Fictitious Evidence

The full article written by Mathan Ratinam was published in Kerb, Journal of Landscape Architecture, Issue 14 2005/2006, on Representation. The following are the opening paragraphs of this article.

Article excerpt:

In the last several years there has been a great deal of effort spent exploring both architecture and landscape architecture through digital processes such as animation. The focus, generally, has been on generating forms and terrains using modelling and animation software such as Maya and 3ds Max. Various techniques with the same theme have also been promoted by practitioners such as Greg Lynn and Lars Spuybroek. This approach to form-generation has certainly taken the spotlight for the use of digital processes and more specifically digital representation in the practice of architecture and landscape architecture. But could animation and time-based media play a different role?

Whilst teaching in the School of Architecture and Design at RMIT University I focused on the area of digital communication. Although never clearly stated, the elective seminars I ran came to develop a counterpoint to the digital design studios also on offer in the School. They began by reflecting upon the role of digital representation in landscape architecture and considering digital representation as a process of critiquing design rather than using it to generate forms. In doing so, the seminars raised various questions about the limits of digital representation, for instance, how to reclaim design authorship when it was relinquished to the software, how digital representation linked to older methods and theories of representational practice and, most importantly, the separation between representation and simulation. And it is this last point regarding representation and simulation that raised many of my concerns with respect to the practice of using animation software as a generator of form.

Representation and simulation play different roles in the visualising of landscape architecture and its ideas. Both are to be looked at but ask to be seen in different ways. Their difference I would argue is that simulation describes what one would see whilst representation describes what one can’t see.

Representation is the act of inquiring. Strong examples of representation are those which raise further questions about what is being represented. Whether they are drawings, diagrams, models, collages, photographs or films, as representations they provide insight into the issues surrounding the project or idea. Representations capture the ambition rather than just illustrating the outcome. In describing the design intent they allow one to (re)view the work through a new lens and help bring its concerns to the fore. Further to this, representation can also act as a protagonist to ‘problematise’ an idea by allowing one to see issues that could not be seen if viewed another way.

Simulation, on the other hand, seeks to provide a solution. Simulation is more concerned with accuracy, is not intent on being open to (mis)interpretation, and is often used at the end of a design process to present an outcome. The aim of the seminars I lead at RMIT University was not to contest simulation against representation, as they are both important, but to distinguish between their roles.

For the reset of the article please refer to the journal mentioned above.