CumInCAD is a Cumulative Index about publications in Computer Aided Architectural Design supported by the sibling associations ACADIA, CAADRIA, eCAADe, SIGraDi, ASCAAD and CAAD futures
Hits 21 to 40 of 617
Reformat results as:
short into frame
detailed into frame
This paper does not deal with the technical aspects of visualisation creation processes but proposes to emphasise architectural visualisations – animations, in particular - as a heightened form of art that could be approached with grammatical lens more than merely a technical exercise that aims to serve an outcome or an industry as they are often perceived now. Digital architectural visualisations and their delivery techniques can be expanded much more as an artistic (architectural) expression like architectural writings are to authors, games to game designers. Although differences could be identified, there are numerous lessons that can be drawn from other forms of art to propel architectural visualisations to a new level beyond those seen in real-estate websites, architectural practices and most students’ works in reputed educational institutions.
Architectural information is peculiar to each building. In order to explicate the essences of architectural works (i.e. the vocabularies, designer’s intents, etc), in all fairness, their presentations cannot be generically produced and uniformly adapted. What one technique and approach could successfully achieve in explaining one building cannot exactly be re-applied to another building with the same expected results. Forms, scales, circulation paths, lighting assignments, designer’s intents, other information (and types) to be delivered differ from one building to another. As such, executions are also wide open to be explored to not only address the practical issues but also to express the intentions of the author/s or director/s to strengthen the architectural narratives.
This paper highlights and illustrates by examples, specifically in architectural flythroughs/animations, considerations that need to be addressed in order that the results would serve as an artistic/architectural expression with a degree of educative substance.
Three years later, Yona Friedman wrote about the changing relationship between clients and architects. He said that a new design methodology was needed because architects could not assess the future spatial needs of building users accurately enough. Proposing a new model, he split architectural design in two complementary halves, hardware design and software design, reasoning that this would give users the opportunity to adapt built spaces to suit their needs.
Both of these ideas describe approaches to the production of an architecture that can change shape and configuration in response to changing patterns of use. Rabeneck’s approach illustrates the benefit of predictive technologies and automation, while Friedman’s model illustrates the benefit of user intervention and direct manipulation. This paper discusses developments in the field of responsive architecture in relation to two opposing user-centred interaction methodologies. It proposes methods for controlling responsive buildings and suggests that human computer interaction methodologies need to be re-thought and extended when applied within intelligent, responsive, architectures.
For more results click below: