D/S teamed for their boulder. A couple of images of my boulder were posted in 2. I think Frank and I took a slightly different approach to the project -maybe because neither of us bothered to read the syllabus. When trying to understand the relationship between one surface and another, we understood each surface would need to be unique in their configurations in order to cleanly accept one another. While we were out at Joshua tree banging out some all star level 15 climbs, we realized, each of us visualized and experienced any given boulder differently. This difference was based on some set of individualized variables unique to each of our own surfaces (bodies). Therefore, we attempted to activate the the primary surface set with the secondary surface. This meant, the primary surface had the capacity to reorganize itself based upon the connection needs of the second surface. Ultimately, this resulted in a choreography of movements between the surfaces as the secondary moved across the face of the primary. Here is some text I wrote at the time:
Abstract
Design information absorption. First, feel boulder. We each approach the surface of the boulder and survey its topology. This is not a process of measurement or diagramming. We are sampling its textures. Exaggerating its connections. Testing its gravities. This is done individually. There are several variables: length of finger, elasticity of limbs, endurance vs. weight, intersections of center of gravity vectors, etc. In this process, each of us is re-imaging the surface. The emergent perception is a dynamic surface indexable to these individual variables. A relationship is formed. We stick ourselves to the surface. The stickiness fluctuates as we traverse our system of interfaces. For a moment, our energies are congruent. Next, think boulder. Our bodies, or surfaces, are very similar. We each have arms, fingers, eyes, etc. Our routes are the same. We begin at the same point. End at the same point. Yet, our images of the surface are unique. Effectively, each reality is based on the biases of an individual's perception of the surface. The topology of the surface is adjusting to each [individual]database of variables. The replication of a surface must acknowledge the multiplicity of that surface. Final, re-fabricate boulder. The surface of the boulder is extracted from the mass. Lateral topologies, traversed sectional surface contact percentages, mutable aspirations, and networks of time influence surface panel designs. The key connections are exaggerated: Crimp, Pinch, Smear, Ledge. Extraneous features are smoothed. The mass becomes the central node for surface structure. The structural members are organized along/influence the manifestation of the primary connection locations. Connection to the boulder is relative to the second primitive. Therefore, the surface is adjustable to the connection receptors of the second primitive. The connection receptors are formed to universally accept the key connections to promote flexibility and number of sticky nodes. The reality of the second primitive controls the perception of the boulder surface.

-j