better at one? or two?
Topographies. We were given a choice of two sites and charged to devise a method to evaluate and document the topographies. Being precise within the method itself was more crucial than being accurate to the physical topography.
My group wanted to try to use the idea of simulating the human eye in order to determine the topography. Using the conventions of how we determine distance, and to some extent perspective figured largely in the procedure, which ultimately involved using a digital camera at a low resolution to read eye charts.
The eye charts were placed at a threshold where 10 lines (of the chart) could be read clearly in the DIGITAL IMAGE (not by the naked eye). The differences as the signs increased in distance would distort from a predictable distance related degredation as the contours of the site deformed.
The graphs we got were actually really interesting and very telling. The eye charts read at the greatest distances had a propensity to be greatly distorted and varied despite distance, where as those closest to the viewpoint were much more accurate and consistent.
You can see the data at the top of the hill in the grey graph is very erratic and wild. The subsequent graphs below show the terrain graphs (not a true topological analog) as we moved closer to the top of the hill. The data becomes less and less exaggerated and ultimately becomes quite clear and precise.
Here's the full field of eye charts.Crit
Crit went well and was a bit confusing for me as we tended to talk about how the data we got could be projected forward into the second part of the project. We got good comments on our graphic design on the boards which was nice. We also presented again on Monday for the prospective students at the Open House. Got a few tougher comments at that crit, but I think it was partially our fault as we didn't explain things as clearly (as we were under the impression that we were pressed for time). We summed it up a bit too quickly and think it left a lot of holes for the critics that hadn't heard our schpiel before. Oh well. Live and learn.The Bigger Picture
Starting to see how things roll. We're focusing a lot on these big abstract sort of projects. We started with something that was almost points-based or nodal and now we're moving to something much more surface based. And from here, I'm assuming we go to something more volumetric, and then finally into something more tectonic and performative. At least that's my best guess.
I'm enjoying this program a lot though and definitely feel it's pushing me intellectually.Other notes...
Nader Tehrani's (Office DA, Boston
) gave a talk last night at UCLA. Was REALLY good. He had an amazing clarity in explaining how he weds a very pragmatic understanding of how buildings are built with morphological and aesthetic exercises and explorations. Some of his residential work is absolutely gorgeous. It just begs an amazing creativity and clarity of how building materials can be used to generate forms while being true to the material.
Tehrani himself just seemed to be one who was distinctly aware of the realities of building architecture and the goals of architecture as art. Very good stuff. His work is gorgeous.