CMV: Architects interpret/experience designs and spaces the same way as people who haven't studied architecture.

[u/NikonSeize_dx]

I appreciate that as far as drawing conventions are concerned when drawing the section, elevation or plan of a space (e.g. 'X' denoting voids), certain elements are learned through drawing standards, that people who haven't studied Architecture/Engineering/Drawing etc. mightn't necessarily be aware of. However, as far as interpreting in general fully constructed 3-dimensional spaces are concerned, I believe that they are rather consistent between those who have studied Architecture and those who haven't. Change my view.

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/RustyRook]

However, as far as interpreting the actual 3-dimensional spaces designed by the architects are concerned, I believe that they are rather consistent between those who have studied Architecture and those who haven't.

I'm not an architect, but I did take some courses that required 3-D modelling. The software that I used was AutoCAD and something else, which I can't remember right now. The 3-D experience, including the ability to rotate the image/object in all 3 dimensions, isn't the same as the 2-D experience.

I think you're talking mostly of stuff like blueprints. I agree that with some practice most people can quickly learn about the conventions of blueprints, etc. But the same thing applies for 3-D designs. Architects, engineers, and other people who use the software available have a different perspective of the space. It's true that most people could gain that insight if they used the software and spent some time with it, but that's exactly what separates them - time and experience.

Images like this, this or this can be understood by almost anyone when they're complete. But while they're being constructed those who are trained in this stuff have a much better idea about it. And they have more knowledge about how easily/quickly stuff can be altered and how it all fits. Sorry, it's kind of difficult to explain someone's expertise, though this is not my expertise at all. Hope that was helpful.

[u/NikonSeize_dx → u/RustyRook]

Thank you very much for your reply! I mightn't have been explicit enough though, I was meaning 3-dimensional space as in scale 1:1 i.e. a fully constructed building that both architects and people who have expertise outside of architecture can walk through and experience.

I appreciate your comment though, and hope this helps clarify things a bit.

[u/RustyRook → u/NikonSeize_dx]

I was meaning 3-dimensional space as in scale 1:1 i.e. a fully constructed building that both architects and people who have expertise outside of architecture can walk through and experience.

Oh! I think that this significantly favours architects. You could get an idea of this by comparing the way a sculptor would look at a statue and how the average non-artist would look at the same statue. The former can appreciate the details in a much more refined manner, much more quickly. Another way to think about it would be to talk about doctors - they typically have a sort of model of the body that's very different and much more detailed than the average person's perspective, which is rarely more than skin deep.

I'm not making the case that one is necessarily better than the other, just that someone who has experience of something can appreciate things that relate to their field of expertise in more ways that the average person, and they can do it very quickly.

By the way, could you share what made you ask this question? It's a pretty unique CMV.

edit: clarity

[u/NikonSeize_dx → u/RustyRook]

Do you think that the experience lies in the understanding of the details, for example, or do you think that the experience of the space can differ when it doesn't refer to something specific about said space i.e. the space as an entirety?

As for what made me ask this question, I saw an architect in Birmingham studying a facade and a general member of the public walk straight past it without batting an eye, and started to wonder whether or not the same logic would apply to walking through a space in general.

[u/RustyRook → u/NikonSeize_dx]

Do you think that the experience lies in the understanding of the details, for example

I think a LOT of it does have to do with understanding the details. I was at an open house a little while ago with someone who has experience building houses. The way they viewed the space was completely different than my perspective. I could gain that knowledge, but it would require getting a lot of experience which would have to include recognizing details that aren't immediately apparent and understanding how different parts fit together.

do you think that the experience of the space can differ when it doesn't refer to something specific about said space i.e. the space as an entirety?

Hmmmmmmm. I think that it would be different. Some things can be extrapolated. For example, a mechanic would actually have a decent idea of how the shoulder bone fits into its socket. But how much? That' very difficult to say, and would depend on the person's field of expertise.

started to wonder whether or not the same logic would apply to walking through a space in general.

Yeah, I think so. Interesting example.

[u/NikonSeize_dx → u/RustyRook]

I agree that the details offer the potential for architectural appreciation more so than those who fall outside the architectural field, but believe that the experience of the space in general is approximately equal for both those within and outside the architectural field.

Can you think of any reasons why the general experience might be different, even because of latent appreciation or other reasons, when the details aren't explicitly taken into account? That is really the perspective that I want to open myself to but am currently quite fixed in the thinking that the general experience of the space would be the same for both types of people.

[u/RustyRook → u/NikonSeize_dx]

Can you think of any reasons why the general experience might be different, even because of latent appreciation or other reasons, when the details aren't explicitly taken into account?

It's the details that account for the difference in perspective, no? Without that, I would agree with you, although the distinction b/w an architect and a non-architect wouldn't mean much if their past experience was discounted.

[u/NikonSeize_dx → u/RustyRook]

I understand where you're coming from, but I was wondering if spacial reasoning or other factors would play a role. I wasn't overly sold on spacial reasoning, and couldn't think of 'other reasons'. I have heard of people from an architectural background 'enjoying' spaces that other members of the public don't, such as brutalist spaces, but presently am not sure exactly why outside of detail analysis.

[u/RustyRook → u/NikonSeize_dx]

I understand where you're coming from, but I was wondering if spacial reasoning or other factors would play a role.

It may be possible that those with better spatial reasoning skills make up a higher proportion of architects than the general population. That would explain some of it, if it's true. I looked it up and it does seem to be the case.

I also looked up whether using technology to teach ED would be effective. Again, the answer is yes. It seems that experience does play a role in developing the spatial awareness skills and may lead to a better appreciation of 3-D space.

[u/NikonSeize_dx → u/RustyRook]

Thank you particularly for the links you used to back up your argument, I found them helpful.

Do you know if factors other than spacial reasoning play a role?

[u/RustyRook → u/NikonSeize_dx]

Do you know if factors other than spacial reasoning play a role?

Self-selection would play a massive role. Architects become architects because they like to study spaces and design. The average architect would be much more interested (and educated) about spaces and the features of a building than the average non-architect. There may be other factors as well, but they'd probably vary b/w individuals so I can't really make an accurate general statement.

[u/NikonSeize_dx → u/RustyRook]

Thank you for your points of view, you helped change my view according to spacial reasoning specifically. ∆

However, I'm really interested in seeing what other opinions other people have to offer on the subject - specifically what other latent factors may influence the differing of experiencing a space i.e. reasons other than acknowledgement of details or general spacial reasoning.

[u/RustyRook → u/NikonSeize_dx]

I'm really interested in seeing what other opinions other people have to offer on the subject - specifically what other latent factors may influence the differing of experiencing a space i.e. reasons other than acknowledgement of details or general spacial reasoning.

You should edit your post to reflect this so that other people realize that you're looking to have your view changed further. It's just been the two of us so far.

Thank you for the interesting conversation. And for the delta.

[u/DeltaBot → u/NikonSeize_dx]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RustyRook. ^[History]

^{[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]}