Animation Refined. Surfaces are three of five unaffiliated with the position of the left hand.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Framing Animation Test #06
As it appears I had lost one surface through the process of exporting and importing, along with all the wire frames. Hence, certain "directional" measures have been taken to accommodate these shortcomings.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Projection Model Renders
RXN to Contemp Techni in Archi
Contemporary techniques can provide new opportunities in architectural design that can correlate with the endeavors of human progress. Great. Accepted.
Technology can provide these new means of formal expressions based on previously unavailable techniques that are now made accessible by software and hardware. Great. Accepted.
The beef I have with the Ali Rahim article is that the graphics contradict the statements. It is quite spectacular to read and ponder the possibilities of mathematical analyses of social conditions. However, regardless of the utilization of "inverse kinetics" and "vertical and gradiant field forces", the products (graphics in the article) thereof can only be shown in traditional architectural terms of cardinal elevations and obliques/axonometrics.
My frustration here is: if the argument cannot be graphically represented, or in this case when the graphics rebut the conTEXTual statements, then how can I be convinced of the validity of the text without some level of personal sympathy?
If new technology can provide new solutions to the same old agendas, then why now graphically represent these new solutions in a non-traditional standard of architectural representation?
The danger here is... when a presentation cannot be coherently achieved, it brings about great skepticism in the audience. It can almost make me wonder whether the thinker behind the project was in his/her little world unaware of the rest of the world when having sought out the overall cohesiveness of the presented material.
Or, on the contrary, the dillemma of the topic is one that restricts an author's ability to clearly represent concepts that are in "reality" both difficult to visual and impossible to formulate without sufficient technological aid. When it all have to come back to a 2-d medium and ink on paper, the argument itself suffers when taken out of the comfort of a digital environment.
I am being critical with the visual aids that I have been presented with. In an architectural sense, graphics should help to convey the idea of the complexity in the digital process, but not demean the product into an otherwise meaningless but pretty formal experience.
Technology can provide these new means of formal expressions based on previously unavailable techniques that are now made accessible by software and hardware. Great. Accepted.
The beef I have with the Ali Rahim article is that the graphics contradict the statements. It is quite spectacular to read and ponder the possibilities of mathematical analyses of social conditions. However, regardless of the utilization of "inverse kinetics" and "vertical and gradiant field forces", the products (graphics in the article) thereof can only be shown in traditional architectural terms of cardinal elevations and obliques/axonometrics.
My frustration here is: if the argument cannot be graphically represented, or in this case when the graphics rebut the conTEXTual statements, then how can I be convinced of the validity of the text without some level of personal sympathy?
If new technology can provide new solutions to the same old agendas, then why now graphically represent these new solutions in a non-traditional standard of architectural representation?
The danger here is... when a presentation cannot be coherently achieved, it brings about great skepticism in the audience. It can almost make me wonder whether the thinker behind the project was in his/her little world unaware of the rest of the world when having sought out the overall cohesiveness of the presented material.
Or, on the contrary, the dillemma of the topic is one that restricts an author's ability to clearly represent concepts that are in "reality" both difficult to visual and impossible to formulate without sufficient technological aid. When it all have to come back to a 2-d medium and ink on paper, the argument itself suffers when taken out of the comfort of a digital environment.
I am being critical with the visual aids that I have been presented with. In an architectural sense, graphics should help to convey the idea of the complexity in the digital process, but not demean the product into an otherwise meaningless but pretty formal experience.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
For "Drawings, Buildings and Text"
The line only exists as an element of representation, whereas in reality the line is but an abstraction of an existing condition.
The line helps us understand things. This is seen in topographic lines, vector fields, or as a condition in framing the parameter/edge of a thing.
A line is very much a conceptual thing that is untangible. Depending on the discipline, a line means something different; or the meaning for a "line" carries a different title in another profession. A line segment in geometry is the most efficient connection between two points, but the samething if represented graphically would be just a "line" in architectural graphics. In many instances, where architecture can be a discipline that is so tactile, the meaning and use of the word "line" can be so convoluted and misrepresented. What is a line, and what are the implications of its definition?
