PROJECT 2Bv2: PHYSICAL CONSTRUCT

The first set of images represents the model in its original form. The intent of the model was to duplicate the curved surface of the digital model through the use of a literal triangulated surface. This surface was built up on a clay form work. As with the digital model, it is meant to be a surface that both acts as object and frame to itself.



The second set of images show the model after it has received a spray coating of rubber. This process was meant to remove the geometric look of the surface, however, this coating was not as thick as planned; even after three coats, the geometric appearance remains. The one benefit is the binding of the form.

PROJECT 2Bv2: ANIMATION

This animation shows the digital counterpart for the second attempt at creating a surface construct from the movie clips. The intent is to create a surface that acts as both frame and object itself. The walls of the "canyons" are meant to act as a framing device. The "hills" being objects. The hills also act as framing devices for the next set of terrain. While the hills are both object and frame, the canyons only serve as frame. The surface was created from a NURBS plane in Maya through use of the sculpting tools; the animation was also created in Maya.

PROJECT 2Bv1: PHYSICAL CONSTRUCT

These first two images are of the CAD drawing used to make the physical surface construct. These were generated with stills taken out of the movie scene. The magenta represents what was cut through, the green what was etched.

These are photos of the construct. The idea behind it is perceptions of a surface. There are two types of framing at work in the movie scene. Framing done with the ships, and framing done through the view screens on board the ships. Each face is meant to represent one of the two. The top is intentionally left open, an is meant to represent a world view where there is no framing. The bottom surface was the surface meant to be framed.

PROJECT 2Av2: ANIMATION

This analytical animation is much different from the previous version of the project. Rather than interpreting the movie and changing it into something different, this one has overlays over the original scene. The "white" is representative of framing objects, while the black shows objects. The reason the white is in quotes is because of the use of gifs. Since they are index colored based, if a frame did not have white in it, the lightest color was substituted, so the light colors in some frames was meant to be white. An improved version with white white is in the works. This is based on the first scene chosen. There is no sound. The overlays end about halfway through, when the camera changes become more important than what is actually portrayed.

Mark Burry: "Between Surface and Substance"

In the article "Between Surface and Substance," Mark Burry attempts to reconcile the differences between conceptual surface constructs and the intellect and craft of substance. In recent times, digital technology has provided for a separation of surface away from substances. Surface becomes a digital construct, while the crafting of physical form becomes the container for substance. In recent history, just before the advent of digital modeling in architecture, we have Le Corbusier's chapel at Ronchamp and Earo Saarinen's TWA Building. These two buildings represent the fusion of surface and substance, the conceptual molded into physical substance. These two works serve as examples of how to best utilize the technology available today. In the transition from surface to substance, Gaudi's Nave Roof for the Sagrada Familia Church illustrates part of the challenge in turning concept to reality. The mathematical work done to give form to the surface cannot hold to create a surface with thickness. While the exterior is mathematically derived, the interior surface is offset to provide for uniform thickness, and does not follow the same rules. However, this adjustment does not significantly interfere with the realization of the idea. A studio project undertaken by staff and students from Gehry Partners, MIT and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) to design a reading room for the Melbourne Botanical Gardens illustrates this problem in a more modern way. The designs were done as conceptual constructs. They were realized by those not involved in the design process; however, the conceptual digital models contained intersecting forms containing thin forms not possible in reality. The resolution was the addition of thickness at these thin points that allowed concept to become reality without undermining the concept itself. Deleuze's term "perplication," meaning "cross-foldings" between complex repetitions, illustrates another element of the challenge between surface and substance. Perplications can take form as concept through digital modeling; however, though they can be rendered to look like a realizable surface, these constructs cannot exist in the physical world. The Aegis Hyposurface of dECOi Architects illustrates another part of the challenge. The idea of a wall reacting to it's environment in real time was easy to document in conceptual digital realm. When they won the competition they entered their design in, they were presented with the challenge of how to make their surface reality. In making the form physical, compromises were necessary; one compromise of note is the surface construction. No uniform material can react as the digital construct, but the piecing together of triangular plates with rubber in between made their surface possible. The point Burry is making is that today's digital technology should be used to make the processes that went into Le Corbusier's chapel at Ronchamp and Eero Saarinen's TWA Building easier than they were before, rather than attempting to separate the richness of the concept and the beauty of craft.

