What seduces more: a hand drawing or a 3Dmodel?

definitely hand drawings… i used to produce computer renderings of buildings and they’re not particularly atmospheric no matter how good…. whilst drawings can be works of art in their own right…

I kind of agree with Paul on this one – I do all my perspectives freehand although I cheat occassionally by tracing over a 3d model.

Hand sketching is a very tactile thing, also clients value it – it is a little mysterious to them whereas you could produce all singing dancing animatronic presentation work, spend weeks getting it all together and receive a ‘so what’from your client.
One of the most successful approaches I have found with clients is to pull out the blank sheet of paper turn it upside down facing them and then proceed to draw my presentation perspectives in front of them as I speak – I know – its a party trick but people do appreciate it – also for some reason the eye seems to have difficulty with the 3d model (although they are becoming so good that it can be difficult to acept that they are not real).

As to the real value – I think it is as a design tool – visualizing an idea in thumbnail form before committing to hardline.

clients like both kinds of visuals

the advantage to the freehand sketch is what it doesn’t show that the client supplies themselves – it suggests, it offers feel rather than tremendous detail

the 3D computer model can be problematic in static stills, especially early in the process where it appears that all is worked out when it is not; many computer still look dead because a lot of detail is supplied by software rather than thought

animations and fly throughs are good at defining space and experience, always impress (the way a physical 3D model is like Christmas morning), and don’t allow too much focus on detail when it is not appropriate to do so

Trouble with the graphics/CAD programs is that they impose a uniformity on all architects using them. As a result, presentations are now all similarly glossy and give little indication of the architect’s thinking.

Whereas a soft-pencil sketch or a dribbly watercolour a la Will Alsop at any rate provide evidence of a mind at work.

Clients will always respond to an architect reaching for a pencil and paper in a meeting. That’s involving. The exact opposite of involving is being made to sit through some kind of fly-through on a laptop. That’s just showing off.

Without wishing to awaken the debate about the use of the computer for the profession in general, I would disagree with Paul and say that computer generated images can be extremely atmospheric. I think that too many ‘young’ architects tend to apprpoach a 3d model as a finite piece. One can, I believe, achieve that vagueness/ richness by trying to be more abstract. There is nothing worse than a 3d rendering that longs to be a photograph.

Kristian, your work at Studio MKT.a tends to be more abstract okay but unfortunetly everyone else seems to be attempting photorealism…..

aside… if you haven’t seen Kristian’s work….. http://www.irish-architecture.com/onsite/mkt/index.html

Glad to hear there’s evidence in some form that Will Alsop’s mind is still with us!!

[This message has been edited by James (edited 04 July 2001).]

A whole new world of architecture exists in the virtual world, most which will never be built nor was designed to be built. The ‘abstract’ 3D model is a new form of architectural & artistic expression, completely separate from the world of the hand drawing

like the sort of thing you’d see in the graphisoft prize?

The penny’s now dropped for me MK. Suddenly Hadid and Gehry make sense. Thanks

there has always been a good deal of talkitecture, now we have blobitecture – some of which is quite good sculpture – and virtutecture which seems just a varient of talkitecture to me

personally i still like good real buildings which can be made only by people that care and use whatever tool – their hand or their mouse – they wish…real buildings also deal with weather, wear and tear, and the good ones do not fade with time

[This message has been edited by deepnote (edited 06 July 2001).]

Well said, deepnote.

sticking with expressing architectural intent (of course the actual buildings are more important than the drawings), photorealism has been a focus of archtiectural presentations for a long time – i think the interesting thing happening now that serious photorealism is widely possible is that i think/hope there will be a return to more personal expressive and creative graphic work

[This message has been edited by JL (edited 08 July 2001).]

Rita, my partner and I will be going to the RIAI conference in Lisbon in November and line up a possible return trip for the office in 2002. Maybe see you there.

Alan, Hadid is primarily an artist, i.e., real paint and brushes, just the way you traditionalists like it.
Gehry (seemingly so) works out his concepts through physical models, & then the points of the model are mapped into the virtual world to calculate structure & structural sizing,(as in Guggenheim).
Neither of the above conceptualise in the virtual world & the computer model does not seem to be their choice mode of presentation. Has the penny dropped even further.

Many people rely on the virtual world nowadays. Your friends may be virtual, business etc.etc. Why must architecture exist in the physical world before it is considered as architecture.
Whats the deal with talkitecture? Any competent architect should be able to talk an individual through a building. Alvaro Siza says himself that for him to clarify his concepts & distill them, the written word is the most effective method, basically talkitecture written down.

Also, deepnote, some buildings are designed to fade with time. Buildings clad with untreated timber, or a skin of unpainted steel, will rust and rot and weather with time, appear differently in sun & rain, pale and matt, dark and shining. This all shows the passing of time and theres beauty in that also. Not all buildings are made to last forever, some can actually respond to the enviornment and age, just as we all do.

[This message has been edited by MK (edited 09 July 2001).]