I feel the goal of the article is to make the audience more aware of the potential of a line and question the reader's understanding of what a line really is.
From personal experience, a line as a connector is very much an abstract thing, where its existence solely depends on my understanding of that existing condition. In my personal definition, a line (in drafting) is but a presentation of an edge condition that helps an individual understand the spatial relationship of intersecting planes. In reality, an edge that is represented by a line cannot exist without the surfaces that butt to form the in-between condition. But in graphic representation, lines (in the mind) in fact form the surfaces in a drawing, hence creating a paradigm to reality.
As an abstraction of the untangible, the linear condition of a line helps to convey movement and experience thereof implied. A line is no longer obliged to be a visual straight element, as it is free to curve and bend in space. But another paradox now comes into play as I begin to describe the line as a thing that can be manipulated. A line by definition has no three-dimensionality, however its conception and use is often associated with the forming and representing of formal and spatial conditions.
Historically, the "line" depending on culture and language, carries different and layered meanings that transcend its existence of a representative segment. Alberti's use of the word"linemente" to describe the overall physical realisation of visually similar buildings and the Yoruba culture's use of the line and its use to describe the existence of civilization are both examples for the line's representative powers and its relationship to human understanding.
The line helps us understand things. This is seen in topographic lines, vector fields, or as a condition in framing the parameter/edge of a thing.
A line is very much a conceptual thing that is untangible. Depending on the discipline, a line means something different; or the meaning for a "line" carries a different title in another profession. A line segment in geometry is the most efficient connection between two points, but the samething if represented graphically would be just a "line" in architectural graphics. In many instances, where architecture can be a discipline that is so tactile, the meaning and use of the word "line" can be so convoluted and misrepresented. What is a line, and what are the implications of its definition?
I feel the goal of the article is to make the audience more aware of the potential of a line and question the reader's understanding of what a line really is.
From personal experience, a line as a connector is very much an abstract thing, where its existence solely depends on my understanding of that existing condition. In my personal definition, a line (in drafting) is but a presentation of an edge condition that helps an individual understand the spatial relationship of intersecting planes. In reality, an edge that is represented by a line cannot exist without the surfaces that butt to form the in-between condition. But in graphic representation, lines (in the mind) in fact form the surfaces in a drawing, hence creating a paradigm to reality.
As an abstraction of the untangible, the linear condition of a line helps to convey movement and experience thereof implied. A line is no longer obliged to be a visual straight element, as it is free to curve and bend in space. But another paradox now comes into play as I begin to describe the line as a thing that can be manipulated. A line by definition has no three-dimensionality, however its conception and use is often associated with the forming and representing of formal and spatial conditions.
Historically, the "line" depending on culture and language, carries different and layered meanings that transcend its existence of a representative segment. Alberti's use of the word"linemente" to describe the overall physical realisation of visually similar buildings and the Yoruba culture's use of the line and its use to describe the existence of civilization are both examples for the line's representative powers and its relationship to human understanding.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
--the Perspective Hinge
More precisely, "Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge".
The tool for representation mutates into the tool for design? In western history the power of "the perspective" is established through the cultural foundations in religion and philosophy. The power of the one-point perspective is very much a product of man's intellectual urge to understand (through metaphors) what otherwise cannot be (technically) explained.
The never changing and untangible nature of light and its symbolism for divinity have contributed to the man's search for understanding in sight (perspective) and light (optics). The imperfection of man and his ever-changing position in the world have given rise to the significance of a constructed perspective, a non-temporal and privileged view of the world.
This technique, with its roots in the divinity, manifests itself into the representation of urban and architectural spaces. In the periods of Medieval and Renaissance, the representation technique is stil much valued in its social context, rooting in the worship of the divine. However, in contemporary society, the influence of religious symbols on western society (as a whole) is no longer so dominant. And consequently, the associated symbols (and views) once foourished in spatial representation no longer carry the same value in contemporary society. Furthermore, the exclusivity of the ability to construct the perspective has diminished, along with it dies the notion of the unattainable.
