2009 MArchThesis Fogle

Generative Fabrication Justin T. Fogle

Master of Architecture Thesis 2009 Taubman College of Architecture + Urban Planning University of Michigan

Generative Fabrication Justin T. Fogle

Submitted on June 12, 2009 Perry Kulper - Primary Advisor Neal Robinson - Secondary Advisor

Presented at Liberty Lofts on April 29, 2009 Critics

Perry Kulper Mike Ferguson Peter Waldman Wes McGee Monica Ponce de Leon Joel Schmidt Claire Zimmerman

1

Generative Fabrication

“Design is a second order cybernetic system and Gordon Pask was first to stress the relevance of cybernetics to architectural design. Pask also introduced the notion that the architectural profession might start to use computers as surrogate architectural assistants. One final manoeuvre will indicate the flavour of a cybernetic theory. Let us turn the design paradigm in upon itself; let us apply it to the interaction between the designer and the system he designs, rather than the interaction between a system and the people who inhabit it. The glove fits, almost perfectly in the case when a designer uses a computer as his assistant. In other words, the relation “controller/controlled entity” is preserved when these omnibus words are replaced by “designer/system being designed” or by “ systematic environment/inhabitants” or by “urban plan/city”. But notice the trick, the designer is controlling the construction of control systems and consequently design is control of control, i.e. the designer does much the same job as his system, but he operates at a higher level in the organisation hierarchy.”

- Neil Spiller AVATAR website

2

3

Generative Fabrication negotiates between the increasing spread of parametric thinking, the relationship between the architectural drawing and its result, as well as the architect’s relationship to the computer as a tool and production machine. - - - - The ability to customize a mechanized process allows for the emergence of a machinic craft through rigorous iteration + re-iteration, making and re-making through the generative drawing, in which the drawing and the end product are merged. Throughout this project I attempted to uncover the inherent properties of an object’s fabrication, materiality + organization as well as try to close the relationship between drawing and end product. I sought to embed intelligences of a material into the production/fabrication/ construction of architectural form. Conflating the residue of the virtual drawing into the physical material + the residue of the material into the drawing. Through a parasitic capacitance of the Architectural Factory.

To fabricate is to construct by combining or assembling diverse parts, to invent a story. For the purposes of this thesis work it has been a combination of the two, the combining or folding of diverse ideational strategies on the one hand, stereotomy in relation to the parametric, biological references in relation to the factory and the interconnection between these and the computer. On the other hand the thesis work deals with the fictional, inventing a story if you will, regarding the production and operation of the Architectural Factory. Not that of the current relationships of pre-fabrication and the factory or even mass production/ mass customization, but one of the Architectural Factory’s relationship to the drawing itself as a feed back mechanism and operational structure that simultaneously operates at multiple modes, of physicality, representation and form. So while this writing may seem disjointed at times, there is a deliberate cause for this. This work is not meant to be smooth, that of a mono-material flowing from one state to the other, but a consolidation of pieces to represent a whole of organizational thinking, that of fabrication in all senses of the word.

“An adaptation is thus a feature of the organism which interacts operationally with some factor of its environment so that the individual survives and reproduces.” ( Bock + VonWholert, The Evolved Radio and Its Implications for Modeling the Evolution of Novel Sensors) There is a correspondence between the analogous structures of an organisms hyomandibular bone and how it has progressed from the bones of a fish gill (stereotomy), a breathing mechanism, to the bones of an amphibian jaw (pre-fabrication) a feeding mechanism, to the human ear (digital fabrica-

4

5

tion) a hearing mechanism. While stereotomy acts as a transfer mechanism, from drawing to form, this is a manual operation. The drawing (water) conveying a specific relationship of plan to section/elevation is converted to the usable unit of the stone block (oxygen). The water is still forced through and passed over the gills in the same way the drawing is forced into a physical manifestation of itself. At the same time losing a what it used to be. The drawing is often erased or destroyed through the production of the template for the making of the stone, stereotomy here operates as an analog for making/production of form, material in relation to the drawing.

Digital fabrication maintains this relationship to the drawing but the drawing evolves from that of direct translation by the hand to that of the instruction/input by the computer. The drawing remains intact as it is transferred through the computer to the material, similarly as sound remains unaltered by the ear but is transferred to the brain (material) through a different level of translation, one which uses the drawing for the production of space, but also maintains its original state.

Parasitic capacitance of the Architectural Factory involves, the parasitic feedback loop between the drawing, material, architect, site inputs, and computational system. The mechanism or machine operating as the new prosthetic hand of the architect, measuring/sensing/producing. The factory operates upon material inputs, making and remaking itself depending on specific material conditions. Adapting to change, in material, through sensing changes in texture, density, grain, color, hardness. Operating between states of virtuality and physicality, between the drawing and its physical manifestation.

“The photograph is produced mechanically. It is a product of repetition not a unique handmade artifact – that is, it is not an object of art as craft. The mechanical paradigm dealt with the shift in value from the individual hand (the hand of the painter as an original maker) to the value of the hand as intermediary (as in the developer of raw film); from the creation of an individual to have more contrast, more texture, more tone. Thus, with the mechanical repetition of a photograph there remains a unique, individual quality; it remains a particular object, even with the idea of the multiple.”

- Eisenman, Folding in Time – The Singularity of Rebstock.

The mechanical processes of producing a generative, fabri-

6

7

cated architecture, could be seen as similar to the way, as Eisenman states, the photographer (architect) acts as intermediary, between film (software), and the development of that film (fabrication process). The tools shift but the process is similar, a dimensional and spatial quality is developed. Generative production can produce any number of unlimited forms, but it is the architect who controls, guides, crafts, the output of the software, and thus can control, guide, and craft the output of the prefabrication process. “. . . to celebrate CNC for its ability to give us one of a kind customized variety is to celebrate an aspect without much intellectual or creative merit. It is important to imbue digital technologies with some creative and intellectual force that engages history or architectural problems and ambitions.”

- Greg Lynn, Introduction – Folding in Architecture Craft serves here as a method of operation, a way to gain specific knowledge of working. Craft becomes the application of knowledge of a way of working to create something that is more than just a machined object, but an object machined with intention. This can be applied directly to the parametric and generative and put in relation to the digitally fabricated. Craft as defined in Diderot’s Encyclopaedia -“CRAFT. This name is given to any profession that requires the use of the hands, and is limited to a certain number of mechanical operations, to produce that same piece of work, made over and over again.”

The use and development of the textile block by Wright, provides an early example of craft through fabrication. “Rather than produce a whole element to make a single unit, as in the monolithic casting of concrete, he (Wright) devised a system to reproduce the unit in multiples to make the whole. In doing this Wright faced the dilemma of creating mechanically in America the patterns that his unlimited Japanese labor force had cut by hand from oya.” (Frank Lloyd Wright: The Lost Years, 1910-1922, 295.) The textile block, moved from a hand craft, that of cutting stone to that of mechanical production, through this Wright achieves, a way to produce a customized architecture, an architecture that, through the customized production of a single unit allowed for difference within the built environment, not just of a material quality but of a productive quality.

Eisenman’s reference to the photograph as a reproducible

8

9

original that is then processed to produce difference allows for the parametric and the generative within the fabrication process. With the software/code as the original, multiples are produced. Code supplies the framework, through which the drawing is produced. While the structure of the code remains the same it generates variation within similarity. The use of codes by architects is not new, but what happens when code (computer language) and not codes (building) are used to inform, generate and produce, singularities emerge within a structure of sameness. “For singularity does not mean that a thing is simply unique.

Singularity refers to the possibility in a repetition or a multiple for one copy to be different from another copy.” (Eisenman, 40). While Wright generates difference within a field, the field remains the same it is only the differentiation of texture that produces difference. The sculpture and continua screens of Erwin Hauer, on the other hand, are produced through a similar process of casting process of single units, but it is the geometry of the screen which allows for multiple readings and effects to be produced. As with Wright, Hauer produces a process which opens up a customized production of elements, but it is the relationship of the viewer/occupant to the piece that causes variability throughout the screen. The piece reads as though it is continually changing, instead of simply moving along a trajectory. “ It is easy to appreciate intuitively that any rigid object will propagate a variety of possible images of itself in space, that these will alter by continuous deformation, not by fits + starts, and that while there can be no fundamental image, we would nevertheless expect to recognize some kind of permanent identity, from several such images. It is equally easy to appreciate intuitively that the images of this rigid object are elastic” - Robin Evans - The Projective Cast Through current digital practices (parametric, generative), the architect’s hand can become conflated with the computer. The camera revolutionized the way the world was represented and recorded. If the camera can be thought of as a merging of machine and eye to produce art. The computer can be thought of as the merging of machine and hand or more importantly the machine and the mind. The computer will not operate on its own without instruction. Thus there is always a certain level of control even in automated processes. This brings me back to the

10

11

generative drawing. The generative can be thought of as a productive operation, with drawings generated from a specific structure, based upon specific parameters controlled by the designer. Once this structure is in place the “program “can be run to generate an unlimited number of drawings each of which display specific characteristics but are all variations within a set.

“The architect and the architectural drawing are twins. Interdependent, they are representative of the same idea- that architecture results not from the accumulated knowledge of a team of anonymous crafts people working together on a construction site, but is the artistic creation of an individual architect in command of drawing who designs a building as a whole at a remove from construction. From the 15th Century to the 21st century, the architect has made drawings, models and texts – not buildings” - Jonathan Hill – Building the Drawing The generative drawing as a means of production allows for the ability to produce continuous variation through code and repetition, another form of craft. This iterative process allows specified variability to emerge through production of similarity, but the generative drawing can have another meaning, that of a drawing that generates what it represents. The drawing of material though a die allows the drawing of a gasket or aluminum frame to transform from a representation, to become productive. Material acting as the medium upon which a drawing is generated, moves toward a non-representational mode in which the drawing and material are fused, the drawing is the object/the object is the drawing. This allows for a link between material and drawing, in which the material is not coded within the drawing but is part of the drawing. Architectural drawings are typically immaterial, not actually representing the material itself but a coded likeness. When the drawing and material are fused a new relationship can emerge. Material drawing as spatial articulation, a registration of the drawing within the frame of material to produce space. Drawing producing that which it represents.

The size of the firm in the near future may consist of one architect – communicating with a machine, with direct control of the output available to them. As opposed to a chain of command through which the information travels, from architect - drafter - project manager – construction manager – contractor – sub-contractor. This new chain of

12

13

command may be more direct. Architect to Machine. This in one sense allows the architect a direct link to the making of form. The architect is drawing what he is making. There is a direct relationship of material, drawing and production. The architect returning to craft.

“Although centered on the individual, this process typifies a space/time cell of society’s evolution. The artisan’s role in that society is epitomized by the object produced. That object – because it inevitably carries meaning – will contain all of the advancements and contradictions manifested in the society of which it is a product, speaking to the relationships among its members and in turn, the relationship of those individuals to the environment they occupy.”

- Guissepi Zambonini – Notes on a Theory of Making in a Time of Necessity The stereotomic drawing operates as an analog computer to aid the stone cutter in the production/fabrication of each individual stone in a vault. Through projective techniques the stone cutter can glean the form of a specific block based upon basic input information, plan/ section/elevation. The stone cutter not only computes the form for the block but through the stereotomic drawing, produces precise templates or traits for cutting the specific block.”Traits were layout drawings used to enable the precise cutting of component masonry blocks for complex architectural forms, especially vaults. Thereby the accurate fabrication of parts could be achieved prior to construction” (Robin Evans, The Projective Cast) These drawings typically drawn at one to one, directly generates the form of the arch or vault. This relationship between the drawing, material, and processes used to generate from are key to the fabrication of the thesis. With the computer acting as an aid to the architect to generate specified variability in production of arch form, the drawing operates as a productive engine in terms of a generative structure. Generative in the sense that there is a more direct relationship between the drawing and the physical manifestation of the work, through topological feedback systems between the drawing and the final output.

The digitized drawing is a mechanism for architectural production, filling the gap between the conceptual space of the drawing and the physical space of the building in relation to the parametric digitally fabricated project. This relationship between drawing, machine and architect allows the project to operate at three relational levels, produc-

14

15

tive/generative, operative and analogic.

Productive in the sense that there is a direct relationship to the drawing and the units/output produced. Operative in the sense that I was working towards running the centuries old practice of stereotomy in relation to current digital practices. Analogic in the sense that stereotomic trait acts as an early architectural factory on one hand, on the other in the way in which the programmatic aspects of the architectural factory.

That of a drawing system Which produces, operates and is the form of the final output. While stereotomy is still divorced from the final out come of the from, the intention with the Architectural Factory is that it Operates at multiple levels, physical and virtual, material and digital simultaneously.

It became necessary to completely understand the how stereotomy operates, as a mechanism for production, how to technically practice the process and its spatial relationships within the drawing itself. The stereotomic drawing makes use of multiple modes of drawing, representation to create a virtual folding in order to produce an actual folded organization (the template), which then produces the actual form. Using this technique as a recipe for the production of work and the operation of the Architectural Factory there is a reciprocal nature between the drawing + production which I employ.

“When Japanese priests go searching for stones to include in their gardens, they sort through hundreds of pieces formed by the same impersonal process of folding and mixing but displaying different characteristics. All stones are formed by a consistent and rigorous process, but that process alone in no way guarantees the significance of any one stone. While stones are not formed by explicit human will, impersonal individuation like folded rocks also have a style. The gardeners, not satisfied by just any stone, search for the most salient or intense piece” - Reiser + Umemoto – Atlas of Novel Tectonics This is where the craft of the parametric/generative comes into play. The computer allows the designer the freedom of choice, to select among the most fit to further develop. This process of selection is still at the designer’s discretion. Specific elements/qualities are worked, refined, honed through iteration. It is not just knowledge of tools that the craftsman applies to a material but the knowledge of the effects of a tool on a material that the craftsman employs. This knowledge is learned

16

GENERATIVE FABRICATION

Design is a second order cybernetic system and Gordon Pask was first to stress the relevance of cybernetics to architectural design. Pask also introduced the notion that the architectural profession might start to use computers as surrogate architectural assistants. 'One final manoeuvre will indicate the flavour of a cybernetic theory. Let us turn the design paradigm in upon itself; let us apply it to the interaction between the designer and the system he designs, rather than the interaction between a system and the people who inhabit it. The glove fits, almost perfectly in the case when a designer uses a computer as his assistant. In other words, the relation "controller/controlled entity" is preserved when these omnibus words are replaced by "designer/system being designed" or by " systematic environment/inhabitants" or by "urban plan/city". But notice the trick, the designer is controlling the construction of control systems and consequently design is control of control, i.e. the designer does much the same job as his system, but he operates at a higher level in the organisation hierarchy.' - Neil Spiller - AVATAR Website

a.

position monitor 18” to 24” away (approximately arm’s length) and about 15 to 30 below your line of site

b.

do not let light shine in your eyes or on the screen

c.

square screen to your line of vision

d. id: DEBECA08-2701-486d-A8D5-1B5300EA6D34 layer index: 3 render material index: -1 (from layer) groups: 5 ON_Brep: surfaces: 3 3d curve: 3 2d curves: 6 vertices: 2 edges: 3 trims: 6 loops: 3 faces: 3 curve2d[ 0]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,0.77) start(0,-0.1309) end(0.77,-0.1309) curve2d[ 1]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-0.1309,0) start(0.77,-0.1309) end(0.77,0) curve2d[ 2]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,0.77) start(0.77,0) end(0,0) curve2d[ 3]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-0.1309,0) start(0,0) end(0,-0.1309) curve2d[ 4]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,0.1309) start(0.0208333,-7.11237e-16) end(0.0208333,-7.11237e-16) curve2d[ 5]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,0.1309) start(0.0208333,-7.07767e-16) end(0.0208333,-7.07767e-16) curve3d[ 0]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,0.77) start(-111.948,42.9904,-8.43389) end(-112.491,42.9904,-8.97946) curve3d[ 1]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-0.1309,0) start(-112.491,42.9904,-8.97946) end(-112.491,42.9904,-8.97946) curve3d[ 2]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-0,0.1309) start(-111.948,42.9904,-8.43389) end(-111.948,42.9904,-8.43389) surface[ 0]: TL_NurbsSurface u(0,0.77) v(-0.1309,0) surface[ 1]: ON_PlaneSurface u(-0.0208333,0.0208333) v(-0.0208333,0.0208333) surface[ 2]: ON_PlaneSurface u(-0.0208333,0.0208333) v(-0.0208333,0.0208333) vertex[ 0]: (-111.947760 42.990352 -8.433886) tolerance(0) edges (0,2,2) vertex[ 1]: (-112.491127 42.990352 -8.979461) tolerance(0) edges (0,1,1) edge[ 0]: v0( 0) v1( 1) 3d_curve(0) tolerance(0) domain(0,0.77) start(-111.948,42.9904,-8.43389) end(-112.491,42.9904,-8.97946) trims (+0,-2) edge[ 1]: v0( 1) v1( 1) 3d_curve(1) tolerance(0) domain(-0.1309,0) start(-112.491,42.9904,-8.97946) end(-112.491,42.9904,-8.97946) trims (+1,-5) edge[ 2]: v0( 0) v1( 0) 3d_curve(2) tolerance(0) domain(-0,0.1309) start(-111.948,42.9904,-8.43389) end(-111.948,42.9904,-8.43389) trims (+3,+4) face[ 0]: surface(0) reverse(0) loops(0) Render mesh: 96 polygons (Face geometry is the same as underlying surface.) loop[ 0]: type(outer) 4 trims(0,1,2,3) trim[ 0]: edge( 0) v0( 0) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(seam -south side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(0) domain(0,0.77) start(0,-0.1309) end(0.77,-0.1309) surface points start(-111.948,42.9904,-8.43389) end(-112.491,42.9904,-8.97946) trim[ 1]: edge( 1) v0( 1) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(mated -east side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(1) domain(-0.1309,0) start(0.77,-0.1309) end(0.77,0) surface points start(-112.491,42.9904,-8.97946) end(-112.491,42.9904,-8.97946) trim[ 2]: edge( 0) v0( 1) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(seam -north side iso) rev3d(1) 2d_curve(2) domain(0,0.77) start(0.77,0) end(0,0) surface points start(-112.491,42.9904,-8.97946) end(-111.948,42.9904,-8.43389) trim[ 3]: edge( 2) v0( 0) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(mated -west side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(3) domain(-0.1309,0) start(0,0) end(0,-0.1309) surface points start(-111.948,42.9904,-8.43389) end(-111.948,42.9904,-8.43389) face[ 1]: surface(1) reverse(1) loops(1) Render mesh: 14 polygons loop[ 1]: type(outer) 1 trims(4) trim[ 4]: edge( 2) v0( 0) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(mated ) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(4) domain(0,0.1309) start(0.0208333,-7.11237e-16) end(0.0208333,-7.11237e-16) surface points start(-111.948,42.9904,-8.43389) end(-111.948,42.9904,-8.43389) face[ 2]: surface(2) reverse(0) loops(2) Render mesh: 14 polygons loop[ 2]: type(outer) 1 trims(5) trim[ 5]: edge( 1) v0( 1) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(mated ) rev3d(1) 2d_curve(5) domain(0,0.1309) start(0.0208333,-7.07767e-16) end(0.0208333,-7.07767e-16) surface points start(-112.491,42.9904,-8.97946) end(-112.491,42.9904,-8.97946)

id: 8B80AE11-E7E0-438e-899F-F210C4F081C5 layer index: 3 render material index: -1 (from layer) groups: 5 ON_Brep: (B-rep geometry is the same as underlying surface.) surfaces: 1 3d curve: 1 2d curves: 4 vertices: 2 edges: 1 trims: 4 loops: 1 faces: 1 curve2d[ 0]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,6.28319) start(0,-1.5708) end(6.28319,-1.5708) curve2d[ 1]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(6.28319,-1.5708) end(6.28319,1.5708) curve2d[ 2]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,6.28319) start(6.28319,1.5708) end(0,1.5708) curve2d[ 3]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(0,1.5708) end(0,-1.5708) curve3d[ 0]: ON_ArcCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(-111.771,43.0529,-8.94687) end(-111.771,42.9695,-8.94687) surface[ 0]: TL_RevSurface u(0,6.28319) v(-1.5708,1.5708) surface details: class name: TL_RevSurface class uuid: 0A8401B6-4D34-4b99-8615-1B4E723DC4E5 Paramerization: (angle,curve) Axis: (-111.77107906403074, 43.011185822050308, -8.9468733146686912) to (-111.77107906403074, 42.011185822050308, -8.9468733146686912) Rotation angle: 0 to 6.28319 radians.

Angle evaluation parameter interval: [0,6.28319].

Revolute: ON_ArcCurve: domain = [-1.5708,1.5708] center = (-111.77107906403074, 43.011185822050308, -8.9468733146686912) radius = 0.0416667 length = 0.1309 vertex[ 0]: (-111.771079 43.052852 -8.946873) tolerance(0) edges (0) vertex[ 1]: (-111.771079 42.969519 -8.946873) tolerance(0) edges (0) edge[ 0]: v0( 0) v1( 1) 3d_curve(0) tolerance(0) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(-111.771,43.0529,-8.94687) end(-111.771,42.9695,-8.94687) trims (+1,-3) face[ 0]: surface(0) reverse(0) loops(0) Render mesh: 128 polygons (Face geometry is the same as underlying surface.) loop[ 0]: type(outer) 4 trims(0,1,2,3) trim[ 0]: edge(-1) v0( 0) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(singular-south side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(0) domain(0,6.28319) start(0,-1.5708) end(6.28319,-1.5708) surface points start(-111.771,43.0529,-8.94687) end(-111.771,43.0529,-8.94687) trim[ 1]: edge( 0) v0( 0) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(seam -east side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(1) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(6.28319,-1.5708) end(6.28319,1.5708) surface points start(-111.771,43.0529,-8.94687) end(-111.771,42.9695,-8.94687) trim[ 2]: edge(-1) v0( 1) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(singular-north side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(2) domain(0,6.28319) start(6.28319,1.5708) end(0,1.5708) surface points start(-111.771,42.9695,-8.94687) end(-111.771,42.9695,-8.94687) trim[ 3]: edge( 0) v0( 1) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(seam -west side iso) rev3d(1) 2d_curve(3) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(0,1.5708) end(0,-1.5708) surface points start(-111.771,42.9695,-8.94687) end(-111.771,43.0529,-8.94687)

forearms 90 from your spine

e.

thighs 90 from your spine

f.

use a well made adjustable office chair, preferably with padded adjustable arms

g.

use a wrist pad to support your hands when not typing

h.

feet flat on the floor

THE ARCHITECT / OPERATOR DEUS EX MACHINA maintains system equilibrium

SCRIBE MECHANISM

numeric control device information synapse

id: BCC0C579-1D10-41c9-BFEA-7C11FD38EF1A layer index: 3 render material index: -1 (from layer) groups: 5 ON_Brep: (B-rep geometry is the same as underlying surface.) surfaces: 1 3d curve: 1 2d curves: 4 vertices: 2 edges: 1 trims: 4 loops: 1 faces: 1 curve2d[ 0]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,6.28319) start(0,-1.5708) end(6.28319,-1.5708) curve2d[ 1]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(6.28319,-1.5708) end(6.28319,1.5708) curve2d[ 2]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,6.28319) start(6.28319,1.5708) end(0,1.5708) curve2d[ 3]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(0,1.5708) end(0,-1.5708) curve3d[ 0]: ON_ArcCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(-108.82,43.0529,-9.43061) end(-108.82,42.9695,-9.43061) surface[ 0]: TL_RevSurface u(0,6.28319) v(-1.5708,1.5708) surface details: class name: TL_RevSurface class uuid: 0A8401B6-4D34-4b99-8615-1B4E723DC4E5 Paramerization: (angle,curve) Axis: (-108.8202160766828, 43.011185822050308, -9.430613244790905) to (-108.8202160766828, 42.011185822050308, -9.430613244790905) Rotation angle: 0 to 6.28319 radians.

