1) “Science and architecture often meet in their common attempt to shape or reshape the categories of visual perception” (Picon, 295) In this age of “green” or “sustainable architecture”, how much more important is it for the collaboration of science in the today’s designs.
2) “Architectural form used to appear as the ultimate result of a process of research…….A computer-generated architectural form can no longer pretend to achieve this status” (Picon, 303). So even if said form originated in your sketch book, if the end result is a computer-generated rendering, is it failure? Why? Just because the pencil is no longer present, in the final document?
3) “Part of the problem is linked to an impression of arbitrariness. Why has the designer stopped the process of geometrical transformation at one stage and not the other?” (Picon, 304) I can’t help but think of Revit after this statement. Can the limitations of peoples knowledge of BIM affect the end result of the designs?
4) “these techniques of visualization ignore what has traditionally given architectural representation its particular power of conceptualization, that is to say, its necessary degree of abstraction” (Allen, 75) How does everyone feel about photorealistic renderings? Is there something missing? Is there actually too much shown?
5) Can you have a computer generated rendering that is not exactly photorealistic that still portrays your ideas, and still have a “traditional” feel? ( LTL Architects for example) Or does the fact that you pulled something out of the computer ruin everything?
No comments:
Post a Comment