As the technologies of digital modeling become ever more sophisticated, there exists great potential to either unite surface and substance, or widen the chasm between. Physical limitations are becoming better understood, and more realizable in the digital world of the conceptual surface. These limitations cap concepts to better hold them to the principals of reality. The potential for the union of substance and surface lies in the ability to remove the bias carried with the word "limitation." The negative connotations of limits can be lifted by the notion that these are not limitations so much as guide points; something to work from, rather than work to. In following the guide points established by physical reality, there is the potential for the conceptual surface to become the kind of well crafted substance that evokes symbolism characteristic of the world and environment in which it occupies, as opposed to serving as a reminder of the limits architects must deal with in the world of construction and design.

PROJECT 2Av1: IMAGES

These are two stills of moments from the animations in the previous posts.


This image is from the first animation, and highlights the moment when the Reliant emerges into the view of the Enterprise, ending the period of "calm" that takes place in the first half of the animation.



This still is from the second animation, and is taken from the bridge of the Reliant as she pursues enterprise; this is the final moment of the animation, where the Enterprise is visible to the Reliant crew.

PROJECT 2Av1: ANIMATIONS

The scene I analyzed for these animations came from the ship battle at the end of Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan. Due to copyright stuff, I can't really post the scenes here. I chose these scenes for several reasons. There are two levels of framing in the scenes; a world view outside the ships, and a framed view through the view screen of the ships. The ships are moved around in ways that take advantage of an environment that has a form which is neither constant or specific. There is sectioning to a small degree in one scene where one ship is hidden away from the other until is "emerges" from a blind spot. Lastly, in both scenes, the camera changes start out slow, like a kind of calm before the storm, then change more rapidly when the two vessels encounter one another.

The first animations are from the scene that starts with the Enterprise unable to "see" the Reliant, even though she lies directly ahead.




This scene is from the perspective of the Enterprise's bridge. The "view screen" frames the view out into "space," as the Reliant emerges from a blind spot created by the environment the ships occupy.



This scene is from the perspective of the underside of Reliant. The engines and the saucer form a frame as the ship pursues the fleeing Enterprise.



This last animation is the complete version. The point to make about the combination is the camera changes. In the first 40 seconds, before the ships encounter one another, there are only 4 transitions, showing that while the viewer can see Reliant moving from one angle, the Enterprise crew cannot. After the encounter in the last 20 seconds, the camera changes twice as fast, attempting to bring forth the chaos that ensues as the Enterprise attempts to get away from the Reliant.

Umberto Eco: "Travels in Hyper Reality"

In the essay Travels in Hyper Reality, Umberto Eco discusses issues pertaining to the area of reproductions. Eco begins with a description of holography, and the realism it gives to a three-dimensional representation of two women. Holography and it's potentials allow the creation of a form of hyper reality, in which the representation, or "fake" is more real than original itself. In America, the dedication to the representation of important moments in time, or "memories" provides for places dedicated to them, such as museums, establishing "fortresses of solitude" where, much like that of Superman, people may reflect on the past. The representations attempt to approximate the real to the point of creating a reality better than the original. The representation of Johnson's Oval Office is not only accurate, but made to be prettier and last longer than the original. Taken to the next level, this level of detail not only represents real memories, but "memories" out of the works of fiction. The care to detail given to the Oval Office is passed onto Alice's encounter with the Mad Hatter in Wonderland. The realism of both blurs the distinction between what is a reproduction of reality and a reproduction in fiction. Upon seeing displays of both mixed together can overwhelm the senses and confuse the real and the fake. At the highest level, these hyper realities don't merely attempt bring the real to life, but to make a production that reduces the real to being unnecessary, as in the case of wax reproductions of the Last Supper.

