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.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)