Computers and Their Damn 3D Models

In “Building 3D Worlds – 3D Geometric Graphics I,” a chapter from the book The Computer in The Visual Arts by Anne Spalter, the computer-generated three dimensional object is mostly put into the context of art. The modeling software is a tool to make art directly or to aid in the design of something to be built in the round. In “On Geometric Modeling,” a section from “Modeling” in Architecture's New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer Aided Design by Yehuda Kalay, the 3D model is described by method of creation, the mathematics behind it, and how it would be best used. Each article sheds light on how 3D modeling has evolved both by advances in software development and computer technology. The current use of 3D software by artists or designers has grown as fast as technology itself. Demands for rapidly created realistic models to be viewed directly or used to show how something can be constructed is almost instant. Realistic interpretations can be made overnight and then emailed to be viewed by many simultaneously.

A straightforward approach of detailed description of 3D models and the math behind them is how Kalay chooses to help us understand the modeling. It was helpful to see examples to go along with the description. 3D models fall into three categories: wireframe, surface, and solid. (Kalay, 2004) Kalay categorizes modeling further by breaking down typical methods: spatial occupancy enumeration, constructive solid geometry, boundary representation, and shape operators. (Kalay, 2004) The topological, geometric, transform, Boolean, and assembly operators are typical to most 3D programs, manipulating and creating shapes differently. (Kalay, 2004) The different models and operators have pros and cons depending who is using them and how they are used. For instance, an artist or architect wanting more uniqueness with the forms would prefer B-rep, but an engineer wanting a specific repeatable form would prefer CSG. It was good to see the different models and operators defined; I’ve been working with 3D software since the mid-1990’s and have used most of what is shown, but I never knew the meaning or math behind them. Although I have read the break down and it makes more sense, I still would not be able to regurgitate it properly. I just know when I push the Boolean button it does what I want.

In Spalter’s chapter “Building 3D Worlds – 3D Geometric Graphics I,” the use of 3D software by the visual artist is discussed. The negative issue with this information is that it is out of date by at least by ten years. Keeping that in consideration, the reader is obliged to question the accuracy and relevance of software that is no longer available and the computer limitations at the time. Having said that, it is interesting to see what has changed and been improved upon on. The author makes a lot of assumptions about artists taking on 3D software as a tool. Spalter mentions separately the computer artist, sculptor, and set designer, but talks about the use of the software as a whole, though different artists use different approaches, regardless of whether or not they are using the same software. Spalter makes this summary: “Computer artists working in 3D soon learn to think in terms of primitives, profile, and particles, and grow accustomed to bridging the 2D-to 3D gap by considering multiple views of their scenes…. Like the sculptor, set designer, or photographer the 3D artist must choose a point of view from which to present the work…. defining surfaces, lights, and camera positions.” (Spalter, 1999) This all may be true, but first you must believe that the artist can and is already choosing a point of view without the computer and depending on the software, and the user is doing so as efficiently without the computer. Second, it is wrong to assume that the artist will learn to think in terms of the software or math behind it. Who is to say they need to fill the 2D to 3D gap, or even if there is a gap?


I had the luxury of completing an art degree before completing my architecture degree, so I have to say in my experience that an artist does not need the computer to understand 2D to 3D—they do much better without it. The magic of illusion is just that it is not real; it is tricking your brain, whether created by hand on paper or solely in the computer, then printed on paper. The end result is a 3D object on a 2D surface, printed, painted or projected. I am an artist first then an architect, and I love using the computer as a tool to aid in design and to create directly, but at the end of the day if I want something in my head to come out I first put pencil to paper. This is of course knowing that I always have the choice to use the computer, or not, along the way.

Kalay, Y. E. (2004). Architecture's New Media : Principles,Theories, and Methods of Computer Aided Design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. pp 141-147

Spalter, A. M. (1999). The Computer in the Visual Arts. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman. pp 212-253