Lecture Announcement: Learning, Designing, Making

Check out Ryan O'Connor's lecture "Learning, Designing, Making": Monday, April 6, 1:30PM, UWM School of Architecture, Room 345.

Studying Human Habitation

In her response to Ted’s recent post, Jessie says: “This is perhaps why I have such a problem with the "simplicity" of this next project 4: You can never separate yourself from experience or from the outside city world while considering an active and passive life. Nothing is so simple that it can be expressed without reaction to other things, or be isolated from psychology or personal history.”

Regarding narrowness of the exercise: Many folks are probably feeling the same way. It is a very narrow exercise, isn’t it? (Well, not really. I hope you will discover ultimately that it is not narrow at all.) What does narrowness imply in a studio exercise? It could indicate a desire in a teacher to restrict creativity and experimentation. Well, I certainly don’t want to do that. Narrowness can also arise from a desire in a teacher to help students see something they normally take for granted. In this case “narrowness” is a preconception, one that the teacher hopes to help students overcome. Consider for example Project 1. The material study often seems very narrow to students at first – an extremely constrained exercise. But once students engage the exploration, they realize that the role of materiality in architecture is far broader and deeper and filled with vastly more creative potential than they had previously assumed. A new realm of creativity is opened, and what seemed narrow reveals its vastness.

Regarding the city: Is it true that we pursue the active life or the contemplative life only when out-and-about in town? Why would such pursuit be limited only to an urban context? Why can’t a person engage in active doing or in focused contemplating while inside one’s own abode or workplace? If this fundamental aspect of life (doing or contemplating) is limited to the outside of architecture, then what is left to the inside? It seems that the inside would be in danger of becoming irrelevant. I hope for the sake of everyone that inhabits architecture that the inside – the stage for the vast majority of human activity – has the capacity to influence the active life and the contemplative life. We sure need it to.

Regarding context: It is true that in order to act, we must act in a context, which I think is part of what Jessie is trying to say. The outside world (i.e., the city) provides part of this context, but not all of it. A person’s psychology and personal history also provides part of this context, but not all of it. Project 4 asks you to consider part of the context that is normally overlooked, neglected by designers as too narrow, too mundane. The context of Project 4 is a person’s interaction with the material framework of architecture – its walls, doors, windows, floors and ceilings. But more precisely: the question is how this material framework filters and constructs a person’s interaction with his own work (Scenario A), other people (Scenario B) or the natural surroundings (Scenario C). Each of these is in fact a crucial part of the context of human habitation.

Discovering Your Convictions

My favorite aspect of this class is the relation between our designs and our "world view". Discovering your own convictions and world view is a quite enlightening, if not very challenging, exercise. And the words that define these convictions, especially the phrase "world view", are often discussed in class and frequently mentioned between classmates. My first question is what does that exactly mean?

When trying to grasp my own world view, it always leads down a path of spirituality and religion. Would your convictions about the relationship between Human and Earth differ if you believed in reincarnation? Would your convictions about the relationships between different people differ if you believed Heaven and Hell? I think these are all deep and important questions. I understand that religion and spirituality are often taboo in liberal institutions, Macalester is a shining example of that. So is this what we are talking about when we say "world view"? Or is it a distinct idea, somehow separated from religion and spirituality?

I have another question, but I think I'll save that one for later as I ponder this one...

Breakthrough!!!

After a morning of frustrations, the corner transition is resolved. The issue keeping me from realizing the potential of the system to resolve the corner was my lack of belief in the rules I established for the system's structure. The same tectonic system is used for the flat portions of the triangular grid, but for some reason I assumed that the corner would have to be resolved by breaking the rules at some point. Wrong! Only by following the tectonic rules of the system at every moment was the system's inherent flexibility harnessed. I won't attempt to describe the system's connection rules here (you can try to figure them out from the pics), but they remain unbroken! Oh happy day!

Project 3 Update

Above is the latest rendition of an exploitation of a simple module.

Right now though I will probably pursue the stick and module idea and begin refining the end conditions of the sticks or a connection piece to interweave 3-6 sticks together.

Any thoughts would be appreciated

peace…

Clarifying Theme

This prototype represents 1/4 of the planned model.  It shows top, side, front and corner conditions.  It does not include the redesigned straps that now change relative to their span.   I'm also going to add rough white bristol to the inside surface, which should highlight the oscillation of overlapping edges on the outer surface.  

