I have enjoyed making the drawings above for one of my projects at work. I always struggle with using the computer in a manner that looks like something created by my hand rather than by the software aesthetic. In this particular case I used a perspective technique and then overlay a sepia coloring to generate a soft, romantic perspective of the space we were designing. I think the drawings are successful at two levels. First, it conveys the technical information of the project. For example, the relationship to the earth as well as the systems used for construction. Second, it compels the viewer to look and study the design because of the grain of the render and delicateness of the perspective. I've enjoyed making these drawings and look forward to using this ideal way of drawing in future design presentations.

The image above is a screen capture of two 'start up' screens for the computer program Revit. I stacked the images on top of themselves for comparison purposes. Revit is the software I am currently using. What's interesting to me is the graphic. Notice the dates on the images that reflect the software versions. It amazes me that Revit 2009, the later of the two versions, has such a low quality graphic. This reversal of quality to sophistication may also be reflected in the actual software. At some times it can do amazing things. And at other times the most basic principles of architecture design cripple the software and render it useless.

Jung - Symbols of Transformation - pg. 15 Language, grows, therefore, just as thought does, by never losing its synnomic or dual reference; its meaning is both personal and social.....

i practice art and architecture and i feel a close relationship with the objects i make. these objects have always had a dual meaning to me. I now see that the first meaning is my interpretation of the object and the second is societies interpretation. It's hard because we cannot govern what others think or believe and they will always be here to comment and project.

I have tried to create a diagram that captures the 'workflow' for designing a building. It's complex but descriptive of the relationships between the parties involved and the exchange of influential information.

Currently architecture is going through a transition. This is difficult because I'm in the middle of defining what Architecture means to me. However, I am excited to be practicing at this time. I'm caught between a self realization and a technological breakthrough. It will be interesting to see what comes out of these times.

Jung

"You may have an ego will, for instance: you want to stay on your own path and you are attracted by something outside, projected of course from yourself. If it is an evil will, it will be contradicted by the archetypal law of the collective unconscious that life must evolve in a certain way. Our ego idea would be: There is the good thing on the mountain top and I will make a straight line for it; but the archetypal way is not like that, the archetypal way is the serpent that wriggles us, or goes around in spirals, until it reaches the top. The archetypal law often seems to us like defeat, a standstill. Most people get terribly impatient and even despair because nothing happens, they get nowhere, they are all the time hindered; they don't understand that this is just as it may be and actually their only chance to get there. For they can only grow up to it, and what they grasp at is their own illusion, and not the fruit of growth and development. Therefore Buddhism holds that you can never attain to redemption, whatever you do, you must first grow up to it; even Buddha himself had to go through more than five hundred incarnations in order to attain nirvana."