Thesis Book

I completed a draft version of my Final Project 1 - Thesis book.  It is posted here.  It is a summary and integration of my website and blog postings.

Situating the thesis, Part 2

As I have shifting my thesis topic from wave~particle duality to a both~and condition (moving away from the scientific phenomenon) I have found my research still expanding into quantum science and the related. One such source is Charles Jencks, "Architecture of the Jumping Universe." I have used other resources by Jencks in situating my thesis within an architectural discourse. This source further expands what I have been also ready read.

Jencks is seeking an architecture that reflects the new world view. This is similar to Venturi's argument that architecture should reflect the complexity and contradiction that exists in the world and that other disciplines have chosen to recognize. "We inhabit a self-organizing universe that is open-ended." There is a balance between order and chaos (duality.) Jencks uses this idea to support nonlinear architecture through the use of fractals, wave-forms, folded forms, and strategies of superposition. They provide both a simplicity and complexity. Jencks mentions Venturi's approach as a "complexity collage of pre-existing, well-known solutions that manipulates classicism." Nonlinear architecture allows a feedback in the system.


Jencks is essentially working with one duality, order versus chaos. The both~and condition for this duality is complexity. Jencks describes how a higher intelligent system is one that has found the balance between order and chaos. The examples he gives are a beating heart, the brain, Hamlet, and poetry. All these elements are hard to truly duplicate using artificial means. Elements that are purely ordered or chaotic can be easily mimicked and derived artificially (through computation.) Jencks describes this concept further in diagram:

Cosmic Axiology - a formal measure of simplicity, complexity and complication

Charles Jencks, "Architecture of a Jumping Universe"

He critiques modern architecture by asking the rhetorical question, "how many ways can you decipher the typical 'dumb box' found in every downtown area of a city, the modern curtain-walled office of glass and steel?"

Jencks does talk briefly of waves. "Wave motion is so crucial and omnipresent in nature." Every subatomic particle is both a wave and a particle (same with light.) He continues, "every object and human being is composed of this bipolar unity, double entity."

My reaction:
My ears always perk up when I read something that may provide more insight in how the wave~particle duality that started my thesis has been incorporated into architecture. Jencks is usually the source that gets the closest for me. This time he discusses more about just waves in general and how they can be used through interference, twisting and patterning. We both see the importance of basic (or not so basic) scientific phenomena being incorporated into the built world. His one project of twisting waves for the design of a gate that "demonstrates solid/void, black/white, and foreground/background" is closest to what my moire was trying to achieve. He is using waves to form relationships of several dualities.

 Soliton Gates, Charles Jencks

Situating the thesis

I have spent the last week trying to refine and further develop my thesis proposal. I have been struggling with what my focus or goal actually is. Until I fully define this, I have been unable to progress further with my design investigations. My design investigations have not been derived from my thesis ideas, mostly because I have been unsure of what exactly that is. There seems to be two ideas: duality and both~and condition. I thought these were one in the same but through my research and process I have discovered that they actually can be separate entities. I have gone back and reviewed the development work I did over the past two months and I am now working on synthesizing this information to find where I stand within this discourse on architecture.

My original interest came from the phenomenon of wave~particle duality, where an entity is essentially two things until it is observed and at that time it "collapses" into only one entity. I related the wave~particle duality to architecture by brainstorming and identifying properties or elements in architecture that are considered in opposition to each other. Those are listed in a past posting. I was curious in how opposing entities could be incorporated together forming what I have been defining as a "both~and" condition. They would create a third condition through the ambiguity. In my last review it was discussed how most dualities or oppositions in architecture are artificial as in they are created by particular movements or theories.

One of the most common "dualities" in architecture derived from the Modernist movement. The Modernist movement separated structure from enclosure, creating a duality. Modern architecture was seeking purity and reductiveness in architecture. Each element was singular in purpose to reduce it to is essence. Robert Venturi’s manifesto, "Complexity and Contradiction," is a critique of the Modern architecture movement. He believed the modernist approach was too reductive and through its reductiveness it limited the focus on what problems within architecture could be solved. Venturi saw a disconnect between what was being explored and discovered in the modern world of science and art and modern architectural theory. Art and science recognized the extreme complexity and contradictions that existed in the world of that time. Venturi discusses Mies van der Rohe's "less is more" philosophy as both his greatest strength and weakness. Mies only choses to solve certain problems and is exclusive in order to be expressive.

