Karntner Bar

The simulation of real world visual phenomena is a carefully staged production, which, like the Karntner Bar, plays in the realm between optical deception and technical certainty.

The modelling of architecture on the computer for presentation can be seen as a controlled revelation. Parts of the model are better defined and more detailed than others, and so are articulated in the images of the model, distracting the gaze of the audience from those sections that are not so resolved.

Reality has an almost infinite level of detail. To model this would be ridiculous and so reality is approximated. Enough detail is included to fool the casual glance. The eye wants to be fooled, and readily accepts the computer generated perspective as reality. Small details add to the illusion, rounded edges on boxes catch the light, defining those edges, ridges are added to better define changes in materials or textures, bolt heads and screw holes are included where they could be seen.

Images of the model flip between the experience of the object and the experience of space. The illusion of perspective more readily allows the audience to inhabit the space of the model, images are then read as impressions of space. Parallel projections or unfamiliar perspectives tend to exclude any immediate spatial impression as the mind tries to make sense of what it sees, and is forced into an abstract mode of seeing, where images are interpreted as renderings of objects.

The inclusion of recognisable objects such as stools and tables, provide keys to the interpretation of the images generated. Free of the defined up and down of the page or computer screen some of the images presented in this report defied gravity. People found it difficult to decide on the orientation of images until they were made aware of signifiers such as those described immediately above.

This is the case with the image immediately above (plan), which is a cut through isometric of the "complete" model. These pictures reveal the object-like nature of the model, as it floats in space free of all physical contextual ties.

The perspective images like some of those presented in part 1 however, are often read as scans of photographs and people had no difficulty inhabiting the spaces illustrated. The comments made about these images tended to be more about the content of the image rather than the image itself, the audience was more able to engage with the architecture, and not be too concerned with the technical production of the rendering.

Seductive images, inspired by those in the architectural periodicals, are the final product of the modelling process. Selected views are framed and articulated, the experience of the spaces defined and controlled.

Images of architecture are necessarily not innocent. Images are chosen or ignored depending on their ability to convey the themes and ideas that their author wishes to communicate.

The fractured experience of the architecture, through images, contends to be a representation of the whole architecture. So it is, where an image or set of images describes (at least in intent) built, physically constructed architecture (Such images could be anything from working drawings, to the most conceptual of renderings, as long as the drawings refer at least to the idea of a built form or space).

The modelling process develops an understanding of the space or object being modelled. Through the act of constructing the model an intimate knowledge of the subject of the modelling is acquired.

When the act of modelling is a re-creation of another person's creative act, it is possible to gain an insight into that other person's thinking. The modelling becomes not so much a literal translation from one form of representation to another, but a personal interpretation,where the modeler's own ideas and themes influence the final product.

The Karntner Bar was relatively easy to model. The geometry and materials were already defined. The themes Adolf Loos used in this bar carried through to all levels of the design, the masterful and coherent execution of the original made it a pleasure to model, and the whole exercise provided a means for the development of my personal understanding of Loos' architecture.

The Extension, however, was a most difficult subject to model. Working from rather abstract and conceptual drawings, that had not fully resolved the geometry, let alone the material and textural qualities of the space, the construction of the model proved to be a long and at times, very frustrating process.

The designer had constructed a cardboard model of the scheme, and this was very useful in making decisions about the geometry, but as the model had been constructed as part of the working process of the design, it was unresolved and sometimes furnished unreliable or misleading information.

A fair way into the modelling of the Extension, feedback from the original designer was solicited, which greatly aided my ability to comprehend what was happening in the design. I found that a better understanding of the generative and determining ideas embodied in the design made the interpretation into model form an easier and more enjoyable exercise.

The designer was able to talk to the images generated during the modelling process, and was sometimes surprised at what the renderings revealed. The modelling process was for him, as much an exploration of the implications of his original design as it was a confirmation of his predictions.

Design decisions were made by myself in conjunction with the designer based on the information presented by the computer generated images. We both accepted that the images provided a reliable means of gaining an appreciation of the spatial features of the Extension.

Computer modelling seems to offer a more subjective experience of the spaces and objects being (re-)created, when compared to more conventional modes of architectural representation. Through the medium of the computer, with its near magical ability to conjure up reality, it is possible, in a ghostly manner, to inhabit the model, like some disembodied spirit, or, as a Cartesian island of awareness afloat in a vast sea of insensate matter (Leder, Drew. "The Absent Body" p8. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1990).

Free of the restrictions of the body, the seeing consciousness of the modeler is able to penetrate the darkest corners of the model (Seeing is a body experience. Space is interpreted in relation to the body, and so the seeing conscious perhaps can never be free of the so called restrictions of the body).

The realism of images that may be generated using computer based models, allows designers to model space. Traditional CAD modelling tends to be obsessed with the object being modelled. The tools and operations that can be performed seem to be about manipulating the model, rotation, scaling, translating, deforming. Using the Radiance system or something similar, all these operations are possible, but modelling can become a way of exploring a design.

It is still possible to render architectural objects beautifully, but there is the opportunity to examine their spatial implications.

Modelling space on the computer offers a means of communication readily comprehensible by most people. The images produced by the process can be very convincing, allowing the viewer to engage with the architecture directly.

The computer modelling of space goes beyond simply being a means of communicating spatial ideas to other people, and becomes a useful and rewarding process that deepens the modeler's personal understanding of their own and other's architecture.