Differences Between Old Design Techniques and New Technological Ones - Essay Example

How Do old design techniques differs from the new technological ones? Raya Mufti The technology used to create new designs has understandably evolved over time as new inventions became available. In earlier days before computer technology was incorporated in the architectural design field, industry practitioners used calculated manual methods to facilitate the design process. As technology was adopted, these methods slowly faded away and as time went by, every practitioner became conversant with the new methods of computer-aided design (CAD). However, from the recent developments attributable to the new technological methods in design, a question tends to arise. Are these new methods better in quality as compared to the preceding old methods? This paper will aim at trying to answer the question concerning the quality of the old methods in design as compared to the current design methods, which have a computer-precise technological aspect. Although new technology such as CAD can deliver highly precise designs and measurements, older design methods and practices which could not depend on computer technology had some meaningful value worth preserving. One of the earliest design practices in general is a period of apprenticeship. This form of on-the-job training can be referred to as a system steeped in antiquity. For instance, the practice is mentioned in Hammurabi’s code of ancient Babylon written around 4,000 years ago: ‘A craftsman often adopted a son to learn the craft. He profited by the sons labour. If he failed to teach his son the craft, that son could prosecute him and get the contract annulled. This was a form of apprenticeship, and it is not clear that the apprentice had any filial relation’ (Horne, 1915) at this time in history. The greatest asset for a designer was the technical knowledge the apprentice could learn from his master. This method can be said of great quality as compared to the new technological design methods because the knowledge obtained in such methods of design were practical and provided contextual knowledge which is hard to get in a classroom. Compared to the ancient methods of apprenticeship instruction for great works such as the pyramids or ancient temples, design instruction practices moved away from this tradition and became largely theoretical, employing the practical element very limitedly. For instance, during the medieval period of the fifth to the fifteenth centuries AD, great cathedrals were designed throughout Western Europe by inexact measurements, probably the correlation between sets of dividers, one small, the other large. At this point in time, an accurate measuring system wasnt available and neither were measuring tapes. However, the small set of dividers, about six inches tall, would be used to create the design on parchment and correlate to markers on the large dividers, about three feet tall, which would be used to mark the same distances, to scale, on the ground that were created in the design (Dudley, 2010). Moreover, forms as well as shapes were being psychologically developed in the minds of future craftsmen in a gradual way, most often in specialized schools dedicated to the craft. For those outside of this instruction, the process would have seemed very mysterious, but in actuality it didnt require a lot of technical knowledge (Dudley, 2010). Later, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, before computer technology was developed, older designers were also making use of small scale drawing using more sophisticated measurements and slide rules. All these practical aspects of older design methods are used less in the contemporary design era, but they were important to developing practical knowledge, imagination and spatial knowledge, much of which is not easily transferred using newer systems unless it is made a specific element of the training material and ongoing process as professional designers (Johnson, 2001). As is seen with the change from ancient to medieval design practices, the master and apprentice system strongly relied on traditional grounds. As such, the design process was done in special ways that had been proven to work and created structures that were suited to the society they served. The most precise reason for this is because the processes had always been done within such ways. This is indeed absent in the new technological design methods. The older design practices such as apprenticeship could be used for teaching any kind of skilled design, from buildings to ships. Today, though, there is a wide range of design methods and each method is used for a particular product. Even today, admiration for the traditional products attributable to the old methods used in design can still be depicted from the people and as such, the admiration continues growing. This suggests that the quality attributable to traditional designs and hands on training are of superior quality as compared to the new designs made using modern technological methods. The modern design industry practitioners do still make use of design techniques which are based on the traditional design methods, though. Despite the fact that the modern technological design methods are at the moment being taught by design schools across the world, there are criticisms that arise. As such, many people argue that the technological design methods being taught today do not constitute a design method. Instead, the concern is that CAD is fostering an atmosphere where design is dictated more by quality computer skills rather than