Angle evaluation parameter interval: [0,6.28319].

Revolute: ON_ArcCurve: domain = [-1.5708,1.5708] center = (-108.8202160766828, 43.011185822050308, -9.430613244790905) radius = 0.0416667 length = 0.1309 vertex[ 0]: (-108.820216 43.052852 -9.430613) tolerance(0) edges (0) vertex[ 1]: (-108.820216 42.969519 -9.430613) tolerance(0) edges (0) edge[ 0]: v0( 0) v1( 1) 3d_curve(0) tolerance(0) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(-108.82,43.0529,-9.43061) end(-108.82,42.9695,-9.43061) trims (+1,-3) face[ 0]: surface(0) reverse(0) loops(0) Render mesh: 128 polygons (Face geometry is the same as underlying surface.) loop[ 0]: type(outer) 4 trims(0,1,2,3) trim[ 0]: edge(-1) v0( 0) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(singular-south side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(0) domain(0,6.28319) start(0,-1.5708) end(6.28319,-1.5708) surface points start(-108.82,43.0529,-9.43061) end(-108.82,43.0529,-9.43061) trim[ 1]: edge( 0) v0( 0) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(seam -east side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(1) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(6.28319,-1.5708) end(6.28319,1.5708) surface points start(-108.82,43.0529,-9.43061) end(-108.82,42.9695,-9.43061) trim[ 2]: edge(-1) v0( 1) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(singular-north side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(2) domain(0,6.28319) start(6.28319,1.5708) end(0,1.5708) surface points start(-108.82,42.9695,-9.43061) end(-108.82,42.9695,-9.43061) trim[ 3]: edge( 0) v0( 1) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(seam -west side iso) rev3d(1) 2d_curve(3) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(0,1.5708) end(0,-1.5708) surface points start(-108.82,42.9695,-9.43061) end(-108.82,43.0529,-9.43061)

id: 8C7EC647-EB1B-4362-B6BC-1C5CB79C4B5B layer index: 3 render material index: -1 (from layer) groups: 5 ON_Brep: (B-rep geometry is the same as underlying surface.) surfaces: 1 3d curve: 1 2d curves: 4 vertices: 2 edges: 1 trims: 4 loops: 1 faces: 1 curve2d[ 0]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,6.28319) start(0,-1.5708) end(6.28319,-1.5708) curve2d[ 1]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(6.28319,-1.5708) end(6.28319,1.5708) curve2d[ 2]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,6.28319) start(6.28319,1.5708) end(0,1.5708) curve2d[ 3]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(0,1.5708) end(0,-1.5708) curve3d[ 0]: ON_ArcCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(-111.948,43.0529,-8.43389) end(-111.948,42.9695,-8.43389) surface[ 0]: TL_RevSurface u(0,6.28319) v(-1.5708,1.5708) surface details: class name: TL_RevSurface class uuid: 0A8401B6-4D34-4b99-8615-1B4E723DC4E5 Paramerization: (angle,curve) Axis: (-111.94776016506381, 43.011185822050308, -8.4338859775309079) to (-111.94776016506381, 42.011185822050308, -8.4338859775309079) Rotation angle: 0 to 6.28319 radians.

Angle evaluation parameter interval: [0,6.28319].

Revolute: ON_ArcCurve: domain = [-1.5708,1.5708] center = (-111.94776016506381, 43.011185822050308, -8.4338859775309079) radius = 0.0416667 length = 0.1309 vertex[ 0]: (-111.947760 43.052852 -8.433886) tolerance(0) edges (0) vertex[ 1]: (-111.947760 42.969519 -8.433886) tolerance(0) edges (0) edge[ 0]: v0( 0) v1( 1) 3d_curve(0) tolerance(0) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(-111.948,43.0529,-8.43389) end(-111.948,42.9695,-8.43389) trims (+1,-3) face[ 0]: surface(0) reverse(0) loops(0) Render mesh: 128 polygons (Face geometry is the same as underlying surface.) loop[ 0]: type(outer) 4 trims(0,1,2,3) trim[ 0]: edge(-1) v0( 0) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(singular-south side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(0) domain(0,6.28319) start(0,-1.5708) end(6.28319,-1.5708) surface points start(-111.948,43.0529,-8.43389) end(-111.948,43.0529,-8.43389) trim[ 1]: edge( 0) v0( 0) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(seam -east side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(1) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(6.28319,-1.5708) end(6.28319,1.5708) surface points start(-111.948,43.0529,-8.43389) end(-111.948,42.9695,-8.43389) trim[ 2]: edge(-1) v0( 1) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(singular-north side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(2) domain(0,6.28319) start(6.28319,1.5708) end(0,1.5708) surface points start(-111.948,42.9695,-8.43389) end(-111.948,42.9695,-8.43389) trim[ 3]: edge( 0) v0( 1) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(seam -west side iso) rev3d(1) 2d_curve(3) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(0,1.5708) end(0,-1.5708) surface points start(-111.948,42.9695,-8.43389) end(-111.948,43.0529,-8.43389)

piston tempered steel arm reinforced joint phase shift surface

id: FB3D3891-ACAB-477d-9088-8C5D0C673197 layer index: 3 render material index: -1 (from layer) groups: 5 ON_Brep: (B-rep geometry is the same as underlying surface.) surfaces: 1 3d curve: 1 2d curves: 4 vertices: 2 edges: 1 trims: 4 loops: 1 faces: 1 curve2d[ 0]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,6.28319) start(0,-1.5708) end(6.28319,-1.5708) curve2d[ 1]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(6.28319,-1.5708) end(6.28319,1.5708) curve2d[ 2]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,6.28319) start(6.28319,1.5708) end(0,1.5708) curve2d[ 3]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(0,1.5708) end(0,-1.5708) curve3d[ 0]: ON_ArcCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(-113.589,43.0529,-8.43389) end(-113.589,42.9695,-8.43389) surface[ 0]: TL_RevSurface u(0,6.28319) v(-1.5708,1.5708) surface details: class name: TL_RevSurface class uuid: 0A8401B6-4D34-4b99-8615-1B4E723DC4E5 Paramerization: (angle,curve) Axis: (-113.58856626058953, 43.011185822050308, -8.4338859775309132) to (-113.58856626058953, 42.011185822050308, -8.4338859775309132) Rotation angle: 0 to 6.28319 radians.

