Colleen Chen 356888
Semeter 2/2010 Group #13 1 Â
Page 5. 6. 7.
Page 3. 4. Page 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Page 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
Page 18. 19. 20.
Your conceptual proposals should consider human body as the site for your design ac5ons. Events occurring in rela5onship to the human
body can than serve as form-‐genera*ng processes. Iden5fy several such processes and propose how they can be materialised as structures .Possible processes can include events where: 1. Geometry of the human body becomes modiﬁed or extended. 2. Actual or poten5al movements of the body become visible as spa5al structures. 3. An external element interacts with the human body.
PRECEDENCE. My aim is to ﬁnd inspira5on/precedents to
serve as form-‐genera*ng process to the 1.2
project. My ini5al explora5on came from contemporary representa5ons of the
human body because the term was
1.5 men5oned most frequently in the design brief. The video installa5on by Daniel Crooks
(Fig. 1.1) struck me in par5cular for its 1.4 I was oPen drawn to works, which distorted the
eﬀec5ve capturing of the transience of taichi through 5me-‐lapse video.
human body in order to communicate
But as the brief only encourages the considera5on of the human body as a site for our work, I decided to incorporate some other
par5cular ideals about the quali5es or movements of
artworks that have interested me in the past. I really like how
the subject. Contemporary sculptures (Fig. 1.2, 1.3,
pain5ngs by Rene Magri6e (Fig. 1.6) and miscellaneous works
1.4) were helpful in demonstra5ng the material and
by Christopher Niemann (Fig. 1.10, 1.11) demonstrate the eﬀect
formal possibili5es of representa5on,
of text upon an image. I also ﬁnd the playful work by Piero Manzoni (Fig. 1.7), Noma Bar (1.8) and Anish Kapoor (Fig. 1.9)To be eﬀec5ve in subvert our usual expecta5ons and challenging how we see/ interact with our environment
APer looking at diﬀerent works, I decided to se[le on the
because I appreciated how varying methods of conveying a message can alter our percep5ons so dras5cally. I also 2.1
thought this theme could be quite expansive.
In the natural world, communica5on is a prime mobilising force. The visual quality of such mass movement (Fig. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5) is compelling. Artworks using themes of such mass movements oPen expose the follies of group mentality. Cai Guo Qiang’s installa5on (Fig. 2.6) and Christopher Niemann’s playful graphics (Fig. 2.9) demonstrate how perilous passive communica5on can be.
2.2 So then,
the goal for my project 2.3
would be to convey the quali5es
of communica5on that will hopefully inform us of the need for constant cri5cal thinking and engagement in our 2.4
Ini5ally, I focused on direct symbols –
Through a series of brain-‐storming, I iden5ﬁed some
looking to telegraph lines and sound
quali5es to include into my design. If the func5on of
waves to ﬁnd forms for shaping my
communica5on is to persuade, then the act of
headpiece. Imita5ng the undula5ng waves
communica5ng can serve to both inform and
of sound signals, I made models very
quickly. However, the end product was not very sa5sfying as I did not feel that this
The dual quality of communica5on paves way for
approach embraced my original idea of
many possibili5es in material representa5on. To
exploring the interes5ng characters of
illustrate the dichotomy of truth and falsehood, one
communica5on, which had originally
may include material quali5es of lightness and
darkness, or transparency and opacity.
I decided to use the snake as an analogy for the
theme of communica5on. This is inspired by the fact that the snake as possessing completely opposite associa5ons in diﬀerent cultures. Whilst
wisdom in the
being the embodiment of
Minoan trad5on, the snake is more commonly associated with the no5on of
deceit in the
The most interes5ng precedent I have observed is the portrait of Queen Elizabeth I (Fig. 3.1), where
it was revealed that there is a small serpent beneath the layer of rose (in which she was originally holding). It has been commonly agreed by art historians that the 3.3
modiﬁca5ons made to the
Just as our intent qualiﬁes the informa5on in
pain5ng were done
which we communicate, our cultural bias
in response to
qualiﬁes the way in which we perceive the same
ways in which Caravaggio (Fig. 3.2), Rondanini
object in ques5on.
(Fig. 3.3), Rubens (Fig. 3.4) and Bernini (Fig. 3.5)
fear for misinterpre-‐ ta5on upon reconsidera5on.
Mythological Gormons provide precedent for the body/ head being used as a site for slithering snakes. The
have painted/sculpted Medusa, provide a wealth of material to inform further developments of my idea.