For Venturi, complex architecture is architecture of "both~and" and not "either~or."

"I am for richness of meaning rather than clarity of meaning; for the implicit function as well as the explicit function. I prefer "both-and" to "either-or," black and white, and sometimes gray to black or white. A valid architecture evokes many levels of meaning and combinations of focus: its space and its elements become readable and workable in several ways at once."

"More is not less"

For Venturi the both~and condition occurs through the reuniting of elements to create "double-functioning elements." Elements that are hybrid rather than "pure."

compromising versus clean

distorted versus straightforward

ambiguous versus articulated

conventional versus designed

accommodating versus excluding

redundant versus simple

perverse and impersonal

boring and interesting

vestigial and innovating

inconsistent and equivocal

"Truth must be in its totality or implications of totality."

Venturi states that the phenomenon of both~and lies in contradiction; its basis is hierarchy creating several levels of meanings among elements breeding ambiguity and tension. Venturi's manifesto is an architecture of inclusive theory. For Venturi, complexity and contradiction in architecture occurs when dualities in architecture are able to exist together within the same project. The simpleness (not simplicity as he makes a distinction between the two) renders architecture bland. The modernist movement was highlighted by separation such as structure versus enclosure. Venturi suggests a reintegration. Venturi makes a clear distinction that complexity and contradiction does not lie within the picturesque and subjective expressionism.

In summary, Venturi’s view on dualities is that those contradictions are what create an interesting architecture. He looks for the gray area within architecture rather than only presenting the dualities in “black” or “white.” Venturi believes that elements such as form and function cannot be separated because of their strong interdependence with each other. More often than not, the goal of the problem is simple, however, the means to accomplish the goal is complex.

My response:
Venturi's idea of a complex architecture derived from double-functioning elements with multiple layers of meaning is what I am seeking to achieve in my thesis. I want to integrate normally opposing elements together in order to create unique and distinct architectural conditions. Venturi was a Post-modernist architect. Personally, post modern architecture is not that interesting to me. I am looking to situate the both~and condition in contemporary architecture. My re-integration will not be looking toward the past.

Peter Eisenman discusses his strategy to breakdown certain dualities in architecture (although he doesn’t define them directly as dualities.) He states that the traditional way of design through aesthetics results in on/off procedures which require choosing between two alternatives such as solid/void and figure/ground.  This maintains the distinction between duality elements.  They remain singular oppositions. Eisenman seeks to, by eliminating the traditional process towards aesthetics, produce an architecture that lies in the interstitial, creating a "blurring."  Eisenman formulates some of his own relationships or dualities between entities in architecture such as forming versus spacing and machinic versus mechanical (which he references Deleuze and Guattari.)  Eisenman proposes the removal of the authorial intervention and expression as a way to find new ways to “blurring” the dualities in architecture. By removing the author, these entities can be blurred. His strategy is trying to prevent form from following function through the introduction of a secondary diagram to be integrated with a diagram consisting of the program organization that will drive the design. This secondary diagram must contain within it processes that will produce a blurring of the form/function and meaning/aesthetic relationships. The authorship comes from the process and formulation of process driving diagrams. The ending architecture that results from this is essentially a stepped removed from the author.

Eisenman believes that the removal of authorial design by using a machinic diagram (not necessarily architectural-based) will open and cause blurring (of dualities) through exposing possibilities that could not be reveal through the traditional design process. The traditional process is linear while Eisenman’s process is nonlinear. The traditional design process only allows the designer to look back to the past. The nonlinear approach results in this blurring that is the interstitial.

My response:

Eisenman offers a process for creating a both~and condition.  Choose two diagrams that can be integrated together to create a interstitial or blurring effect.  It is important to note that Eisenman warns against the act of visual blurring (this is what I have been doing!) because that will not produce the true complexity of the interstitial condition.  This approach is something I have been thinking about throughout this whole process.  I have yet to be able to identify or commit to a set of systems, conditions, or diagrams that I can use.

