skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This image is the result of subtle manipulations with each point (out of eight) on an isoparm. I was trying to construct a well-formed surface that could serve as the isolated element within a larger tile. My intention was to create a surface that was not tremendously complex, so as to inform new geometries for a more complex pattern. Hopefully this will lend itself to some interesting manipulations of line and surface.
Less complexity is good, especially when jumping from surface to solid. The initial surface is highlighted in white; I found the residual space between the "joints" to be especially interesting.
Non-print media services doesn't allow you to check their videos out of the library, unless you arrange for an external loan. Maybe we can do this after the break/review?
This review of a movie called "Visions of Light: The Art of Cinematography" by Roger Ebert is both interesting and informative. He talks a good deal about how an audience can often be so captivated by a narrative that the cinematography fades away. He presents a few examples of films shown in the movie and how the cinematographers used specific techniques for each film. The movie is at Hornbake; I am going to get it and keep it over the break. If anyone else wants to watch it during SB2K9 let me know.

Each of the isolated elements is compacted in two directions to a form a tile of very high density. A grid is established with rows that vary in rhythm. When observed as a fragment, the form of the isolated element lends itself to a translucent (but physically dense) pattern.
I've been working on the pattern tile for class tomorrow in formZ. In order to construct a pattern, I scaled the initial object and replicated it a number of time in different directions. When I attempted to scale it back down, of course, it was massive and complex. Anybody else have problems or a good construction method?
aside: joining the objects works a little faster
According to SHoP architects, ‘versioning’ is a process-driven, open, and fluid shift that has occurred in both design theory and practice with the advent of technology. Its’ proponents are “second generation” architects who allow themselves to extract ideas over a multitude of disciplines in order to conceptualize how space is conceived and constructed. SHoP refers to this as the difference between “horizontal integration” and “vertical integration.”
Versioning as a design methodology relies on vector-based information, instead of pixel-based simulation. To conceptualize how this changes and challenges design-thinking, one may think of a straight line set by two CV’s in either a pixel-based or a vector-based computer application. If one of the control vertices were to exert a force (in one direction, of any magnitude) on the line, the form would change. Within vector-based programs, this mutation immediately and accurately reflects the difference between forces acting on the vertices; a new line is "drawn" according to a precise mathematical equation. Pixel-based applications are called simulations, however, because the existing line is defined in space by a series of dots instead of a finite equation between two vertices. It would be a close approximation, at best, to draw the resulting line. What’s more, the approximation isn’t even the actual line... it’s the image of where the line would be in pixels.
And this is a single line, manipulated in one direction in space by two control points. Imagine that one line was connected to a series of lines, in three dimensions. Versioning and vector-based information allows designers to quickly change geometries that adapt to fluctuating resultant forces on either one or a number of points. This allows for a non-linear, vertical process whereby information can be transformed and changed with computational power immediately.