CompuServe Messages

To some degrer that's what I mean… I know I worded that poorly 🙂 I'm just saying that most of the time the CG animation is either done by somebodywho didn't do the original architectural art, or the person who did the design AND did the CG animation, is usually using the animation as a boost to a design process that's going on outside of the computer, and will have a final product that is NOT the animation, but a finished architectural work. Don't get me wrong here – I'm not downplaying the visualization value of CG animations in the design processs – far from that. They're extremely valuable for that, and that's one of my uses. However, what I was trying to do was point out two things: one, that there still is a seperation between the design process and visualization tools, due to the time delay and step required for each animation, if you know what I mean. This will change with technology and the movement towards real time interactivity with design tools. Two – that often a visulization tool is just that – a tool for a design that has nothing to do with the work on the computer itself, at least in the end product. Sometimes one creates fine architectural art on the computer, or creates scenes to live in movies, videos or games, but rarely. "Usually" is a key word in what I was saying. But note; usually if one creates a fantasy on the computer, for whatever reason, the architecture is the backdrop, and second consideration to what else is going on. There's an interesting world to be discovered in architectural creations done FOR the virtual world as a means of art in itself, and as a specialty. The more CG work is created, the more room in each particular discipline in the design of each facet, and one will be able to explore ideas in architecture on a screen as one would explore them in the real world today – with less consideration for the cost of brick and marble, and how much each new corner adds to the cost of labor… not to mention BOCA 🙂