I decided today that I'm not posting here as often as I should. So, I'm going to start posting everything (well almost everything) that I'm doing that realtes to my time over here. So here it goes.

This morning was our first meeting with Neil Spiller, Nic Clear, Phil Watson and my M. Arch. Group. Neil is the program head, Nic is in charge of the research reports, and Phil is my advisor/tutor/guru. There are two parts to a masters thesis at the Bartlett, a writen report and a design project. Both are equally as importiant and must be turned in simultaneously at the end of the semester in order to be reviewed.

Today we were supposed to explain our ideas and the methods that we have been and are using to work on our projects. They were looking more for how we are constructing out thinking about the work than a whole series of flashy images and seductive forms.

Overal it went prety well. Everyone in the group (there are seven of us) has a strong project. We are all at slightly different stages of development, but all in all we are about at the same place. I think that by the end of the semester there is going to be some truely increadible work.

Phil asked us to email him a shortened statement about what our projec is about and our thoughts after the discussion. Here is what I sent:


Phil,
Here are some thoughts after today's discussion...

The basics of the idea:
The Project looks at the spatial potentials of the hidden aspects of Literature. Its aims are to locate the hidden motion of text and explore the possibilities of its relationship to language.

The idea is this: If Literature is looked at as a motion machine, then what is the output of the system? What are the implications of allowing one to imagine the spatial aspects of literature that are buried and bound up by language?

Thoughts after the discussion:
I agree that I need to be much more rigorous in the ways that I am thinking and working on this project. The text that I wrote previously was a good start for forming the thinking, but now it must become more specific. The built work needs to do the same as well. I know that the work exists in the connections between the pieces and not the forms themselves. The computer modeling and the drawings just don't cut it. It is about the experience of one part shooting over the other on its way to the unknown; that single second of connection that sends the system in a sudden new direction, but only for a split second. This is where the project lies. Drawings and renderings just don't allow the theatrical aspects of the work to come across.

So the focus from now on is constructing the pieces of the system. I think the idea that Neil brought up about smearing is interesting and needs to sit in my brain for a bit. The smearing of the logic of the system across itself as it moved in and out of varying stares of clarity. Not formally but in its construction and logic. This could be useful but it needs to be worked out a bit more. For now I think its useful to get this one into play. I also think I need to find a way to take my interests in the Danielewiski books and have and get them into the built work. Ideas of cyber text, hyperlinks, and non-linear navigation could all play a part in the construction of the theater as well as the idea of the non passive observer.

That's all for now�I'll check back with you later.

Erik