Mass MoCA

My thesis cluster has been self-titled "Generative Formations."  Through my architecture education I have come to understand the digital generative process but I have struggled to understand how a generative process could be translated to a manual art form or design process.  Using a generative process digitally allows for the use of large data sets and have the possibility of producing infinite results.  It also offers the ability to produce iterations  very quickly.

Mass MoCA offers an answer to my question of how a manual generative process works.  Embedded in a generative process is the idea that there can be multiple results that derive from the same rules and initial framework.  Sol LeWitt's art is an art of ideas.  His work is not about the visual outcome but rather about the idea and process behind the art.  "A Wall Drawing Retrospective" is a series of wall drawings/paintings that were produced from a description by LeWitt of a concise idea and diagram.  The wall drawings are not actually produced by LeWitt himself but rather by others.

The idea is described almost like a series of instructions and relationships between elements and is accompanied by a small hand drawn diagram.  For example for "Wall Drawing 797" the instructions state:

The first drafter has a black marker and makes an irregular horizontal line near the top of the wall. Then the second drafter tries to copy it (without touching it) using a red marker. The third drafter does the same, using a yellow marker. The fourth drafter does the same using a blue marker. Then the second drafter followed by the third and fourth copies the last line drawn until the bottom of the wall is reached.

Here are some images of the results:

Photo: Will Reynolds, www.massmoca.org

Photo: Cortney, intern @ www.massmoca.org

This simple idea of "copy-line" produces something that reveals subtle complexities throughout the piece.  This is where I came to understand the idea of manual generative processes.  This piece can be produced multiple times and never yield the same result.  The simple rules are able to generate complexity.  The "copy-line" in this piece shows similar results to the "offset" command in Rhino where the line changes and deforms with each offset.  This is what shifts the curves in the initial line to more jagged lines in the progression.  

Not all LeWitt's pieces have the ability to produce such complexity nor are they a generative process that will yield different results.  I prefer the pieces that seem more indeterminate.  I find them more interesting because of the effect the simple rules have produced.  I also like the idea that the piece could be repeated and yield something different but within the same level of complexity.

Mass MoCA has a nice website showcasing the Sol LeWitt A Wall Drawing Retrospective but it definitely is not the same as being there.

A brief case study - National Museum of Australia

Despite my fear of sounding ignorant of my knowledge of certain areas of computation, I am very unsure of how to use Boolean operations as a generator. My only explicit design experience of Boolean operations as a driver for design was when I first started using Rhino. This design process consisted of two systems, a grid of walls and a series of cylinders, in which the cylinders were used to “bool” out different areas of the gridded wall system. Although simple, the cylinders were manipulated through scaling, moving, etc to form different relationships with the grid walls and this provided for a progressive design as one moved through the spaces created.

I realize one of my main problems with diving in and progressing with a Boolean framework is that I am struggling in the selection of my systems or Boolean inputs. For my charrette exercise I tried not to worry too much about what systems I was using and how they may directly relate to my thesis topic because of the time constraints. I instead focused on pushing something forward until it yielded results that I am looking for in my thesis project (refer to critera.) I was able to learn that the conditions I am looking for can be achieved.

To better understand the Boolean logic as a generator I looked for projects that use it. The National Museum of Australia (NMA) uses both Boolean logic computationally as well conceptually. The concept for the NMA was to explore Australia’s two different identity conceptions of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. The Boolean Knot was used computationally to communicate this concept in the Main Hall of the museum. Additionally, the landscape is a dialogue that forms from the combination or weaving of multiple maps that exist for Australia. My thesis seeks to communicate the both~and condition (a combination of two opposing ideas/concepts/traits) through architecture. My original proposal for program would use a character from Crime and Punishment, in a similar way that the NMA uses two cultural identities, as a driver.

(image from www.a-r-m.com.au/)

The Main Hall’s spatial result according to Uros Cvoro in “Monument to anti-monumentality” is an indeterminate space that ties together the heterogenous narratives that exist at the NMA. Cvoro also mentions the opposing elements at play: visible~invisible, absence~presence, computational~physical, object~cast, and experimental space~conceptual space. The Main Hall is developed as a Boolean Knot through a series of threads that knot together in the Main Hall. Howard Raggatt, the architect of NMA, used the Boolean system as a way of “articulating built form through sets of relations between volumes.” Six threads are tied together and and put in the five-sided extruded shape (Main Hall.) Each thread cuts through the building volume.