CLAY MODELLING. The slithering movement and linear form of snakes provided many possibili5es to my design. However, my ini5al clay model either did not resemble real snakes at all. This was due to a lack of actual observa5on on how snakes
This method proved much more eﬀec5ve
would usually conduct themselves.
and eﬃcient. The only modiﬁca5on I’d made aPer construc5ng the clay models in
I decided to look at videos to see how snakes behaved in
the image of the video, was to make their
the state of ba[le. I thought that having two snakes would
bodies a li[le more volumetric in order to
emphasis the duality embodied in the subject. To my
facilitate digital modelling.
ﬁndings, snakes tended to bite each other near the head, constric5ng their opponents un5l one party fell dead.
DIGITISE. POINT CLOUD. Point cloud method was thought to deliver a
It was hoped that once points were plo[ed
However the process proved not only lengthy,
more accurate digital image because my clay
on all six surfaces, that the individual
but was also unsuccessful. The inaccuracies in
model had many curved edges. Care was taken
surfaces could become folded into a cube
orthographic photos resulted in a mismatch in
to number each dot on the physical model
to begin the process of loca5ng individual
most of the dots and compromised the quality
before the points were traced out on Rhinoceres. points in three-‐dimensional space
of the en5re process.
3D SCAN. A[empts were made at digi5sing the model using a 3D scanner. This was unsuccessful because the undula5ng surfaces of the model was not able to be captured by the machine.
FREE-‐HAND. Other a[empts were also made by drawing the model free-‐hand in Rhinoceros. Although the end product bore some resemblance to the physical model, free-‐hand drawing did not serve to exercise the aim of this module in accurately transferring a physical model into digital space.
Edges were op5mised to reduce curved surfaces as it was understood that the curved surfaces would complicate the triangulated cladding process. Triangle
surfaces were then added to join adjacent parallel contours.
Contouring method was employed with minor adjustments. Instead of tracing the contour around the physical body of the model, then taking orthogonal photographs of it before tracing it out on SketchUp, individual contour sec5ons were cut oﬀ before the physical model was photographed. This way, overlapping sec5ons otherwise hard to view, could be included into the digital drawing.
OPTIMISE. Triangle faces were reduced and adjustments were made at the base of the model to be[er suit the contour of the head. This was not very helpful as it oPen led to the distor5on of the original form with only incremental reduc5ons in the Looking at
amount of triangulated surfaces. At this point, I realised that the form
certain architectural precedents featuring triangulated
of my model would mean that it
surfacing, for instance Federa5on Square
would be incredibly diﬃcult/ complicated to clad properly. Thus it
(Fig. 4.1) and Helios House (Fig. 4.2), it is observable
remains to be determined whether
that most would not contain such acute undula5ng
the design of the model needs to be revised.
surfaces as the requirements for more triangulated parts would come at a high cost to the client.
the model despite concerns for its feasability (the model contained over 3000 surfaces according to SketchUp). Taking away surfaces which may be in hidden layers, therefore unnecessary, a posi5ve es5mate would s5ll leave around 1000+ surfaces to unfold and construct.
The model was subdivided into strips not dissimilar to the arrangement of the original contours.
FABRICATION TRIAL #1.
An a[empt was made at unfolding
Taking a small sample of the front of the mode, the ﬁrst trial achieved reasonable success. The parts joined up. However the excess of acute triangles made the overal model appear messy.
The main advantage of tessella5on lies in its
provision of structural strength. The 5ghtly ﬁ[ed shapes, once ﬁ[ed together, becomes fairly immutable. This explains its wide usage in architecture and mural over all ages. 5.3 Yet despite its visual eﬀec5veness, this method may not be most suitable for my model. It was decided to redraw my model to explore the alterna5ve method of crea5ng cross-‐sec5ol ribs
An a[rac5on to the employment of sec5oned ribs is the ability to easily construct three-‐dimensional objects with two-‐dimensional component. This method is also structurally sound and has been employed in many successful architectural prac5ces (Fig. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)
FABRICATION TRIAL #2.
SO. Revised model was unfolded and labelled on SketchUp before cut by a cardcu[er. Decision was made to discard the use of the ivory card in favour of the 1mm cardboard for en5re model as the ivory card was simply too weak to hold the model.
The fabrica5on process made me aware of par5cular tooles – sharper blade – to use, par5cular labeling that would advance my design, extra cuts to make, and alterna5ve assembly processes.
Some structural changes were made, especially to rejoin the right-‐most sec5on (from front view) which was en5rely detached from the previous model.