quality design skills at the same time that designers are losing the face-to-face interaction and collaboration practices which foster quality finished designs (Brown, 2009). Leon Krier (1998), an urbanist as well as an architect, recently indicated that modern technological design methods represent egoistic caprices rather than designs and as such, it is typical that the resulting quality is judged to be uniformly unpleasant. This should not be the case. These methods ought to reflect solid foundations which are as strongly related to design as with the traditional design methods. Today, instead of modern designers creating a design based on what is useful, they seemingly tend to cling in a stubborn way to ideas, many of which can be said to be outdated as well as narrowly defined by the conveniences of computer technology and not responsive to the end user (Brand, 2005). Moreover, these modern day designers exert great energy in efforts towards the creation of a corpus of work that will be a monument to their name. However, many people consider this irrelevant when human needs are not put into consideration. This again suggests that the older design methods are of greater quality as compared to the contemporary design methods. Another issue with the new technological design methods can be seen is the plethora of research studies on problems associated with the resultant products. Publications such as the one written by Christopher et al (2007) suggest numerous ways in which new designs fail but could have been easily remedied had the designers been more in touch with the design of the project rather than the glory. Indeed, there is a common trend in findings of most of these studies. According to them, when design started incorporating computer technology in the methods used in design, serious problems associated with safe use developed (Gabriel, 2006). This followed that the appearance, evaluation, justifications as well as the form of the resultant products failed to take the form, which can be said to be essential in relation to the building use attributed to the human beings. The new technological design methods are such that, through their use, there is a big likelihood that the designer will ignore the effect that a product has on the sensibilities of a human being (Hanson & Samir, 2001). In addition to this, the modern designers also fail to use abstract criteria essential in justifying a specific or a particular style of building. These criteria were there in the old design methods and when technology takes over the design industry, the criteria transformed for the worst such that they deviated from being useful to the human beings. Moreover, they became irrelevant to the environment already built. Precisely the new technological design methods turned out to be destructive as they destroyed the critical relationship between human beings and the built environment. Indeed, modern technological design methods are of inferior quality as compared to the older methods. Critics such as Richard (2006) argue that today, the new technological design methods encompass a situation where total confusion reigns. As such, the only way to surpass these confusions is to understand the new design methods with the help of scientific analysis. To emphasize the quality of the old design methods, it is said that the underlying goal was encompassed in these old methods and as such, the consequences that arose did not last for long. Another proof that the old design methods are of superior quality as compared to the new technological design methods lies with the concept of Darwinian design. Darwin was an idealist in the older days who was involved much on issues concerned with design. It is commonly said that a good design ought to be adaptive in nature (Salingaros & Mikiten, 2006). In addition to this, it is said that the optimal design method in regard to the achievement of an adaptive design indeed follows the Darwinian design process. In the Darwinian process, selection is made by comparing an experimental model with a prototype to see which one is most capable of surviving. This is sometimes said to be bad but in a real sense, it is necessary if that prototype can adopt the uses in regard to the required solution associated with design. As such, it can only be so if the entire underlying prototype is created as a result of evolution adaptation (Saligaros & Mikiten, 2006). It is said that the products of the prototype coping may not be original but in a way, it tends to guarantee a measure of usefulness, which is strong in nature. This prototype method is a traditional method in design; a set of prototype copies have evolved over a long time and have come to be adopted to particular uses. The resultant products from these traditional design methods are guaranteed in respect to their adequacy. Design methods which have no older method attributes can be disastrous if relied on entirely. To prove this, there are a number of disasters in regard to designs failures. These disasters were largely attributed to the arbitrary geometrical forms, which at that time were being presented as urban as well as urban prototypes (Hanson & Samir, 2001). As such, these prototypes were technologically driven and as a matter of fact, they were exclusively based on generalized reasoning, lacking any sense of connection with the people or the environment. This kind of reasoning was such that it was only helpful in providing a tenuous connection with regard to philosophical as well as social concepts. These two concepts have no relationship with the activities that the human beings