What has developed from perspectives are orthographic representations of architectural layers. Given its mutated nature from a diminished technique of exclusivity, the continued use of its projection somehow still survives. Is it still valid for orthographic projections to be dominant among the masses when its predecessor in perspective construction has lost its social value?
How are our views constructed now? How is our understanding of the world and the spaces different now than centuries ago? How can the methods for representing our new understanding spaces be representated?
But, what is often a conflicting state to the avant-garde is often the basic human capacity to understand spaces when without thorough training... The hinge then is no longer about how to go from the representation to the represented, but it is the question of how to coherently convey the represented to the viewer.
The tool for representation mutates into the tool for design? In western history the power of "the perspective" is established through the cultural foundations in religion and philosophy. The power of the one-point perspective is very much a product of man's intellectual urge to understand (through metaphors) what otherwise cannot be (technically) explained.
The never changing and untangible nature of light and its symbolism for divinity have contributed to the man's search for understanding in sight (perspective) and light (optics). The imperfection of man and his ever-changing position in the world have given rise to the significance of a constructed perspective, a non-temporal and privileged view of the world.
This technique, with its roots in the divinity, manifests itself into the representation of urban and architectural spaces. In the periods of Medieval and Renaissance, the representation technique is stil much valued in its social context, rooting in the worship of the divine. However, in contemporary society, the influence of religious symbols on western society (as a whole) is no longer so dominant. And consequently, the associated symbols (and views) once foourished in spatial representation no longer carry the same value in contemporary society. Furthermore, the exclusivity of the ability to construct the perspective has diminished, along with it dies the notion of the unattainable.
What has developed from perspectives are orthographic representations of architectural layers. Given its mutated nature from a diminished technique of exclusivity, the continued use of its projection somehow still survives. Is it still valid for orthographic projections to be dominant among the masses when its predecessor in perspective construction has lost its social value?
How are our views constructed now? How is our understanding of the world and the spaces different now than centuries ago? How can the methods for representing our new understanding spaces be representated?
But, what is often a conflicting state to the avant-garde is often the basic human capacity to understand spaces when without thorough training... The hinge then is no longer about how to go from the representation to the represented, but it is the question of how to coherently convey the represented to the viewer.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Lofting the Edges
Lofting the edges of the transverse planes. Each corresponding edge of each plane becomes the offset of two points on the body.
Between the Right Hand and the Head (above)
Between the Head and the Left Hand (above)
Between the Left Hand and the Left Foot (above)
Between the Left Foot and the Right Foot (above)
Between the Right Foot and the Right Hand (above)
Comparing the -Sense- of Movement
If the left hand can be interpreted into a "control line" given its relatively static position, then--maybe--other points of hand, feet and head may also suggest certain qualities of the sequences.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Connection Continued
If words and referred graphics did not fully describe my intent, here is an animation to push the idea along. The "control line" along the main axis is the connection between the left hand in each key frame for Sequence No.1.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Connecting Two Views
The left hand is the center of rotation. It is the point from which the entire body revolves. The left hand hence becomes the dominant control points in each key frame. By connecting the position of the left hand in each key frame, which is the same location, a control line is obtained.
Sequence No.1 (above)
Sequence No.2 (above)
Sequence No.1 (above)Then key frames from the second view serves to be the transverse projections. Each key frame is connected in the order of right hand, head, left hand, left foot and right foot. The points where the left hand occurs will be connected to the respective moment on the control line.
Sequence No.2 (above)Oops... (Duh!)