Angle evaluation parameter interval: [0,6.28319].

Revolute: ON_ArcCurve: domain = [-1.5708,1.5708] center = (-113.58856626058953, 43.011185822050308, -8.4338859775309132) radius = 0.0416667 length = 0.1309 vertex[ 0]: (-113.588566 43.052852 -8.433886) tolerance(0) edges (0) vertex[ 1]: (-113.588566 42.969519 -8.433886) tolerance(0) edges (0) edge[ 0]: v0( 0) v1( 1) 3d_curve(0) tolerance(0) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(-113.589,43.0529,-8.43389) end(-113.589,42.9695,-8.43389) trims (+1,-3) face[ 0]: surface(0) reverse(0) loops(0) Render mesh: 128 polygons (Face geometry is the same as underlying surface.) loop[ 0]: type(outer) 4 trims(0,1,2,3) trim[ 0]: edge(-1) v0( 0) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(singular-south side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(0) domain(0,6.28319) start(0,-1.5708) end(6.28319,-1.5708) surface points start(-113.589,43.0529,-8.43389) end(-113.589,43.0529,-8.43389) trim[ 1]: edge( 0) v0( 0) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(seam -east side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(1) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(6.28319,-1.5708) end(6.28319,1.5708) surface points start(-113.589,43.0529,-8.43389) end(-113.589,42.9695,-8.43389) trim[ 2]: edge(-1) v0( 1) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(singular-north side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(2) domain(0,6.28319) start(6.28319,1.5708) end(0,1.5708) surface points start(-113.589,42.9695,-8.43389) end(-113.589,42.9695,-8.43389) trim[ 3]: edge( 0) v0( 1) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(seam -west side iso) rev3d(1) 2d_curve(3) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(0,1.5708) end(0,-1.5708) surface points start(-113.589,42.9695,-8.43389) end(-113.589,43.0529,-8.43389)

id: 562746BF-109D-4077-B67F-8079B92FE4C8 layer index: 3 render material index: -1 (from layer) groups: 5 ON_Brep: (B-rep geometry is the same as underlying surface.) surfaces: 1 3d curve: 1 2d curves: 4 vertices: 2 edges: 1 trims: 4 loops: 1 faces: 1 curve2d[ 0]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,6.28319) start(0,-1.5708) end(6.28319,-1.5708) curve2d[ 1]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(6.28319,-1.5708) end(6.28319,1.5708) curve2d[ 2]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,6.28319) start(6.28319,1.5708) end(0,1.5708) curve2d[ 3]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(0,1.5708) end(0,-1.5708) curve3d[ 0]: ON_ArcCurve domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(-112.491,43.0529,-8.97946) end(-112.491,42.9695,-8.97946) surface[ 0]: TL_RevSurface u(0,6.28319) v(-1.5708,1.5708) surface details: class name: TL_RevSurface class uuid: 0A8401B6-4D34-4b99-8615-1B4E723DC4E5 Paramerization: (angle,curve) Axis: (-112.4911267955458, 43.011185822050308, -8.9794614154538781) to (-112.4911267955458, 42.011185822050308, -8.9794614154538781) Rotation angle: 0 to 6.28319 radians.

Angle evaluation parameter interval: [0,6.28319].

Revolute: ON_ArcCurve: domain = [-1.5708,1.5708] center = (-112.4911267955458, 43.011185822050308, -8.9794614154538781) radius = 0.0416667 length = 0.1309 vertex[ 0]: (-112.491127 43.052852 -8.979461) tolerance(0) edges (0) vertex[ 1]: (-112.491127 42.969519 -8.979461) tolerance(0) edges (0) edge[ 0]: v0( 0) v1( 1) 3d_curve(0) tolerance(0) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(-112.491,43.0529,-8.97946) end(-112.491,42.9695,-8.97946) trims (+1,-3) face[ 0]: surface(0) reverse(0) loops(0) Render mesh: 128 polygons (Face geometry is the same as underlying surface.) loop[ 0]: type(outer) 4 trims(0,1,2,3) trim[ 0]: edge(-1) v0( 0) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(singular-south side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(0) domain(0,6.28319) start(0,-1.5708) end(6.28319,-1.5708) surface points start(-112.491,43.0529,-8.97946) end(-112.491,43.0529,-8.97946) trim[ 1]: edge( 0) v0( 0) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(seam -east side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(1) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(6.28319,-1.5708) end(6.28319,1.5708) surface points start(-112.491,43.0529,-8.97946) end(-112.491,42.9695,-8.97946) trim[ 2]: edge(-1) v0( 1) v1( 1) tolerance(0,0) type(singular-north side iso) rev3d(0) 2d_curve(2) domain(0,6.28319) start(6.28319,1.5708) end(0,1.5708) surface points start(-112.491,42.9695,-8.97946) end(-112.491,42.9695,-8.97946) trim[ 3]: edge( 0) v0( 1) v1( 0) tolerance(0,0) type(seam -west side iso) rev3d(1) 2d_curve(3) domain(-1.5708,1.5708) start(0,1.5708) end(0,-1.5708) surface points start(-112.491,42.9695,-8.97946) end(-112.491,43.0529,-8.97946)

