From: tsuchiya@athena.mit.edu (Naoki J Tsuchiya)
Subject: APPS: Architecture and VR
Date: 25 Apr 1993 05:43:05 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Crossposted from alt.architecture


The idea that one could create a "magnificient, visionary (though
unfunctional) architectural masterpiece" through a VR headset while
the "actual building would be a functional but boring building" as
Kurt Simmons suggests is completely ludicrous!

An "architectural masterpiece" consists not merely of what one sees
but the sum of all the senses.  A building, or image in this case,
that is "unfunctional" would by no means be "magnificient" or a
"masterpiece."  Of course, this relies on the definition that the
function of a building is not just structure or shelter (although
these are crucial), but also satisfying and enhancing all the human
senses, human needs, and the factors inherent in the site.

A truly "functional" building would not at all be boring!  If a
building is "boring", as many Internationalist-style, Deconstruc-
tivist-style, Post-Modern-style buildings are, then the building is
not really fully functional, is it?

Wouldn't an "architectural masterpiece" incorporate an imaginary
organization of spaces, whether like an Egyptian temple, Gothic
cathedral, or Frank Lloyd Wright house, which would already destroy
much of a "boring building"?  And wouldn't such a building also
include real features such as, say, well-designed chairs, desks,
shelves, and stairs, which would not need any VR "coating" to be
beautiful?  And wouldn't it be better for anyone to have real windows
to see real nature than some computer image crude in comparison?  To
have real physical features that are beautiful to the touch as well as
to the sight?

N. John Tsuchiya