So here are two other abstractions from the Pollock painting. Both of these are final models for our final review on Monday.
I found that making the frame for the suspended chipboard was problematic particularly when making the tensioners and achieving the appropriate width (and tension) to create an equilateral frame.
This model is the first study of tensegrity i did:
10 Comments
...
Maybe I'm wrong, but your structure doesn't seem to be a tensegrity structure, which would make it much more powerful. My own bias make me read this pollock as a flat tensegrity structure.
Posted by: Arnaud M. on Oct 09, 06 | 1:37 pm
...
Arnaud M.:
What do you mean by "tensegrity?" I have my own perception, but i would like to hear what you mean by this.
Posted by: morph on Oct 09, 06 | 1:52 pm
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensegrity
It was one of Bucky's main "tenet". It stands for tensional integrity.
Posted by: Arnaud M. on Oct 09, 06 | 1:59 pm
...
all comments previously posted here...
In our studio class we are studying abstract expressionists. I ended up analyzing a piece by Jackson Pollock.
<img src="http://www.archinect.com/images/uploads/pollock.jpg" border="0" alt="image" name="image" width="400" height="300" />
AP previously mentioned "tensegrity" and another professor of mine mentinoed that i should explore that concept after he saw the first "draft" model.
<img src="http://www.archinect.com/images/uploads/IMG_1179.jpg" border="0" alt="image" name="image" width="400" height="300" />
The first construct had nothing to do with tensegrity. The rods were bound at joints by copper wire. However, i would argue that, in contrast, both the new models do embody tensegrity. The first model has a frame where the rods are in compression and the wires are in tension, allowing for the frame to stand at any angle. The chipboard elements in the middle are simply in suspended and in tension. The second model is a better example, i feel, of this, as none of the rods are actually touching.
AP, i am not too sure what you are saying? I know you mentioned that it would help to see some drawings, but in these concepts i went straight to creating a construct, barring some unrelated off shoots to the actual "tensegrity" concept. Is it to much to ask for a little clarification?
For some reason you cannot insert pictures into comments? You'll have to check out those links...sorry.
morph,
I'm actually not saying a thing. The comment above is cut and pasted from an exchange between you and user Arnaud M. on your previous blog. He brought up tensegrity, you asked what he meant...your next project-related blog was titled 'Tensegrity.'
that's all.
Okay...i thought maybe you were prompting me to talk about your first comment from that thread. My bad.
I'm glad that I could have been of any help. Your project looks great. You really pulled a nice job!
Thanks for the kind words!
the constructs look great... you need to take them outside on a sunny day and photograph them with the shadows on a clean surface... could produce some cool effects...
nice work mike.
are the chipboard pieces intergral with the tensegrity or are they simply suspended within the tensegrity framework?
as a unm grad, thansk for representing the school finally....the previous blog attempts were disappointing.
el jeffe,
My apologies for the delayed response. The chipboard pieces are currently suspended in the tensegrity frame. I think it would be interesting to pursue this further and actually make a series of tensegrity structures (similar to the chipboard) that interact with each other and create space. That may be my next study.
This abstract expressionist project is a study to help us in the next evolution of the project, which is "Court. Tower. Bridge." I intend to apply tensegrity to each element. How you ask? Stay tuned... ;)
Thanks for the kind words.
Cheers!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.