The concept of creating hyper reality has a large showing in architecture. Many would be quick to draw the conclusion that modern technology, specifically digital modeling, is what has made this possible in architecture. However, hyper reality has been present in architecture since artists attempted realistic representations of buildings both existing and non-existing. For architects today, attempts at creating hyper reality are often part of a ruse to show a proposed building in a way better than what could be achieved in the physical world. These hyper realities show an attention to detail ranging from hard edges to clean floors showing no sign of building use. These images are timeless; they will not dirty with use, weather over time, or change configuration because of the whims of the building's owner. At the next level, these pristine models incorporate the fourth dimension, and are able to break the barriers of static imagery. Now, the fake ages as the real, becomes dirty, gets used, and ultimately breaks down. Now the model can imitate all the facets of reality, and at a level better than reality, through the modeling of the ideal. But, hyper reality falls short in one area of architecture; architecture is space making, and one can not physically occupy an image, even if they can plant themselves within with photo software. In the end, hyper reality can represent imagery better than the real, but spatial experience.

Monica Ponce de Leon and Nader Tehrani: "Versioning: Connubial Reciprocities of Surface and Space"

In their article "Versioning: Connubial Reciprocities of Surface and Space," the principals of Office dA, Monica Ponce de Leon and Nader Tehrani, define and explain versioning as it applies to the works of their firm. For Office dA, versioning, with its connotations of integration, means integrating surface and space. Surface and space are, more often than not, treated separately from one another. Herzog & de Meuron are architects who have developed highly detailed skins, showing innovation at its best; however, these skins cover off the shelf spaces found throughout modernism. Gehry's development of space has made him a household name in the world of architecture, but he clads these forms with metal panels that have been used for many spatially unimpressive buildings in the modern era. The work of Office dA sets up architectural alibis, where program, site, and fabrication lead to the development of rational systems. Their works are based on arbitrary decisions crafted into strong, rational decisions. The Tongxian Arts Centre project provides and example of this process. The building is cast in concrete, but based off a brick mould. They use a Flemish bond, and remove the headers; in this concrete construction, the spaces left behind become arbitrary, and can be adjusted to break away from conventional building. These adjustments allow for the compression of expansion of not only the wall surface, but the spaces contained within. The surface manipulation defines the space; a relationship where coexistence is essential.

This type of versioning has many potentials in the field of architecture. One of the most important being the reinforcement of symbology in architecture. This level of integration can allow symbols of space and the build form to become more evident. Gehry's work would benefit highly from this design approach. His organic forms would become a more full bodied experience, selling itself for what it is both inside and out, as opposed to being hidden in the metal panels covering other, less symbolic buildings. There are many levels to which this integration can be taken. An extreme case would be the Death Cube K bar described in Anthony Vidler's article in Warped Space. This bar's insect-like cladding reinforcing the idea of corruption the bar stands for. While the symbolism in this example is rather negative, it is the idea of being able to use this level of integration for symbology that is important. In this form, versioning can give architecture the chance to reveal what before could only be hidden within the fabric of space and form.

Ingeborg Rocker: "Versioning: Evolving Architectures - Dissolving Identities 'Nothing is as Persistent as Change'"

In the article "Versioning: Evolving Architectures - Dissolving Identities 'Nothing is as Persistent as Change,'" Ingeborg Rocker discusses the evolution of presenting ideas in architecture. Frank Gehry and Peter Eisenman are the earliest precursors of the development of technology as a means of informing and altering architectural production. Both architects look at the two pieces of this technology puzzle, the conceptual and programmatic implications of the digital medium; however, neither one of the two consider both at the same time. Rocker defines versioning in architecture that links software configuration management and engineering data management, establishing architecture as a processual data-design, continually processing projection and convergence; architecture evolves through the process of different/ciation. Differentiation is the precursor to any presentation. The precursor of differentiation is different/ciation; behind it, there is nothing. Differentiation is necessary for any difference. Differences are fundamental to evolution in architecture through versioning. Differentiation is part of the process of repetition. Repetition in this instance is not repetition of the same, but repetition of difference. This ongoing repetition is the engine to this evolution of architecture.