FABRICATION TRIAL #3.
Minor details were added but they proved to detract from the model by being unnecessary embellishments.
Cross-‐sec5on ribs were discarded and a new model was drawn in an a[empt to follow the trajectory of
FABRICATION TRIAL #4.
again. the two snakes. The idea seemed appealing at ﬁrst but the construc5on process soon revealed that without the cross-‐sec5on ribs, it was near impossible for the parallel sec5ons to stay in place. The structure of the model as a whole was much weaker and this could be felt just by holding the model in one’s hand. Due to the inaccuracies of the sec5on, many parts also did not join.
My ﬁnal submission resembled model fabrica5on #2 mostly because the later altera5ons #3 and #4 not only did not completely
FINAL FABRICATION It was a happy coincidence that the slim frames of individual
contours should capture light and establish such strong contrast to the surrounding darkness. The ability for the frames to cast a shadow upon the adjacent opaque surfaces, meant that I could almost create a ‘shadow skin’ to make up for the cladding that was never achieved.
resolve exis5ng fabrica5on issues, but added more problems to the model’s structure.
REFLECTION. As a design precendent, I found the Webb Bridge by Denton Corker Marshall
(Fig. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4) to be extremely eﬀec5ve in achieving what I had originally set out to create. As the Webb Bridge was based on an indigenous ﬁshing basket, the curvilinear form and woven texture of the bridge meant that there were many similari5es in the construc5on outcome between my design, based on two ba[ling snakes, and snaking form of the bridge. I felt that the method in which the bridge was ribbed made it more structurally sound and its translucency throughout made the model much more consistent
Many of my design precedents displayed proper5es of amorphousness, mul5plicity and dual meaning and I felt that model was successful in conveying some of my ini5al explora5ons.
The most challenging part of Module 1, Engender, was to develop our design concept through constant experimenta5on as well as research. In the process of making prototypes, I found that even if a concept was ra5onally sound, its viability as an idea for a headpiece would rest largely on how successful the model prototypes would be. This is because ul5mately the headpiece must communicate to its audience and not rely on added explana5on to jus5fy its design.
In the development and fabrica5on process of Module 2, the most personally challenging task involved learning new soPware and understanding their advantages and limita5ons. It took me a li[le 5me to pick up my working speed as I found that the new design tools required an altered way of thinking and of planning. In this process, I learnt that many of the design techniques – tessella5on and sec5oning – are not new, although I was able to appreciate how advances in technology have allowed for greater ﬂexibility in exis5ng techniques and new direc5ons in design.
The fabrica5on process, Module 3, demonstrated how, as the paper model can be quite delicate, the physical assembly does not oPen allow for post-‐digital amendments. In my model, if slots were not made to be 1mm wide in the 3D model, then intersec5ng 1mm cardboards would not ﬁt together. From this I understood the importance of having a grasp for the material’s characteris5cs.
Another aspects of learning involved apprecia5ng the importance of documenta5on. This was carelessly done ini5ally and as a result, the ﬁrst presenta5ons suﬀered. From this error, I gained that both the designer and audience stood to gain from a be[er visual understanding of the fabrica5on process. As the weeks progressed, I also learnt how to make be[er quality screen-‐grabs as well as ensuring that the basic orthogonal viewpoints would be present to contrast any adjustments made to my model.
Ul5mately, the model is the product of a design brief, which must answer to the requirements of the client. From the ini5al monochrome un-‐annotated and un-‐cited powerpoint slides, to the colourful, typographically interes5ng and fully referenced presenta5on in the ﬁnal stages of presenta5on, many insights have been obtained about the importance of communica5on.
