From: ronald evitts <revitts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:03:39 -0400
apropos of this idea is something i thought at a presentation of
architectural desktop release 2 that i attended last night.
this new software (some of the concepts of which are probably familiar to
minicad users) makes great advances in "objectifying" what were formerly
lines, planes and solids. for example, walls are no longer lines, but
entities with many variable attributes. likewise with columns and windows.
it occured to me that there is a bias in the conceptualization/development
of this software, a compartmentalization of things that might (mind you,
not WILL) impact the way the user thinks about architecture, especially if
she/he is using it for design as well as documentation. for example, there
doesn't seem to be in this schema any room for spatial or volumetric
considerations, except through the objects being created/edited. no chance
for a nolli, or space positive kind of conceptualization. perhaps there is
such ability within the software that just wasn't presented, but it did
seem that the fundamental direction of the software was to develop
elaborate attribute capabilities for objects/solids, with no similar
options for space. granted, such spatial elaborations are perhaps
obtainable through subsequent surface, lighting, and other manipulations of
the solids, but the fact remains that the software is, i believe, dictating
a type of thought process in the creative process.
and not that i would particularly mind this kind of a solid/surface bias,
being an adherent of the venturian dictum that "the wall is where
architecture occurs." it's just that in this case, i believe the tool has
the capability of impacting the creative thought process, and it is not
presented that way. perhaps not even consciously developed that way. but
At 09:21 AM 6/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>the notions of research vs method and a theory/practice dichotomy sounds
>very similar to a thread that transpired here at design-l sometime within
>the last six months:
>the debate was whether "the tools we use determines the way we think" OR
>"the way we think determines the way we use tools."
>I espoused the latter, and I am struck by the similarity of the latter to
>what Greg said: "What you think determines what you do and how you do it.
>In short, ideas really do matter." The point I wish to make now is that I
>have lately come to believe that BOTH of the above approaches are
>intertwined and perhaps even co-dependent, hence signifying a duality
>instead of a dichotomy.
>as to design-talk, maybe there will always be two sides to ever story, or,
>more exactly, two opposite sides of roughly equal measure and a third slim
>marginal side that is circular and perpendicular to both of the others.
Ronald Evitts, AIA
428 Broadway, Suite 33
New York, NY 10013