involve themselves in. Moreover, they are in no way related to the human sensibilities or their functions. Today’s designs, which have been produced with the new technological design methods are non adaptive and this follows that these products can never come to achieve any perceived degree in regard to the user comfort, putting psychological or physical aspects of life into consideration (Brand, 2005). Computer technology today is used to ease a certain process. Design practitioners tend to use technology as an aid in executing a design process. In such a case, a design practitioner tends to limit his knowledge since he depends much on the technological aspect. In regard to the practitioners of the previous years, they used design methods whereby they were required to exclusively use their utmost skills to deliver in a design process. This can be said to be an ideal notion because such a practitioner would tend to remain keen while executing a design process and as such, when the process goes all wrong, he can be able to trace where errors transpired. With regard to the modern methods, since they are dependent on the technology, a practitioner is prone to making errors. The stability of the products of the old design methods says it all. While products made using the technology encompassed design method of today come and go, most of the old design products still stand. As a matter of fact, many people today see things designed in the past as better as compared to those designed today. This of course is due to the quality associated with them. Old methods used in design were detailed and as such, they entailed taxing processes. Irrespective of this, the designers had to follow each and every process because there were no available shortcuts. Moreover, if any detail was omitted, the usability of the end product would be lacking. Today, the modern design methods are short and easy to follow. Indeed, they are modifications of the preceding methods and were originally intended simply to shorten the time taken in conducting these design processes (Hills, 2008). However, the technology has resulted in some important method details being eliminated. Consequently, the end product may be full of errors and as such, it may not function properly. For instance, it has become a trend that newly designed products in which technological methods have been used are being released only to be recalled after many people complain of inefficiency in their performances. Despite the many proofs that the old methods are of superior quality than the new technological design methods, there are those individuals who are still convinced that the new methods are of better quality than the old. According to them, the old methods were not capable of establishing differentiated design models as it is observed today. They increasingly assert that with the rise of technology, it is now easy to come up with better designs which contain improved and superior features. According to them, the old methods were elementary and as such, no big improvement would be achieved by returning to them. In addition to this, they attribute problems experienced to the shifting nature of the modern world, which is of a big contrast to the old world and its technological methods used in design. After all, if the old design were of as great quality as it is said, why then did the world change to be the way it is. Indeed, if they were of superior quality than today’s design methods, then the older society would be integrated. On the other hand, since the new technological design methods are said to be lacking, they should be indeed disintegrating the world, that is, their effects could not be constructive. Rather they would be deconstructing. From this analysis, despite the few who feel the new technological design methods are of superior quality, much proof has been brought forth to show that the old design methods are sufficient in quality as compared to the succeeding technological methods. The major proof depicted is from the plethora of research studies which collectively states that the new technological design methods are based on the older design methods. Another explicit proof is that the products made using the old design methods are appealing in regard to their durability and as such, they are the most sought after. Therefore, it is clear that the older methods used in design are of superior quality and were effective in producing better design products as compared to the new technological design methods. References - Brand, S., 2005. How Buildings Learn. New York: Penguin Books.  - Brown, P. 2009. CAD: Do computers aid the design process after all? Intersect, 2 (1), 52-66. - Christopher, A. et al., 2007. A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press. - Dudley, C., 2010. Measure and the Medieval Architect. Scaling up. Medieval Architectural Geometry. - Gabriel, R., 2006. Patterns of Software. New York: Oxford University Press. - Hanson, B. & Samir Y., 2001. Reuniting Urban Form and Urban Process. Journal of Urban Design, 6(1), pp.185-209. - Hillis, W.D., 2008. The Pattern on the Stone. New York: Basic Books. - Horne, C. The Code of Hammurabi, Trans. L.W. King. 1915. Ancient Texts. Retrieved from http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/hammurabi.html - Johnson, S., 2001. Emergence. New York: Scribner. - Krier, L., 2008. Architecture: Choice or Fate. Windsor: Andreas Papadakis. - Salingaros, N.A. & Mikiten, T.M., 2002. Darwinian Processes and Memes in Architecture: A Memetic Theory of Modernism. Journal of Architectural Theory, 23(1), pp. 117-139. Read More