id: 1ADB86C0-8654-4f5c-9022-50F8A712D209 layer index: 3 render material index: -1 (from layer) groups: 5 ON_Brep: surfaces: 3 3d curve: 3 2d curves: 6 vertices: 2 edges: 3 trims: 6 loops: 3 faces: 3 curve2d[ 0]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,0.518595) start(0,-0.1309) end(0.518595,-0.1309) curve2d[ 1]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-0.1309,0) start(0.518595,-0.1309) end(0.518595,0) curve2d[ 2]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,0.518595) start(0.518595,0) end(0,0) curve2d[ 3]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-0.1309,0) start(0,0) end(0,-0.1309) curve2d[ 4]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,0.1309) start(0.0208333,1.33227e-15) end(0.0208333,1.33227e-15) curve2d[ 5]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,0.1309) start(0.0208333,1.32533e-15) end(0.0208333,1.32533e-15) curve3d[ 0]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(0,0.518595) start(-111.958,42.9904,-9.43061) end(-111.771,42.9904,-8.94687) curve3d[ 1]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-0.1309,0) start(-111.771,42.9904,-8.94687) end(-111.771,42.9904,-8.94687) curve3d[ 2]: TL_NurbsCurve domain(-0,0.1309) start(-111.958,42.9904,-9.43061) end(-111.958,42.9904,-9.43061) surface[ 0]: TL_NurbsSurface u(0,0.518595) v(-0.1309,0) surface[ 1]: ON_PlaneSurface u(-0.0208333,0.0208333) v(-0.0208333,0.0208333) surface[ 2]: ON_PlaneSurface u(-0.0208333,0.0208333) v(-0.0208333,0.0208333) vertex[ 0]: (-111.957992 42.990352 -9.430613) tolerance(0) edges (0,2,2) vertex[ 1]: (-111.771079 42.990352 -8.946873) tolerance(0) edges (0,1,1) edge[ 0]: v0( 0) v1( 1) 3d_curve(0) tolerance(0) domain(0,0.518595) start(-111.958,42.9904,-9.43061) end(-111.771,42.9904,-8.94687) trims (+0,-2) edge[ 1]: v0( 1) v1( 1) 3d_curve(1) tolerance(0) domain(-0.1309,0) start(-111.771,42.9904,-8.94687) end(-111.771,42.9904,-8.94687) trims (+1,-5) edge[ 2]: v0( 0) v1( 0) 3d_curve(2) tolerance(0) domain(-0 0 1309) start(-111 958 42 9904 -9 43061) end(-111 958 42 9904 -9 43061)

drawing head sensing apparatus material information receptor

THE MECHANISM / PROSTHETIC HAND OF THE ARCHITECT senses and crafts material configurations

THE OUTPUT / REFINED MACHINIIC CRAFT ------

17

through making, working, practicing.

Fabrication and the parametric - expediation and efficiency of construction on one hand coupled with precise specified variability on the other. It is not enough to simply employ both tactics, but though practice/craft that one learns their skill, what it allows, what it denies.

Iteration affords the parametric closer development/visualization of end product. When applied to fabrication allows for singularities among a continuum to occur. This is not better or worse than current technologies/ practices, but merely different than applications to similar problems, What it does allow is an acceleration of decision making. It is not enough for an automobile to produce any form of a body by making every part variable, this makes for unnecessary waste. Some versions may be more or less fuel efficient, some may be more or less disproportionate. If an infinite variability results from the selection of the best performing, most fuel efficient, safest, etc. (any variable could be applied as a constraint) a smoother variation between will occur, allowing for difference and similarity, infinite variation within a specific range. Intelligent design as opposed to random selection.

The automobile is prefabrication for the masses, an object/ product that captures the imagination of the public. The pre-designed object placed into the environment. But there is still something missing from the production of the car. It is still dealing with 20th century production methods. With the failure of the prefabricated Lustron Home, and the American auto industry faltering, these modes of production are quickly becoming outmoded. By testing the potentials of the generative, and the variable, I hope to engage with the often failed potential of architectural pre-fabrication.

The design of a sameness of structure that allows for the emergence of new possibilities. Through a consistent structure, the script, the artist produces infinite variety. The designer produces the script for the object/user to follow, though; through customization the end result is undetermined. Form and use remain the same, quality, effect, and material relationships are altered. The altered state of the end product is not necessarily implied by the base condition.

Through the use of iterative processes the Architectural Factory’s production of an object/architecture, operates at different scales.

Through a process of iteration in which the generative drawing and fabrication will merge, to produce objects that are represented – produced by – and are the Architectural Factory. The Object of production will be

18

19

that which acts upon the Architectural Factory, through feedback loops of production and refinement new relationships are explored. Output inflects input, input conforms to output. In the initial stages of the work the inputs (the specific site of the factory) were mapped into parametric form and generative drawing, based on steel production processes existing at the site.

Through this process of iteration and re-iteration, I developed methods of working which allowed me to practice architecture and develop methods of future practice. This is imperative to the refinement of form and to the crafting of an object or architecture that is made and remade to discover the inherent properties of its manufacture, material properties and implications. Initial production began with the site and its processes “coded” through a series of generative drawings. A parametric coding of specific material production processes. While the initial drawings are not encompassed in this book the thinking about the making of those drawings remained critical to the work as a way to embed material relationships and site conditions into the output of form. “ . . . Information from outside the system will pass to the inside.

The effects of this simple operation are actually very complex: the outside of the system becomes slightly depleted in the process and transformed in its capacities and potential energies; the operation affects the inside by perturbing its flows ever so much away from their equilibrium or attractors “priming” the system for potentially creative disturbances (morphogenesis). It also carries energy of information from inside the system to outside, providing the same effects now in reverse.”

- Sanford Kwinter – Landscapes of Change - Assemblage 19 Site and program operated in a dualistic way, one being related to and dependent upon the other, allowing a topological relationship between site and program to come into play. The site operated as a stand in for the articulation of the work, and was generalized specific.

Specifically sited but generally located. The Specific Site being that of a factory, Worthington Industries, Steel division, Delta, Ohio. The specific site was where the project developed. The specificity of the site allowed for changes and mutations to take place at a larger scale in terms of a general site “The Factory”. This general site could occupy any factory; meaning that any factory could be the input. Changing the input, changes the Architectural Factory. The Architectural Factory is

20

21

meant to re-purpose, re-fit, re-interpret, re-tool, and re-inhabit the factory of the industrial revolution. The output of the architectural factory will act upon its generator. In that the development of the output will alter the input factory, the architecture of the factory input thus changes with every generation of the output. This allows for feedback loops to emerge, what happens when the adjusted, acted upon architectural factory produces new work. It is changed, and redeployed.