Dualities

two-dimensional versus three dimensional

solid versus void

inside versus outside

interior versus exterior

private versus public

black versus white

image versus built

urban versus rural

movement versus static

skin versus building

form versus function

ideal versus perceived

hierarchy versus meshwork

linear versus nonlinear

cause versus effects

tradition versus avant garde

open versus enclosed

transparent versus opaque

work versus play

abstract versus concrete

vector versus envelope

sacred versus secular

presence versus absence

integer versus non-integer

rational versus expressionistic

measurable versus inmeasurable

nature versus culture

standardization versus variety

intellect versus emotion

reason versus intuition

mechanical versus organic

tension versus compression

natural versus artificial

place versus memory

plan versus section

physical versus psychological

vertical versus horizontal

symmetric versus asymmetric

arbitrary versus calculated

collapsing versus expanding

observer versus observed

object versus process

authoritative versus anonymous

virtual versus real

contour versus profile

Checkpoint - final before the final

For this checkpoint review I presented a new series of 17" x 17" vector diagrams and two 17" x 17" x 17" cube diagrams. 

Here are some of my initial thoughts before going into this review:

Going through this process has been difficult.  I have struggled to breakaway from the moire diagram because of its initial appeal of being a metaphoric diagram for my thesis.  I have yet to make the jump from that as metaphor into something more architecturally realized.  Also, going through this process I have discovered there may be two underlying ideas that don't necessarily connect, and there lies my struggle.  One idea is the concept that I derived my original thesis from, wave~particle duality.  The idea that something can be two things, and it is only through the perception, measurement, and observation that it will collapse to be one or the other.  This essentially does not communicate a both~and condition because the entity cannot be observed to be both at the same time.  It is only both when it is not observed or measured or perceived.

The second idea is the concept of a both~and condition.  This idea has been interpreted by me to be two (or even one with the moire) simple systems or conditions that when combined or overlapped produce a third distinct condition. This is the concept I have been exploring through overlap and moire.  It is essentially a binary condition related to the Boolean condition.

I presented work from the following blog entries and the work included in this entry (images coming soon.)

Moire

2D Diagrams

Dissociative Identity Disorder


FEEDBACK/REVIEW: (once again as best as I can remember and read my notes)

The interest seems to lie in the moire as a generator of effects.  The project doesn't seem to be necessarily about the wave.  The moire needs to be purposed through a nonbinary way that can then produce recognizable patterns.  There needs to be more capacity over the generative of the morphology of the moires with scalar shift, etc.  It needs to be more of a design project, designing the manipulations to produce an objective.

Look into the work of Reiser + Umemoto specifically the Shenzhen Bao'an International Airport.  They manipulated a pattern of regular filleted squares that were built in a thick surface.  This utilized the third dimension.  They used this moire or camouflage as a formal trope to work against the standard extruded section.  In this case, the actual diagram or device is used to do something either structurally, sensationally, mechanically, etc.  There needs to be an intention or purpose for the diagram or model and then the moire device can be used as an architectural trope. 

Engage the 17 x 17 cube.  The moire can be used to change the perception of the volume of 17 x 17.  Try to use it as a designer.  Does it have the capacity to produce to an architectural consequence. 

You need an objective.  The thesis needs to be there.  Right now, the diagrams have no purpose.  Get the moire to do something.  Have an intention for what you are trying to do.  Embed a use or driver into it.  (I have been aware of this lack of design jump beyond the actual production of the moire.)

Right now the model is 2.5 dimensions.  It recreated the 2D drawings but didn't go beyond that.  It is privileged to one location.  Take the moire as intelligence and transform it into the third dimension.  Use all vantage points and that through shifting and shuffling it can reconfigure the world into vantage points.  Start understanding the 3rd dimension through material thickness and start to break that down.  The plates privilege a single plane vector.  Treat the cube as a volume.  Understand what depth of material can do for the diagram and how far that can be pushed.  For example, there could be different rates of extension. 

