Graphic representation: 2001 Combined digital and manual technique, e. reeder Thesis
I spent the morning today as a critic reviewing design work by students at CCA (California College of the Arts) in San Francisco. The foundation of this introductory studio considered digital and ‘hand’ methods of drawing representation. The students were asked to compose an architectural spatial experience via computer modeling. Supplement to the task for many were hand drawn perspective studies and sketch diagrams. At such an early stage in architecture-design education students can easily be torn between process and final representation. To complicate matters the struggle arises of what tools to use. It seems endless the possibility of manual technique, digital, or a somewhere in-between production.
Unfortunately, to first year design students something is lost; either mired in computer application with the goal of "slick" graphic outcome or a lack of rigorous attention to craft by hand. Don’t get me wrong, some of the work I reviewed today was quite good. In fact the students were in some cases able to quickly grasp complex concepts in architectural space and possibilities for convincing representation on paper.
The question for me ultimately stands at a crossroads in time. Traditions of how we work and represent through manual ‘making’ (i.e. hand drawing and model building) and current trends in the digital realm should be carefully considered. Wonderfully there are institutes and classes, as devised by my friends Antje Steinmuller and Lara Kaufman at CCA that, critically question these two disparate modes of working. One could argue that pushing both methods ensures an understanding of concept and technique while at the same time developing needed skills for professional aspirations. Even more compelling though is how these methods might overlap and inform the maker of greater possibility in reading and understanding design process and architectural invention.
Let’s hope the students carry forth the idea that methods for representation, now more than ever, have multiple trajectories for working, with the opportunity to combine various ways of presenting design.
Unfortunately, to first year design students something is lost; either mired in computer application with the goal of "slick" graphic outcome or a lack of rigorous attention to craft by hand. Don’t get me wrong, some of the work I reviewed today was quite good. In fact the students were in some cases able to quickly grasp complex concepts in architectural space and possibilities for convincing representation on paper.
The question for me ultimately stands at a crossroads in time. Traditions of how we work and represent through manual ‘making’ (i.e. hand drawing and model building) and current trends in the digital realm should be carefully considered. Wonderfully there are institutes and classes, as devised by my friends Antje Steinmuller and Lara Kaufman at CCA that, critically question these two disparate modes of working. One could argue that pushing both methods ensures an understanding of concept and technique while at the same time developing needed skills for professional aspirations. Even more compelling though is how these methods might overlap and inform the maker of greater possibility in reading and understanding design process and architectural invention.
Let’s hope the students carry forth the idea that methods for representation, now more than ever, have multiple trajectories for working, with the opportunity to combine various ways of presenting design.
No comments:
Post a Comment