|
A Comparison, Part 2
Our comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the drawing board suggests the acceptance of the computer is based around these advantages. Those that continue to use the drawing board quote their advantages and highlight their dismay at the computer’s poor performance as a design tool. Those that have accepted the challenge of the computer, justify their costs in terms of their increased productivity. But, in many cases, are often disappointed at the computer’s performance as a design tool.
False Impressions
The previous comparison of the Computer and the Drawing Board is not only inaccurate, but misleading since it relies upon the basic assumption that the computer and the drawing board are ‘equivalents’ to each other. There appears to be 2 basic misconceptions supporting this view:
1 The drawings from the computer and the drawing board ‘appear’ to be the same.
2 The comparison is biased in favour of the drawing board.
The same as…
"One of the most common and the most powerful ways of rejecting an idea is the simple phrase "the same as"."
Edward de Bono; Serious Creativity; Page 216.
A Comparison of Drawings
When comparing a building plan prepared on a drawing board and one printed from a computer, they appear similar. But, ‘looking alike’ and ‘being alike’ are not the same thing.
Consider the difference between an original oil painting by Picasso and a printed copy.* The composition, layout, subject matter, colors and the signature at the bottom may be alike. But, one would hardly suggest they are the same. There are at least as many differences between the 2 objects as similarities. For example: One is a canvas on a wooden frame, with a raised surface comprised of paint, from hand-made brushstrokes, created as a one-off in an artist’s studio, by a great artist. The other is a mechanical reproduction comprised of millions of dots in only 3-4 colors, printed on paper in large quantities, in a workshop by individuals who may or may not have any interest or knowledge of contemporary art.
* This example derives from the work of Rodick Carmichael, in his book "Iconic Language of Painting". As an exercise, for the Visual Arts course of the same name, students are asked to paint a transcription of a postcard of a painted image. Carmichael explains that whilst the representation of the painting on the postcard may appear to be the same as the original painting, there are in fact a multitude of significant differences.
Doing the Drawing
Our comparison of Computers and Drawing Boards falls down for the same reason. A computer drawing may ‘look’ very much like a drawing printed from a computer. Each drawing may be equal in providing the same information for the construction team, but this merely serves to camouflage the difference between them. A closer examination exposes them to be very different. The original from the drawing board is the hand drawn, one-off special. ‘Doing the drawing’ cannot be separated from the drawing itself.
Alternatively, the computer drawing, like our reproduction, is merely a copy drawn by a machine, to replicate another image (in this case, the image on the screen). ‘Doing the drawing’ occurs in a totally different way to creating the drawing. Failing to understand this difference is one of the key factors by which architects have failed to understand the new computer medium.
Another Viewpoint
"The trouble is that information rarely comes purely as information. Usually the information comes wrapped in concepts and perceptions."
Edward de Bono; Serious Creativity; Page 29.
The second presumption relies on viewing the computer in terms of a drawing board. This is the equivalent of comparing the athletic ability of a marathon runner with a sprinter, by having them race over a 100 metre course. Obviously, this test is so heavily biased in favour of the sprinter that the comparison is virtually useless. Yet, the preceding comparison of the computer and drawing board seeks to do exactly this. The computer is viewed through the eyes of the existing practices associated to the drawing board.
The Electronic Drawing Board
Unfortunately, the majority of architects have presumed that while the ‘end product’, i.e. the drawing, appear to be similar, the technology used to produce each product is therefore similar. This view is further reinforced through judging the computer as if it was merely an ‘Electronic Drawing Board’. This false perspective and biased comparison has created a ‘smokescreen’ for architects. They do not see computer technology for what it really is and consequently are missing many of the opportunities that it offers.
|
|
|