The wave patterns and the moire both deal with interference.  This is the connection between the two.  Now situate it back into architecture.  Does it drive program organization, something else?  How to do you frame it?  Inside versus outside?  The duality is always artificial.  Develop an understanding of where and when the dualities emerged within the architectural discourse. For example, the duality problem argument in form versus function.  Now we have a shift of the skin now performing function, how does that shift or change the structure versus skin duality?  Understand the development of these dualities and why things start to get separated, bring in the history and theory.  What are the 21st Century dualities?  It could be argued that it isn't a both~and condition but it is becoming an all condition with the way technology has allowed us to embed a multitude of systems and purpose into a single entity.  (I really like this approach or view of this problem.)

Where does the duality exist?  What is driving the separation?  There are typical binary conditions (I will list the list I initially developed at the beginning of my thesis development in the next blog entry.)  List the contemporary both~and conditions.  Where did they come from, what time frame, are they outside of language? Sensation is not binary.  Move beyond demonstration and building an argument to encompass the contemporary.  Take the capacity  of a designer to use it as an architectural trope.  You are learned how it works but now go beyond the moire as metaphor and move beyond the image.  Use material logic and make decisions.  These decisions will have consequence.

MY REACTION:

A lot of the feedback is what I have been aware of and despite my awareness I have struggled to push past it.  I was aware of my attachment to the moire and that I have not been able utilize it through a purpose.  I have not wanted to choose an arbitrary purpose or driver for the moire but that may be the best way to start to manipulate it and use it.  By arbitrary, I mean it may not have any relationship to my proposed program or context.

I started to try to rework the moire model to manipulation of the grid pattern.  This did not get realized before the review.  My manipulation were very random and arbitrary because I didn't have a purpose or objective for the final model.  I think that is my missing link, I need a reason or end goal of what I want the model to do.
I am also going to start looking at the development of certain dualities.  I have tried to see when certain dualities have been used with a purpose within the architecture but I think looking at the history and the initial emergence of the duality will be more helpful.  Then I can situate it in my understanding of what is being practiced in contemporary architecture.

I am also afraid that my thesis has been reduced to the moire diagram which is not my intention.  I need to now, find a way to express my idea outside of the moire diagram.

There may be more "MY REACTION" follow up.  But for not I have reached mental capacity.  

Both~And Condition

Throughout this process I have been struggling with defining a both~and condition.  Here is my first attempt at formulating a working definition to help progress with my diagrams.

A both~and condition occurs when two opposites (dualities) exist within the same space in a way that the two conditions produce a third unexpected condition. 

This will be what I will initially use to test my explorations.

2D Diagrams

Through my study to better understand moires (in order to deconstruction them) I discovered that moires are what occur on the computer screen when we zoom in or out.  An interference occurs between the two sets of fine grid patterns of the scanning grid and the halftone print grid of the image being scanned.  I sought to mimic this property to see if I could develop a moire that does not exhibit the basic properties of its input.  My original moire diagram created from a series of grids of circles formed a moire with a overall circle-based pattern.  I am trying to break that output.

These diagrams were developed starting from a grid of circles made of dashed lines.  The print of this grid was scanned then printed.  I repeated this cycle 7 times until the resulting diagram started to breakdown (figure A.)

figure A

This did not give me the results I expected.  I was expecting a more distinct pattern to emerge in the form of a herringbone or grid.  The pattern that resulted in this series of diagram actually derived from the deterioration rather than the relationship between two interfering grids.  I believe this is because the original image and the resulting images were not printed through a halftone process.  The halftone printing process (used in magazines, newspapers, etc) it what would result in a more traditional moire.  I would like to try and re-do this exploration using halftone.  I will have to mimic that printing process digitally or find a way to print similar to halftone as the printers I have access to do not print this way. 

This was successful in breaking from the circles in = circles out pattern that has emerged in the other moire diagrams.

Another attempt of deconstructing the moire was to create a grid of circles and loft them diagonally.  I then cut the resulting tubes by planes similar to the plates in the 3D model.  Resulting diagram:

 

This diagram still has the problem of lack of asymmetry.  This is due to its lack of systematic inputs.

