1b_animation

rhythm/repetition_center/edge

The temporal construct consists of regularly spaced elements whose varying shape illustrates movement. In this animation I attempted to challenge the rhythm/repetition by animating the focal length of the camera. The construct does not move but the focal length starts wide (about 100 degrees) and ends narrow (about 40 degrees) compressing the apparent distance between the parts of the construct in relation to time. By leaving the construct at rest and animating I was attempting to emphasize that the “medium between the observer and the visible object as the reality of visual experience.” (Perez-Gomez)

The path and placement of the viewpoint was intended to subvert the reading of frame by putting the center/edge in motion. The viewpoint constantly shifts from one side, to the other side and from inside to outside causing the orientation of the frame to shift similarly.

Alberto Perez-Gomez and a brief history of geometry

Alberto Perez-Gomez and Louise Pelletier, in Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge, put in to question architects unwavering faith in the conventional set of projections (plan, section, elevation) that have been used to represent the idea of a building. He points out that they are symbols for a building not the actual building. “For architects it is important to remember that a symbol is neither a contrivance nor an invention—nor is it necessarily a representation of absolute truths or transcendental theological values.” It is clear that the conventional set of architectural projections is neither arbitrary nor a given.

This idea of an (un)stable foundation of conventional architectural representation can be put in relation when compared to the foundations of Euclidean Geometry. In Elements, thirteen books on geometry, Euclid defines an axiomatic system in which a finite set of axioms are take as true (without proof) and all theorems are proved from the initial set of axioms. We cannot prove anything with out accepting something as true or given. Euclid’s five axioms are:
1. Any two points can be joined by a straight line.
2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.
3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.
4. All right angles are congruent.
5. Parallel postulate. If two lines intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough. (essentially, given a line M and a point P not on that line there exists only one line that goes through P and never intersects M.)

He also included 23 definitions such as point, line, and surface in addition to 5 “common notions,” which included, "things which equal the same thing are equal to one another,” and “if equals are added to equals then the sums are equal.” These are concepts that we have to accept as true if we are going to prove anything. Accepting these basic ideas and definitions as true, Euclid proved the theorems that appear in Elements and formed the basis for geometry for the next two thousand years.

Understand Euclidean geometry allows us to deconstruct conventional architectural representation. In architecture we have accepted projection and associated definitions as givens and proved our whole system of representation based on these assumptions. So what happens if we don’t accept the stated axioms as givens? In the early 19th century mathematicians began to question the parallel postulate. Could it be derived in terms of the other four axioms (and hence wasn’t an axiom but a theorem)? Were there theorems that had been derived that didn’t rely on the parallel postulate? It turns out that the first 28 theorems he proved are not derived based on the parallel postulate. This questioning of the fundamental axioms of geometry has led to new geometries. For instance, if we take the parallel postulate as false we get two new axioms, either 'there exists an infinite number of lines through P parallel to M' or 'there exists no lines through P parallel to M.' The former results in hyperbolic geometry and the latter in elliptic geometry.

So what happens if we don’t accept the basic foundation of conventional architectural representation as true? What if we think of them as false? What other systems of representation can be derived?

The most important idea to remember is that treating an underlying principal as false doesn’t necessarily give us the opposite of it. We get systems that are derived from various rule sets. For instance, Gothic architecture “operating though well-established traditions and geometric rules that could be applied directly on site,” was derived from an entirely different system of architectural representation than today. Conversely, contemporary architects are redefining rules within the conventional rule set. This still produces new systems of representation, but ones based on some of the same rules, similar to the Euclidean/Hyperbolic/Elliptic geometry relationship.

Lewis Tsurumaki Lewis has taken the generally accepted rule of ‘conventional architectural representations (plan, section, axon) need to remain separate to convey information’ and negated it, “conventional architectural representations need to be combined (ex. orthographically-projected-plan-sectioned-isometrics) to convey information.’ They have defined a new system based on the traditional conventions of representation and the redefinition of one of those rules. Additionally, SHoP architects have redefined architectural representation based on efficiency resulting in axonometric construction drawings and a general abandonment of orthographically projected architectural representation.

