Further to which, as such historical techniques were deeply analogue they were both unrepeatable and one-way. The unit has considered how, using digital translation, the process could be reversible and interchangeable. In other words can we translate from digital to physical and back to digital to introduce a feedback into the process? In this way a building can be both dynamic (or animate) and responsive.
Unit 21 would like to thank our critics: Prof Christine Hawley, Prof Stephen Gage, Dr. Rachel Cruise, Tom Holberton, Godofedo Pereira, Narinder Sagoo, Tim Furzer, Luke Pearson, Peg Rawes. Design Realisation Tutor: Julie Stewart. Unit Structural Engineer: Brian Eckersley
Year 4: Ka Lai Kylie Chan, Alexander Gazetas, Sara L’Espérance, Risa Nagasaki, Gordon O’Connor-Read, Shogo Sakimura Year 5: Qing Gao, Mina Gospavic, Eleanor Hedley, Tia Randall, Yeung Piu So, Yi Su, Chun Ting Gabriel Lee, Anthony Smith, Sophie George, Ayaka Suzuki
— page 2 35 — B A RT LET T 2012
The unit continued to develop the idea from previous research that the city is treated as a landscape of data that can be harnessed and transformed onto a generator of architectural language. This year the city landscape under observation has been Berlin; a city of the 19th century, broken and reconnected in the 20th century and currently struggling to establish it’s identity for the 21st century.
MArch Arch Un i t 2 1
of techniques was developed to nuance and manner the work. For example, sfumato was used to soften edges and to create the illusion of depth and chiaroscuro was the use of strong dark and light contrast to again further heighten the sense of perspective. There were also other techniques such as the cartoon (or large paper drawing) that allowed the transfer from sketch to canvas or plaster surface. This year the unit attempted to invent new terms and/or behaviours for the process of translation that has an equivalent contemporary status that sfumato or chiaroscuro has to perspective.