Design a SketchUp Conceptual Course
-
Oh oh- it was our dear friend Juju a couple posts above who suggested that I make sure to cover "volumetric exploration". I'm sure Ray was not referring to our Juju when he was talking about the "idiots".
-
@sorgesu said:
Oh oh- it was our dear friend Juju a couple posts above who suggested that I make sure to cover "volumetric exploration". I'm sure Ray was not referring to our Juju when he was talking about the "idiots".
No, of course not. I was overgeneralizing about people who assume that everyone in the world speaks the same professional language that they do. I meant no offense to present company. My caustic comment resulted from my sincere desire to promote plain speaking whenever possible.
As for the use of programs to quickly explore options, I use SU to do the same thing, much to my chagrin. While I prefer to explore with pencil and pen, I must admit that computers can help speed that process, with some considerable loss of the thoughtfulness, tactile feedback, and happy accidents that are an inevitable and integral part of manual sketching.
-
jenujacob, that sounds just like using tools too. paint bricks on the surface. No, paint cladding on the surface. Draw a line push-pull out a portion of the wall.
That is exploring "what-if" scenarios using tools. It is still about the tools.Actually my real opinion on the matter is:
Typically there is a trade-off between the representational power and the inference efficiency. There is no a priori reason for using the same language for both requirements. Thus one can build a system on two levels. The epistemological level supports an expressive language. The heuristic level consists of a lot of special purpose inference engines that gain efficiency on a subclass of problems by using appropriate representations and algorithms. -
@sorgesu said:
jenujacob, that sounds just like using tools too. paint bricks on the surface. No, paint cladding on the surface. Draw a line push-pull out a portion of the wall.
That is exploring "what-if" scenarios using tools. It is still about the tools.Actually my real opinion on the matter is:
Typically there is a trade-off between the representational power and the inference efficiency. There is no a priori reason for using the same language for both requirements. Thus one can build a system on two levels. The epistemological level supports an expressive language. The heuristic level consists of a lot of special purpose inference engines that gain efficiency on a subclass of problems by using appropriate representations and algorithms.Geez!! Talk about jargon...
-
susan,
perhaps what they mean by asking you to teach conceptual architecture is for you to teach them ways to do schematic and diagramatic representations, as if one was sketching, as it were, with SU.
the attached image can perhaps explain further what i mean. it is from a competition design i did; its purpose is to illustrate diagramatically the main ideas. actually, it is one of the images that were used to create an animated gif that can be viewed here (click on figure 6).
i hope it helps.
-
Edson:
Cool!!
One of the best uses of SU I've seen in a long time.
-
Hi Edson,
I'm going to have to ask you help me to understand what you are getting at here.I'm not sure what it is that you are showing me that one cannot simply "do" by learning the tools to use to do it?
-
@sorgesu said:
Hi Edson,
I'm going to have to ask you help me to understand what you are getting at here.I'm not sure what it is that you are showing me that one cannot simply "do" by learning the tools to use to do it?
I think that's the point, isn't it? It's a progression of spatial components built up in a 3D diagram that illustrates relationships between spaces and the forms and surfaces that define them. SU makes easy such explorations of alternatives. And you're right: there's nothing magic about it if one learns the basic tools and how to apply them.
One of the guys here in the office spent the first six months fighting SU because it didn't behave like AutoCAD. Of course, it was much easier, but he wanted to use the same way of thinking that he used with AutoCAD. It took him a long time to give in to the way SU wants you to work; the logic of it, the use of components, and mostly, the sequence of building that makes it so easy to use once you understand how it wants to work.
Perhaps that may be part of the problem with your students. As usual, it's not the tool that matters so much as the mind behind the tool that applies it to solving problems.
-
susan and ray,
you are both absolutely right. there is no mystery or secret in my example. once i learned what SU could for me i realized the same static diagrams i always did to explain my projects could be made more interesting with translucent boxes and colors. animation was a further improvement.
what those people want cannot be taught in SU training. you are offering to teach them HOW to model with SU while they are asking you to teach them WHAT to model. the content of their models must be provided by them, not you.
-
@edson said:
susan and ray,
you are both absolutely right. there is no mystery or secret in my example. once i learned what SU could for me i realized the same static diagrams i always did to explain my projects could be made more interesting with translucent boxes and colors. animation was a further improvement.
what those people want cannot be taught in SU training. you are offering to teach them HOW to model with SU while they are asking you to teach them WHAT to model. the content of their models must be provided by them, not you.
You said it so much better than I did, with fewer words. Thanks.
