For some years now I have dedicated considerable resources to the study 01 computer modeling. The reason why is quite apparent since we have all witnessed the technical revolution that took piace at the end 01 the last century, equalled only by the industrial revolution. This revolution has radically altered the way we design and execute architecture and has devastated both our profession and our art. However, even if stating the obvious I do wish to highlight this aspect, since very few of the persons responsible for research seems appreciative of this change. Most speak in purely technical terms without folly understanding the problem while many others ignore it altogether, concerned more about strengthening age old positions than advancing along the path of science. Let me now come to how. Computers today offer architects a wide range 01 specific instruments to execute various tasks. These instruments, nothing more than software programmes, can be categorised into groups according to the tasks they do best. Every architect knows that design is nothing more than the creation 01 models (whether with wood or the computer is irrelevant), the execution of sketches and technical drawings, research or presentations. In other words, tasks carried out by the above-mentioned programmes. Ali possible misunderstandings (which still continue to breed in our universities) must therefore be swept away; namely that to study the application 01 computers to project representation and survey simply means mastering this or that programme chosen perhaps from among the most commercially successful. This is not the case. Instead, the problem is to rise higher, to examine a wider range 01 these instruments, and only then consider their separate functions from a more general and common approach. Another problem dear to my heart is also pertinent in this context: as these instruments automatically create the projections 01 the objects represented, what will happen to descriptive geometry which since it was discovered teaches representation and the control of space to student architects? Descriptive geometry will have to change, a change that will affect even its name. It will have to make representation simpler, rediscovering its relationship with design. It will have to delve deeper into the control of space, a domain in which it is stili irreplaceable since not even computers can create shapes without this type of control. These are some of the reasons which have led me to encourage research on modelling even in the post-graduate course I am honoured to co-ordinate, although perhaps it wasn’t really necessary. In fact, thanks to the enthusiasm and efforts of the students, the results alone justify this difficult choice and I think it only right that it be the students themselves who illustrate them, each with a model and brief explanation. I asked four 0f them to explain any one of the many models they created and used in different projects. Massimiliano Ciammaichella, who studies the range of shapes designers can choose from computers, has selected a model that recalls a famous photograph by Edward Weston which he created using reverse modelling. Michele Curuni tackled NURBS modelling, repeating an experiment already attempted by Marco Gaiani and myself the reconstruction of the model and perspective of a male head studied by Piero della Francesca in De prospectiva pingendi. Tullia De Majo leads us into the world of botany and geometries that resort to natural forms. Finally, Priscilla Paolini illustrates the recent technique of three-dimensional laser scanning.
Scheda prodotto non validato
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo
|Titolo:||Recenti linee di ricerca|
|Data di pubblicazione:||2001|
|Appartiene alla tipologia:||01a Articolo in rivista|