Versioning as a system of integration is becoming more prominent in the architecture profession today. This integration of the different design elements is a fundamental of BIM, Building Information Modeling. Versioning and BIM bring together the different members and aspects of the design process to work together and produce a more refined product. At its highest level, the virtual realm of BIM and versioning imitates reality to its details. This is reality in the virtual realm. The difference between reality in the virtual realm and virtual reality is that in the former, all the rules of reality are near perfectly imitated as best as they are currently understood, while the latter typically holds to a specific set of rules aimed at creating one or few specific representations. This reality in the virtual realm allows for a new step in the design process. While versioning and different/ciation in design are not a guarantee for positive developments, the lessons learned through versioning and different/ciation in BIM and other applications can be used to make adjustments to design that were previously only possible through physical construction.

Elizabeth Grosz: Architecture from the Outside: "The Future of Space: Toward an Architecture of Invention"

In her essay on the future of space in architecture, Elizabeth Grosz discusses the common ground between the study of architecture and the study of philosophy. This common ground, which forms the basis of her essay, is the idea of the new or virtual, the latent or becoming. Architecture is described as the art and science of the manipulation of space. This manipulation of space must occur through time, and use two kinds of time. One of these kinds of time being time that comes before space and time, the idea of a space-time difference. This difference gives rise to the idea that space does not evolve over time, but that space evolves from time. In order for this idea to hold, the idea of time as a succession from past to present is re-presented as past and present needing to be in contact with one another, existing simultaneously; the present and it's past exist together, present succeeds present, past succeeds past. The past as memory is a virtual representation of that which formed the present. The past is the virtual, while the present is the real. The virtual derives its limits from the real, while the real embodies these limits. The past is dependent on the present and vice-versa. The two must touch in order for one to "travel" to the past, the virtual. To travel to different points in the past, one often must return to the present. It is the dependency the provides for the evolution of space.

To apply this to architecture, one would have to define what constitutes the real in architecture, and what constitutes the virtual. The virtual of architecture is plans, sections, perspectives, etc. The real of architecture is the built environment. The virtual must follow the limits of the built world in order to be viable as a built form. The built world must evolve from ideas represented by the elements of the virtual world. The virtual and real constantly interact. The experiences in the world of the real inform the planning of the virtual, and the experiences in the virtual inform the world of the real, allowing each to evolve. New forms are derived from old forms, adapted to new desires. This reinforces the idea that everything in architecture has been done already, in some way or form, and what is considered "new" is merely an interpretation of that which already exists. The evolution of the virtual is based in the rules of the real. Current technologies allow the virtual to take many new forms through the complex math this technology can utilize. However, the limits of the real, such as the ability of a form to stand through time, remain in place. The virtual adapts to these limits in ways it could not before, and thus allowing the built world to do the same. The real and virtual worlds continue to evolve within themselves, and from each other, constantly molding the ways in which architecture forms space.

PROJECT 1 FINAL: POSTER

This sheet is meant to act as a kind of movie poster to "advertise" for the final animation sequence of project 1. The idea is based off of posters used for movies, in which a major scene / collage representative of the whole of a movie is the largest image on the page, and scene's highlighting the moments of the most important actors in the movie are shown with it. The "major scene" is a still from the final Project 1C animation, while the "actors" are the Project 1A drawings, stills from the Project 1A animation, and stills from the Project 1B animation. This poster also promotes the idea that everything builds upon that from which it followed.

PROJECT 1 FINAL: ANIMATION

This is the final animation for project 1. It is a culmination of the entire project, and consists of the final animations from projects 1A through 1C. The first segment is the original video of Yuval that formed the basis of the entire project. The second segment consists of a slide show showing the analytical drawings made from Yuval's video. The third segment is an animation of the model, showing off the form of the model. The next segment is the project 1B final (framing exercise) and the final segment is the final from project 1C (sectioning exercise). All segments are repeated three times for the purpose of presentation; allowing enough time for an explanation to be given for each sequence. As a viewer, one can take the repeating sequences as a chance to catch things not seen when the animations are first seen.

PROJECT 1Cv2

This is my second attempt at sectioning for Project 1C. I believe the introduction of a sectioning plane in the animations led to a more successful product. I've made several, but I'm not sure which one to use in my final. I'm not sure it if would be productive to put two versions in the final or not. Suggestions on that point?

