Final Journal Submission by Joshua

CHAN JOSHUA TIG HAY 638994 Virtual Environments Semester 2/2013 Group 12

Module 1 IDEATION

8cm

Plan and elevation views of the 3D puzzle were produced by tracing photos of th model that were printed out. A leg section was showing the composition and connection of individual pieces were drawn. In addition, I traced the original large wooden boards by which the individual pieces were places to understand how they were nested.

20cm

Tyrannosaurus 3D puzzle

MEASURED DRAWINGS

Plan

26cm

Nesting Plan 1

Nesting Plan 2

Nesting Plan 3 Elevation

Section: Leg

MATERIAL SYSTEM EXPLORATION

The wooden pieces of the 3D puzzle are interlocked within one anther with no spaces in between. This is measured by careful examination of how the pieces assemble.

Friction associated between the two interlocking pieces enable them to stick together firmly

OBJECT RECONFIGURATION

The end product looked similar to a dragon, with a head, a body and wings. However, new volumes were created through different connection techniques. This enabled a total different structure than the original 3D puzzle, which is more complex involving more interesting shapes, but at the same time be self supporting and strong internal cohesion.

SKETCH DESIGN IDEA To start of the second skin design, I created a rough sketch indicating the “territory” of my personal space. As mentioned by Sommer, the virtual boundary of the personal space is not a circle. Therefore, I explored the boundary around my upper body that would make me feel uneasy when it is intruded by another person. These boundaries are derived based on personal reasons, social behaviors as well as moral values.

More of a personal inspired idea than one that is extracted from Sommer’s reading. I personally get quite uneasy and sensitive towards physical contact between my shoulders and other people. It is then I’ve decided to reinforce my personal space around the shoulder area.

Larger areas indicate a larger area of privacy needed in order to feel comfortable. i.e. a larger personal space Side elevation

Spider-like branches extend outwards in pursuit for a large amound of space to make clear the territory of the person’s body part.

Front elevation

Shoulder pads act as armour around the chest which protects the shoulder from any physical contact with the people surronding the person.

Small branches with spikes extend to increase the complexity of the arms and to create an eye-threatening effect.

Module 2 DESIGN

DESIGN AGENDA Defining personal space The personal space is dictated by the area of the shoulder where it is mostly intruded through unintended physical contact (i.e. bumping) in crowded areas.

Second skin idea

- The shoulder is most vulnerable to physical contact in crowed area as it has a large span and is wide

The second skin acting as extended sensory organs of the body that declares personal space with a threatening emotion.

-The shoulder determines the span of the body, the widest span of the body - e.g. when people sit next to each other, their shoulders usually meet and they tend to shrug or contract their shoulders to prevent touching

123D Catch Model

PRECENDENT STUDY Machining Aesthetics Exhibition This project works on section and profiling as the logic and is a good example showing how complex geometries can be explored through a sectioning techniques. The vessel-like object was designed as a display platform for models and aimed to allow people to walkthrough. It made use of the cris-crossing technique from sectioning that allows individual pieces to interlock each other to provide a rigid structure. Individual components were CNC cut which is more cost-effective than milling processes. The project is also an example of a 3D object that was created from 2D pieces. The voids within the sectioned pieces create volumes for the display of models. The overall stiff and rigid structure create enables people to move throught the entire vessel. Waffling techniques exhibited by this piece work can be applied in my second skin project to create volume with a complex form. It will also be useful when other sectioning techniques were explored such as sectional ribbing and stacking.

Micuta and Richard Maddock, 2013

SECOND SKIN DIGITISATION Inspiration from tentacles The form of the second skin was inspired by biomimicry, where invertebrates have tentacles as an extended sensory organ, which helps them detect predators. Humans have hair as sensory receptors while invertebrates have their sensory receptors focused at the tip of their tentacles. In this second skin project, the tentacle form is a combination of the human skin and the sensory organs of an invertebrate. The tentacles as the second skin will then take up the unintended physical contact in crowded areas and protect the primary skin. By doing so, the person will not receive ‘surprise touches’ from strangers. At the same time, the spikey “hair” of the second skin will aim to threaten intruders from a distant and whoever touches it up close will feel a slight sense of pain which then “tells” the intruder he is inside the person’s comfort zone.

