…it (inertia) perpetuates the decades old very hard line between “2D” and “3D”.
Maintaining enforcement of that hard conceptual barrier is counterproductive, for software innovation and for model utility and utilization, now and in the future. And the hard barrier is conceptually off target. Here’s why in one sentence:
Drawing is VISUAL CLOSE STUDY (VCS) of models (mental, physical, and digital).
That VCS must always be expressed and conceptualized ONLY externalized from the model, and cannot evolve in FORM, …there’s no explanation for this.
No justification.
That it IS the way it is, and remains that way, is the outcome of an entire industry in brain freeze for decades, unable to imagine what doesn’t yet exist.
We’re locked in the same forms perpetually, unable to take advantage of what’s available IN digital modeled environments for VCS. We fail to imagine what can be unlocked if we develop the VCS space.
We can all do that, after first getting our categories on target:
1/ Drawing is VCS.
2/ VCS matters.
3/ Digital modeling is analogous to mental modeling.
4/ Digital modeling is not a replacement for, nor a better expression of, VCS, visual close study.
Those (item 4) are category errors doing huge damage.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
VCS equipment does not have to stay stuck in its centuries old form only. It can evolve in FORM, IN the digital model.
I show how VCS can evolve, in my proposal here:
https://tangerinefocus.com
It’s past time to get serious about how we engage with modeled environments visually in pursuit of adequate clarity.
We’ve lived with this brain freeze barrier to innovation since the entry of digital into this space 40+ years ago.
We’d better make a move.
In other news, grid matters…
OPEN VCS, a lens for looking at models 