-
I'm not so sure the people are seeking 'what to design'. Back when the @Last started the Gallery Forum it became obvious to me from the postings that users were very much split among two very different ways of using SketchUp. If you think about it I'm sure the same differences are still apparent today...
First there are the users who use SketchUp to model something already designed. They are using it to 'illustrate' or create visuals. Then there are other users who use SketchUp to design -- using modelling not as 'proof of concept' visualizations but to explore and develop ideas not preconceived. Of course many users do both approaches depending on the project. Its not about one use of SketchUp being better than another.
I think the new users of SketchUp from a CAD or illustration background are likely to be quite comfortable with a teaching approach that focuses on building a visualization of an existing design. In contrast those who want to understand how they can use the tool to 'design' better, faster, etc. might find that visualization approach lacking. Sure they are seeing how the tools work but they may not really be 'getting it' with regards to how they could be using it. Of course the tools do work the same way for both kinds of users. I really don't think it would take much to help those users get more from a course...
I don't know how courses in SketchUp are typically taught so maybe my ideas that follow are already par for the course. Perhaps a course should always start with a slide-show of how others are using SketchUp. With images from the Gallery here or from the case studies at the SketchUp site, it could highlight for the new user what other people using SketchUp do with it and the diversity possible. Having such a show right upfront establishes a few things. It makes clear it is ultimately a flexible tool and that there isn't just one sketchup 'style'. It can help establish the 'goal' of being accomplished enough to be able to communicate effectively using 3d. It can show them the fun that is possible. It can show that it can be used to explore and develop ideas, basic or complex, or as an illustration tool as loose or as detailed as may be desired. I remember the DVD presentation that Paul Miller put together to show his coworkers the potential of SketchUp. It was such a slide-show that very much communicated that SketchUp very much could be a tool for personal expression - a creative tool.
I also think a course could include some design-oriented tasks that would help participants see first-hand how it could be used for massing studies, or other form of exploration. What some participant's will 'get' from this is that SU really is a tool they can use even if they never see themselves developing a detailed model.
Regards, Ross
-
Ross:
I would quite agree with what you are saying if the course were being taught to what I take from Susan's original message to be architects even for half a day, by an architect experienced in using SU in the ways you describe, particularly as a tool for design conceptualization and exploration.
However, in my opinion, it takes some fairly intimate familiarity with the architectural design process itself to make full use of what SU has to offer. It is, after all, only another tool in the toolbox, albeit a powerful and versatile one. One still needs to know the processes--i.e. how to THINK like an architect--in order to realize the tool's potential. That takes architectural experience. Not all SU trainers will have that.
Maybe a DVD specific to the use of SU as a tool for architectural design, presented by an architect experienced in both traditional methods and SU that a trainer would have available as part of the course??
-
I reailly think that the problem is that one cannot be taught how to be 'creative'.
I also have the odd person who thinks that the Advanced courses are not Advanced enough because I haven't hit upon the one specific problem that requires the sequence of use of tools that they would need to solve their particular problem.
In the early days, when there were fewer functions in SketchUp, it took some clever people to show us how to use the existing tools in creative ways to accomplish that which we did not think we could accomplish in SketchUp. Not all of us were able to use our previous experience in any other thing we may have done to come up with such clever solutions.
That being said, classes or short: 3-1/2 hours each and to spend it on showing a group how to resolve one very complex issue would not be the best use of time and would really be short changing people.I do try, in the Advanced courses, to show how one might solve the problem of representing some difficult forms in SketchUp but even those are nowhere near the complexity of things that one might hit in daily practice. But the germ of the idea is there. After all a complex problem can usually be broken down into several simpler problems. It is preferable to show the basis of use for many tools that will all lend themselves to exploration and creative use in tandem, then to show the solution for one problem that may indicate an in depth exploration of only a handful of tools. I can't imagine that everyone will feel that they have got their money's worth.
I do offer all my students that option to contact me with problems that they cannot solve on their own and I help them out at no additional cost. Not all people take me up on it but I have spent hours putting together tutorials. Most notably of late was the waterslide project that you all provided input on.
I do direct the students to this site to get help with creative applications of the tools for unusual or difficult concepts/problems. No matter how clever an individual, our minds all function in a different way and there is always someone here who can suggest a more clever approach.
But any Architect or Landscape Architect worth his salt should be expecte to have some measure of intuition and creativity and if they are so unable to extrapolate from the small to the large, from the simple to the complex, I certainly wouldn't want to be their employer.As an aside, BTW, my screen saver for the class is a slide show of a multitude of SketchUp projects takne from the old SketchUp Forum gallery and it kicks in when my computer has been inactive for over a minute. Many people sit and watch before we begin the class, during breaks and while I run around and assist individuals who are stuck.