 

Moire

I have chosen to return to my original moire diagram due to its ability to produce the condition I am looking for in my thesis: "production of the other."

I simultaneously explored the moire in the third dimensions both physically and digitally.  The digital results is the 2D vector diagram:

Moire Diagram

The physical exploration is the 3D model.  I cut a series of plates (17 total) with circles creating a solid and void condition for each plate.  In order to keep  the variables simple I am using the same pattern for each "plate" in my model.  The moire condition should be formed due to the human eye seeing in perspective.  With the completion of the model diagram, I found this to be true.  The model was also left flexible so I can slide the plates in relation to each other in order to create different conditions and relationships.  This flexibility also allows for the addition of different patterned plates to show how that effects the moire.  The unfortunate part is that the complexity of the model cannot be captured by a camera.  This is also why the digital model I built did not display the types of complexity the physical model does.  I am glad I pushed beyond the test digital model into the physical.

overall model

overall model

close up

close up

The 3D moire is different to work with than the 2D.  Because it isn't a flattened condition it adds a level of complexity in maintaining its condition as well as introducing simplicity, by being able to produce the desired condition with the use of the same repeated element.  Breaking this repetition with the use of a different plate pattern changes the moire but at the same time starts to reduce its complexity.  The eye starts to read the secondary system which gives it a degree of separation.  Is this separation still a both~and condition?  I think I would need to introduce more plates of the second patterns in order to answer this question.  I am also curious of the results of reversing the solid and void in the pattern.

Abstract and Description Update

I have basically transitioned the web-based updates of my thesis to this blog.  However, I will be updating the basic frameworks (abstract, criteria, bibliography, etc) on my original thesis website.

My abstract & description pages have been updated.

Modern Computation in Gaudi's TEMPLE SAGRADA FAMÍLIA - Barcelona

Mark Burry, of RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, is the leader in a team of researchers in understanding the design and construction of Gaudi's Temple Sagrada Familia.  They are in the process of analyzing Gaudi's drawings and models in order to continue toward the completion of the building.  (Construction started in 1882, Gaudi took over in 1883.)  


Interactive design models (computational) are being used as generative systems to understand the form creations of Gaudi.  Two examples of this analysis are interesting to me in relationship to my thesis.  The first is the boolean union-like creation of the columns.  There are several types of columns within the building.  All are formed in a similar way where the forms result from the boolean union of two or three identical geometric shapes that start in phase with each other.  As the column rises vertically the shape profiles rotate around a center axis in opposite directions until they are completely out of phase with each other, resulting in a pure circular cross section for the column.  The form resulting from this is a fluted column whose flutes shift, multiple, and ultimately disappear.  See diagrams below: (images coming soon)


The second condition of interest is the construction design analysis of the clerestory window.  This window is the results of boolean subtraction of several parabolic eclipses from a basic solid.  The most intriguing part of this study is the basic hand-drawn diagram and its comparison to the existing Gaudi model.  The process and analysis is more interesting to me than the ultimate result.   (images coming soon)

Checkpoint, cont.

A second review was held earlier this week.  I received additional feedback.  For presentation material refer to Checkpoint post and DID postings. So this post is going to be low on images.

For this presentation I presented my material on dissociative identity disorder (DID).  My hope of this investigation was to develop a system or driver for my diagrams.  What I derived from my investigation was that DID develops due to an extreme stress on acting on a single entity.  This stress then causes an internal splitting.  Simply put:

STRESS - SPLIT - SHIFT

This result still doesn't help in the development of a system.  It only gives one option of how the system can be manipulated.  At points of extreme stress (what stress? structural? wind loads? sun control? circulation points?) the system will being to fracture.  Does this produce a both~and condition?  There seems to be a missing layer or element.  Split produces density and multiples but not necessarily a third condition, which is the goal of my thesis.  The moire that was my first diagram demonstrates the condition that my thesis is trying to achieve.  It is able to produce something other than itself, a third condition.

