CompuServe Thread

Scott – Your questions are some things that I've been thinking about lately. I'm a sculptor and I still build physical models. I still build physical objects. People ask me if I "design" my things with the computer. The real answer is no; I use a pencil and sketch pad, 3DS, and the workshop. But a lot of folks think that you have to use one medium exclusively. So my interests are a little different then those 3DS users who are visualizing architectural spaces…but then that is one of the beauties of this 3DS program, no? Is a computer model faster…absolutely, unless of course you factor in the time it takes to get up to speed, and stay abreast of changes, and learn the other paint and photo programs (g). Its a big decision to decide to start using the computer, and unless you have an interest in the technology I can understand why my colleagues are hesitant. I'm interested in your question of trying to analyze the perceptual differences between the computer/video visualization and the 3 dimensional model. I decided that the computer does some things incredibly well and other aspects of visualization it completely ignores. For instance, I often make objects in which a template extrudes or screeds cement along a path. Viola! The lofter is an incredible tool for me. I can loft complicted twisting paths and have a 3D mesh. It is hard to visualize a three dimensional object and then present it on a 2D page. Then to be able to imply depth through lighting, parallax of objects in the scene during a walk through, perspective adjustments in the camera, etc. Its incredible. Its a wonderful tool, but… The image is stripped of any sense of physical presence. (I'm speaking here of the physical-bodily-kinesthetic response one has to objects and space-I'm reminded of Le Cobusier's (spelling?) statement that to experience architecture one should walk through it at night, in the darkness, when the volumes and spaces would be accessible to the senses. During some design process there is ideally an inter-play between the designer's sensory interaction with the object, rendering skills, and educated presumptions (which might be the result of real connoisseurship). But the sensory interaction one has with the video screen or lcd projector really doesn't involve the physical bodily response I'm alluding to. For the kind of work I do I think it would be remarkably hard to completely design an object without going back and forth between the object and the computer visualization of it. I find that the physical presence of an object or architectural space effects the way I read meaning into it. Not being an architect, although I have built houses and done a lot of custom renovation work in my time, I'm not really educated in architectural design values. But I once had this great experience of visiting Rome, Italy with some architectural historians and looking at a lot of Baroque architecture. The spatial tricks and techniques, the bending planes, the tapering pliasters, the bending of perceptual space was a revelation to me. And the sense of the building as a total, coherent object…thats what blew my mind. A cruciform chapel for instance, sited on the hillside above a large estate, where one could see the architecture as an object in its totality was a wonderful experience. Or a dome and cupola that were small enough to be intimate objects. So much of my construction work involved boxy buildings, square rooms, limited options for perimeter changes, and occasional faux facade manipulations. Rarely did we do much with space once we knocked out some walls. I feel that physical models, especially architectural models still provide a sense of the objectness of the architecture. I'm really into 3DS too, so this response is mainly just trying to pin down how to talk about the differences in visualization, and what might be expected in stylistic developments through the use of extensive computer visualization as opposed to free hand drawing and model making. Then there is the issue of learning to "read" the animation or the still image. Sometimes people are so amazed to see the animation that they are blinded by the technology and the ensuing discussion doesn't deal with any of the design issues…they are more interested in how it was done then in trying to comprehend the objectness of what I'm trying to show them. Hey! Maybe thats for another thread…"How to teach your audience to read your animation…" (G) I'm looking forward for my copy of the Siggraph demo to "learn" some more. (g) Carlton