Thanks once more MK. I think we all get a little ahead of ouselves every once in a while and I and was labouring under the mistaken idea that I was the thrusting young blade of Scot’s architecture. It takes someone like yourself to remind me I’m actually meat and two veg.

p.s are you real?
if so, has your own penny dropped?

I dont see the revelance to the topic at hand, nor the need for personalised comments.

Sorry MK, when someone calls me a traditionalists without knowing anything about me or my work and then jargonises an explanation which ends by asking if my penny has dropped, well call me old fashioned but a more than objective response is required.

The point seems to me, if it does not exist in the real world, if you cannot touch it, smell it, interact with it, see daylight through it, curse it, love it, eat in it, bring up your kids in it, stop rain penetrating through it, heat it up, cool it down, then it is not architecture.

that’s right, if you can’t touch it but must spend a great deal of time explaining it it is TALKITECTURE

This ‘talkitecture’ sounds a little like god

HUH!!!!!!

I’m lost but I think the point is that visualisation is just that and comes from the realm of ‘fine art’ and should be appreciated as such particularly in the context of unbuilt architecture whereas ‘real’ architecture as a built form arises from a different – more physical set of circumstances involving the actual brute construction process (see Fosters book on the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank – it covers design development, modification and realisation as arising from the contract process).

Neither 3d or hand drawn processes are unique to one or the other. So its really missing the point slightly to get into this area.

Interesting though to discuss it. My own ‘umble opinion is that unbuilt work is not architecture – although it comes close – because architecture is basically about providing shelter and responds to physical needs and perceptions. Visualised unbuilt work is often neither architecture nor art but at best it is fine art in that it informs the intellect and demands an emotional rather than a physical response. It can have one other very useful purpose – education – every student has looked through the books on Corbusier, Mies, Hadid and whosoever happens to be flavour of the month and rightly or wrongly uses these ‘influences’ which are, in the main 2 dimensional representations – built and unbuilt- as a kind of intellectual caffeine shot when designing.

Any of that make sense???

Architecture is not about providing basic needs, thats construction, thats basically a complete misconception. Le Corbusier made a nice little speech along the same lines, the heart soaring from a feeling, etc.,etc, but finding the quote is hardly worth the effort.

We all know that in design, if we are always bound by the chains of physical improbability, the design process may be undermined,(exceptions to the rule, Rationalists and the like need not get their backs out of joint). In the virtual world, anything goes. Designers are not constrained by the limitations of todays physical construction methods. It is a free for all utopia for the seeding of ideas. This is how progress in the architectural, not construction world can be achieved. In the Virtual world, physics can defy itself, solid becomes plastic, impossible becomes achievable.

Why must architecture be built before it can be real? When you design, is the unbuilt form not clear in your mind? Is a piece of architecture not finished before the first hole is dug on site. Have you not decided the finish and detail of everything before the first block is laid. In essence, the building is finished before anyone even agrees to build it. The built form is merely the proof of the pudding.

Most student work is never built. By the logic I have seen here I can only deduce that none of their work is architecture, it does not exist in the real world, so how can it be architecture.
Not true, this is obvious.

‘The built form is merely the proof of the pudding’?

OK I’m all for virtual buildings and an expansive definition of the word ‘architecture’ but that statement is a staggering exaggeration of the role of the architect in producing the elements of our environment which I know as architecture.

Other players who have been left out of the credits include builders, clients, end-users, God, the weather, creeping globalisation, tribal rituals, trees, inflation, democracy, communism etc.

To name but a few.

[This message has been edited by JL (edited 10 July 2001).]

I’m kind of hesitant about stringing this one along any further – after all the subject is that of efficacy of differing presentation modes.

I think though that unbuilt work ,no matter how well designed is not architecture, my point was that it is however something of value although perhaps not as originally conceived.

Also time tends to lend a sense of perspective in relation to these matters .As it passes the unbuilt fades from memory and the built or ruinous achieves a significance as (almost) a part of the natural landscape.

Not to be unkind but Architecture is about shelter, and I think that MK is wrong in this, Corbusier said a lot of things about that, including the quote that MK refers to, but as I recall (I really must check it up)it referred to differing qualities of building rather than built versus virtual.

If you remove the aspect of construction, trades, craftsmanship, programme, even economics you remove a part of the context of buildings – a simple example – most of georgian Dublin was built on what were then economically desirable short term leases – this had a serious impact upon not only construction but stylisation in decoration – these buildings were never meant to last 250 yrs but have!!, and that basic criteria lends something to them – good and bad -which informs the architecture.

There really is no such thing as virtual architecture – if you take the view that the architect is a craftsman rather than an artist (as I happen to). If however you view the architect as a kind of self appointed artistic presence whose main importance is as a designer rather than a facilitator / maker then obviously the argument for a virtual architecture is valid.