Orthographic projection requires a certain condition... The "diagram" cannot be in perspective. Frame 20 from Sequence No.2 is scaled to "fit" the respective frame from Sequence No.1. But alas, the two perspective views cannot be orthographically projected. Although the head and the left hand can be aligned (by coincidence), the right hand and both feet are not aligned.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Warped Space and the Death Cube "K"
In Vidler's introduction, he takes a stance of not judging the morphological forms of modern contemporary architecture, but he prepares himself to describe the reason behind both the form and the "stylistic movement".
"The intersection of spatial thought with psychoanalytical though, of the nature of constrainment and the characteristics of the subject, has been a preoccupation of social and aesthetic discourse since the turn of the century; certain of the avant-garde movement of the 1920s and the 1930s, among them expressionism, explored this intersection in terms of its representation; contemporary experimentation preserves these two terms, while distorting the traditional space of modernism and questioning the equally traditional fiction of the humanist subject. The results in each case, theoretically or in design, have been the production of a kind of warping, which I have called warped space."
The warped space is already a condition beyond convention. From there, Vidler makes two more distinctions of this modern condition. The first describes warped space as a "projection of the [human] subject", which associates with the distortion of figures and spaces as the result of the human psychology. The second describes warped space as a "response to the need to depict space in new and unparallel ways," as done by artists (and architects) finding new media and methods of representation in depicting 2-d and 3-d spatial conditions. The two warpings are together differenced to be "psychological and artistic."
__________________________________
In the reading of Vidler's "Death Cube 'K'" I am mainly concerned about two topics in detail, the treatment of typology in modernity and the conceptual treatments of the wall and floor.
In tradition the perception of types in architecture is a mean to idealize the conditions of an urban environment to be something of an Utopia. By providing a set typology for architecture, buildings then can fall into neat categories that can abstract the fabric of a city to be a rational but idealized environment.
Whereas by artistic license, the avant-garde can break the ideals of types and create new, strange and unfamiliar forms for pre-existing functions. The break away from tradition exemplifies the products of post-modernism.
And Morphosis in their conception of projects transforms the environments of existing, traditional types, into more something more exciting. Whether this is the establishment of new types, as all predecessors should follow, or the upkeep of existing types is unclear. Or perhaps the iconic and morphological nature of the firm's projects on sites of significant natural conditions is a type in itself? (see Diamond Ranch High School on the fault line or the Spreebogen project in Berlin)
The wall and the floor, and the treatment and conception thereof, are both issues of modern architecture (described by Vidler) but also issues of prolonged architectural practice and convention. The floor plan and the section are classical conventions of conveying ideals through orthographic representation. As occupants of buildings, the human experience between the wall and the floor are different. Humans do not treat walls and floors similarly by use alone. But in architectural graphics, the wall and the floor are in fact the same, as they are both elements of thickness and containment. So for the architects who already understand the floor plan and the building section as the same concept, then the argument by Vidler in describing Morphosis' literal treatment of the wall and the floor as the same would be easier to conceive.
Practical concerns aside, the wall and the floor are same elements in architecture. They create and divide space for humans to inhabit. So then it is logical to believe that walls and floors can be treated the same, whether in material, form or complexity.
"The intersection of spatial thought with psychoanalytical though, of the nature of constrainment and the characteristics of the subject, has been a preoccupation of social and aesthetic discourse since the turn of the century; certain of the avant-garde movement of the 1920s and the 1930s, among them expressionism, explored this intersection in terms of its representation; contemporary experimentation preserves these two terms, while distorting the traditional space of modernism and questioning the equally traditional fiction of the humanist subject. The results in each case, theoretically or in design, have been the production of a kind of warping, which I have called warped space."
The warped space is already a condition beyond convention. From there, Vidler makes two more distinctions of this modern condition. The first describes warped space as a "projection of the [human] subject", which associates with the distortion of figures and spaces as the result of the human psychology. The second describes warped space as a "response to the need to depict space in new and unparallel ways," as done by artists (and architects) finding new media and methods of representation in depicting 2-d and 3-d spatial conditions. The two warpings are together differenced to be "psychological and artistic."
