"Is there a danger that the medium has become the message? Is the employment of animatory techniques a triumph of style over substance?"
Neil Spiller raises his concern that "an all-too-eager appropriation of animation software ... is leading architects to abandon a rigorous approach to architectural space in favour of a fetishisation of surface imagery". He argues that architectural animations often divert their creator from creating architectural space. And the process of creating animations is actually static comparing to the moving pencil. It also limited the possibilities for imagination that sketches and drawings can provide, as everything has to be know in detail in order to put into the virtual. He suggests that the technology of the virtual and its applications must be woven into actual architecture, which is where the anima in animation should reside.
He may be overstated the situation, in fact, a skillful use of animation can do much more than just spinning around the exterior of forms. It can be more than just the representation of the final design. Woven the technology with the process of developing concept, finding form, creating space etc., is exactly what we are trying to do in our class.
OMA | REX - Museum Plaza, Louisville
Peter Eisenman - Casa Guardiola
Zaha Hadid - Parametric Urbanism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Indeed, Spiller highlights the major downfall of using graphic software in architecture. It becomes more about the image than about the forms depicted. I think one of the challenges of the class is to focus on form, as opposed to making eye-candy that tells us nothing.
Agree. Just like the REX video, I am fascinated mostly by its first half (about how the form is evolved) that I can enjoy seeing it for many times; while I started to feel bored for the second half (rendering from different views) after I have seen it for 3 times.
The acknowledgement of misuse of animation does not necessary mean the appraisal of traditional methods of pencil drawing--unless it was explicit within the original article.
The simple difference is appropriate use versus inappropriate use of animation software. The purpose of any architectural "drawing" is to communicate specific information based on intention. Miscommunication and misrepresentation (or even mis-re-presentation) are what need to be constrained.
I do agree that animation can be brilliant to present process, but when learning how to generate an animation we sometimes can be so amazed by all the alternatives the tool lets us create: filters, lighting, materiality that we end up losing track of what we are truly trying to communicate. Also I think we are still at a point where handmade representations are hard to replicate and reflect uniqueness; you can easily recognize each person style of drawing. With computer representations it can be done too, but it’s also tricky since we end up using similar programs and the same printers or screens. Merging both methods would be ideal and also this will change as computer tools improve to enable the literal interaction of our hands in virtual space, special gloves to design forms and move objects in the computer, or better programs that allow us to actually draw and modify elements on the screen.
Miscommunication and misrepresentation (or even mis-re-presentation) are what need to be constrained.
Lin, I agree with this statement for the final CD's of an architectural design, however, I feel that in the initial design concept I feel that this could be helpful to make a design seem more interesting. Don't we all like a little mystery? Not in the details of how the building is going to stand up of course, but as one would later go to experience a piece of architecture I feel that it can be more intriguing to be a little confused about a building, or where it may be taking one to...
it’s also tricky since we end up using similar programs and the same printers or screens.
This is a very good point about originality in the production department. However, by using the same programs and printers, etc. we can really compare each other with each other. It forces us to be unique and creative in our methods, and really develop a deeper understanding of the posibilities of our software of choice. Now, we may be able to see a sketchup image from a mile away, but sometimes, you can take that image, and with just a little photoshop, drastically increase the time it takes to tell it was a skethcup image. Now, we are all creative or we probably wouldn't be attempting to take this class and I feel that we all have a pretty good understanding of our respective softwares. So, let the games begin to take that one variable, our common printer, to challenge us into developing uniqueness in our course!
As repeated several times in the class and studio, ambiguity is not something random or confusing, but is to clearly define multiple ways of reading the thing. In this sense, to constrain miscommunication and misrepresentation is the real challenge.
Post a Comment