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

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

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.

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).]

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

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.

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

@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.”