Iterations towards Bare Bones By Marlena Verdugo Architectural Design Studio I Spring 2012
At the beginning of this series we were given the challenge of discovering the bare bones of our environment through our the designs we were going to create. We were given the choice of object to find the bare bones on, and thus ours series begins...
With my first iteration I became so focused creating and designing that I forgot that the point of the iteration was to create the bone of the structure and define the space in which the item inhabits. Though this iteration shows both creativity and eďŹ€ort the design falls sadly short of what was asked for the first iteration.
Iteration 2 Having failed in my first iteration to meet the stated criteria of a Bare Bones design, in the second I redirected my intentions towards a more structural based design. Unfortunately in an eﬀort to also ‘define space’ I made an attempt to define the space an elephant might exist in. What had been intended as an elephant in a circus tent became the unfortunate elephant in the room that was better oﬀ not talked about. Both stagnate and limited in scope and design this iteration met the criteria of Bare Bone only in the fundamentals.
Iteration 3 Bolstered with an idea for the 3rd iteration I dove into designing two interlocking trunks in a spiral configuration. Unfortunately I once again became overly focused on the idea and forgot during the design process that the focus was on the bone structure rather than the surfaces. Though interesting in design and that draws the eye to the center the small size of the design together with the enclosed external structure makes it both stagnate and confined. The added design flaw of symmetry just increases the fenced in feeling.
Iteration 4 Still focused on the idea of an elephant trunk my next endeavor created greater interest with the added component of movement. Unfortunately with the movement component added in the design lost structural integrity. The circles along the center axis create the suggestion of the physical form of the trunk yet because there are so few of them it is not something that is of immediate notice. Though obvious thought went into the design of the rotating joints the linear symmetrical design is unstable and creatively stagnate.
Iteration 5 My development of the trunk in the subsequent design did not involve moveable parts. By moving the circular discs closer together I was able to better give the impression of a surface area and the normally linear symmetry is oďŹ€set by the joints curving in an A-symmetrical design. However there is little visual interest in the piece as a whole and the flat discs make it enclosed despite the openness between each piece.
Iteration 6 With the intention of putting more structure into a movable design I created five solid pieces interlocked with one way joints rather than ball joints and replaced the solid circular panels with half and quarter circles segments. This created a more open feeling in the design while still giving the suggestion of a surface area through out the structure. The linear symmetrical design is rendered interesting by our ability to arrange the design in diďŹ€erent lateral forms. Yet the design is still stagnate when laid flat and holds little interest beyond how you can arrange it.
Iteration 7 My seventh iteration was an unfortunate step backwards. Wanting to bring more movement into my design I set about making my design into a maypole. The movement of the swing was lost in the size reduction and it was diďŹƒcult to weigh the rings evenly on the hanging strings.
Iteration 8 With the eighth iteration the challenge was to leave behind the initial inspiration for the design create based on the last two iterations. Since my seventh was a step backwards I looked at the strengths of the my sixth iteration and sought to develop and strengthen those ideas. The one thing that made my sixth design interesting was the way each section could intersect with the next. Using that I replaced the arcs and semi-circles with linear elements arranged in similar configurations with an circle or semi-circle placed at significant points to emphasize their shape. The added oblique angle jutting from one side make this dynamic piece a leap forward in design and craft.
The development from the last design came from a desire to retain a curvilinear focus and to simplify the lines. Unfortunately I went to far when simplifying the design and it became uninteresting, loosing the dynamic interaction of the intersecting lines of the previous iteration.
Iteration 10 My tenth iteration was a tremendous step backwards in my development, what was intended to bring interest to bring interest to the object made it stagnate and symmetrical. The only visual interest is that I inadvertently created an eye ball but from a design stand point there is little going on.
Iteration 11 The next development was a step forwards in design however the design was limited to two planes and both still held inherent symmetry. Though an open design it fails to define any space outside of the two planes and the symmetry leaves it feeling enclosed and stagnate. The design intent is there yet needs to be further development in order make it more dynamic.
Iteration 12 Â This last iteration was a leap forward in dynamic oblique angles and an a-symmetrical design. The absence of repeating elements fails to keep the eye involved yet the interlocking circle draws the eye upwards towards its penicale before drawing the eye back towards the center of the design. The addition of surfaces laid along the center spiral adds interest to the design but the lack of structural boning leaves the surfaces sagging in some places.
Further thoughtsâ€Ś In developing the next series of iterations I will need to remember to avoid stagnate symmetrical designs and getting caught in the ideas without completely developing and exploring them first. Repeating design elements that define space need to be incorporated along with oblique elements that draw the eye to the design without overpowering it. I also need to remember to avoid working in single planes while thoroughly defining the space within and without.