[JS] I mean I think the real advantage that this project has going forward is that there is already so much done and I think you’re in a really good position to quantify, package it a little bit, think about how you might test it in the field, and apply for a grant. I think you are absolutely in a position to move forward and I can think for instance of some of the experiments going on in Detroit where they’ve got houses with holes in them. I mean, you just go and you propose to patch one of those houses up with the material that you can find within four square blocks of that house. The patching I think is a great way to make it very visible. To me there’s a real direction towards the lower tech that is as interesting as the direction in the high tech. The idea that you take things which are produced without human hands, water bottles and newspaper, and you sort of return them to the kind of labor that is maybe more appropriable than repetitive production. So maybe you have to really make a case for there being two scales of production, two scales of time, two scales of architectural elements and the research can support both. [AG] That was the idea, and I love that you brought up the hole, because conventional techniques are hard to fill in highly unconventional holes and gaps, but this technology can fill in any gap that arises. [PT] How does he get material to that robot? How does it stay up and how is it powered? That’s all I’m asking. I want to make that as convincing as the other parts. [LC] I have this image of this trail left in the city as it sort of picks up trash and moves it’s refuge and you’ve got this trail through it. That’s kind of cool in one hand, and in another, I don’t know exactly how that would work. So, I think one of the questions is the ultimate form that comes out of it and I feel like it’s not necessarily process that feels sci-fi to me but it’s the decision to make the bulbous forms that feel very insecty.
248
[RR] I have some questions to follow. I’m asking these questions in my own research and I’m looking for answers and the only two answers I have right now with Anthony is that there’s two possible scenarios. One is a 3D-printer farm where you have lots of printers that work just like the ones we have now, or we have big 3D-printers. There
are some companies who are making big 3D-printers and they don’t work too far away from the way Anthony is proposing in his robot scenario, except that they don’t have legs.
[PT] But they have to carry all of that material. I personally don’t believe in the big 3D-printer model; the idea that you can just scale it up. I do think that you have to change the technology and morphology of that. But I think to get there we have to work through really mastering industrial robotic technology to actually make the next step. Because otherwise you’re asking for a big leap without any kind of resentment and also the head design would be the same. To actually make the head of that robot would be on an industrial level, you could deal with all of those problems on that robot. I think innovation is very very difficult and it is absolutely our responsibility, but it’s extremely difficult and so I think we do a disservice to ourselves if we suggest it’s easy or that we could quickly get there. It’s actually really really hard. [LC] But what I think he’s been able to do is to carry us up to this point of the conversation in a very rigorous way and an innovative way. [PT] Yeah, yes. [AG] I threw it out there for this reason, to get this discussion and I knew I wouldn’t be nearly as developed as that.