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.