Re: def: AutoCAD Architecture
1998.11.30 17:49
So far I see at least three independent issues here that need better "defining":
1) there are various automatic CAD operations that more or less predispose a design methodology; these are usually software specific and each software's automatic functions results in a more or less specific type of architecture. As such, each software's automatic operations and their resultant design methodologies/architectures should be defined individually.
2) computer aided design (CAD) (architecture) is not necessarily the same as automatic CAD operations (architecture). CAD, in general, offers a multitude of new dexterity issues for architects, designers and draftspersons, many of which go largely underutilized because the time that architects sit at CAD workstations is rarely a time for research and development -- there are usually overriding business time and cost factors that dictate the work being done. Automatic CAD operations, on the other hand, are specific sets of CAD operations (within individual softwares) aimed at automating the design process, and hence dictate a certain methodology, and even (perhaps?) a certain resultant aesthetic.
3) Whenever a specific software is part of a term to be described, the subsequent definition(s) should be specific to that software.
Just as a general note, I personally find it hard to blame (or praise) CAD for any or even some of the architecture out there today. Any instrument, no matter how good or bad, is still almost totally reliant on the person that uses it. CAD, in and of itself, significantly increases humanity's dexterity, but its does not independently produce any architecture or aesthetic. That is not to say, however, that certain CAD operations are not capable of inspiring (or dictating) an architecture or aesthetic.
|