[George Foster]

One of my professors at RISD, remarked that an individual who could skillfully hand render was in her opinion more likely to succeed digitally. This, coming from someone who had elevated hand rendering to an art form. I also recall another professor commenting that he had for some time resisted incorporating AutoCAD into his practice, but that once he learned the program he became a very vocal supporter. He argued that the cost saving benefits were undeniable. I don’t think too many practitioners would disagree that their bottom line has been improved by advances in design software, or that amending construction documents in a digital format is much easier and more efficient. But is this the whole story?

The real question is, whether these technological advances have improved our ability as designers to communicate among ourselves and with the client? This is not so clear. There certainly is an increasing emphasis on presentation grade digital representation in the profession. But is a digital format always the most effective means of conveying a sense of place? I think the short answer is, it depends on who is constructing the virtual space. Whether using a digital or hand rendered medium one must be careful not to sensationalize. There is as with all new technology a tendency to trick things out. To create an unrealistic expectation which the built landscape is incapable of achieving, not a desirable outcome for obvious reasons. In the right hands both are effective communication tools, but which has the edge?.

It appears that digital representaion will continue to be the preferred medium for generating presentation grade materials for the following reasons. First, digital representation will in the not too distant future, be able to more closely approximate hand rendering, than the reverse. Second, we live in a world dominated by technology, and this is the lens through which more and more people view their surroundings. Finally, the digital tools available to designers will likely continue to expand and improve, facilitating a broader range of expression than traditional hand rendering techniques. With the advances in touch screen technology, I can even imagine a world in which conceptual design becomes exclusively digital.

[George Foster]

I came to the profession from a biological sciences and business background. I drifted into architecture out of a desire to make design a more significant part of my life. After taking a few architecture classes at a State University I applied to RISD’s architecture progam and was accepted. I showed up for my first day of class convinced that I had found my home. During my first semester I attended a lecture given by a professor of landscape architecture. His commentary had a profound impact on me. That evening I came to the realization that I had somehow managed to select the wrong branch of architecture. Everything I was screamed landscape architect, my land ethic, background in habitat enhancement and restoration, even my years as a product designer had all been taking me in this direction. The next day I contacted the department of landscape architecture, lucky for me they had a opening in their MLA program so the change in major was realatively easy. Three years later I emerged with a MLA.

[Author]

Posts