Now we are faced with the challenge of inventing new systems and conventions of architectural representation that are informative and appropriate to contemporary techniques and practices. Do we negate the traditional conventions and start over? Or do we return to older systems, such as the gothic tradition of building? The appropriate approach to rethinking the traditional system of architectural representation is to redefine specific axioms of convention that allow us to construct new systems out the fragments of tradition.

project 1a

relation and orientation

I've introduced a surface that traces the path of each wii mote movement which orients the path and structure of the construct. Here I have represented the paths as red:



I am uncertain if the red is necessary for the paths to be understandable. In the next video they are white. I've also extruded each vector surface to a point to try and map the conceptual center of the motion.




Here are some images investigating the use of red and surface vectors vs extruded mass vectors

animate wii

The camera is animated along the path of a spline curve generated from the points of the side vector diagram. The focal point of the camera is animated along the path of a spline curve generated from the points of the front vector diagram.

Here is an animation showing the path of the camera and focal point in relation to the construct.

temporal construct

Using the vector diagram of the front view and side view I’ve generated a new 3-demensional abstraction of the wii tennis movement. I rotated the front view vectors 90 degrees and then lofted corresponding vector from each view. This seems like a much better abstraction of wii tennis movement than previous attempts.

the hard part

Based on the various attempts at diagramming the motion associated with wii tennis, it’s clear that the vector diagrams of the wii mote force are the most interesting. That said, here is a first attempt at translating the vector wii mote into 3D. I took each vector and swept it along a spline curved generated from the end points of each vector. Interesting but not very informative. It seems like the force associated with each vector gets lost in this abstraction.

“an environment of force and motion”

Greg Lynn’s Animate Form

In Animate Form, Greg Lynn carefully and comprehensively delineates a new(ish) field of design and process. To do he has defined new terms and issues for describing his thesis. He redefines (or clarifies) some terms and co-opts terms from math and science. The most important (re)definition is of animate/animation as not just the movement of objects but rather “impl[ing] the evolution of a form and its shaping forces.” Animate form is an environment of forces and motion as opposed to the more traditional way of thinking of design and form as static points. It is not necessarily literal motion, but is a range of forces acting on continuous surfaces/forms rather than a collection of points. There is no single definable point but rather fields of influence.

He argues that designing by manipulating the forces and areas of influence sponsors multiplicity of event/time/instant in a single form. This facilitates a greater response to a range of shifting and static contextual conditions than traditional design allows. For instance, site, program, and movement of people can all be conceived of as forces and motion simultaneously acting on and responding to form.

Lynn uses his newly minted terms and concepts to launch a fairly comprehensive attack on traditional processes and practices of design and architecture. “Architecture remains as the last refuge for members of the flat-earth society.” He points out that, “buildings are often assumed to have a particular and fixed relationship to their programs.” Buildings are rarely designed for a flexibility of program and never designed to sponsor an often inevitable shifting of use/program over the life span of a building. Lynn’s concept of the performance envelope models a range of programmatic/typological relationships and interaction potentials. Again the focus is on the multiplicity and mutability sponsored by an animate process.

Lynn makes a productive argument for the inclusion of digital media in the design process. Often the role of digital media and technology in architecture is questioned, its value being subjugated as merely a tool for representation, efficiency, and production. Designs generated from digital modeling have typically been little more than shallow, surface based forms that are justified post facto with flimsy pseudo intellectual reasoning. Additionally, “because of the stigma and fear of releasing control of the design process to software, few architects have attempted to use the computer as a schematic, organizing generative medium for design.” The use of new technology in architecture typically has an incubation period while architects figure out its range, capacity and limitations. We have to define digital process in its own terms rather than in terms from traditional design. For example, when steel was first introduced as a building material, architects designed forms that still mimicked traditional masonry construction. The full potential of steel was not realized until it was defined in its own terms.

Lynn gives us a linguistic and conceptual framework in which we can design and work using digital process and animate form.