Sometime in the future, I am a hundred percent certain scientists will sit down at a computer terminal, design what they want the organism to do, and build it.
Most architects think in drawings, or did think in drawings; today, they think on the computer monitor. I always tried to think three dimensionally. The interior eye of the brain should be not flat but three dimensional so that everything is an object in space. We are not living in a two-dimensional world.
The computer offers another kind of creativity. You cannot ignore the creativity that computer technology can bring. But you need to be able to move between those two different worlds.
Basically, any material you can squeeze, melt or generate into a powder, you can print.
People who draw tend to think they're craftsmen, so they really want to hang onto their pens and papers, but it's not terribly productive. To be honest with you, it's faster and easier to start with the computer.
3D printing has digitized the entire manufacturing process.
If you look at any leaf on any tree branch, it's similar to but not exactly a repetition of the previous branch. So the new science of complexity or showing how an architecture can be produced just as quickly, cheaply and efficiently by using computer production methods to get the slight variation, the self-similarity.
Technology is making design more exciting, with color, wallpaper, textures, fabrics that could never have been created without the technology.
What is commonly overlooked in using the computer is the fact that the central goal of design is still to obviate failure, and thus it is critical to identify exactly how a structure may fail. The computer cannot do this by itself . . .
We're now able to 3D print in 200 different materials, from titanium to rubber, plastic, glass, ceramic, leathers, and even chocolate.
I don't use film cameras. I don't do visual effects the same way. We don't use miniature models; it's all CG now, creating worlds in CG. It's a completely different toolset. But the rules of storytelling are the same.
Drawing on a computer doesn't make any sense to me. It's not intuitive.
The 3D-printing technology has been developing at a very rapid pace.
A 'reptilian revolution' has the potential to reshape manufacturing. The 'snakebots' being developed at Carnegie Mellon University aren't just useful for surgical or search-and-rescue purposes. They could also usher in a new, more customized era of mass production.
Currently computer graphics are used a great deal, but it can be excessive.
Over time, shop classes sort of disappeared or got marginalized in the states. I don't really know why. Now with tech like 3-D printers and CNCs, shops have acquired a new shine.
The traditional notion of an architect having a vision of a building and then drawing it either on paper or on a computer and then constructing it isn't really how architecture works, and in reality, the computer has a lot of influence on design.
Before computers, you'd start designing using shapes of cubes. Now I can start with something like a handkerchief, an object that doesn't have strong inside and outside boundaries or much closed volume.
As technology advances at an alarming pace, the place of drawing remains as valid as ever in the creation of art and architecture.
I just recently did a film with Disney, and they put the drawings straight on the computer. And it's all painted on the computer now and not by hand anymore.
You can go from creating the design on your iPad to making the object on your MakerBot.
I can imagine an automotive designer or an industrial designer building a product in 3D, all in real-time. That's the way a lot of people are going to work in the future.
Craft meets the machine in rapid fabrication. We can generate craft with the help of technology.
Sometimes I sketch and then scan my sketch directly to make the curves more freehand. I don't want to make perfect industrial curves.
Everything - design and technology and materials - has changed since the World Trade Center was built. A lot of it has to do with computers, which allow us to be far more efficient as well as structurally sound.
