Report comment

'hegemonic social and political structures'! Hmmmm? Ask anyone on the street what that means and they'll look at you like you're from mars. While-ever architects talk about architecture to themselves we are never going to be social. Talk about intellectualising an act which is asking us to be more inclusive than ever. Communication is a social act. If a computer can assist convey a visualisation the achitect has had in their mind to the public or an individual then a social interaction is achieved. Modelling ideas is an interactive process not just an image though. With greater versalitiy to adjust and fine tune the design the computer acts as a tool for progressive interaction and problem resolution. Computer visualisation offer the architect a chance to see the building from a perspective not initial thought of. This assists in the review and refiniement of ideas. I don't claim to know all the answers to the design of a building before they are investigated. I don't know about creating 'point-plans'. They appear a pragmatists way of trying to deal with a problem (which cannot be determined) by creating finite answers. I feel for Peter's frustration but cannot blame the machine for lackings in imagination of the user and ways in which to communiate. From my experience computers can (at this stage) only partly contribute to a the language of architecture and the social output. There remains an essential connection of human hand-eye-heart-mind that computers cannot generate or simulate. There is something to be said for the commonality of drawing on a piece of paper to someone that does not understand a building process or is not understanding/familiar with what the architect is talking about. I find i get tripped up in communicating an idea sometimes where the computer is waiting to generate or the program crashes for example! A discussion complemented with sketching confirms an idea with a fluiditiy and familiarity that makes for effective dialogue. Most probably because the client may similarly feel compelled to pick up a pen and respond. Computers (at this stage) for me reiforce the development of the idea. So in summary, Yes, agree computers are probably not the right vehicle for generating ideas, however no that they are not contributing to the development, refinement and communication of ideas which make architecture a social act. I understand the main obstacle to architecture meaning something and being accessible to the community (global or local) is the way architectural education fails to facilitate individuals to become empowered professionals offering a competitive service to the public after their teritary study is complete and the profession's own arrogance in the way architect's organisational bodies fail to promote and effectively communicate the service of architecture as tangeble and accessible to anyone other than those with the money to pay for it or those educated in its way. Which in reality is most people. Architecture is a beautiful global language but not (in reality) for everyone. Computer's are therefore understandably down on the priority list of failings in the architectural profession for me.