These are some of the latest iterations of my enclosure system. The next goal is to work on the connection between the more static/structural webbing and the softer-changing-white parachutes. The connection shown here is a crude overlapping and will have to be remedied and toyed with. It's a key spot in that this is one spot where the two conditions of change and stasis are colliding.
The Sky-Math Garden
8 years ago
Posts
Here are a couple of suggestions regarding your change vs stasis conundrum:
ReplyDeleteFirst, you should try to use the second "fluid" system to lock the "ridgid" system together. This would eliminate what is now a third elememt that may be polluting your intentions. If you want to use a juxtaposition (not in the post-modern sense) to express theme, you really should try to have only 2 elements for comparison. I suppose that the comparison you are seeking might require that the 2 elements remain separate, passing entities in which case you might need the small plates.
This brings me to my next point. I would like to actually experience the change side of the comparison. If there are 2 systems and they are just different, repeating shapes, your stance is lost to the observer. It might exist as metaphor but it could really be drivin home if it were more obvious. Perhaps the "fluid" system could actually adjust as it is repeated in some way. It could vary in its adhesion to the frame or in its outline or even in color. A simple gradient script could accomplish this.
I hope I am not being to critical. I think this is going to be a solid project!
Jeff, i appreciate the comments and suggestions. i agree with you about bringing out the 'change' system out in the comparison. i'm working with the changing element right now and hopefully it will be evident enough to transcend an 'only metaphoric' syndrome. my current plan is to write a very simple script adjusting the parachute quality of the 'fluid' system, thereby creating more/less aperture openings between each component. my hope is that it will not be too subtle and the 'change' will be apparent. thanks again for the comments!
ReplyDelete