Jan '07 - Jun '07
responding to jtravis' request and expanding on my first post I'll go a little more in depth with the description of our project. One of the main goals of the studio was to derive form from the forces applied to each mass. In this case, the first primitive (a representation of the boulder) was driving the conditions for the second primitive (a mass attached to the first primitive).
below is a portion of the abstract describing the forces of our project.
The boulder surface we chose consisted of three topographical conditions; a field of smearing points, a zone of slopers, and an elongated crimp hold that divided the boulder surface in half. By defining each surface according to its specific hold type characteristics, we were able to introduce a series of parameters that defined each surface as a distinct mass with an internal logic, structure, and physical forces. The slopers performed as individual units, were oriented parallel to the crimp edge, and modulated the second primitive with sharp axially directed movement. The smears functioned in clusters, were arranged within a field, and fostered smooth unilateral movements. The crimp ridge provided an interlocking connection between the other two holds, functioning as a gasket between the two different systems. The overall interaction within this "logic-surface" subsequently informed a second surface/primitive/armature "draped" on top. Comprised of a mechanical armature, this second primitive modulated between reading the specific holds on the first surface and being affected by their properties.
In short, the two halves of the first primitive were held together by a series of lazer cut plexi-glass pieces that made up the second primitive.
This project falls in line with indexing used in contemporary architecture, which has also stirred up a debate among certain UCLA faculty and others in the field. Professor Jason Payne attempts to create a distinction among indexical work that uses process as an end unto itself and indexical work whose interest in process is as a means to an end. He believes in and teaches the latter, emphasizing a combination of bottom-up strategies with top-down design control.
Hopefully this helped to clarify the project and the studio in a whole.
4 Comments
WTF are you talking about?
just kidding... sort of. It is interesting when you mention "the two halves of the first primitive were held together by a series of lazer cut plexi-glass pieces". This is a visual connection, but not necessarily a structural connection. Did you ever consider moving in a direction similar to A's project using these plexi pieces as more than just a visual connection? -Connecting devices that literally held the two halves of the print together? Or, maybe just in place, making the relationship between the two materials much more fragile, and also putting an emphasis on the engineered qualities of the plexi?
jtravis,
sorry, I just realized that I skipped a whole line of text which I've now added in italics. as far as the visual vs. structural connection the acrylic pieces actually provide a structural connection. The two halves of the boulder are not connected and are only held together by the acrylic pieces. Hopefully this clarifies the project a little bit.
scott
I don't believe you.
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.