Initial

Iteration

Final

Initial

Iteration

Final

The spikes on the spine of the tentacle represent the sensory buds of the second skin. The closer the intruder is to the person, the larger the “hair” gets. Therefore the size of the spikes represents the closeness of the person with the intruder as well as the uneasiness of the person wearing it.

Final Design

Module 3 FABRICATION

PROTOTYPE 1 MATERIAL: 1MM, 1.8MM BOXBOARD In this prototype, boxboard with different thickness was experimented due to its higher stiffness compared to ivory card. The prototype was divided into 2 parts, which include the tentacle “head” and the tentacle “arm”. 1mm boxboard was used to fabricate the former as it appears to be the more delicate and detailed structure of the tentacle while 1.8mm boxboard was for the arm as it is slightly stronger and had to be able to support the head. ‘Digital Fabrications’ by Lisa Iwamoto has mentioned three types of sectioning techniques which include ribbing, parallel stacking and waffling. Waffling had been experimented with the “head” of the tentacle. It was found that this technique is very effective in creating volume and the sense of a solid form. The sharp form of the tentacle head was quite successful in catching the eye of an observer in first sight. It is however, due to the thinness of the material, that it was a bit wobbly when moved around.

On the other hand, the technique of parallel stacking for the spine of the tentacle had been very successful in providing stability to the prototype. 2 pieces of 1.8m boxboard was stacked together to increase the stiffness of the spine. The only drawback was that it failed to encompass visible volume. When observed in from the top view, the spine appeared to be a thin strip of cardboard which was not able to catch attention. The notch for the ‘hair’ had to be double the width of the 1.8mm boxboard, which makes up to 3.6mm.

Besides sectioning techniques, I have noticed that the most important part of the second skin was not emphasized – the “hair” of the tentacle. Indeed, as an observer, I tend to become drawn to the ‘head’ instead of the ‘hair’ of tentacle, which are the major sensory receptors of the second skin used to protect my personal space. The threating effect that was aimed to achieve through the hair was not successful. I believe that problem with them is that

they are fabricated with the same material as the other components and are of the same size, which fails to make them stand out from the tentacle itself.

The width for the other notches were created with the width of the material

PROTOTYPE 2 MATERIAL: 1MM BOXBOARD, 1MM MOUNTBOARD In my second prototype, I focused on the ‘hair’ of the tentacles by combining the 2 sectioning techniques explored in the second prototype and experimented with different materials. Instead of parallel stacking, the waffling technique was employed to the spine of the tentacle to give it more volume and thickness such that it is able to accommodate more “hair” in different directions. The ‘hair’ pieces followed the curve of the spine and varied in sizes. They got smaller in size towards the tip of the tentacle while they increased in size and thickness towards other end. This size variation of the ‘hair’ pieces corresponded to the alertness and uneasiness of the person wearing the second skin. Smaller pieces towards the end would be smaller such that the intruder is only warned, but as it gets closer to the person the ‘hair’ pieces tend to become more spikey and would cause pain to the intruder when touched, showing that the intruder had reached an unacceptable limit.

The intricate weapon-like tentacle head that was present in the previous prototype had been eliminated and the end of tentacle is allowed to taper off naturally. This was because it was the ‘hair’ of the tentacle that is used to defend the personal space so it should be emphasized more compared to the head of the tentacle.

Towards the thicker end of the tentacle, the ‘hair’ pieces increase in size, density, and thickness. By slightly twisting the pieces in different directions, various orientation of the pieces were explored. It appeared that 2 different orientation enabled the tentacle to encompass more volume and space as it expanded laterally. In addition, the use of Mount board for the making of the ‘hair’ pieces enabled them to stand out due to the contrast in colour. The use of this material is successful in catching the eye of observers and when combined with the spine, was also able to depict a cluster of sharp spikes which evoked a threatening emotion.