The first set of animations are of the cave-like model.

This first animation is a crawl along the top, with the camera moving in reverse with respect to it's orientation.



This animation is the first of this series to implement a sectioning plane. Both the sectioning plane and ground plane are white, both are able to receive shadows. The camera is held away from the object to view the entire form as it emerges from behind the sectioning plane.



This animation is related to the previous animation. The difference is in the placement of the camera, which is located within the form. I believe this animation to be the most successful of the series with respect to the idea of sectioning. The sectioning idea reads clearly in looking at the changing form of the opening as the object passes through the sectioning plane.



This animation is a kind of synthesis of the ideas of the previous animations. The camera is placed above the object as it emerges from the form. There is an addition of a "rail" to act as a way point for the observer, seemingly holding up the camera in the animation.

The next set of animations utilizes the lofted form model.



This first animation is a sequence of animations that follows the core and exterior trace points of the model following a path that is in reverse, with respect to the orientation of the camera. The sequence starts at the core of the form, then goes clockwise around the form from the upper right, and ending at the top.



This animation shows the sequences of the previous animation all together.



This animation introduces the sectioning plane to this model. The camera is positioned in the center of the form, and is held in place, similar to the animation of the cave form, where the camera is placed within the cave.



This animation is another sequence animation. The camera location corresponds to the exterior trace points, and follows the same order as the previous trace points. Unlike the previous animation, the camera is not held in place for the duration of a sequence, but rather follows the form as it reaches the point where the camera is located.



This animation displays all the sequences of the previous animation together, showing the emerging form from several view points at the same time.

PROJECT 1Av3: ANIMATION

I've decided to make an animation for presenting the analysis drawings I used to create the digital models in FormZ.


The order of the lines that appear in the trace point drawings may seem arbitrary at first, but it actually corresponds to a clockwise order around Yuval's body, starting with his center, going to his right shoulder, and then around his body to his head. This is the same order I've used for the sequence animations in Project 1C.

PROJECT 1Cv1

This set of animations is a first attempt at project 1C, which is about using these animations to show how these objects are a study of surface, and frames said surface study as a sequence of sections communicating a clear process and intention.

The first set of animations refer to the first form of the previous post.


This first animation skims the outside of the model, and portrays the object as moving in response to the observer, rather than the observer moving with the object.


This animation serves as a counterpoint to the first, having the observer follow the surface of the object.


This third animation attempts to follow the path of the one of the trace points originally used to the generate the form. Specifically, this focuses on the trace point representing the location of Yuval's head.

The next set of animations originate from the second model of the previous post, the one composed of the five ribbon forms.

The first six elements follow six of the trace points used to generate the forms of the model.

The first point here is the navel. As the navel is often referred to as the center point of the human body, this animation is mean to act as he patch of the core of the five forms.


This animation follows the path of the right hand.

This animation follows the path of the right foot.

This animation follows the path of the left foot.

This animation follows the path of the left hand.

This animation follows the path of Yuval's head.

This animation is a composite showing the previous animations in sequence. The order is not arbitrary; it begins at the core, and then goes around the perimeter of the form going clockwise from the right hand and concluding at the head.

This last animation is another composite, and serves as a contrast to the previous. Rather than showing each sequence individually, this animation shows all the paths simultaneously, arranged in a manner imitating the locations of each point within the form.

PROJECT 1Bv3

After receiving feedback in class about how to make adjustments to the framing videos, I made modifications to the models and animations for both sets I have in the previous project 1B posts.

These first stills/animations go with the first post.

These two images show how the horizon line is framed by the object both from outside the object (first image) and from inside the object (second image).


This animation shows the processional sequence from the outside, through the inside, and back outside the object, focusing on the exit, and the plane beyond.

The next stills/animations correspond to the second project 1B post.These images attempt to frame a space between the ribbon-like planes, using the end of the center object as a way point through the middle of the forms to the horizon beyond.



This animation takes a path between the two forms representing Yuval's legs, attempting to frame an open ended space, with the ground plane serving as a reference.