I must reiterate: You can't teach creativity.
-
I too don't think it is practical to have a course to teach someone to design. We all have told others about SketchUp thinking how good it would be for them in their work. Most of us know the meaning of the blank stare - the eyes vacant of any interest. I suspect many of the people signing up for introductory courses are just a few synapses more interested than those other folks. The course is a chance to get out of the office and to really spark these folks into a new state of enthusiasm isn't easy. I think the CAD-literate folks easily 'get it' seeing how much more 'fun' SketchUp is than what they usually do. The 'senior designers/project manager' types who have resisted computerization are likely the harder sell. I suspect they are the ones not getting 'it'. A course geared towards showing what the tools do unfortunately isn't enough for some to make the leap of imagination needed to see how they could use the tool. They may leave the course thinking its a good tool for the CAD guy. Or they may sense maybe there's some potential for themselves but want it all spelled out...
-
Susan, apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs here but I thought I would share my experience. I occasionally teach Sketchup and the way I proceed is to give a basic overview to start including the concept, tools and templates. Then I proceed in a task based way, the content of which depends on the audience. With architects/urban designers for example it would be creating a massing model, creating a simple house, creating a site plan then putting it all together. Under each heading a variety of tasks are covered which by default use all the tools but in a way that makes sense to the students rather than simply going through them by rote. By the end of the day students have actually finished a live project which mirrors their usual design approach but achieved with Sketchup.
It's not about teaching creativity but by basing it on a project, creative solutions are far easier to explain and problems requiring creative thinking inevitably appear.
Kenny
-
I remember a professor I had at the University of Kansas who talked about "savvy" being "savvy" is something you are born with. Creativity is a similar concept some people have a lot of it some not as much. but creativity and conceptual are not the same thing. this same professor had us do exercises in conceptual thinking. he would be the narrator and pose questions and the first person in the class who had an answer and felt compelled to raise their hand and expose their ideas to the class could do just that. So for example he would start out with the big picture and move to towards the smaller details.
here is a brief question and answer session.
Teacher "T" Student "Sx" x=student number I'll change it to simulate multiple students answering the questions
t-Ok class today lets design something together...
t-where is our site located?
s1-in the mountains of the Himalaya's
t- good so our site is severley sloped and cold...
t- what are we designing
s2- a ski lodge
t- great so we'll need a large room and many smaller rooms and maybe a kitchen and swimming pool how many floors will our lodge have?
s3 three floors
t- super than that can take advantage of the slope and have entrances on each level, is the roof flat or sloped and if it's sloped
s1 sloped with a steep pitch because of the snow.
t- great how big is the roof overhang
s-4 large to create an outdoor terrace for good weather and protection from snow.
.....yadda...yadda...yadda...as you can see the teacher is directing the conversation and asking specific questions that allow the students to answer with their own creative thoughts but those thoughts need to have limits based on where you are in the conversation. as you continue to narrow the questions down to what is the siding material and color and are there exposed beams or is there a fire place is the fireplace visible on the exterior etc.
so you as the teacher could act as the discussion facilitator to quickly poll your students about a particular design challenge say a 10 minute discussion and then you could spend the rest of the class modeling the results of the dynamic discussion. IE you would model a mountain and then randomly isolate a parcel on land on that mountain, then determine a random footprint of the building and stamp it into the site and then push pull a 3d box up from that foot print and draw a few lines and create a steep roof and push pull that roof out to create a large overhang and then add some exposed beams and an exposed fire place and paint on some siding or stone or what ever material was suggested and them add some windows ...etc...etc. you are going to model for the students what they created in their answers to your questions. each class will be different because each set of students will have different answers. one project may be located on an island or on the head of a stick pin or floating in outer space... the possibilities are endless but you will demonstrate to the students that Sketchup can be a tool for them to express their creativity and their conceptual ideas. by controlling the situation with specific targeted questions you can make sure that you have a plausible "site,and building type" to model.
you will find that there are students that just can't hold their ideas back and at times you can open it up for discussion and you'll hear "its vinyle siding from one student and another student will chime in NO its stone...and you can mediate...what kind of stone...limestone...limestone really there going to ship limestone all the way up to the mountain...when the surrounding area is chalk full of trees...
so you will be illustrating how sketchup will allow them to explore thier creativity and at the same time show them that sketchup is only as creative as they are.