PROTOTYPES VS FINAL PRODUCT

Prototype 1: - Waffling in tentacle hed - Parallel stacking in the spine Problems: - Wrong focus for the tentacle head, focus should be on the sensory receptors - One material is used, the sensory receptors do not stand out

Prototype 2: - Waffling in spine - Parallel stacking on ‘hair’ pieces Problems: - Notches are of wrong sizes and do not fit

Final product: - Waffling in spine - Parallel stacking on ‘hair’ pieces - ‘Hair’ pieces exhibit burnt marks as a distinctive feature

NESTING FOR ASSEMBLY

1mm Mountboard Consisting of the tentacle ‘hair’ pieces

1.8mm Boxboard Consisting of the spine of tentacles and shoulder pieces

Shoulder piece

Tentacle piece

ASSEMBLY TIMELINE

Tentacles assembly

Shoulder piece assembly

Module 4 REFLECTION

REFLECTION

ntering the world of virtual design from a physical environment had always been the most anticipated transformation in my life as a design student, but it was never an easy one. The introduction to the four different material systems was an eye-opener and it gave us a whole new pair of glasses to view objects we use everyday. As we attempted to do measured drawings of our assigned objects, it was interesting to find that each material system had their own ways of making things work. For example, a skin and bone system allowed flexible but coordinated movement between different components while a section and profile system allowed structural ribs of the object to be shown completely. The products investigated in “300 Years of Industrial Design” gave us a more clearer understanding of how individual components of products were put together to form an object. It was fascinating to see how the Tokyo type scissors were formed by various types of blades and that the water ewer did not have a uniform thickness when observed in a section drawing.

Robert Sommer’s “Personal Space” gave us an idea ideas to virtual information, I was like a barbarian of what personal space could be conceptualised using a spoon. By understanding concepts such as as. As Robert explained it as a portable territory and NURBS modelling and developable surfaces, I was advocated the idea that personal space cannot able to slowly visualise formative ideas in Rhino and be a sphere, we were asked to come up with our take control over the changes I make towards a own creative perceptions of what personal space digital model. It wasn’t until I got the hang of using meant to us. The studio environment is always a the software did I began to appreciate the power fantastic learning environment in the field of design of digital modelling. As Paul mentioned in his lecture where ideas can vary so differently. I was surprised “Digital Fabrication”, software development such as to see how people in my tutorial came up with BIM and parametric modelling tools have allowed ideas such as fragility and reverse engineering as the exploration of more complex geometries in our strategies to defend their personal space. Paul’s design. I learnt that digital modelling gave us the idea of “thinking out of the box” was definitely the power to make iterations easier. Digital programs key to creative thinking. It does not apply in the have become more proficient by enabling design context, it can also be a problem solving immediate testing that provides prompt feedback, mind-set in daily life. For example, is it necessary for thus making the design process more intuitive. a chair to have legs? Can chairs support people However, throughout the modelling process I came across numerous technical problems. The lack of without the use of legs? experience in using Rhino the software have led to Working in a virtual environment is never a simple minor differences resulting between my initial sketch one, especially when it comes to design where design and the digital model. It revealed to me that digital modelling comes into play. I was too used computer software should act strictly as a design to doing sketches on paper and drafting my ideas tool, and that our ideas should not be restricted with a pencil, so when it comes to transforming by the limitations of our technical skills. Instead, we

should be familiar with using the software such that our ideas are able to be visualized by manipulating the tool, and not be dictated by it. The problem with modelling in a virtual environment is the inability to physically touch our design. The lecture “Power of making” emphasised the importance of prototyping to test out desired effects. The Times Eureka Pavilion was a good example that showcased clear measured drawings of prototypes and the assembly process of individual pieces. In the process of prototyping my second skin, I acknowledged the fact that there could be large differences between creativity and practicality, what looked awesome in computer may not be physically constructible. No matter how immersed we are with our design, we should never forget about our audience. I learnt that design isn’t merely the visualisation of an idea, it 22