REFERENCE. 1.1 Daniel Crook. video installa5on ‘Sta*c No. 12' (2010) <h[p://www.dedeceblog.com/wp-‐ content/uploads/2010/05/New-‐Zealand-‐ar5st-‐ Daniel-‐Crook’s-‐video-‐‘Sta5c-‐No.-‐12-‐tai-‐chi-‐ forms’-‐2009-‐2010-‐captures-‐and-‐distorts-‐a-‐man-‐ performing-‐Tai-‐Chi.-‐440x368.jpg>
1.2 Kenneth Armitage. Friends Walking (1952) <h[p://www.seriousart.org/archive/ archive_images/gormley_images/armitage.jpg> 1.3 Henry Moore. Reclining Figure (1951) <h[p://www.anglonautes.com/ voc_arts_scul_1/voc_arts_scul_1_pic_white.jpg> 1.4 Bend <www.synap5cs5muli.com> 1.5 Antony Gormley. <h[p://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ia8cg_fsfA4/SsPEEMz_pvI/ AAAAAAAAAt8/uEZT2oxpruM/s400/antony_gormley_feelingmaterialxiv2005.jpg> 1.6 Rene MagriVe -‐ Ceci nest pas une pipe 1.7 Piero Manzoni -‐ BASE OF THE WORLD 1.8 Noma Bar -‐ Shy Guy 1.9 Anish Kapoor -‐ Un5tled 1.10 Christopher Niemann – Bio Diversity <h[p://graphics8.ny5mes.com/images/ blogs/niemann/posts/2009/11/19ﬁr.jpg> 1.11 Christopher Niemann – My Way h[p://graphics8.ny5mes.com/images/blogs/ niemann/posts/2010/03/21mi[en.jpg
2.1 Asymmetric chandelier from Dutch Design Week 2010 <dutch design week 2009 h[p-‐// sta5c.dezeen.com/uploads/2009/10/dzn_Eat-‐ Drink-‐Design-‐04.jpg> 2.3 Locust swarm 1 <h[p://t1.gsta5c.com/ images? q=tbn:ANd9GcQcxlwoIrX3RquNb0wIvsNdlosGnl7v hmFWK_ychzXiHgy90bw&t=1&usg=__AvdAM-‐ YUzdzT1jTBNT9ZDRem8dA=> 2.4 Locust swarm 2 <h[p://www.hemmy.net/ images/interes5ng/swarmtheory01.jpg> 2,5 Fish swarm <h[p://t3.gsta5c.com/images? q=tbn:ANd9GcRD_GOyconVwji4nq_eCytWhyJFF5 0aVw-‐uta8HOBkkRcG1SLI&t=1&usg=__BWTx-‐
2.6 Cai Guo Qiang. Inopportune: Stage One (2004) <h[p://www.hipyoungthing.com/wp-‐ content/uploads/2006/10/cai-‐guo-‐qiang.jpg> 2.7 Antony Gormley. Asian Field (2003) <h[p://www.seriousart.org/archive/ archive_images/gormley_images/Asian-‐Field-‐detail.jpg> 2.8 Maya Lin. <h[p://sfstreetbeauty.com/wp-‐content/uploads/2009/12/ image_large_975.jpg> 2.9 Christopher Niemann – I Lego N.Y. 3.1 Unknown Ar[st. Portrait of Queen Elizabeth I <h[p-‐//i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/mul5media/ archive/01590/snake_1590433f.jpg> 3.2 Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. Medusa <h[p-‐//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File-‐ Medusa_by_Carvaggio> 3.3 Gian Lorenzo Bernini. Sculpture of Medusa <h[p-‐// ewhamd.net/data/ﬁle/ehwa_album/ 1993967061_4308cbfe_Medusa-‐Bernini> 3.4 Peter Paul Rubens Medusa <h[p-‐// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File-‐Rubens_Medusa> 3.5 Medusa Rondanini. Sculpture by Medusa <h[p-‐// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File-‐ Rondanini_Medusa_Glyptothek_Munich_252_n1>
5.1 Reichstag, <h[p-‐// www.panoramafactory.com/ mul5row/par5al_h/reichstag.jpg> 5.2 Serpen[ne Pavillion, <h[p-‐// viewoncanadianart.com/wp-‐ content/uploads/2008/07/ serpen5ne.jpg> 5.3 PallazzeVo dello Sport, <h[p-‐//webhome.cs.uvic.ca/ 4.1 Federa[on Square, <h[p-‐// ~vanemden/mathart/nervi.jpg> commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File-‐Federa5on-‐square-‐ 6.1 Webb Bridge <h[p-‐// sandstone-‐façade> www.archicentral.com/wp-‐content/images/ 320-‐150x150.jpg> 4.2 Helios House, <h[p-‐//www.inqmnd.ca/blog/wp-‐ content/uploads/2010/07/ 6.2 Webb Bridge <h[p-‐//mw2.google.com/ retail_oﬃce_da_helios_house_lg_041.jpg> mw-‐panoramio/photos/medium/8747611.jpg> 6.3 Webb Bridge <h[p-‐// www.cultureandrecrea5on.gov.au/ar5cles/ urbanrenewal/images/webb-‐bridge.jpg> 6.4 Webb Bridge <h[p://l.yimg.com/ www.ﬂickr.com/images/spaceball>