The site, a steel processing factory provided a location to play out the production of variability within a specific constraint from the production of manufacturing quality steel. The input (one coil) was basically the same as the output (multiple coils), but it was the production and processing of the steel that had the most impact upon the differences within the product. The machines used to process the steel coils could be refit to adjust the gauges, widths and hardness of material. Through this process, the output was customized to the specifications of the next manufacturing plant that the steel was destined to go. The ability to produce multiple variations of a product provides the system with a flexibility to produce a greater range of possibilities. The machine remained basically the same but the armature within provided a customization of the output.

In the case of the Architectural Factory it is the machine/drawing that produces the architecture. Which operates based upon the parameterization of a machinic process as a basis for the output of form.

Relationships between the altering of a material and human interaction with a material affect and inform the spatial effects of those relationships.

Within the factory the material is never handled directly by the operators always through an intermediary, i.e. crane, slitting mechanism. The same as with the architect the building is not built but conceived of by the architect. The machine of the Architectural Factory is the stand in for the hand of the architect, a prosthetic. The architect operates as the deus ex machina. Controlling the machine, guiding its outputs based upon specific material and site conditions. Inputting drawn information that then registers upon the surface and form of the construction as a hybrid form/drawing. Constantly being rebuilt, reworked, and deployed. The architect and the machine as one, augmented, in direct communication with one another, providing feed back between the material and the hand, between construction and design, between input and output.

22

23

“If plastic forces can be distinguished, it is not because living matter exceeds mechanical processes, but because mechanisms are not sufficient to be machines. A mechanism is faulty not for being too artificial to account for living matter but for not being mechanical enough, for not being adequately machined. Our mechanisms are in fact organized into parts that are not in themselves machines, while the organism is infinitely machined, a machine whose every piece is a machine, but only transformed by different folds that it receives.�

- Gilles Deleuze – The Fold-Leibniz and the Baroque

24

25

26

27

Bibliography

Alofsin, Anthony. Frank Lloyd Wright: The Lost Years, 1910 – 1922. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.

ARS Electronica. CODE: The Language of Our Time.

Ostfildern-Ruit, Germany : Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2003.

Biggin, Fredric and John Seibert. Modern StoneCutting and Masonry. New York John Wiley and sons, 1896.

Blau, Eve and Edward Kaufman ed. Architecture and its Image : Four Centuries of Architectural Representation : Works from the Collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture . Montreal Centre Canadian d’Architecture/Canadian Centre for Architecture ; Cambridge, Mass., Distributed by the MIT Press, 1989.

28

Cache, Bernard. Earth Moves: the Furnishing of Territories. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 1995.

Cohen, Preston Scott, Contested Symmetries and other Predicaments in Architecture. New York, Princeton Architectural Press, c2001.

Freziér, Amédéé Francios. La theorie et la pratique de la coupe des pierres et des bois, pour la construction des voutes et autres parties des bâtimens civils & militaires, ou Traité de stereotomie a l’usage de l’architecture, par m.

Frezier. Strasbourg, J.D. Doulksseker le fils; Paris, L.H. Guerin l’aine, 1737-39.

Deluze, Gilles. “ The Fold-Leibniz and the Baroque: The Pleats of Matter.” In Folding in Architecture: Architectural Design, guest ed. Greg Lynn. London: Wiley-Academy, 2004.

Hill, Jonathan. “Building the Drawing.” In Design Through Making; Architectural Design..guest ed.

Robert Sheil. London: Wiley-Academy, 2005.

Desargues, Gerard. Oeuvres de Desargues réunies et analysées par M. Poudra, suivies de l’analyse des ouvrages de Bosse. Paris, Leiber, 1864.

Kwinter, Sanford, Umberto Boccioni. Landscapes of Change: Boccioni’s “Stati d’animo” as a General Theory of Models. Assemblage, No. 19. 1992.

Eisenman, Peter. “Folding in Time – The Singularity of Rebstock.” In Folding in Architecture: Architectural Design, guest ed. Greg Lynn. London: Wiley-Academy, 2004.

Lynn, Greg. Animate Form. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999.

Evans, Robin. The Projective Cast : Architecture and its Three Geometries. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, c1995.

Lynn, Greg. “Introduction.” In Folding in Architecture: Architectural Design, guest ed. Greg Lynn. London: Wiley-Academy, 2004.

Evans, Robin. Translation from Drawing to Building. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, c1997.

Lynn, Greg. Guest Curator. Intracacy: A Project by Greg Lynn FORM. Philadelphia : Institute of Contemporary Art, University of Pennsylvania, 2003.

Foreign Office Architects. Phylogenesis: foa’s ark. Edited by Michael Kubo and Albert Ferré.

Barcelona: Actar, 2003.

Mahan, D.H. Descriptive geometry as applied to the drawing fortification and stereotomy. New York. John Wiley & Sons, 1906.

French, Arthur and Howard Ives. Stereotomy. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1902.

McCullough, Malcolm. Abstracting Craft: the Practiced Digital Hand. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 1996.

29

Pye, D.W. The Nature and Art of Workmanship. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Reiser, Jesse and Nanako Umemoto. Atlas of Novel Tectonics. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005.

Sheil, Robert. guest ed. AD-Design Through Making. London: Wiley-Academy, 2005.

Spuybroek, Lars. NOX: Machining Architecture.

New York: Thames & Hudson, 2004.

Warren, S. Edward. Stereotomy. Problems in Stone Cutting. New York, J. Wiley and son, 1890.

Zambonini, Giuseppe. Perspecta, Vol. 24. “Notes for a Theory of Making in a Time of Neccessity.�

Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 1988.

30

31

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jennifer for the love, support and patience during the production of this thesis work, without her this work would have been a mere shadow.

I would also like to thank Pablo Garcia for directing me to some invaluable stereotomy resources.