PRESENTATION FEEDBACK:

(my attempt to summarize)

I am over-complicating the problem (yes, I believe this may be true as I was able to achieve the spark of something very simply with my original diagram and I moved away from that approach/idea.)  The DID actually doesn't split into two entities; they exist within the same body.  Instead, they produce a new projection that allow for new access to new spaces within its internal world.  It is an "individual obtained agency" that has granted access to new things.  Within certain situations, something can adjust itself or change or be manipulated in order to gain greater access to some kind of intelligence outside of itself.  The example given was the movie "Chinatown"  with Jack Nicholson.  Through the movie, Nicholson's character is able to obtain different levels of intelligence which pushes him deeper into the system larger than the intelligence itself.  Different character aspects (costume, disguise, accent, etc) makes information move through with more ease.  With a more intelligence agency to populate the diagram, it will be more empowered to do things.  

It may help to take a departure and jump in scale.  

Another analogy drawn was the difference between a typical situation of people arriving at a train station in contrast to an atypical situation of a plane of tourette's syndrome patients arriving in Salt Lake City (the spontaneous into the conservative routine.)  It is not the traveling, arriving, train or plane that is the important entity.  It is what is being delivered.  

The connection between the original moire diagram and the DID diagrams is OVERLAP.  The overlap that exists in both has the result of PRODUCTION OF ANOTHER BODY.  The 2D moire diagram is able to produce an illusionary effect of 3D.  It would be similar to the arrangement of a grid of straws (the natural of our perspective vision would result in a similar distortion of the grid of circles.)  The edge condition eclipses.  In a 3D model, what if projections were not running parallel?  Would this obtain a degree of agency?  The moire shows multiple moments in time collapsed in a 2D vehicle.  The grid of straws would produce the same effect as long as we move or the grid moves forming a condition of collapse and reveal.  How do you break the field condition?  The grid of straws offers direction or orientation (what if they are not all parallel in relation to each other.)  The volume of the cube could have exterior points of influence in a way creating a gravity for the system.  Straws as vectors being effected by these points of influence.  The cube offers a depth and viewing corridor.  Layering (OVERLAPPING??) as effect.  Change of scale?  Change of material?  Black and white sequence?  

As for a reaction to the reactive diagram (hexagonal) Develop a procedure to understand the range of influence that the investigation.  Move through 1, 2, and 3 degree curves (start with straight.)  This will formulate a catalog of effects.  It will then be the deployment of the catalog as pieces of the larger diagram that will create new territory to scale up.  

This is really an analog problem.  As for boolean condition projects, check out Mark Burry's work with Gaudi.  

When approaching the cube diagram, it is important to choose a material.  Understand its manufacturing process.

MY REACTION:

I had been feeling as though the boolean explorations were not leaning toward the production or results I was aiming for.  I am excited to review my moire diagram and through a possible deconstruction understand more of what I am trying to produce.  I have investigated Mark Burry and will include a brief summary in my next posting.  Although it was interesting work, I am not sure of its exact place within my investigations.  

My next step is to investigate the moire in more depth.  I am going to reduce the diagram to two systems at first to understand how each type of manipulation changes the effects and balance of the system.  I can then start to embed more layers if necessary.  My original diagram consists of 5 grids/layers.  This quick study should help me develop a way to demonstrate similar phenomena (since I will know the range of possibilities with in the 2D realm) in 3D.  If 2D produces 3D, can 3D produce 4D?  (Are we back to Flatland?)

Dissociative Identity Disorder

With the ultimate goal of finding a system that can be used to drive my diagram or to make my diagram more relevant to my thesis I started exploring Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) (formally known as Multiple Personality Disorder.)  Though my examination of this psychological condition I have tried to take my understanding and diagram it visually in an abstract manor in order to building relationships and processes that may be translated into architectural conditions.  These diagrams are embedded into the dialogue below.

 This psychological condition occurs when a person is experiences extreme abuse or trauma, usually at a very young age.  The person then starts to formulate "safe spaces" in order to be able to endure the abuse.  These "safe spaces" take the form of two or more distinct identities.  Accompanying these different identities is a usually a loss of memory for the other "alter(s)."  This memory loss aids the person in isolating certain memories and thoughts be "shifting" to certain alters in certain situations.  The conscious is split into separate components.