__________________________________
In the reading of Vidler's "Death Cube 'K'" I am mainly concerned about two topics in detail, the treatment of typology in modernity and the conceptual treatments of the wall and floor.
In tradition the perception of types in architecture is a mean to idealize the conditions of an urban environment to be something of an Utopia. By providing a set typology for architecture, buildings then can fall into neat categories that can abstract the fabric of a city to be a rational but idealized environment.
Whereas by artistic license, the avant-garde can break the ideals of types and create new, strange and unfamiliar forms for pre-existing functions. The break away from tradition exemplifies the products of post-modernism.
And Morphosis in their conception of projects transforms the environments of existing, traditional types, into more something more exciting. Whether this is the establishment of new types, as all predecessors should follow, or the upkeep of existing types is unclear. Or perhaps the iconic and morphological nature of the firm's projects on sites of significant natural conditions is a type in itself? (see Diamond Ranch High School on the fault line or the Spreebogen project in Berlin)
The wall and the floor, and the treatment and conception thereof, are both issues of modern architecture (described by Vidler) but also issues of prolonged architectural practice and convention. The floor plan and the section are classical conventions of conveying ideals through orthographic representation. As occupants of buildings, the human experience between the wall and the floor are different. Humans do not treat walls and floors similarly by use alone. But in architectural graphics, the wall and the floor are in fact the same, as they are both elements of thickness and containment. So for the architects who already understand the floor plan and the building section as the same concept, then the argument by Vidler in describing Morphosis' literal treatment of the wall and the floor as the same would be easier to conceive.
Practical concerns aside, the wall and the floor are same elements in architecture. They create and divide space for humans to inhabit. So then it is logical to believe that walls and floors can be treated the same, whether in material, form or complexity.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Two Dimensional Analysis
Rotational Movement Flattened
Sequence No.1 (above)
Sequence No.2 (above)
__________________________
Finding HOT SPOTS: Looking for axis/point of rotation and perceived orthographic moments of overlap
Sequence No.1 Hot Spots (above)
Sequence No.2 Hot Spots (above)
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Project 01 Movies
MOVIE #1: Project 01 - Action Sequence in Context
This is the full movie that combines the movement sequence from two orthogonal views. The action sequence of further investigation is but the 01:20 seconds that describes my wall run rotated about the stool.
This is the full movie that combines the movement sequence from two orthogonal views. The action sequence of further investigation is but the 01:20 seconds that describes my wall run rotated about the stool.
MOVIE #2 (below): Project 01 - Action Orthogonal to Wall
MOVIE #3 (even lower): Project 01 - Action Parallel to Wall
This is the action sequence in investigation. The cameras are set orthogonally and parallel to the background wall. The action sequence is synchronized from both views.
For in-depth investigation, the action sequence is exported at 15 fps to be 20 frames.
Greg Lynn's "Animate Form"
"Without a detailed understanding of their performance as diagrams and organizational techniques it is impossble to begin a discussion of their translation into architectural form." (p. 40-1)
For 31 pages Lynn advocates the use of virtual (not just digital) techniques to generate diagrams. Yet, in the end, the author recognizes the basic necessity to design the spaces within the forms, while offering no solution nor description for the process of architectural translation from the abstract to the tangible.
In a very basic mathematical nutshell, Lynn advocates the use of digital technology given its ability to compute complex vector-based geometries. Quite simply, without the availability of cad software the conversation would otherwise not take place. The understanding of spline geometry (and forms thereof) would not be possible given the inefficient nature of human intelligence to calculate such curves and surfaces.
I agree that the world is in motion and all aspects of the physical world exist in a continuous interrelationship. However, I do not buy that the abstraction of natural movements through architectural translation is necessarily a better solution to the human sensory experience than any tradition "static" architecture. And because the author offers no description for how animated forms can generate interior spaces that also reflect the predetermined exterior, I have little choice but to be skeptical of an animated form's real capacity to produce a quality human experience.
