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.