is ultimately the product of creativity and craftsmanship. Focusing on a section and profile system for my second skin project, I aimed to push the project further by exploiting the hidden potentials of the material system along with traditional sectioning techniques. I was inspired by the idea of a structural skin mentioned in Kolarevic’s “Architecture in the Digital Age” where sectional ribs of an aircraft would actually act as the cladding of it as well. The idea of fusion between structure and skin gave rise to the creation of a notch system where sectional pieces can interlock to create volume. The Airplane Hanger by Nervi shown in Paul’s second lecture had drawn my attention towards the practicality of this interlocking system, it appealed to me that it had the capability to provide stability and internal strength to a design. I also looked deeper into the notch system and found

that techniques such as waffling and parallel stacking that have appeared in Iwamoto’s “Digital Fabrications” came together effectively to create the form of the second skin. The second skin project enabled me to take sectioning far beyond aesthetic function and transformed it into a structural technique in design. Where sectioning could be as simple as cutting profiles from an object vertically and horizontally, I took inspiration from the dinosaur model that I measured in the first week and looked into how the ribs could take on a curved profile while having various orientations. It was then I thought of having the sensory receptors of my design to take on a curved profile, and at the same time vary in sizes to create a non-uniform pattern hierarchy. I would not say that my final outcome was flawless and had been fabricated perfectly, but I have to admit that I did make an

effort in crafting it with care and precision. As Paul emphasised in his lecture “The Power of Making”, making is part of the design process. The experience of making my model had been a tough one as I went through tons of mistakes such as cutting the notch pieces with the wrong widths and corroding the material with excessive glue. However, the process gave me an opportunity to get my hands on crafting a model and I began to acknowledge the importance of workmanship. Craft of the design and the workmanship of the designer is what it takes to get a message across. My ideas towards crafting have been largely influenced by Daniel Charny’s quote, which basically sums up the power of making in a very meaningful way: “What and how we make defines who we are, and communicates who we want to be.”

We have been introduced to a new designing environment, but most importantly this subject helped us unravel the hidden gems of digital technology that we experience in everyday life. I believe the design process is gradually changing from a physical working environment to a virtual one. There were once limitations to what we can create in the past, but with the aid of digital technology, it is now not about what we can make, but it is about what we want to make. Rifkin’s ‘The Third Industrial Revolution’ advocated the idea of ‘a third industrial revolution’ where a city should moves towards using sunrise energies and infrastructure that are derived from a sustainable economic plan. It is crucial for us to understand how technology has shaped the design field of a society that may have implications for the future.

I have to say that Virtual Environments is much more than Rhino, it had showed us the different forms of design, the ways to convey creative ideas, and gave us the key to unlock potentials from modern digital technology. My thoughts on the design process has evolved from merely a one-liner, to a all rounded approach where we have to constantly shift from stages of idea exploration to the actual making process. I’ve learnt that making is a step in the design process, especially in the context of the built environment. I believe the skill sets I have acquired will benefit me in the future when I pursue a career in architecture where my ideas will be constantly shaped by digital technology. It is also my goal as a designer to not be a problem-solver, but a story teller.

REFERENCES Charny, D “Thinking through making” In Power of Making, exhibition catalogue, 6 September 2011- 2 January 2012, V&A, South Kensington, London Heath, A, Heath, D & Jensen, A 2000, 300 years of industrial design : function, form, technique, 1700-2000 Watson-Guptill, New York, Selected Extracts Kolarevic, B, 2003 “Digital Production” in Architecture in the Digital Age - Design and Manufacturing , Spon Press, London, pp30-54 Iwamoto, L 2009, Digital fabrications: architectural and material techniques, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, Selected Extracts Additional Machining Aesthetics Exhibition, LLDS with Marc, Micuta and Richard Maddock, 2013 Rifkin, J 2011 “Distributed Capitalism’ in The third Industrial Revolution Palgrave Macmillan, New York pp107-126 Marble, S 2008 ‘Imagining Risk’ In P Bernstein, P Deamer (eds). Building the Future: Recasting Labor in Architecture/, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, pp 38-42 Sommer, R 1969, ‘ Spatial invasion’ in Sommer, R, Personal space : the behavioral basis of design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J, pp. 26-38