Siggraph Videos and an Update
Hello All
Sorry for the lapse in posts (again). But.. School is back in and I’ll be posting again regularly. I’m looking for requests for tutorials and I will be posting new types of videos. This semester I am co-teaching Architectural Drawing + Representation. This class serves as an intro to using computer to further the design process. So, I will be posting videos on a lot basics and intro issues. I’ll be posting Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and Bridge tutorials. The second class I will be teaching is titled Orchestration, this class will focus on getting students to work with fabricators to learn the and explore co-authoring and broaden the digital communication skills. in this workshop students will use aplucations like Revit, Inventor, and Navis Works. Video for those applications should start pop up shortly.
For now here are 2 videos from from talks Steve Sanderson and I gave at Siggraph. Steve spoke on a complexity panel and I spoke on panel titled Craftsmanship.
Steve:
Me:
David,
I enjoyed both talks immensely. I felt that both Steve and you got at the heart of the problems with complexity in design and digital fabrication respectively.
As Steve said at the opening of his talk, I am also a bit of a skeptic and non-believer, yet am still intrigued and interested in pursuing ideas of complexity in design. It always comes down too, does the design actually do, what one claims that it does. Too often I have seen studio projects that claimed lofty goals and produced a sexy form, yet never could show that those goals were met even qualitatively. On the other hand, to just just give up the pursuit of those goals is not an option either. As Steve said, it is not a matter of letting go of being critical or of reflecting the world back on itself like Koolhaus, instead it is about walking the line between virtual complexity and actuality.
Your speech was also enlightening in that you debunk the dream of digital fabrication as giving power back to the architect. Architect have always been the central collaborators of a project, even when they were defined as the “Master Builder” in that they brought to together a diverse group of artists and craftsman to construct a building. Yet the power of the master builder is long gone from architecture, instead a whole host of competing factions make up the team needed to design and construct a building. Your statements refocusing architecture back on its role as “conductor” of the process is an important one that I whole heartily agree with. Being a “conductor” for the process is an important job and one that architects are good at.
I am also intrigued by the ways you are exploring the limits of that role and trying to renegotiate them with the consultants, contractors and clients. I would be interested in hearing more about how you are doing this and what the results are.
Thank Arthur! I’ll start a thread on the forum about this.
Dave