“Visualized dreams” – this is an incorrect description regarding what I am doing and this misunderstanding is a key philosophical point related to “actualization of the virtual”.

To visualize a dream in the computer using 3d modeling and rendering software requires building the objects first with real dimensions and proper spatial organization, finding the right materials to apply to the objects, and adjusting the lighting so that the computer render output matches the vision (memory).

To actualize the virtual you reverse engineer the vision.

I.Slover your description of architectures value is appreciated, but I think the future is unfolding very differently for us.

Rubes cartoons are interesting ways to reverser engineer an action or common process. Its further worth noting by reverse engineering as Rube does interesting assemblies of components lead to what appear to be inventions, although mainly useless given the inefficiency.

Key concepts for me: process, memory, why, how

Process of architecture or any other visual design is something schools of design and architecture spend a lot of time on (or even waste). The high road theoretical approach to process in architecture is very similar to rube’s cartoon’s above. From an industrialists stand point – an absolute waste of time and highly unproductive. The cartoons are humorous because they are absurd enough to force someone to ask the question ‘why’ as they laugh at the ineffiecent ‘how’.

Let’s be rational and scientific about this:

If the final product or point is desired, then why develop methods for arriving there when thru fictional memory (imagination) you could envision the final product or point.

Perhaps we can’t envision the final product (your previous collider post). Then the method for arriving must be developed and the method with the fewest steps is always the winner.

Why bother studying process over and over especially in a Rube way?

If you can’t form memories of the future then process is required and representation of what you can’t remember (imagine) is also necessary, but inefficiency isn’t really required or desired.

If you need other people to arrive at the same memory somehow, but inefficiency still makes little sense here.

If you want to suprise yourself, throw in some analog method of calculating and remove the digital and predictable ineffiency becomes welcome.

If creativity doesn’t appear in the form of memories but rather requires time like the production of music to create the final product ineffeciences could be beautiful.

—–

Let’s say creativity appears in the form of solution or final product as a vision or memory. John Fogerty sings “let me remember things I don’t know”. God gives you a vision. Let’s say that’s how architecture or a visual art or even a song/sound becomes created?

What question do we ask ‘why’ or ‘how’?

The usual response is ‘why’ and from there the silly reasearch into process starts. To paraphrase a silly statement Gehry once made – I am trying to find the right question to ask and then the solution – hence all the models. To the industrial mind – I’d ask for my money back, if you don’t understand the question then you sure as hell won’t understand the answer, right?

Well, no, eventually everyone will understand the question and answer. Hence one requirement on an IQ test is time, how fast you can get the right answer. (Industrial isn’t it?)

So as design IQ would rationally follow, those enthralled with process because they think ‘why’ is more important than ‘how’ actually have design learning disabilities, and by industrialized standards should not be practicing anything creative.

Why hire an architect who spends hours trying to solve a design problem when there are other architects forming memories of unbuilt architecture in split seconds?

Well by industrialized capitalistic rational effiecient honest factual without meaning standards – the end result is all that matters and the faster you get there the better you are at what you do, the rest is just your opinion (the for why).

—–
You could assume by my dislike for process I am a fake memory creator, no pencil and paper necessary and no reason why. Lebbeus as I had mentioned in your dream post on fellini I started modeling my dreams since they are fake memories I don’t conscioussly intend.

One part I am modeling now is a gaming table, a mix of air hockey, pool, and random topography. The random topography is a direct collaged image of the cover to Bernard Caches book – Earth Moves. A book I read over 12 years ago.

Silly me, I asked the why question and starting reading that book again.

What I discovered was the following about Cache and Deleuze (cache attended deleuz lectures and later deleuze referenced cache)

-Actualizing the virtual-. (That’s the real discovery)

A dream or a fake memory (imagination) falls under virtual and the actualization thereof requires two questions to be asked – why and how.

I have been fairly unproductive asking ‘why’ and have discovered by asking ‘how’ more paths of creativity begin to appear, unimagined solutions, the process of asking how to a fake memory has only made more fake memories, things I have never seen before or dreamt.

So is ‘why’ really that important? Or another way to put it – is meaning that important? Why ask why when you can ask how? And is that the line between science and art (I presume this a theme in your posts)

From a blackberry