"Building 3D Worlds-3D Geometric Graphics I" & "Geometric Building"

The excerpt from Yehuda’s book, Geometric Modeling, gives a clear description of the different types of geometric modeling and touches on geometric operators at the very end. While Anne Spalter’s chapter “Building 3D Worlds-3D Geometric Graphics I” provides a very thorough overview of components in most current 3D modeling programs.

Yehuda’s chapter begins with descriptions of the three types of computer models that have developed since the 1960’s; wire frame models, surface models and solid models. Most current programs are solid modelers with wire frame and surface viewing capabilities. I was not aware of the three approaches to solid modeling: spatial occupancy enumeration, constructive solid geometry and boundary representation. Spatial occupancy enumeration was the most interesting to me. It represents “solids as sets of contiguous discrete ‘chucks’ of matter in three-dimensional space.” (Yehuda, 143) With b-rep models, the volume of an object is usually left empty because definition of the object occurs at the boundary lines. The exact opposite is true with spatial occupancy enumeration. Its major downfall is the amount of computing resources needed to model objects. Therefore, this type of modeling is used mostly in medical imaging where relatively small objects are created. Spalter talks briefly about this type of modeling I believe, when she refers to voxels, and raster based 3D programs. (Spalter 218) In Interior Architecture, it seems natural to use b-rep modeling. As designers of space, Interior Architects are interested in volume as open space. We are very aware of inside versus outside and the implication that has on the space we’re working within. It would be counterintuitive to use a modeling method such as spatial occupancy enumeration that cannot clearly distinguish the interior of an object or volume. If this type of modeling could be more about subtraction, similar to modeling clay, then perhaps in the future it could be a useful tool for the design of interior spaces.

Spalter’s article does not discuss the three types of geometric modeling, but it does provide a detailed overview of most 3D programs, including methods of creating objects, methods for assembling objects and a discussion on composing objects in a 3D scene. Her descriptions of primitives, sweeps, Boolean operations, splines and patches were very familiar to me. These are elements for creating objects within a 3D modeling program. What was less familiar and very interesting was the topic of algorithmic form generation. Fractals, grammars and graftals are all ways of generating natural forms based on the repetition of similar forms at different scales. The discussion on genetic art is based directly on the computer’s ability to create these natural shapes, along with mutations of those shapes, with minimal input from the user. The user becomes the designer in a sense by choosing which form is most pleasing and the computer continues working from there. Spalter uses “Genetic Images” a show at the Centre Georges Pompidou to illustrate genetic art. Viewers influenced the generation of the piece, based on which images they most enjoyed. (Spalter 245) Karl Chu is a Professor of Architecture at Cambridge University whose focus of study is genetic architecture.
(http://www.arch.columbia.edu/index.php?pageData=28630) Chu’s work is purely theoretical, but he is certainly one architect pushing the boundaries of the computer and 3D modeling, and the philosophical effects of using such a medium for idea and form generation.

So does the future of architecture and design involve the inevitability of the computer as designer? Are future buildings meant to be so different from our modern day ones that they are unrecognizable as buildings? We stand at a precipice of design. As designers we know that the way we build has to change. Our structures have to become more organic, at least in their actions, if not their appearance. And the computer can be a very useful tool for organizing and perhaps designing complex structures that will baffle the minds of humans. But what good will complex organic structures that mimic natural forms be when our main building materials are steel, glass, concrete, brick and wood? I really believe that it’s our responsibility as designers and architects, to use the computer creatively. Certainly it can generate unimaginable forms and even make sure those forms will stand. But at some point we have to ask if these dramatic forms of the computer are really necessary. We have to use common sense about the usability and footprint of such structures. Maybe that becomes our future role, as editors of computation.