Greg Lynn: Folds, Bodies, & Blobs - Forms of Expression: The Proto-Functional Potential of Diagrams in Architectureral Design

In the article "Forms of Expression: The Proto-Functional Potential of Diagrams in Architectural Design," Greg Lynn discusses diagrams using the works of Ben Van Berkel as a case point. Lynn makes a point that the type of diagrams he refers to are not representational of ideas, but are conceptual tools. Lynn attempts to prove Van Berkel to be a Proto-Functionalist with regards to how he approaches architecture. Van Berkel's work is described as non-linear with respect to progression from the diagram to concrete constructions. Van Berkel's work looks into the vague influences in architecture. These vague influences being elements such are structural concerns and hidden infrastructures, elements that are not readily quantified in the initial design phases of architectural works, yet have a clear effect on architectural form. These vague influences are anexact in nature, being able to be broken down to their individual influences, yet not readily described as a conceptual whole. The word vague is a cue to how these forces are not so easily quantified and determined. In design, these influences present the chicken and egg problem; design must be carried on with respect to structure, but structure cannot be quantified without a corresponding form. These vague influences have been historical understudied by architects, but Van Berkel's work is done through a process that conceptualizes these influences via the diagram.

What separates Van Berkel's work is his use of abstraction in his work. What separates Van Berkel's version of abstraction from the traditional version is that his version is not reductive of an idea. Rather, his is an abstraction that is generative. These abstractions generate the form, rather than the form generating the abstraction. These abstractions represent the technological aspect; they present an understanding of technology in cultural and social contexts, as opposed to concrete, tangible forms. As the diagrams build on and feed off one another, eventually a diagram is produced that breaks the barrier between this form of technology and the concrete assemblage.

The idea of diagrams being the building blocks in architecture is nothing new. The recovered sketchbooks of architects long past can demonstrate this fact. However, the conceptual, generative diagram is a different approach. These diagrams generate form, rather than impersonate it. In a linear process, these diagrams would be meaningless abstractions. It would be next to impossible to directly generate form from them. Working in a kind of cycle, where the diagram evolves to bring in more concepts in approach to a form brings forth a process that attempts to reconcile the chicken and egg problem between architectural reality and architectural form. This idea of working with these vague influences has the benefit of allowing form to merge with structural necessity, breaking down the wall between drawn ideals and built forms. This method makes it possible to design forms that can be built, as opposed to idealized forms which only server the purpose of falsely advertising the reality of built form.

Greg Lynn: Folds, Bodies, & Blobs - Probable Geometries: The Architecture of Writing in Bodies

In the essay "Probable Geometries: The Architecture of Writing in Bodies," Greg Lynn discusses architecture and writing as is pertains to descriptive geometries within architecture. Writing is presented as being an anti-architectural art, in contrast to the pure forms found in architecture. Writing is presented as heterogeneous and indeterminate, while architecture consists of ideals based on proportional systems. These proportional systems are given reason by relating back to the idealized form of the human body, a tradition that has been in place since the times of the ancients. Proportional geometry is presented as being important to governing the forms of buildings; without symmetry and proportion, there are no rules in architecture.

In contrast to this view that architecture must have proportions to have reason, Lynn brings up anexact forms. With respect to geometry, anexact forms are not exact, or wholly able to be simplified, but are able to be reduced on a local level, meaning these forms are not inexact. This leads to blob architecture and general anexact forms. While idealized, classical, proportional architecture is exact, blob architecture is anexact. The different sections and parts can be reduced to a rule set, while the form as a whole cannot be reduced. It is through anexact forms that architecture takes a step towards becoming more heterogeneous, more like writing. These anexact forms are not a complete departure from the former proportional systems; even anexact forms can be traced back to nature. Geological forms are also anexact, as geologists are discovering ways to make convincing representations of geological forms through anexact geometry. A common method for breaking down the anexact forms of architecture and nature is through the section; section planes break forms down into understandable two dimensional forms, readily able to be analyzed. One instance of this representation in architecture would be Le Corbusier's Maison Domino. It is through the analytical potential of the section that anexact forms can be studied and applied to architecture, bridging the gap between architecture and writing.

