proj1b_test animation

This animation was created to experiment with Electric Image. It is an animation of model created for proj1a and, as described in the previous post, each frame attempts to create a figure/ground condition, framed views of the "void," and spatial and visual ambiguity.

I also had problems with the "polygonization" that would occure during the translation of models from Maya to FormZ. In the test animation, it ends up being interesting and ok, but in other models that ended up on Electric Image, the polygon forms interupted the smooth surfaces and resulted in "jumpy" animations.

I guess this week's beat down was administered not by the programs themselves, but in getting them to work together effectively.

proj1b_compositional frames

As a study of the solid/void condition as described by the relationship of an object to the frame through which it is viewed, this model creates a series of framed views, both into its interior spaces and of the surrounding "void." The rendered views show examples of this on two scales.




The animation was an investigation into the level of frustration one person can have with rendering, converting and ultimately re-converting and re-rendering. The story of this animation is long and painful (sort of like watching it). In the end, the best I could do was this extremely crude rendering (the result of significant quality loss in converting from an .img to a .mov and especially when linking the multiple pieces back together in Final Cut). Hopefully someone more knowledgeable in such things can offer some guidance.

That being said, the intent was to sculpt specifically framed views of the "not model." Each frame ia a collage of overlapping forms which, when viewed in the two-dimensional frame of an animation, create spatial and visual ambiguities.Unfortunately, the tracers created by the poor quality animation limit the it's ability to create truly dynamic figure/ground relationships between the model and the void, as well as within the mulitple layers of the model itself.

proj1a_revise

serendipity

if one were to scroll down to my first entry, he/she would read a question concerning the relevance of emergence in architecture. Enter Greg Lynn. His theories of parasitism, viscious bodies, monstrosities, and bodies are based on architectures built from the bottom up, a collaboration between seemingly disparate entities, rather than wholistic design that works from the top down.

project 1a models

In this model the spaces created between the two moving bodies are manipulated in only one dimension, leaving an orthographic view that is the same as the source drawing. The result is a series of planes whose interaction creates a cluster of complex spaces in between the multiple lines of intersection.




in this version, I've abstracted space into two dimensions, allowing time to be represented by the third dimension. The result is a time lapse depicting the evolution of the space between the two moving forms.




again, the forms have been reduced to two dimensions, allowing the third dimension to relate them temporally. This model investigates the relationship between action and mimicry as discussed with the drawings below. There is an interesting and obvious delay and distortion in the "mimic" surface.

Animate Form

Topology - a mathematical study into the nature of space - - One would guess that architecture would be the obvious next step . . .


I understand and share Lynn’s excitement about the potential for “virtual” environments to simulate a series of forces upon an object to determine its form. Lynn’s examples include boats, planes and other constructs whose design is integrally related to actual movement. While buildings are affected by many forces - physical, social, conceptual, etc. – it is their specific goal to not move(at least most of the time). They are the setting in which movement happens. So the question becomes, how does one incorporate motion and time into an intentionally immobile thing?

It makes sense that perhaps a building form is dependant upon circulation patterns, directed views or even structural forces (wind, earthquakes, gravity). Of these, only structural forces are universal and quantifiable. How are we then to validate forms that are generated by unquantifiable forces? Are our applied forces are invariably arbitrarily assigned?

Forces can be assigned by site conditions (marking a corner, framing a view, terminating an axis), social goals (sustainability, affordable housing) and contextual issues (vernacular style, local customs), amongst others. None of these design decisions are “arbitrary.” The weight assigned to certain “forces,” (i.e., how architects make decisions) has been determined by architects since architects have been architecting. The good ones have been able to correctly calibrate the multiple forces under which they are operating.

I also found Hans Jenny’s studies interesting in the way that the resultant forms were imbedded with “history” due to different rates at which the materials solidified. Similarly, Lynn’s discussion of landscape as both a stable and dynamic system creates an interesting model. Landscapes are at the same time evidence of historical forces as well as continually evolving.

project 1a - movement analysis

Jonathan and I were interested in the interaction of two bodies in space - namely the mimicry of one by the other. Our sequence is a study of the distortion that occurs in reenactment. These drawings analyze the forms of each body at important peaks throughout a sequence of movements.



A second version removes some of the intervals, creating more discrete moments.



Another series of drawings investigates the relationship between the two bodies . . .



. . . and the space that is created between them.