I updated the wall of pins with my new theme, "a dynamic interaction of opposites," but I'm not totally satisfied with that yet.  For me the opposites are expansion and contraction represented by the circles and straps.  The system uses one connection type throughout.  The expansion of the circle puts tension on the strap.  This is repeated with variation in size and degree of folding.  Each module (consisting of both systems) is connected to four other modules and because of this the enclosure becomes structurally redundant.  So the system is about cooperation, interdependance, and being comfortable operating in larger system of difference.  This is how I would characterize my future as a 'digital craftsperson.'  I expect opposition, I will however continue to act as a collaborator with change in exploring my ideas.

Business versus Art

"A man is never wrong doing what he thinks is right." (Ben Cartwright, Bonanza, Season 4, Episode 13).

This is not a statement of subjectivism. It is not meant to say that whatever you happen to do is right just because you chose to do it. Rather, it is a statement of individualism. It expresses the fact that the only way to have any chance at doing what is right is to follow the independent judgment of your own reasoning mind. It is only through independent understanding and evaluation that each person can hope to stay on a path toward truth, and the only real way to deviate from this path is to subordinate your judgment to that of others - be it your teacher, your employer, your client, your friends, your family, or your peers.

According to Mr. Cartwright, nobody should ever substitute his understanding of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, important and irrelevant - for that of another person. To relinquish the responsibility of judgment is to become vulnerable to all the wrongs, falsehoods and distractions that can thwart life, which one could no longer reliably discern.

If this is true, isn't there a contradiction between Mr. Cartwright's dictum and the one put forth in my reply to Manto's comment under "Life at the BreakWater": "The customer is always right"? How can architects be good businessmen, placing the needs of their clients first, and also be good artists - true to their convictions? The service-provider-architect would say, "Ah, yes - this is precisely why it is foolish to hold convictions. Being idealistic will cause you to fail in business. It is the arrogance of architects who believe they know what is right that is the downfall of architecture. It leads to buildings driven by the egos of architects, rather than the needs of inhabitants."

Do we have to choose between business and art? If not, how do we resolve this apparent conflict?

Structure as Material

At long last, here is my progress for Phase 3.

I am developing a double skin structure that uses opposing tension and compression to hold its form. I'm taking advantage of the natural flexibility and resilience of paper to form components that lock together.

I am very excited about the qualities this system is exhibiting. As hoped, it is more like a material than a structure. It exhibits a quality that is much different from traditional man-made materials in that it is shaped and formed by the size and shapes of its components, not by an outside force or frame. This aspect of the material is more like biological tissue which is grown one cell at a time with each cell's size, shape and function determining the shape of the greater whole. It is created with a simple gradient script and the gradient determines the entire assembled shape.


So far, I am happy with what the system is saying about my beliefs in regards to material authenticity. Every part of the whole is visible but to varying degrees and there is nothing added for decoration purposes. Its success would falter if I were to add anything or take anything away. I don't want the whole system to be immediately understood because that leads to a short and ungratifying experience. Instead, I want visitors to experience an opaque exterior shell, only discovering the compression posts and tension pins on the inside. The outside layer does relinquish some clues about the nature of the system. The tips of the posts are visible and the joints are bigger where the skin is thicker.

My thoughts on the issue of Change vs Stasis become evident in the nature of the grid exhibited in the whole assembly. It is a grid based system but, instead of repeating the same component over and over, every component must change slightly to lead the material in a new direction. From this, one would derive that I believe in a slow gradual change (evolution), which is mostly true. However, I also think that, as humans, we have the ability to cause abrupt change due to free will if necessary. I think I could express that by introducing a "rock" into the flow of the pattern. By generating a system that adapts to an agitator. I know this system can do that but it is easier said than done so we'll see about that.

Any input would be appreciated!

progress update

In my next iteration, I'll be combining the curves from the gray study model with some of the linear elements from the cream model. It's an attempt to steer away from a module-based design and think about this as a continuous enclosure.