Lynn presents writing and architecture to be fundamentally different, however, both writing and architecture have their rule sets. Take works of fiction, plots build up to a climax, and settle down into a conclusion. This approach is a fundamental to works of this type. However, the rules of writing are not as restricting as the formal rules of architecture; this is where the difference lies. Lynn's suggestion that blob architecture can bring similarity to the professions of writing and architecture is right on the money. Blob architecture is more free form, but has a distinct, yet open ended, rule set. Works of writing follow some rule set on some level; sections of works could be labeled, and rules exist to suggest a proper order for sections fitting these labels. Blob architecture can also be broken down into component parts. These parts, as do the parts of writing, also have suggestions for how these components should be tied together. Given the generic rule sets available to both writing and blob architecture, perhaps the two professions are no longer as different as they once were.

PROJECT 1Bv2

Since I wasn't impressed with my first attempt at doing an animation focused on framing, I decided to take a second attempt. I believe this second iteration is more successful than the first. This version uses an entirely different model from the first, and introducing a new trace point for the model (at the navel, in bright green below).
The new model takes a different approach from all of the previous versions. Instead of generating one form there are five forms generated. Each represents sections of Yuval's body. The green represents the section between his head and navel, the red his right arm, the yellow his left arm, the cyan his right leg, and the magenta his left leg.
This isometric has the control lines shown as tubes along the long-side edges of the forms.
This a an axo of the forms, without the control lines (all subsequent images will be free of the control lines).
Front View
Top View
Right View



Color

White

I have included a version of the animation with the form in white to better present the shade and shadow. The color is the only difference. At the start of the animation, the object as a whole is framed. The next sequence brings up a framing of the left side of the form. From there, ones frame is adjusted to only include the lower two forms, represented Yuval's legs. The perspective is taken along a path representing a rough version of the path Yuval's legs took in his performance. At the end, the right side of the object is framed. What follows is a framing of the top 3 three forms, representing Yuval's mid section and arms. The path follows the reverse of Yuval's upper body. Notice how this path is more straight than that of the legs. The final segment once again frames the left side of the form, suggesting the sequence is about to start again.

PROJECT 1B: ANIMATION

This is the animation generated for this phase of project 1. It uses the first model shown in the previous post.

This first scene of the animation is meant to from the entire object. The following segment follows up the "mouth" of the object. Before entry, the object is framed up. The animation goes in the same direction as Yuval did in the action sequence that generated the model. The during the trip through the inside serves two purposes. The first is a rough imitation of the spinning Yuval does. The second reason is this rotation is meant to serve as a critique of the form; within the interior, the concept of gravity is left open; there is no reference point, no clear up or down. This spin is meant to make a point of this. The final sequence frames the object once again, as if the viewer is about to be brought into the object once again.

Neil Spiller: Towards an Animated Architecture - Against Architectural Animation

In his article "Against Architectural Animation," Neil Spiller discusses the consequence of using animation in the field of architecture. As a person who has looked through many student portfolios in his time, he becomes worried when a student presents him with digital material, as opposed to drawings. Though Spiller himself is a technology enthusiast, stating the many benefits technology has for architecture, he is worried about the use of animation in architecture. He fears that architects are becoming more concerned with making a good animation, rather than creating good spaces.

Architects in today's world are limited by how new applications of animation are in architecture. The typical animation software was meant for film and graphics industries, not architecture. In a sense, by using this software, and architect is asking an apple to be an orange. This leads to a tendency for those using the software to play around more with the features of the software, as opposed to the architectural forms they are attempting to represent. These users "push all the buttons at once" to see what happens, and labels it as a final product. Such representations do nothing to give another insight into architectural form. They may be pretty to look at, but they say nothing; they are mindless eye candy, rotting away the mind as sweets do one's teeth.

The graphics in these animations also lead towards a representation of ideals, made possible by the less restrictive rules of cyberspace. Clients presented with these pristine models are seduced by the graphic aesthetics, and assume the built version will be the same. In the end, built form can only approximate these animated forms, often ending up as deformations of a digital ideal, as real world influences, such as gravity and context disturb these idealistic bodies.

