There’s this satisfying feeling that happens after you finish a tutorial or a lesson in a course.
You know what I mean. You’ve watched the whole thing, maybe you’ve followed along, maybe you even took some notes. After that, you’ve definitely mastered “data-trees for Grasshopper”.
So, why is it that when you open up Grasshopper on your own, the only thing you can do is stare? You should have mastered this, you watched the tutorial. You even took notes. But all you have are more questions.
What components do you use ?
How do you even start, a point ? a curve ?
Where’s the list to graft ?
If any of that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the classic “I don’t know how to apply what I’ve just learnt to the real world” problem. That’s why even after 4 years of going to Unviersity, most people will still treat graduates as “starry eyed fledglings”.
I have written about this a couple of times now. One piece was about why I would learn Grasshopper differently if I started over. Another, was about the moment the tool finally made sense to me. And this one was about why learning through tutorials only won’t get you very far. I even made a LinkedIn post about it.
The TLDR of all of them is that tutorials and online courses teach you what the components do and where they are. But they don’t teach you how to use them to solve real world problems. That part only comes from getting more experience.
The responses I got from those pieces told me that a lot of people understand this. They have done the tutorials. Understand the material in the moment. And then nothing transfers to their jobs. They can take every “masterclass” under the sun and still feel like they are starting from scratch every time they open Grasshopper.
Hi, I’m Braden
I write about the craft of computational design, from working with geometry and data to the experience of building tools for other people.
If you’re new to CodedShapes, welcome! You might enjoy these:
If you’d like help with a workflow of your own, let’s work on it together.
Context is key when learning
I got lucky because my job at the time gave me context while I was learning Grasshopper for the first time. I had a real task with real deadlines and a real manager to hold me accountable. He was also a manager that would occasionally pull up a chair when I was completely lost and say, here, think about it like this.
He gave me direction, so that I wasn’t completely lost. He gave me some breadcrumbs to follow. But I still had to find my way there. It was still up to me to learn the right techniques to solve the problem.
I did end up learning the fundamentals of Grasshopper though. But not because a course told me to, because it was the only way I was going to solve my problem. I had to learn about data-trees because my situation demanded it. I wanted my scripts to work well and for that, the fundamentals are important. But doing it for the sake of doing it is how you get so bored that you rather run into a wall.
Learning in context is different to your regular online course or tutorial. Because it means you have to intentionally get lost and find your way back on your own. Which can be an extremely uncomfortable feeling, especially if you’re paying for a course to be reassured you’re on the “right” path. It’s weird to say “I am buying this course to feel lost and find my way back”. It’s much easier to buy a course that spoon feeds you problems and answers.
But all you’re doing is accumulating carnival cash. It feels great in the moment but means nothing in the real world.
The part that is hard to replicate
The problem is that most people learning Grasshopper today don’t have access to their own problems. They have jobs, but Grasshopper is not central to them yet. Or they are students, or they are trying to upskill before a role that needs it. They can’t find their own context to make the learning stick.
Telling you to find your own problems doesn’t help if you don’t know what can be done. It also doesn’t help if it’s too overwhelming to go through it on your own. I even made a course on how to find your own problems but it still doesn’t help if you are very new at this.
So, I have been trying to figure out how to give someone that project experience if they don’t have one? How do I structure a problem in a way that is not too overwhelming, that challenges you and still gives you enough direction?
Learning through projects
That’s what I’ve built into my course, Make Complex Shapes from Simple Geometry in Grasshopper. It gives you a modelling brief to work through, then a detailed walkthrough of my solution so you can compare it with yours.
I chose modelling because it’s a common use of Grasshopper and gives you plenty of opportunities to work with geometry, data and the relationships between them.
The project is the Winton Guest House. It has six distinct structures, each with its own geometry. You’ll practice breaking those forms into simpler shapes, choosing where to start and deciding how each part connects to the next.
You start with reference images and a suggested approach. From there, you can attempt one part at a time and compare it with my walkthrough, or try the whole building first. If you get stuck, you can follow how I approached that part and return to your own script.
Explore Make Complex Shapes from Simple Geometry in Grasshopper →
Closing thoughts
Learning in context is one of the most effective ways I’ve found to learn. After going through it, it’s hard to imagine ever sitting in a classroom or a tutorial learning for no reason. With anything that I am trying to learn (Grasshopper or not), I always anchor it to a problem/project.
This though, is a much harder way of learning and the effort you need is a lot higher than just kicking back and watching tutorials. Just be mindful of that. But that is the point of all of this. I don’t want you to memorize things for the sake of it, I want to give you a reason and some meaning to it.
P.S. The course assumes you’re comfortable with components, using sliders and creating basic geometry in Grasshopper. If you’re new to Grasshopper, A Primer in Grasshopper covers the foundations instead.
Thanks for reading. If you’d like more articles like this, subscribe to CodedShapes to get them delivered to your inbox
Work with me: https://codedconstructs.com/contact/
Computational Design Courses: https://learn.codedshapes.com/
Scripository (A library of computational scripts): https://scripository.com/