SPRING BREAK RP HOURS

For those who signed up for hours we have these dates available:


Monday: CLOSED

Tuesday: 1PM-Until we are finished

Wednesday: NO REQUEST

Thursday: 4PM-Until we are finished

Friday: 4PM-Until we are finished




Agnieszka will be the one assisting us so make sure to thank her

This is the current state of things. The concept driving the model is the idea of the world as a framework for exploration. The images show the progression from ground level to birds eye to overview, revealing and concealing the different elements to be explored and engaged. Also, it looks like a spaceship.

Paul

This is a rather crude study of corner conditions. After working with these fairly simple conditions without much success, I realized that the problem was simplicity.
I added more horizontal layers and created a double gable condition. This seems to be working out.
However, I will be creating some components with a triangulated base to make things work. Good thing this puppy is mass customized.

These components seem to work well. I will need to make some adjustments to the tabs and folds but the concept should work.

the latest heading into spring "break"

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.

This model was a big step forward recently. It starts to address the idea of interdependence as the geometry of the frame interacts with that of the components; one restricts/informs the other; the behavior of one is influenced by the material nature of the other.
From here I started to investigate the further refinement of component parts and edge/corner conditions.

one from many: closer to realization

The newest prototype. The things lacking in the first, have been somewhat resolved in this iteration. The back tying makes it solid, structural, inter dependent and has the latent property of a rhythmic spacing which allows a void between, surprisingly, every element.

The string, I have had the critique, is almost too familiar to the wooden pieces, making the coming together somewhat uncomfortable. This seems counterintuitive, but I see the point. If this is a balance of individuals coming together in a balanced and calm way, should they be less familiar so that the coming together is highlighted in the difference? Or could this critique be more a statement of aesthetics and materiality. The twine, being run through the small apertures becomes somewhat frayed and worked. Is this good? or no? Would more holes and making the connections out of something more thin, perfect and ephemeral like fishing line be better?

In my next iteration I hope to exaggerate and dramatize the "overlapping" of the wooden pieces which create such interesting skin features in their adjacencies (as seen in the first image here). The bending of the twine into the "back wall" will also become more elegant and seamlessly part of the curvature of the wood.

Comments welcomed on the innards.

thanks, have a nice day.

oops

Hey guys- I accidentally removed the website links from the right hand side of our blog...I just wanted to delete one, and it removed all! sorry! can someone please put them back up (minus the Lucio Santos). Thanks!!!!!!!

Project 3 - Study Model

On Change vs Stasis (Evolution of Stasis)...
Chipboard "Ribs" represent status quo(stasis)- has a "forward" propulsion, however, only in terms of time (not necessarily in terms of progress). Wooden "Spines" represent an event(change) that disrupts/informs stasis. Physical layers form in the model because of shifts in stasis, resulting in an overall form respresentational of evolution in stasis.

The major difficulty I've been having with this system is finding a locking mechanism that is both functional and complimentary to the movable scales in the second photo. Shown here, the individual scales are the same size but the interactions between them are always different. This forces the mechanism that lock the complete structure together to constantly adapt.

Current Prototype

Here are some quick shots of my latest prototype. The above represents 1/3 of what I laser cut today (overall it is 1/27 of my digital model). I am really happy with the results, especially the quality of the museum board, it almost has a wooden look to it. For those of you I haven't spoken with lately, the basic concept of my project is exploiting the fact that each triangle in my surface has three sides to it. So what I have done is leave one edge of each triangle physically connected to another triangle. There are then three levels to the system with each level containing only connections in one direction. Each level individually is unable to form a surface, but together, the three levels become interconnected and achieve stability.

The problem that I am seeing is that it is very difficult for me to explain this. And the images above don't necessarily illustrate this either--even when holding the model it is not immediately apparent. The wood dowels I have used are not helping. They appear as if they are responsible for attaching the adjacent triangles together. However, they are only being used to attach the triangular panels to the vertical elements (and thus to the panel below or above it), they don't actually span between any adjacent panels. So although I am very pleased with the current results, I think a change to the wooden dowels could be a needed step.

Any suggestions? Currently I've been toying with a few ideas. Differentiating between when there is a connection between the panels and not. Using a material quite different from the wooden feel of the dowels and museum board (rubber bands, thread, ...). Possibly replacing the dowels with something that actually does make a connection between adjacent panels (although I think this might undermine my original thinking...).