"Pioneers in Digital Art" and "Computing in Architectural Design"

Together, these two texts provide a comprehensive outline of the development of graphic computation. “The Pioneers of Digital Art” covers a broad range of advances in technology that affected the larger art community, while “Computing in Architectural Design” specifically addresses those developments that have had a direct impact on architecture and design. Both articles are arranged similarly, creating a timeline of major milestones in computer aided design developments and relating them to the work produced by artists and architects. With all of the similarities between art and architecture, and the developments in computation that have evolved the concentrations, there still remains a root argument that persists. What is the role of the artist or architect when they use the computer in design and/or production? Can they claim to have created the final product? Does it matter? By showing how CAD has developed in art and architecture, these two articles present the different views of the role of the computer in both disciplines.

In “The Pioneers of Digital Art,” Lewis and Luciana provide a fairly detailed history of the computer and the development of digital graphic tools. They trace the development of computers and computer programs with their beginnings in military applications, and their move to educational environments and private institutions. With each transition, they provide examples of work created by artists at the time. During the seventies, artwork by artists such as Nam June Paik and Myron Krueger was seen as revolutionary by a few, but was mostly ignored by the art world. Because the computer’s history developed from scientific beginnings, there was a tendency by the art community to refuse acceptance of such work. Ultimately though, these first artist/pioneers, became revered for their exploration into a new media, which transformed the way people viewed art. The same hardware and software that artists were using for exploration were also very useful tools for the architect and designer. Vector graphic programs allowed architects to quickly create and edit drawing sets, and 3-d modeling and animation programs allowed designers to visualize their design in a new way that 2-d drawings could not. The computer had a profound effect on changing the face of art, eventually creating new categories, such as ‘corporate art’ and ‘new media.’ The computer has also made viewing art a vastly different experience from seeing pieces in a gallery. This mass availability and image reproduction have really challenged the question of what is art.

In “Computing in Architectural Design,” Kalay asserts at the very beginning that, “Architecture, as a practical form of art, has been in need of computation - and computational aids – since ancient times.” He uses Stonehenge and the pyramids of Egypt as examples of structures that required complex computation in order to build. He then gives a history of the computer in architectural design, starting with engineering analysis, Sketchpad and Negropontes’s URBAN5. Initial investigations into CAD looked to create intelligent software that could “initiate actions” and this early research, was most concentrated in universities. These systems required large computers with a great deal of computing power, and therefore a great deal of expense that most businesses could not afford. CAD did not appear in architectural practice until the 1970’s. These programs still worked off of a mainframe and were really only available to large firms with the financial assets to invest in the technology. With the development of personal computers, came the second wave of CAD, as a drafting tool. In this scenario, the computer was merely a tool for the architect or designer making the decisions. The next wave of CAD resembles the intelligent programs of earlier generations, allowing the computer to take on a more comprehensive role in the design of a building or space. Ultimately though, the profession of architecture has remained fairly similar for many decades. There is no new category of architecture for digitally designed buildings, and with a few exceptions, it can be difficult to tell which buildings are created in digital space by traditional methods and which buildings are designed digitally, utilizing the computer as a design assistant.

The argument for the role of the computer in art and architecture seems to have taken two different routes. Artists, although reticent at first, have embraced the computer as both new tool and new media, exploring what binary language can accomplish in the world of art. Architects and designers, although truly in need of advanced computation, have been a little less willing to give over control to the computer, still insisting that no computer can design like a human. There seems to be a certain desire to relegate the computer to status of drafting, modeling or measuring tool, but very rarely a design tool that can give feedback on informational input. The new BIM systems are the closest to “intelligent” design aids at the moment, but their intelligence comes from tagging elements to create spreadsheets and schedules, not from their ability to create good buildings.

So what does the future of CAD hold? Architecture is the perfect combination of science and art. For all the majesty or beauty of the structures we build, the ultimate measure of success is whether or not they stand. What better medium to utilize the computer? The computer can generate forms, beyond our wildest imagination, and analyze those forms for structural stability. The computer can logically assess a space plan and offer suggestions for efficiency, or delight if so programmed. Certainly the role of the architect/designer should not be replaced with the computer, but the relationship should become more symbiotic, allowing the two types of intelligence to capitalize on their strengths. Perhaps with new developments in TUI (tangible user interface) and “smart” environments, the design process with the computer can move away from the desktop and become more encompassing, allowing the designer to walk among the spaces and create a structure from within.