Thursday, May 28, 2009

Renderings vs. Physical Models I

Recently I have found a lot of pleasure in working with 3dmax. In a way it feels like painting because it is very much about creating the illusion of reality. When creating a scene the concerns match the ones working on canvas such as plasticity, light, reflections, refractions, materiality, colors, textures and composition. If there is a difference – well - I am missing the smell of oil paint, the brushstrokes, mixing colors and of course working physically. But it is not my intention to say 3d modeling may replace painting - I rather want to express my newly gained pleasures in a media that I have been struggling with. In fact I used to think that a physical model is always the best way to verify a design physically. So throughout my recent findings I would like to give credit to both types of modeling. Renderings turn out to be strong to arouse empathy to what it is like to be in a place from the human scale and perspective, certainly a weak point of the physical model that we tend to watch from above and always with a scale factor. Also related, physical models have difficulties to express materiality and usually end up uniquely colored depending on a material that is better for modeling than for representation such as cardboard or wood. A big plus of physical models though is how they make us understand tectonics. We understand how material reacts to gravity, connects and braces each other. We also experience their limits. This is the big weak point of renderings in which slabs, walls and columns usually float in space without required loads, support, bracing and connections. In fact it is dangerous to only rely on a rendering because we may be misled and an attractive concept turns out to be very difficult and costly to construct. As a matter of fact we need both media to make good judgment over our designs that are to represent the invisible forces idea, light, and gravity. Therefore renderings are good for light studies and materials, and physical models are good for studies of physical matters.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

BIM vs. Drawing I

BIM to conventional drawing compares like watching a movie based on a novel.

Reading a novel is a creative act. Our imagination is challenged to conjure up the imagery that is based on the story. We imagine the setting, the characters and are free to add what has not been mentioned by the author - letting alone the act of interpretation. Watching a movie is consuming a readymade imagery. In fact it is hardly possible to picture anything differently from the screen when seeing a movie first and then reading the book.

Drawing a plan thus is a creative act as well. The architect is challenged to imagine space in his mind therefore the lines on paper/ screen are signifiers representing volumes. Drawing is a speculative act that exposes itself to surprises the minute it becomes physical through a model.

Designing with a 3d model is an act of immediate and precise spatial confirmation. The architect consumes a readymade imagery instead of creating it.

‘So much the worse for those who lack imagination’ writes LeCorbusier in ‘Vers Une Architecture’. He thus highlights the ultimate skill that makes a good architect - the ability of spatial thinking. Well - I suppose - the good news is that no matter how imagery is created at the end it is also the architect’s judgment that decides over good or bad architecture.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

On concrete I

I often struggle to explain non architects the appeal that architectural concrete has on me. The discussion usually goes: concrete is cold, unfriendly, grey, associated with bunker architecture and only architects like it anyway. Well - what is left for me to say? But I like it? Of course that’s not satisfying enough and who has confidence in the taste of a nameless architect anyway?

I then try concessions. I would agree that - yes concrete has often been employed with very little empathy towards occupants and with lack of proper scale. The material has been suffering exploitation of a building construction industry that sees profit in it rather than aesthetic qualities. I try to make the point that the problem lays not in the material itself but in its employment. But even with help from prominent examples it remains a difficult discussion especially when it comes to residential architecture. Well - can’t teach old dogs new tricks - I guess.

Then, over Memorial Day weekend, we drove the coastline south from Los Angeles to San Diego. We stopped in Laguna Beach where we looked at some original Rembrandt edgings and we stopped at the Salk Institute by Louis Kahn in La Jolla. The concrete was in excellent shape and its sharp edges were just stunning. The jointing perfectly described the buidlings modular, scale and told the tale of its making. Puzzling over these things I thought that concrete is really the most artistic of all building materials. It is the making as much as the final matter that is absolutly fascinating. It is the media of a sculptor who designs the negative form in which the actual sculpture will be cast. I instantly related to the Rembrandt edgings we saw earlier. For his edgings Rembrandt had to think in the negative that is to cut out the part that wasn’t going to be seen on paper. Just like Rembrandt, Kahn had to think in the negative that is to design the formwork to achieve the final outcome.

Everyone left the building very happily.