CompuServe Messages

He, he… I was asked this same question 15 years ago while in school (architecture). It turned into a very heated debate divided between the "old school" (every single person in that campus) and the "geek" (moi). I think of it in two ways. First, though you can synthetically reproduce a lot of different elements you couldn't using conventional model materials, the [synthetic] depth of tridimensionality is still far from reality. That can only be accomplished with a true physical model. We have two eyes and the screen is a single flat surface. The counter argument I suggest for this is that the benefits of being able to transform reality using synthetic tools far outweighs this lack of tridimensionality. The second thought I have is that you could just as well relate this whole question to two PBS shows. One is called Wood Right Workshop and the other is New Yankee Workshop. The end result is the same. It's just the tools. I guess it's something somewhere between art and old habits. As art, the method used should not be evaluated (Were Ana Loka here she would jump all over this). As old habits, well, there still are people looking for Elvis.