I don’t find it confusing.
I don’t accuse anyone of anything.
Ask a question here and it is answered.
Demand an answer and complain about the software and some will ignore you.
Staying off the forum doesn’t add to your knowledge of how to use sketchup.
3 Likes
Thanks for all the brilliant replies! I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on “simplicity vs complexity”.
I like how SketchUp’s simple UI makes 3D modeling relatively easy.
I think your design style is amazing! Besides, the complexity of your illustrations highlights your 3D modeling skills. Your illustrations are being presented on flat screen with no intricacies like cracks or crevices for dirt to get trapped in. This is very appealing to a germaphobe, like myself. Although, I’d prefer that my keyboard was as simple as my screen because my laptop is full of dust, lint, and who knows what else… I like designs void of intricacy because they’re easier to clean. Luckily, planar illustrations fall into that category.
Yeah, there’s more to a good program than only simplicity.
This comment really helped me. I even made a note of it. Thank you!
I totally agree. I think people being able to figure out a UI easily is a result of a program designer’s communication skills. As you said, programs sometimes are nearly impossible to decipher when they’re too complex.
I think needs should be focused on before desires. Just having your needs met is a form of luxury, which is desirable. Making designs desirable is important too because esteem, love, and belonging are in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. I want to love the place I’m in, have a sense of belonging, and be in a place that me gives me some self-esteem.
You’re not the only one who thinks that…
“Study nature, love nature, stay close to nature. It will never fail you.”
-Frank Lloyd Wright
I think that nature isn’t perfect, but we currently need it to survive.
Yeah, I agree that we can’t fully achieve simplicity. The nature of reality itself is too complex for us to simplify yet.
I see the construction process and the intricacies as obstacles. It’s impossible to remove these obstacles, but I would like for construction, housecleaning, and repairs to be as easy as possible for people. I want people to be free from the hardships that complexity sometimes causes.
You can talk about any subject you want, as long as it’s about “Complexity vs Simplicity”.
I was talking about why I prefer simple architecture to complex architecture.
I was referring to intricacy, but as DaveBryce said, “There are essentially four properties at hand. They are size, intricacy, orderliness, and complexity.” From a housecleaners perspective, I prefer cleaning a smooth non-porous surface, rather than an intricate porous surface (like brick). There are so many intricacies in traditional housing that can make housecleaning very difficult for me, especially since I have 5 cats to clean up after. I can’t help but to think, “I wish housecleaning was simpler, so I could be doing what I want instead of cleaning right now.”
I think it’s not the architects fault because architecture today is very complicated. In order for an architect to make a simple design, they’d have to start a revolution… Or join one. There are 3D printed houses now, which makes the construction process much easier.
I think SketchUp is in-between simple and complex. The definition of simple is:
- easily understood or done; presenting no difficulty.
- composed of a single element; not compound.
While SketchUp’s UI is simpler than AutoCAD’s, there still is a learning curve and it has more than one element. Also, the complexity of SketchUp is variable because you can download extensions.
I’d rather take the easy route for the same reason that I prefer modern conveniences over ancient conveniences.
2 Likes
Very gracious responses.
2 Likes
Interesting discusson. I’m a bit late the party, but I also would like to share some thoughts.
For some reason I thought that mainstream idea nowadays is opposite: “the simpler the better”. That’s why I think maybe it would be nice to advocate intentional impractical complexity a bit.
The initial idea is that architectural/design object can be (maybe sometimes even should be) percieved as some aesthetical phenomenon/artefact or work of art. So the way of percieving of such object is mostly sensual/intuitive than logical or rational that’s why I think in this case it’s fine to add sometimes some certain “healthy” amount of impractical features to such object (i.e. increase its complexity) for the sake of achieving of some certain aesthetical goals (or “great looking design style” as you stated).
Whether we mean it or not, every single thing we design and make will have some kind of subjective impact, for good or bad, over and above its overt rational purpose.
Quote from “Structures: Or Why Things Don’t Fall Down” by J. E. Gordon.
Interesting book, which surprisingly advocates a lot all kinds of impractical/decorative features introduced in the past and gives a lot of reasonable critics of modern “efficiency and functionalism”:
Modem art and architecture make a great parade about their freedom from traditional forms and conventions - which is possibly why they have achieved so little.
Another controversial quote from a book mentioned above.
As for me I’m all for minimalism and modern architecture, but I have to agree that when design is too “simple” (i.e. focused only on practical/rational purposes) it also makes subjective impact, which can be emotionally really dull or even depressing.
And I have to admit that I also totally agree that design in the past was far more sensual and often excessively impractical and looks like that’s the reason why it is still so attractive.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.