Triumph of image over content

[aland]

Triumph of image over content
There are two images published in today's Building Design ( tried to post them but can't unfortunately) which confirm to me that what an architect really needs is a great computer graphics system and that's it.

One is a Ridley Scott image of a "Discovery Centre" in Kent by Austin Smith Lord, absolutely seemless, polished and meticulous like a fucking space ship and impossible to build as such in my opinion, the other is a covered ski slope in Suffolk.

Which reminds me, whatever happed to Sonhetta and Spence's polished, immaculate pebble which took the Turner Centre in Margate Comp. To my mind another impossible technical feat.

Was it ever built, does anyone know?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,582772,00.html

[Roger Evans]

http://www.bdonline.co.uk

a Page 3 pin up of the Discovery Centre for those not receiving BD

In competitions I think its best sometimes to come second or third
that way you get a bit of kudos, a bit of money, & none of the headaches of making it work.

[space_invader]

Margate thing is happening as far as I remember AlanD. Serious revisions however - something to do with wind loads etc.

[space_invader]

also - regard your comments and graphics:

hand drawn (pen, ink, pastel, pencil, crayon, paint etc.) images are as misleading as compy graphics - a pantone filled rectangle which, when used in a pen and ink sketch of say, a nice wee visitor's centre - well, that would usually represent render wall finish, yeah? And it would be impossibly smooth and constant and without texture. But for some reason, we are able to understand that the pen and ink image is a symbol, not a exact replica of reality. Whereas with compy graphics, we expect REALITY.

gradually, that is changing, as CGI becomes ubiquitous.

But that Austin Smith Lord graphic is real shite, it has to be said.