Dissociative Personality Disorder Diagram 1

There can be multiple identity splits, in fact the average number of alters in someone with Dissociative Personality Disorder is around 10.  Each identity is distinctly different.  When only two identities exist they are usually polar opposites of each other.  Each identity has its own age, sex, physical mannerisms, expressions, beliefs, etc.  Some times an identity will be "greater" or stronger than the original identity of the host.

Multiple Identities within Host

The shifting from one identity to another is almost instantaneous.  It usually is accompanied by a strong short-lived headache.  When one identity is active, others alters experience "black-outs" in their memories.  Shifting usually occurs when the person is under stress.

Identity shifting under stress with breaks in time/memory

There usually is a dominate identity and one or more subordinate identities.  The main identity is usually the one that experiences black-outs and has no awareness of the other identities.   At least one subordinate identity maintain consciousness while the other alters are in "control."  It is as though they are in the background, watching what is going on.  The other subordinate identities may also be fully aware of the others or only aware of some of the alters.

Identity shifting with subordinate alter

The dissociation that occurs can be so dramatic that each identity has different EEGs (brainwave measurements.)

Now that I have diagrammatically visualized these conditions I can see my diagram being driven by a variety of stresses.  The both~and condition will occur when the system is under stress.  The more stress the more intense the both~and condition.  This study relates to my program proposal for a duplex for  Dostoevsky’s character Raskolinikov in "Crime and Punishment."  The character's name means "split" in Russian.  The study of this character and the both ~ condition that exists in in the boolean operation as a vehicle to produce architecture.  

Checkpoint

Last Tuesday was a checkpoint for my thesis cluster.  We all presented our progress on our 17" x 17" diagrams.  Although I still hadn't found a system or specific vehicle to drive my diagrams, the diagrams were successful in understanding a new software as well as process that will be useful when applying a applicable driving system.  Included below is my presentation material:

Original Charrette Diagram A

Charrette Diagram B & 2B (Transparency)

Transparency was introduced to the second charrette diagram.  This starts to communicate a both~and condition by showing the direct additive nature of the diagram.  This however, does not fit the criteria of synergy, where the results are greater than the sum of its parts.  

Case Studies

Generative Diagram & Series Diagram

Hexagonal grid of circles shift in scale based on distance from arbitrary line.  Two conditions are formed based on a threshold of a certain distance from the same line.  One condition, the set of circles within the threshold distance, is scales by a larger amount than the second condition, the set of circles farther than threshold distance.  Threshold distance is a changeable variable.  Curve can also be changed or moved to change diagram.

Feedback:

The review of the work was that while these diagrams start to do or could be an expression of my both~and condition that because they did not derive from a specific system, they are "placeholders."  Once I am able to use this process with a specific driver or system (not the arbitrary scale shift based on an arbitrary threshold from an arbitrary line) I will be able to better test my results based on my thesis criteria to see if the system is truly able to form the both~condition I am trying to achieve.  At the same time I should be actually looking for unanticipated results.  My next step is to "set up a game" in order to try and achieve a desired result (other than visual.)  This will allow me to interpret certain results and the specific inputs.  Examples of systems or drives I could explore are: temperature, wind (effects on a field condition), growth, etc.  What does it mean to build something from an "if, then" boolean statement?  As a generative process, the moray condition diagram is successful in it ability to produce a third condition.  It is important for me to be aware of the difference between a binary result versus the 3rd, "other" condition.  My goal (from the beginning of my thesis) is the "other" condition.  The other condition loses the character traits of the original inputs to transforms: the whole is larger than the sum of its parts.

Deleuze in "What is philosophy?" breaks the intellectual world into art: developing an aesthetic for new ways of thinking, science: developing new ways of thinking, and philosophy: providing the unity between art and science.  (This is very paraphrased and from what I can remember from our review discussion.)  Architecture is both the art and science (and therefore philosophy?)  

My goal now is to quickly move into specificity in the goal to explore "the production of the other."  Choose a system of behavior from science, biology, physics, etc and deeply study it and understand it.  Then, use this system process and then ask "is it other?" 

I was also told to look at Toyo Ito and his project that explores the shifting of columns from normal without a loss of structural capacity.  