Another shortcoming of architectural in the virtual world relates to the approach on must take in order to represent architecture virtually. A high level of detail must be known; dimensions must be known down to small features, such as bathroom stall width. Such a level of detail is not necessary for the creative proportions brought about through relatively simply mathematics to create an aesthetic that architecture has held since the time of the ancients. Such picky details detract one from such grand simplicity to the point where one loses sight of the big picture in favor of the small. This over-attention to detail removes the ability for others to speculate and reinterpret; there is no room for the imagination when all the details are given.

For animation in architecture to work, one must "dumb it down." Architects employing this technology must focus more on the whole. Attention to overall form, not the width of an armrest, should take priority. Animations should not seek to answer all questions about architectural form, but, rather, should answer some questions, while raising others, allowing for speculation, allowing the minds of others to attempt to reach their own conclusions. Architectural animation should be nothing more than a trailer, as opposed to the whole film. The architecture and films industries are two separate, inherently different entities; their representations and re-presentations should be different on the basis of the fundamentals these industries hold.

PROJECT 1Av2: DIGITAL MODEL

These are the stills of the new digital models, using the lines from both the old drawings and the new drawings in an attempt to create a more graceful form.

The first set of models corresponds the video where Yuval goes across the screen.

Axonometric viewFront view
Top view
Right view
Isometric view showing the control lines; the darker lines are those used in the first version; all lines correspond to the drawings in the previous post.

The next set of renderings corresponds to the movie where Yuval is going into the background.
Axonometric view
Front view
Top viewRight view
Isometric view with the control lines.

Upon creation of these models, the newer models appear to be more compact and rounded than the previous versions. However, in terms of re-presenting the original animation it came from, the first model is more successful than the second model. The first model has a flowing feel to it, like a ribbon floating in space, while the second looks like a twisted up ball of fabric.

PROJECT 1Av2: BASE DRAWINGS

This is the second version of project 1A. What separates this version from the previous is that I have increased the number of trace points from five to nine. The purpose being to see if increasing the number of trace points would result in a more graceful form in the digital model.

These are the two views showing the new control lines. The red corresponds to the right shoulder, the yellow corresponds to the left shoulder, the magenta corresponds to the left knee, and the cyan corresponds to the right knee.
These drawings show all of the control lines. The older lines are darkened to help separate them from the new lines. Colors are the same as before with the dark red being the right hand, the dark yellow being the left hand, the dark green being the head, the dark magenta being the left foot, and the dark cyan being the right foot.

PROJECT 1A: DIGITAL MODELS

These are a series of images created from three dimensional models created and rendered in FormZ.
This model is based off the drawings for the viewpoint where Yuval goes across the screen. It is a nurbs surface generated off of the lines connecting Yuval's extremities. Note it is a relatively tube-like form up to the point where Yuval's jump is recorded.
This is the same model, same view, but with the control lines shown as cylinders to show how the form was derived. As from before, green is the head, red is the right hand, yellow is the left hand, magenta is the left foot, and cyan is the right foot.

This is a set of orthagonal views of the model in the order of top, right side-end, and front. Note the front view. This is the view from which the lines from the drawings were extracted.This is the model created from the second set of drawings based off the view point where Yuval is moving away from the camera. This twisted form is the result of control lines that were drawn in a three dimensional manner, whereas the first model's lines were created two dimensionally.
The control lines are shown from the same view.

These two orthagonal views show the model from the front and top.
This is the view from the right. I kept it separate to make a point of how this view of this model corresponds to the view the first model was made in (front view).

PROJECT 1A: BASE DRAWINGS

These are the base drawings which will be used to generate the models that will be shown in the next post.
This first image is a series of stills combined to show Yuval in different positions at a set interval.

This image takes Yuval's forms, and shows how they overlap during his movement.
This image shows the connections between each of Yuval's extremities; green is the head, red is the right hand, yellow is the left hand, magenta is the left foot, cyan is the right foot.

These images do the same as the previous three for the second camera angle.