For 31 pages Lynn advocates the use of virtual (not just digital) techniques to generate diagrams. Yet, in the end, the author recognizes the basic necessity to design the spaces within the forms, while offering no solution nor description for the process of architectural translation from the abstract to the tangible.
In a very basic mathematical nutshell, Lynn advocates the use of digital technology given its ability to compute complex vector-based geometries. Quite simply, without the availability of cad software the conversation would otherwise not take place. The understanding of spline geometry (and forms thereof) would not be possible given the inefficient nature of human intelligence to calculate such curves and surfaces.
I agree that the world is in motion and all aspects of the physical world exist in a continuous interrelationship. However, I do not buy that the abstraction of natural movements through architectural translation is necessarily a better solution to the human sensory experience than any tradition "static" architecture. And because the author offers no description for how animated forms can generate interior spaces that also reflect the predetermined exterior, I have little choice but to be skeptical of an animated form's real capacity to produce a quality human experience.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Greg Lynn's "Folds, Bodies & Blobs"
Designers require rationalization to affirm their designs. And often imagination cannot meet the expectations of rationalization, and vise versa. The capacity to obtain a "standard" (or rational form) is achieved by available means of intelligence (or artificial intelligence).
Standards in antiquity are demonstrated by set proportions and relationships. These standards were attainable through the available means of geometry, visual analyses and technology. If one could understand geometry in antiquity as all encompassing physical science of modern day, visual analyses as a product cultural values, then one can understand that the attributes of antiquity have progressed to maintain their existence in time.
Basic spanning members of wood alleviated the burden--pun intended--of compressive members of stone and brick. Certain spatial and aesthetic choices have been to coincide with certain acceptable standards that have been observed in nature and ratified in science. The golden rectangle and the pristine square occur in elevations in all significant moments of experience. It is easy to form a parallelogram, and it is easy to find a repeating proportion for this abstract shape in nature and establish an appreciation for its coincidence. Having the set standard for a proportion (or having certain formulae for achieving entices) the job of the architect is made easier through a rationalization process has both preccedence and mathematical proof.
I hope where I am leading is beginning to be apparent.
If human intelligence has progressed, then so should have designers' ability to rationalize their design intents. Curves no longer have to oblige by the arc of a circle nor the edge of a tracing tool. Observations no longer have to be made on a two-dimensional plane, as movements and patterns can be traced through time and space. Patterns in fact are no longer a visual experience but they can also be social experiences.
In modern technology how specific forms are generated is irrelevant. The relevance is in the designer's capacity to understand why such patterns exist and any metaphorical potential that they retain.
Standards in antiquity are demonstrated by set proportions and relationships. These standards were attainable through the available means of geometry, visual analyses and technology. If one could understand geometry in antiquity as all encompassing physical science of modern day, visual analyses as a product cultural values, then one can understand that the attributes of antiquity have progressed to maintain their existence in time.
Basic spanning members of wood alleviated the burden--pun intended--of compressive members of stone and brick. Certain spatial and aesthetic choices have been to coincide with certain acceptable standards that have been observed in nature and ratified in science. The golden rectangle and the pristine square occur in elevations in all significant moments of experience. It is easy to form a parallelogram, and it is easy to find a repeating proportion for this abstract shape in nature and establish an appreciation for its coincidence. Having the set standard for a proportion (or having certain formulae for achieving entices) the job of the architect is made easier through a rationalization process has both preccedence and mathematical proof.
I hope where I am leading is beginning to be apparent.
If human intelligence has progressed, then so should have designers' ability to rationalize their design intents. Curves no longer have to oblige by the arc of a circle nor the edge of a tracing tool. Observations no longer have to be made on a two-dimensional plane, as movements and patterns can be traced through time and space. Patterns in fact are no longer a visual experience but they can also be social experiences.
In modern technology how specific forms are generated is irrelevant. The relevance is in the designer's capacity to understand why such patterns exist and any metaphorical potential that they retain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)