Jan '07 - Jun '07
In an attempt to make this blog as informative as possible for those considering UCLA for grad school we've decided to show our previous projects and hopefully create more of a discussion of the projects than to showcase our work. This will allow four different perspectives as up until this quarter we have all had the same studios.
I'll start by expanding a little on what aaron has already posted. The sticky masses project is an exploration in the ability for mass, as opposed to volume, to drive the production of space and form. As given by professor Jason Payne, the general strategic approach to the project is simply, "a complex assembly of two sensitive primitives balance within the geometrical 'field' of one another." Hopefully this will become more clear through the projects and following discussions.
Our project is approached as the analysis, interpretation and generation of mass(es). Throughout the process we focused on the symbiotic relationships between form, surface and material, not only how they interact but also how they begin to inform and manipulate each other. This interaction occus across differing systems and scales, where the local affects the global and the global affects the local. This creates an overall system that is both flexible and specific; specific regarding localized interactions and flexible in that the systems can adapt to changing localized conditions.
more to come
Scott
board 1
board 2
board 3
board 4
board 5
board 6
board 7
model images (3D printed model with lazer cut plexi-glass)
3 Comments
Scott/David, can you explain some of the force logic in your holds? I know one of the main emphasis of the studio was to explore forces and their visual and tactile effecs on surfaces. Yet, you used plexi glass as the second primitive. This is a very light weight material, even at the scale deployed. Furthermore, many of your pieces are orientated at gravities normal, implying a small bit of friction is all that required to keep the pieces on the slanted surfaces. What are the physical relationships of the surface deformations and the second primitive at the points of contact?
Indexing is an act of translation, you are mapping one thing to another. In the past this has mostly been a formal exercise, scribing one geometry over to another through grids or some other device. This model and Cobra's question reminds me of the difficulty we all had in translating both movement and the exertion of force in a static physical model. This came up for every group almost at the same time- with the invention of the second primitive. The first primitive was mapped against the surface of the actual boulder, slightly tainted by our tactile experiences but mostly through visual recollection and photographs. The timing and responsive nature of the second primitive makes it a map of a map- a second translation away from the boulder. One criticism I have with this studio is the unavoidable danger it created using the 3d printer to set up a physical representation of one object climbing another. I know my group was guiltier than any other in getting caught up with the challenge of making physical models perform the analysis. In retrospect its intersting to remove the first primitive for all the groups and consider the second as a stand alone model for the indexical mapping of force and tactile experience. It would have been impossible to create these right off the bat, removing ourselves from the visual forms of boulder and connection holds. I believe these second primitives, presented in isolation, are the truer maps of bodily physics indexed through tactile exploration rather than conceptions of physics.
I think S/D's project starts to play out in this capturing of the movement of the climb you speak of. Though, I am not sure if that was, had to be, or was intended to be a focus of the studio. Previously, you were touching on the physics of a single hold: climber's center of gravity in relation to the face of the surface. That seems to be a more instance look at it, which I think is just. Though, another point of interest is the attempt to move to the next location. That transition requires certain setups and actions to get off correctly -a choreography of movements. I know many had difficulty grasping the design of the second piece. Except A, it was almost immediate, you are always an exception in your excellence. The idea of looking at the second in isolation is true, mostly. For A/D/S very true. F and I took the tact of designing a very generic 2p that would be able to create a connection to all the specific surface deformations we created. Though, retrospectively, I would have preferred to tone down the generic quite a bit. Design four surface conditions, all of which are specific, and one connecting device that is still very specific and tight while being visually explanatory of the forces and able to connect to the four deformations.
The disconnect between the two primitives gets to me. I think in all the projects one surface could exist without the other. Some, both could live individually. When both are codependent, I think that fragile relationship is super. Most projects were designed as if one surface was an existing condition. The second surface had to connect to that surface. That may be a fault.
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.