-
Guys:
Makes sense to me--assuming the class is composed completely of architects or urban designers. I'm not sure Susan's classes are so composed.
I'm still wrestling with the phrase "conceptual architecture." It seems to me to have multiple meanings, one of which occurred to me this morning: Architecture that can't be built but only thought about. Stuff that violates the laws of physics, or that is basically unusable, or that requires construction technologies that don't yet exist, but looks really good in renderings!
However, even if that is the definition in question, the solution to using SU to model it remains the same.
-
Susan,
I've juried enough students to know there are quite a few students (and by extension there are probably professionals who fit this bill) who, when required to produce their projects on the computer they are limited to what they know. In other words, if the only way they were taught to create stairs was in a straight run, then that's all they do. They haven't figured out how to apply those same skills for a different drawing/modelling task. It's quite possible some of your students are doing the same - they aren't trying to figure out how to apply the skills you taught them for a new task, but want you to tell them how to do it. They might have a particular "conceptual design" in mind but haven't made that leap of figuring out how to model it themselves.
Daniel
-
Daniel, I quite agree with you. I do believe that is what they want and that is where the failure to connect is. Some people are able to make these intuitive leaps and others need to be spoon fed. Being spoon fed is of no earthly use because it solves only an immediate problem and does not assure that they will be able build on what they have learned when they hit the next challenge. For someone who learns this way, the only way that they can be truly effective is either to learn a limited number of techniques that they can use over and over again because they are not required to do anymore, OR if they are required to do more, then they must be exposed to every conceivable problem solution and digest it. This would require many many hours of exposure. 3-1/2 hours cannot do that for such a learner.
Conceptual thinking lends itself to a "design" problem, as in Phil's example. Conceptual thinking does not apply itself to a "how to use a tool" problem.
The conceptual part is in answering the sorts of questions that Phil cited in determining what sort of structure to build and what sort of terrain is likely to result. Once that is determined what remains is how to use the tools in SketchUp to build what it is that has been determined to be required for said concept. I am not attempting to teach a University Architectural Design course. That is out of the scope of the little 3-1/2 hour classes I teach. I am teaching a course on how to use a specifc sorgware applicaton to represent the design. There are 4 courses of 3-1/2 hours each. By the Advanced courses we are indeed doing excercises where we are building complete objects. For instance,we do one where we make a sink. This excercise allows the introduction of several tools in the process. I sometimes get Landscape Architects who express that they would have wished for a Landscape Example. Accordingly at one part of the class we "lathe" ( using follow-me) a shape. I say out loud in the class that , for the Architects we are making a Cap for a Bannister and, for the Landscape Architects, this is Fence Post Cap. The point I am trying to make people understand is that all designers use the same shapes and the same tools and whether you are making a sink or a water cistern or bicycle helmet the principles are the same.From a pure business standpoint it is impossible to advertise and sell a class that is basically going to be a call to "show up" and we will shoot the breeze and explore your particular problems together. That isn't going to work. There is a written manual and a curriculum. People want and need to see what will be specifically oovered in a class before they can determine if they want to shell out the money to take it. This is not a college course where we have weeks to explore everyone's issues.
These courses are intended for busy professionals who want a directed and concentrated course to quickly learn how to use SketchUp from simple tools to more complex problems. They are expected to know how to extrapolate further from what they have learned, as I would expect any employee of mine to exptrapolate. -
Daniel...spot on.
I remember once at a job I had one of the interns came to me and asked how to divide a line into 13 equal parts in AutoCAD....I ask that person well how would you do it in the real world...no response...
Yes I know there is the divide command and it will do the work for you but there is no excuse not to know how to do it in the real world.
Knowledge is power and what you want to happen is to exert your power (knowledge) into the computer. If you are continually searching for the button to press that does something for you than you are at the mercy of the computer.
I remember the good old days of SU when it was a very basic but powerful 3d modeling software. It still is but I'm afraid the added bells and whistles may blur the simplistic approach to modeling.
Oh and my discussion above would work for any group..."OK class today lets design a desk, a shopping cart, a coat, a thingamajig...anything. The important part is the trip down discovery lane questions and answers getting more knowledge about what the "thing" is and what it should look like, how it should function etc. Once the conceptual discovery process is complete than the conceptual modeling can begin. its not a straight path during the modeling phase you will continually refine your concept as the visual aid of the model helps to confirm or reject the validity of the concept.
So Susan if you can just get your students to remember to use their brain when they model and not to become too reliant on the software.
Advertisement