Have you realized that we have not written “on the relevancy of the digital thing in the architecture”?
And eye; far from being obliging or presumptuous, I am going to try to speak not from the knowledge if not from the comprehension and conviction.
I neither am IT nor claim it.
But I am sure of that the knowledge of the tools of our time, and especially of his potentials, if that allows me to be more an architect (for those of module one notice the express omission of the best qualitative comparative).
I think that it does not have felt to continue giving up here arguments to favor. We try to preach with the example in our work, but we are going to apply our logics informacionales and are going to use as base and it excuses Verónica’s Sanchez article to reaffirm our position. It is an attitude that we do not like, her of reaffirming ourselves on the basis of dismantling other one, but in this occasion they have provoked us and we understand that Verónica Sanchez, the authoress of the text, will not see in the text any destructive zeal but everything opposite. Answering:
· Revit’s course is an excellent plan of future. The work, so that it stays, is in countries that are immersed in a very laborious process of implantation of the BIM as method of production and management of the documentation of work. To know Revit is to handle one of the technologies most extended in BIM and joined to being a Spanish architect it gives a highly competitive value.
· At present, the great majority of the areas of knowledge are submitted to a speed of brutal innovation. Everything learned remains obsolete rapidly.
Nevertheless, and here I allow myself license, in the computer science not. The languages of programming, rather his developers, go years overturned in that the work that has developed once has the major possible permanence. The languages are renewed, but there are doubts of that the one that aprendíó years ago to handling HTML will be able to learn to handle HTML 5?
Another thing is that in our autocad 2010 we could not open the files of 2014, but it is a managerial, not technological question…
· Perishable knowledges? Few areas of knowledge will have more development and investment that the computer science. Pongámonos in situation and let’s compare our computers or today telephones with those of 5 years ago. Let’s do the same thing with our houses.
· Eye. Sketchpad the great-great-grand-father of autocad already was using blocks.
· The creativity is The Fundamental tools, indispensable to solve any thing in the life.
But to infer of this affirmation that the IT technology is insignificant… uf!
· The problem of the engineers is de/formación, but not because they are applicators of manuals, but because they are engineers (hello friends engineers, you know that, regardless, I follow you loving).
· They prohibited us to use motor-coach in the first course of projects. We did not have subject of assisted drawing and ended up by being totally self-taught, but the subtlety of the pencil is a romantic sluggish enough myth. And one says it that it spends rolls and rolls of vegetalina and that it goes years saying that
“him it is necessary to throw webs and deliver a drawn entire contest to pencil …”
But it continues being a romantic simplicity.
· The CAD is not to project. Believe monsters. The CAD is to do planes or what long ago was called what the draughtsman does, or lost profession assaulted by hordes of hungry students of architecture.
· The BIM is the gilding of the draughtsmen designers of the beach promoters. Bad leg of crisis…
· The generalizations are odious. A nice project is not necessarily a good project.
But the opposite, neither.
· Degenerate? This … If. In our epoch, the ends of career that were exposed also were the nice ones, but the level of degeneracy seems to me to be untenable, especially when there take place ends of career of things that cross the Castilian plateau that they have been developed by an equipment of more than 20 persons.
· Underuseds I think that for what they pay to them they are overexploiting them. But it is only my opinion …
· Some cases. We continue demonizando. Have we to leave the technology to continue learning? Still I tremble when I see a pupil of architecture to write the COMPLETE URL of a web page in Google’s cabin … Enrique Dans‘s article of a few years ago was very encouraging. Of it does little, is very enlightening.
· From the paper in blank do not believe itself. It it was not even doing that of the fuck the contest. It is another romantic reductionism.
· To think the complexity it is possible to do with digital tools. Possibly even better that without them.
· Optimization? If we are going to speak about ideal solution obtained by means of processes of analogical creation since it is the drawing, it be allowed to me to dissent. Without machines, nowadays, to say that a solution is the ideal one is an act of extreme haughty. But clear, we are speaking about architects …
· This trade only has a way of existing without image and calls …
Rereading I hope that you see neither acrimony nor ill-will in the text. But it saddens me, so much that I come to the incomprehension, on having seen in young companions a rejection to the tools so fiercely as through the one that we live in our epoch to the CAD on the part of teachers who in that one at the time were even major that we now.
Without an operative comprehension of the technology we are doomed.
And I do not refer to being able to handle Revit. I speak about comprehension, of knowing what and how much can be asked him to the machines. Of dealing why a series of things happen when we work and to be able to take advantage of this understanding for, as he was saying initially to be more architects. This is an operability.
Someone will be able to use her to do more quantity of work in the same time and others we will use her to have to spend a bit less time in making our work and this way have of more to spend it in living through the really important thing, which is what happens, for example, when des – digitize the persons.
Miguel Villegas, architect
Editor in arquitextónica
Sevilla, april 2014
Arquitextonica.net es editada desde 2003 desde Sevilla por Lourdes Bueno Garnica y Miguel Villegas Ballesta. Desde hace un tiempo, decidimos sacar nuestra actividad profesional de aquí y trasladarla a villegasbueno arquitectura, así arquitextonica se quedó como nuestro espacio para la investigación, difusión y comunicación. Nos interesa dedicarnos a desarrollar e investigar en proyectos de arquitectura, con dos líneas fundamentales de trabajo.
La de vivienda social, alojamientos residenciales y arquitectura docente, que dirige Lourdes, y la diseño computacional y arquitectura para la sociedad de la información, que dirige Miguel. El trabajo que hemos venido desarrollando en arquitextonica.net desde el 2003 nos ha llevado también a trabajar por y para la difusión de la arquitectura y el diseño en internet, haciendo un énfasis especial en promocionar el talento de nuestro entorno. Lo llamamos #Ser_Red.
En la lista de etiquetas de la columna de la derecha puedes ver un registro más explícito de nuestros intereses. Si te interesa nuestro trabajo, no dudes en ponerte en contacto con nosotros.