Lets nuke the computer whiz. . .
- This topic has 68 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Anyone have a comment?
I have tried to present a lot of the positives of computer whiz people working as part of the architectural machine – here at Archiseek for a long, long while now. Some may say that my enthuasiasm for such things borders on self-deluded hysteria.
Well, it is time that some of the counter arguments were put forward in this debate now. My first challenge against the computer whiz guys in Architectural practices goes like this.
A long time computer visualisation artist, recently referred to himself and his busy computer working schedule as ‘like being the thing in the attic’. He works from home in a large Brownstone in NYC, and isolates himself from the family during the day, by working in the attic. He also mentioned that his kids were more like ‘those little short people who live in the same house as me’.
One of the biggest and most real problems of integrating computers and architectural practice is that one fact – heavy computer users are too anti-social and to justify their behaviour must cultivate a kind of elite-ism to feel it is worth the effort.
To be honest, having seen it happen a couple of times now, I do feel sorry for the young guy who is targetted by the boss to become ‘the computer whiz’ for the architectural practice, in some kind of grand gesture at ‘we are moving to the new millenia and to higher tech’. In truth, I would greet it with much the same enthuasiasm as being banished to Syberia as a victim of Stalism and a brutal regime.
Brian O’ Hanlon.
???
the viz guy is always looked upon with a certain mistrust because he is seen as superior in skill. the anti-social aspect is there because for an individual to adopt a stance where they feel the need to avoid human contact is something that must have been there before hand. i have allowed myself to achieve a certain competence in viz, and it has won me promotion and raise, and a few decent clients aswell, but it’ll never be the be all and end all of my life. anyone who allows themselves to be pidgeonholed as the geek in an office is a fool. architecture is about invention and discovery, not painstaking modelling of one-off door handles and wimber details
Right lets talk about this thread at CG Architect. I made a couple of posts there too:
http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000496
I think this is why they always had structural engineering and technology classes in Bolton Street! 🙂
1. I’m inherently mistrustful of renderings. They more often than not give all the wrong answers to all the wrong questions about a project. As far as I’m concerned, one of the most damning indictments of an architectural process is the statement ‘looks just like the renderings’. How often have you heard that one – quite often from the architects themselves – can they not see the corollary?
2. It’s a dead end within an office (who really *wants* to be the ‘viz guy’?) I didn’t spend five years busting my ass in college to blindly produce images of a design I have no input into (apart from the colour of the glass and the number of people lifted from ‘vogue’ I place in front of it).
3. It’s horrifically time consuming and expensive, either in house or sending it out to a bureau. I’d rather spend the fee on design hours.
4. Clients get hung up on them. Planners believe (and demand) them. Partners redmark them and think that counts as design input. Woeful.
Ban ’em, I say. There was a fashion a while back in architectural competitions to prohibit models, the thinking being a larger office would have more resources and thus an unfair advantage over the smaller. The same can be said for renderings.
Originally posted by garethace
Click: Read my posts here about the pics which Paul put up.Do I *have* to?
I agree with your argument and, although I am only a second year architecture student, I can see that the movement of computers into the industry has many detrimental effects. Is this the fault of the person who knows how to use them or is it a misguided intention of those in charge (“movement towards the future”)?
Your first post seems pretty harsh on those whiz guys (calling them geeks and elitist). However, many of use “computer literate” people learn these skills, not to be paid more or to be members of some type of elitist “club,” but want to gather as many skills as possible to help communicate ideas to colleagues and clients.
I do value hand renderings and the work done in a sketchbook far above that on a computer monitor, but I believe that computers do have their place in architecture as they do in many other professions.
Get over it guys and guyesses, Computers in architecture are tools, the images they produce are tools, as with most things well handled they produce good work ,badly handled and you get crap!
When I was a student in the 80’s there was a ridiculous debate as to whether pens or pencils were more ‘appropriate’ for use in the realm of architectural creation (I kid you not it went on for years) submit in pen in Bolton St and your scheme for 2nd year end project might be rejected, as for pantone markers – Roman Empires have fallen over less!!.
Now watercolour on stretched Whatman paper – delicate washes of chinese ink (sorry not allowed in B St) theres a tool!! also a completely and utterly pointless exercise!!.
I agree with your argument and, although I am only a second year architecture student, I can see that the movement of computers into the industry has many detrimental effects. Is this the fault of the person who knows how to use them or is it a misguided intention of those in charge (“movement towards the future”)?
Generally though, because these VIZ guys have spent so much of their own free time sitting down learning the techniques required etc, and often financing purchase of computer, pheripherals and software by themselves, they tend to be very ‘over-protective’ about what they know, and their status within an architectural practice. I mean training alone cost me in the region of €1500 back in 1998, and I didn’t even go the whole hog with 3DS VIZ etc – I did finance the cost of the training myself though, without any architect’s support.
Garethace, do us a favour and review your text before you post. i still cant see the point of this thread.
I remember when I first paid for my own computer, software and training back in the late nineties – I started to do my own jobs etc, etc. Then when I worked in practice, on computers, I will admit I behaved very defensively about what I knew about the computer, and how to use it.
I remember there was a computer given to the project team, consisting of two members – myself and another girl, who also had basic CAD skills. Now, instead of organising the day in two distinct halves – one in which I would sketch and she could draft in CAD, and visa versa – I totally monopolised the CAD workstation – and therefore, while she had to do some CAD too, she couldn’t and had to sketch all day long.
We as skilled VIZ and CAD users tend to do this far too often and not even be aware of it, until years afterwards when looking back. Hence the title of the thread, Let’s nuke the computer whiz.
Is this Nuke Garethace week?
Ignore them me thinks.
I don’t even know why you bother clarifying your threads to people.
Life is too short
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
