|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Agneesh,Many thanks for your elxnlceet comments. I take your point about the heavy dose of philosophy. But let me explain. 1)I think it is important for architects to develop their own computational philosophy2)If there was a clear computational philosophy – there is no need for my initiative. There is a lot of talk and a lot of confusion and no clear way forward. Its easy to build a false sense of clarity.What I intend to do is to build a tapestry of understanding. Off course rigorous engineering based methods will be introduced – buts its rig-our is within very narrow assumptions. That I wish to highlight at the beginning. My aim here is to build “awareness” more than “understanding”. The engineering design principles are simplistic and will be explained in detail. But if they are so good and comprehensive everyone will be using it. Engineers don’t use it themselves – except in resolving well trodden problems.There is an issue as you point about Short History of Design as I am ranting too much about biology. I should put it in context and I will.Have 1 Question. You keep on mentioning that Generative design is at its infancy stage. i want to know that it is at its nascent stage in relation to what???Cause you look at Greg Lynn's work , or Chris Bosses's work, they have been successfully using this design philosophy since a long time and to me it seems that Generative design is close to its Prime, with more and more European and Asian architects embracing it.Embracing What ? Its easy to embrace CAD functionalities. I don’t buy their explanations. They don’t make sense. We ain’t got started yet. Isn't Generative design an extension or derivative of Post-modern Deconstructivism design philosohpy? It was successfully used by Peter Eisenmen, Daniel Lebiskind, Frank O Ghery, Coop hemalblau, Zaha Hadid etc These were the designers who exploited CAD in much better way than other architects. Generative Design is a great marketing slogan. Its another way of famous architects pretending to be on higher gear. People like Gerry have no affinity to design technology – he relies on Card board crumples to generate form. Once its done CAD packages are used to realize them it. Its all about tool use.Zaha Hadid is a good example to that. Her 1980 s work was so much Deconstructivism, where is current works are very generative or inspired by nature. May be for her the transition was not that difficult, as in the end it is the matter of exploiting CAD software and using them for designing and not drafting!!!Don't be so naive. Zaha Hadid understanding of nature is embarrassing. She would not be in love with those sharp Euclidean stuff, if she know anything about nature or structures. She is a form artists. If you want to see what good structural design is about, look at a cross-section of a bone. Its very well optimized. Zaha would not like that kind of well designed stuff. She is catering to an 19th century aesthetic achievable in form only now.P.S- There are certain typo and punctuation errors which we need to resolve before it is available for learners outside this group. However, over all it's a great start cant wait for more Yes, lot if errors. Will be fixed. Greatly appreciate your comments. Many thanksSivam
| + | You actually make it seem so easy with your prtaenestion but I find this matter to be actually something that I think I would never understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me. I'm looking forward for your next post, I’ll try to get the hang of it! |
Latest revision as of 01:18, 22 May 2012
You actually make it seem so easy with your prtaenestion but I find this matter to be actually something that I think I would never understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me. I'm looking forward for your next post, I’ll try to get the hang of it!
