussing arts or architecture ; thank you for opening my eyes for your arguments SDR, I now see what they realy are.

If you'll look above at my previous post, you'll remember that I apologized for my "hasty dismissal of your artistic endeavors," in my first sentence.

There are of course many ways of making art. If tracing images of pretty female faces and figures gives you pleasure, of course I am glad of that. It is no doubt as legitimate a means of visual expression as any.



The questions I refer to are the many that we who have followed 3DH have asked -- the ones you usually say have already been answered. They were:

What is the actual method of construction ? Where are the cuts, how big are the pieces, how are they connected ? What is the missing material -- the exterior and interior finished surfaces ? What is the weatherproof membrane or cladding ?

Where are the proofs of the savings that are claimed ? What makes a building made this way stronger and cheaper, as you often boasted ?

These are the questions that many of us started asking in 2005, when we first saw 3DH. They were asked over and over, in different ways, by a number or readers, both here and on other sites. They seemed to us to be the logical questions to ask, after seeing the drawings and hearing the claims about the system.

You often said that the questions had already been answered, or that the questioner must be stupid, and unable or unwilling to understand what you had done, or that the questions were a way of dismissing your work, or disrespecting the "humble artist," etc, etc.

The only result of these questions seemed to be increasing anger and frustration -- for all parties.

Don't you remember ?

Only in recent months did you begin to seem willing to entertain some of the questions so often asked. A dialog began to take place, finally, on the competition thread. Fro the first time such questions didn't immediately arouse your ire, and some of them were addressed. You spoke of concrete bases, double walls, intersecting grids, and diagonal bracing.

I'm sure many were relieved to have such a dialog, at last. I know I was.

I have to say I'm not much interested now, as the struggle to get you to address the concerns was tiring and frustrating. And you too seem content for now to let the thing have a rest.

Anyway, that is my response to your last post. I hope it makes some sense to you. I appreciate your recent efforts to bridge the gap. I sense you may have decided to take up another round of argument, and I have no stomach for that.

What questions ?

You newer understood 3dh as an architect would -- newer emagined what it can make , what splendid oppotunities and how different.all you did was to nip pick on details you did not understand.
Lately you told why ;

"today to be an architect all you need is a computer, and today all you need to be an artist, is a projector."

That opened my eyes , for each time you claimed there was questions I newer answered nomatter both you and I know, that I answered plenty, and plenty more than that. The questions you once had , was politely answered again and again, --- then strangely, you kept claiming that I did not answer questions.

But the only question you asked for years, is why I don't answer your questions. --- I think the fact is, that you newer read my answers.
And the reson for that I read in your statement about today's architects and artists.

i think its also that people read your answers and didnt think they actually answered the questions. and all they were doing was trying to understand what you were saying

instead of explaining yourself further, or in a way that might help people understand, you refused and claimed you already answered everything

thats where a lot of the frustration comes from i believe