After the 17" x 17" 2D diagram.  I am to explore through a 17" x 17" x 17" 3D cube.

My reaction:

The review reinforced what I had been processing for the week leading up to it.  I need to find a relevant system and push it.  I am glad I did not allow this setback to stop me from producing because I was able to explore a way of designing that I haven't used yet and I am quickly gaining understanding of it.  I did attempt to produce a diagram that would communicate the wave~particle duality but did not progress far enough to present it for the review.  I am not sure if this diagram will be successful in communicating an "other" condition.  In discussing my thesis with other classmates there has been a suggestion of using diptychs.  I really like this idea and if done correctly the seam between the two conditions/sides of the diptych will be the most important part of the piece in that it should communicate the both~and condition.  Another classmate, in helping me brainstorm systems for my diagram, mentioned exploring split personalities.  One of my original program proposals was for a character who had a type of split personality.  This would provide a direct connection to my thesis proposal.  I am going to explore this idea.  I am hoping that it provides what I originally wanted in my program proposal, an abstract driver that still provides certain rules or guidelines. 

More info on National Museum of Australia

I was able to find more visual explanation for the boolean knot discussed in my previous posting on the National Museum of Australia. 

I obtained these diagrams from the National Museum of Australia: Tangled Destinies editted by Dimity Reed.

Boolean Knot Diagram & Resulting Plans

Boolean Subtraction for Main Hall (plans above) 

Boolean subtraction by "Boolean String"

Boolean Subtraction from Super Ellipse

"The knot and its many interpretations became the topology of the new icon, a new kind of extrusion space, now wholly three dimensional, as though gravitation free, virtual space awaiting its own output, able to merge entirely into toher solids to extract itself precisely (by Boolean subtraction) now defining space as if by erosion, moulding space to deine the cast, negating space to await fulfillment."  p.105

"There a knot was subtracted from a Super Ellipse, creating a 'wormhole in space.'" p. 105

Seeing the two initial objects that were used in the Boolean operation allowed me a much better understanding that the pure word description was not offering me.  I now see how the knot diagram representing the tangled history of Australia was used to carve or "bool" out the main programs to create unique architectural spaces. 

A brief case study - Carnegie Mellon Research Institute

Peter Eisenman designed the Carnegie Mellon Research Institute through the use of the Boolean cube or n-cube.  The diagram below shows Eisenman's development and use of this logic.

Daidalos 35

www.eisenmanarchitects.com

Boolean Cube diagram - Adriana Rossi - Nexus Network Journal

The Boolean cube provides many possible connections for each of the corner nodes.  The project consists of a series of pairs of cubes; one being solid while the other is a transparent frame containing the inverse of the other, building a relationship between solid and void.

Here is the architectural consequence:

www.bh-a.de

www.bh-a.de

www.edwardcella.com

This case study shows how a relationship can be developed between solid and void in a more complex manor.  The void framework cube with the solid cube work together to form a whole composition.  They are inversions of each other.

Intro to Grasshopper

I have been running myself through Grasshopper (a plug-in for Rhino) tutorials becoming comfortable with the interface and understanding how the Boolean logic works.  I have learned how to create an Boolean based  attractor.  It would change the radius of circles based on their distance from an "attractor" curve.  This was actually pretty similar to the logic I was using in my last generative diagram.  The original tutorial had two fixed radii for the circles in the grid.  Radius A was for circles from a certain proximity (variable) of the attractor line while Radius B was for all others.  I changed the tutorial to be closer to what I was doing manually before in my generative diagram.  Now there was still an A or B but A and B will change the radius by a different factor of the distance it is from the attractor line.  Here are the outputs with "proximity to line" set at 20, 45, 50, 55, and 60 respectively:

The progression of proximity goes from top to bottom.  I also worked with density of line weights from left to right.  The results yielded an unexpected spiral like effect.  I am unsure to what caused it.  I had expected the circle to just keep getting denser in the area of the curve.  The other points remain the same distance from the "attractor line" so unless they come into the "proximity area" they should keep outputting the same size.  However this is not the case.  The density of the diagrams shifts differently than expected.