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.