 |
| "Audiotorium del Parco, L'Aquitaine" (2009) by Renzo Piano |
Carr quotes architect Renzo Piano stating, "The problem with the computers is that they make everything very fast" (142). What is sacrificed for efficiency, several of Carr's sources suggest, is thinking, creativity, and expressiveness. However, he also notes that computer-aided design creates opportunities for innovation and experimentation in architecture. Is privileging pencil and paper drawing over CAD merely a matter of nostalgia for old tools and old ways? Or is the embodied act of drawing artistically superior to CAD? How does substitution of digital for manual tools shape other creative activities or artistic objects? How does it change the relationship of the artist to the artwork?
The act of drawing is artistically superior to drawing a design for architecture with technology. Using technology, the architect has to follow the rules of the program and could be limited to certain areas, shapes, structures, etc. When an architect is drawing, there are no limitations whatsoever. The architect's imagination is able to roam freely, and whatever pops into his or her mind is then drawn onto the paper. CAD software could help the architect design safer buildings however. The substitution of digital for manual tools can totally change the creative process. I'm definitely not an artist, but I can notice the huge difference between drawing on a computer and drawing on paper. Computers are so touchy and it can be quite difficult to draw on computer compared to paper. What were once creative activities, like drawing and design, are now computer application and programming. Artists are conforming to what the programs want instead of going with their gut and imagination. The computer becomes the artist of the artwork.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Braden that the act of drawing artistically can be superior to CAD when it comes to the creative process. However, what about when it comes to “ease, efficiency, and precision”? In these cases, the substitution of digital for manual tools proves superior. Nostalgia of old tools and old ways does play a part if one does not at least recognize this. Which method is better varies. Both have advantages and disadvantages, mostly dependent upon the type of work you are doing; sometimes maybe even a mixture of the two may be the best. The relationship of the artist to his or her artwork is greatly affected because the pencil and paper method builds character and imagination, CAD promotes regularity and sensibility. If a building company is asked to build a certain number office buildings in a short amount of time on a low budget, then CAD would be the way to go. If the same building company were asked is asked to build the same number of office buildings, but is given more time, and paid according to the creative output, then manual would be the way to go. Something as dangerous and complex as a nuclear power plant would require CAD while a park in the middle of the city would require pencil and paper.
DeleteI see your point and agree with you. I guess the main issue is knowing the right balance between CAD and physical artistry. We can't give too much power to machines if we want to preserve human art.
DeletePiano also observes that even if the designer behind the computer screen is incompetent, a simple push of a button easily compensates for a lack of creativity or skill. I think that Piano is trying to say that the ease and quickness of the automated process becomes dangerous in the sense that technological "assistance" can often turn into a complete removal of the human element of artistic involvement. The problem with the CAD system is that at some point it does an equal or possibly greater amount of work than the human designer. This is when we risk losing any element of creativity that could have gone into a work, all for the sake of achieving quick and precise results. True art takes time, but precision no longer does.
ReplyDeletePoetic. The idea of totally removing the human element from design is almost disturbing. Why do we design, draw, paint, even compose music? Because we as humans are gifted with the ability to do so. When we stop exercising those abilities, do we lose a part of our humanity?
DeletePerhaps we simply express our abilities in different ways. If we no longer have the need to create our own physical representations of creativity, maybe we can find new ways to express them?
DeleteThe act of drawing with a hand and a pencil are far superior to the act of having a machine write up a blueprint because it takes more time, effort, and heart to create a piece from a human brain and effort than writing it in a code and producing it. While the human way may have errors and take longer, it is still a complicated system that can be tweaked, moderated, and seen more visibly from experience than what a computer can type up. As a good example of art outside the drawing world, I would never have a computer compose a poem for me by entering a prompt and letting it type something out for me. In the same light, an architect should take pride in being able to make his own creation by hand on paper. While it is nostalgic, many people do not want to conform to computers for their handcrafted projects, it also allows their creativity, handiness, and strengths stay in tip-top shape as compared to what a computer has to offer. Usigna computer may get the same result, but it devalues and diminishes the artist.
ReplyDelete