Although I am not sure of the exact computational logic. This case study is a help is identifying possible systems/inputs to use. The use of non-formal systems is helpful as I was struggling with what forms to use when I maybe able to start with something more conceptual. My next step is to fully identify the systems/inputs I will use and the set of conditions I will relate them with in order to develop another generative diagram.

Additional Links:
Garden of Australian Dreams

Other Projects:

Boolean Valley

Flatland

Edwin A Abbot's Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions was able to help me explore a different way of thinking about space and dimensionality.  One of the dualities I am choosing to explore this semester is 2D~3D.  Breaking away from the standard understanding and vision of the world will be helpful in understanding how to incorporate 2D~3D into a both~and condition. 

The book is written from the point of view of a square who lives in "Flatland," a world of two dimensions.  All objects and "people" have length and width but no height.  The Flatland citizens have developed way to identify and classify objects and "people" in their world despite only being able to see lines and points.  They have no concept of up or down as their world only exists in a flat plane.  The square dreams and goes on adventures to "Lineland" (one dimension) and "Spaceland" (three dimensions.)  Through these adventures he learns about how other worlds have dealt with their limitations.

Carl Sagan also explains the world in this way (video.) 

I was not sure how I was going to approach the 2D~3D duality.  I had thought about understanding the process of drawing to building however, this explanation seems to have more of an impact and will be able to help be applied to a variety of projects.

Charrette

After the completion of our final Methods book and website we embarked on an intense charrette to jumpstart our design process with a "making as method for research (not representation)" for our final projects.  The assignment laid out for us was to develop a vector, generative diagram based on our specific thesis subject.

Through the development of my Methods book (all content in book is included on website) I discovered how others have approached, dealt with, explored, etc the "both~and" condition or dualities in architecture.  Peter Eisenman seeks to achieve an interstitial condition through the process of combining two systemmatic diagrams: one diagram is project dependent and includes the program and context for the project, while the other diagram is not architecturally specific.  He creates a dialogue between the two diagrams to formulate his architecture.  Others, such as Jeffrey Kipnia, looks at design approaches as dualities that can yield the same result.

I approached my generative diagram by attempting to set up two very basic systems with basic rules in order to create something more complex.  This relates to my criteria and I was attempting to understand what processes and design investigations may yield the results listed in my criteria.  I started with a grid of lines labeled alternately "even" and "odd."  At each line intersection I placed a circle and labeled each circle as "even-even," "odd-odd," "even-odd," or "odd-even" dependent on what lines intersected its center.  I used this initial layout as a starting point for a variety of manipulations.  Shifts included: scale, line weight, color, rotation.

Examples: (click on image for larger view)


Figure 1A: Shifting Scale from Center:

Figure 1B: Shifting Scale of 4 Grids starting each grid from a corner:

Figure 1C: Rotating each grid from center 30 degrees:

I choose to further develop Figure A by manipulating line weights and stroke color.

Iterations of Figure 1A:

 

Final iteration with varied line weight and stroke color:

 

Feedback ad Critique:

Successful at developing figures of density.  Symmetrical, however symmetry can be a productive tool when used as a way to break from symmetry for a performance aspect; this break can become a growth strategy.  Needs more discrete transformations, where each individual element is manipulated or effected independently to create more indeterminate behavior.  Successful at dealing with site (18" x 18" square canvas.)  High level of complexity.  Need to find another language or system to influence.  Technically, it is only one system rather than the two systems approach I was trying to experiment with. 

Second Diagram Development:

I went back and reworked my systems and rules.  I choose to continue with the grid of circles as one system in order to have a relationship to the first iterations as a way of contrasting.  My second system was a random topological map.  I overlaid the topo lines over the grid.  I then scaled each circle based on a a factor of how far its center was from the nearest topo line.  This provided a more discrete result.

Figure 2A: whole condition

 

Figure 2B: (limited to original 18 x 18 canvas)

 

Figure 2C: (line weights of large circles manipulated)

Blogging the Process

I am starting this blog as a way to document the design and research process for my B. Arch Final Project. This is being combined with my final project website as a way to communicate with my thesis advisors, fellow classmates, and all others who are interested about my progress and ideas. The blog format will allow for a greater chance for direct feedback and will allow me to post things more spontaneously than with my own custom website. I am hoping it will provide a casual atmosphere that will allow for a general dialogue to support my design and research process. I anticipate that some images and postings will be only partially developed while others will be documentation of important checkpoints along the way.  I am going to treat it as a digital sketchbook.

I welcome all comments and advice. This is a new experience for me and I hope that this becomes an important tool in my design process.

-Courtney