I’m not knocking ideas – as I’ve said they are the caffeine shot in the creative process – however it is too simplistic to refer to virtual architecture and expect it to be given the same critical ‘weight’ as built work – the two take place under totally different conditions.

It is an interesting argument though, and I suspect that it is not only in this post that this topic is being discussed.

[This message has been edited by James (edited 10 July 2001).]

PS

I can’t help feeling that this is a discussion which happens and has happened historically between younger and older architects.

Much of it seems to be about concepts (or misconceptions) as to what the design process becomes through physical realisation.

I personally find that I value drawings less once a work has been built, and although I am methodical about files and record drawings for legal and other reasons – I destroy concept sketches and visualisations almost as a matter of course – once the building commences on site – it is probably a cathartic process for me but I find that I have almost an instinctive urge to sever the connection with the uncertain or the conceptual once work on site commences.

As to the built work merely being some kind of ‘evidence’ of the design process. I would’nt place to much credence in that. The one, ideally, leads into the other.

And I really do think, upon reflection, that it is definitely a mistake to place the cart before the horse in this regard. Design exercises are just that – and very useful as such (I don’t know how many times I’ve examined Terragni’s Danteum as such) But architecture is about bricks, mortar, shelter, space and the play of light and darkness (insofar as concepts are concerned) everything else is play and practice, games which quicken the reactive impulse in the architect.

beautiful images of unbuilt work are art-i-tecture, alluring as it may be for the artist it is dangerous to fall in love with because it can lead to the kind of architecture that early built Mick Graves produced where the art-i-tecture is much better than the buildings that occupants had to suffer with; in retrospect it perhaps also shows that such abilities in art-i-tecture demonstrate a talent for designing objects for the table top rather than buildings; also some of the art-i-tecture was good for visual jokes on paper, but not in the real world

The quote comes from
Vers une architecutre, 1923, Le Corbusier.

‘You employ stone, wood and concrete, and with these materials you build houses and palaces: that is construction. Ingenuity is at work. But suddenly you touch my heart, you do me good. I am happy and I say: ‘This is beautiful. That is Architecture. Art enters in……’

And so on, construction versus architecture as described by a master.

I have never been a fan of computer renderings. Even the ones produced at large firms like Foster + Partners seem to look fake an unappealing to me. They are usually over-saturated with dark colors and definitely don’t evoke a strong emotional response like a hand drawing can. I would always look to use hand drawing whenever possible. Even showing clients process sketches is a good way of getting them to understand the design.

there is just something about a hand drawing that is understandable. There is a human element to it that everyone can relate to. A hand drawing becomes a work of art where the computer rendering is an image that will disappear the moment after the presentation.

Hi everybody,

i’m looking for something that makes ground-plan surveying easier. I’ve already heard about OrthoGraph software, it is something to do with PDA so it’s kind of an electronic surveying which sounds good. Does anybody know more about this or other stuff that can help?

In school the goverment brought out dcg design communication graphics although most of the work is on the board 40 % of the marks are for making a computer model of an article but this includes 20 of the 40 per cent is free hand sketching so i guess both are equally important

@lifebuilder wrote:

Hi everybody,

i’m looking for something that makes ground-plan surveying easier. I’ve already heard about OrthoGraph software, it is something to do with PDA so it’s kind of an electronic surveying which sounds good. Does anybody know more about this or other stuff that can help?

Ok, I found some useful information on OrthoGraph’s website. That this product makes surveying automatically so it gives correctly measured layout that a PDA can visualize. I’m pretty much interested in this but it would be helpful to get some comments about this from somebody who has already tried it…anybody?

@MK wrote:

Architecture is not about providing basic needs, thats construction, thats basically a complete misconception. Le Corbusier made a nice little speech along the same lines, the heart soaring from a feeling, etc.,etc, but finding the quote is hardly worth the effort.

We all know that in design, if we are always bound by the chains of physical improbability, the design process may be undermined,(exceptions to the rule, Rationalists and the like need not get their backs out of joint). In the virtual world, anything goes. Designers are not constrained by the limitations of todays physical construction methods. It is a free for all utopia for the seeding of ideas. This is how progress in the architectural, not construction world can be achieved. In the Virtual world, physics can defy itself, solid becomes plastic, impossible becomes achievable.

Why must architecture be built before it can be real? When you design, is the unbuilt form not clear in your mind? Is a piece of architecture not finished before the first hole is dug on site. Have you not decided the finish and detail of everything before the first block is laid. In essence, the building is finished before anyone even agrees to build it. The built form is merely the proof of the pudding.

Most student work is never built. By the logic I have seen here I can only deduce that none of their work is architecture, it does not exist in the real world, so how can it be architecture.
Not true, this is obvious.

This post basically allows architecture enter into the realm of surrealism…..

Is that where it should be?? i think not.

I do not think architecture can exist on a 2d sketch or a virtual model. That, to me, is artistic conceputal design, not architecture.

while we are quoting le corb didnt he also say “To create architecture is to put in order. Put what in order? Function and objects.”