Reflection
MODULE 4 Dylan Morgan
587256
Semester 1/2012
Form vs Context
IDEATION
Concept Overview
Saunders’ Case Moth
The week 1 lecture confused me at first, jumping straight into the idea that through patterns similarities exist between natural landscapes and urban environments. Throughout the semester this concept has become clearer, but more complicated at the same time.
This journey began through the exploration of the natural process undergone by the Saunders Case Moth, and the four following aspects of the transition that occurs.
Concept 2 - involvement of light Concept 4 - contrast of the
Concept 1 - growth like cocoon
Concept 3 - contrast of stages
in the cycle
caterpillar and its cocoon
Concept 1
Encompassing cocoon
Aesthetically, the most signifigant and promenant aspect of the case moth is its cocoon. It is woven and conforms to the insectm, encompasing it with the incorporation of sticks.
Figure 1.1- Black Narcissus ‘Black Narcissus’ designed by Gabriel Esquivel and David Hernandez highlights the ability to physically represent an uncontrollable natural occurance. It refers to narcissism as a natural condition of self-admiration and the idea that we become as beutiful as what surrounds us (reflected in the film of the same title. Similarly the Case Moth builds a
cocoon that reflects its surroundings. This demonstrates the importance of the link between form and context. A literal interpretation of the emotional phenominon explored by the designers would be almost impssible and equally unecessary. Context has influenced form appropriately, proving the need to manage this relationship.
Relating this to a form may seem straightforward, however I found that this raised the question of to what degree can a process or natural form be abstracted before all relevance is lost. While the all encompassing trait of the case moth’s cocoon can translate quite literally to a design, I felt that it was necessary to maintain, to a degree, in order to hold onto the aesthetic essence of the natural process. This link between form and context is difficult to balance, as I discovoured through Module 1 in particular.
Figure 1.2 Initial sketches exploring a growth like form that surrounds its inhabitants. I noted that a form similar to these would be difficult to fabricate, requiring a great deal of accuracy. I therefore decided to involve to concept to a less significant extent towards the fabrication stage
Concept 2
The Involvement of Light Upon discovouring the need to delve deeper than the external aesthetics of the processes of nature, i began analysing the less physical, aspects of the life cycle of the Saunders Case Moth. More specifically, aspects that evolve through the cycle. Through the idea of sampling information to represent patterns in both natural and urban environments (presented in an early lecture) I noted the involvement of light at significant stages in the caterpiller / moth’s development.
Partial light
Minimal light
Figure 1.3- Metro Station 20, Sofia This proposed metro station in Sofia, Bulgaria, was designed by Peter Ruge Architekten to bring the underground space up to the surface. A focus of this canopy that emerges from the underground train line was to bring light from above, down into the station. It filters and interrupts the sunlight, similarly to the inconsistant involvement of light throughout the life cycle of the case moth.
All light (emerging)
Stage 1: The first 1-2 years of the cycle involve the caterpillar living in its case, however they are able to manipulate it in order to enter and exit to find food. Therefore light is partially involved at this stage Stage 2: The second stage (pupation) lasts approximately 1-2 months, at which time the caterpillar seals itself inside the cocoon and begins
metamorphosis. It can be seen that at this point there is absolutely no light Stage 3: This final stage lasts only a short while and involves the male moth emerging triumphantly from its case, to live free from the burden of attempting to defend its fragile caterpillar state. This involves a flourish of natural light until the end of the life cycle
Figure 1.4
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.6
Partial light
Minimal light
All light (emerging)
This raises more questions over the relationship of context and form. While a context such as a natural process can physically influence form, on many occassions it can more significantly dictate form through it’s non-physical and non-measurable attributes. This allows contexts to be further deconstructed and abstacted, thereby possibly blurring the line between representation and interpretation.
Concept 3
Contrasting States in the Cycle This discovery enabled me to further develop my concept, in line with with the tangiable, and seemingly more significantly, the non-tangiable aspects of the case moth’s life cycle. I noted that while the insect physically changes through metamorphosis, it also emotionally evolves. Not so much in terms of its feelings, but in terms of its freedom and vulnerability.
Figure 1.7 Sketches exploring the contrasting forms (fluidity and rigidity). At this point the possibility of having contrasting colours (black and white) became relevant.
Ptior to metamorhposis the caterpiller is defensive and vulnerable, which can be represented via a rigid form. Following its transformation into a moth the vibrantly coloured male leaves its cocoon for good. The freedom of this new creature can be physically represented with a fluid form. Figure 1.8- Vaillancourt Fountain This San Francisco fountain by Canadian artist Armand Velankur more appropriately conveys the contrasting forms I hoped to create.
The fluid state of the insect emerges from the rigid state, providing a contrast that can be further explored.
Contrasting the rigid and harsh spouts is the water that flows through them and emerges from the openings
Figure 1.10 Early modelling of possible lanterns utilising this concept Figure 1.9 Sketches exploring the contrasting forms in context
Concept 4
Contrast of the Caterpillar and its Cocoon
The idea of contrast exited me, however I still felt the need to maintain an appropriate relationship between my form and the natural process.
Figure 1.11- La Fabrique Sonore, France “La Fabrique Sonore”, designed by artists Ali Monemi, Robin Meier, and architect Hyoung-Gul Kook, acoustically amplifies the sound of champagne bubbles in the French underground system of corridors. The audio system creates a continually evolving sound environment, with the help of the basic geometric pattern of the form. This piece relates specifically to my intention not only in its appearance, but the fact that life exists inside the comparatively dull exterior of the structure in the form of sound, providing a contrast similar to that of the caterpillar and itʼs case. The use of light aids this affect, breathing more life into the dreary environment of the French underground.
This drew me back to the physical attributes, and visually the most significant contrast. The harsh exterior of the case and the bright life form that exists inside it (the caterpiller). Figure 1.12 Experimenting with the physical contrast of the caterpiller and its cocoon. I particularly liked the interaction of the two forms shown in this last sketch, as it fully exaggerates the contrast.
Consolidation
Ideation conclusion Figure 1.13 Sketches incorporating all four concepts developed:
An all encompasing form
The evolution of the involv ment of light
constrasting emotional states
physical contrast of the caterpiller and its case
While each of the four conepts I had interpreted from the natural process mirrored a significant aspect, alone I found they were either slightly too abstract, or slightly to literal. I therefore went about consolidating the ideas to best reflect the process, and maximise the relationship between context and form. This raised both new questions and a sense of closure on the topic. I had started the design process unsure of how to extract a representative form from the life cycle of a breed of moth. While the idea seemed foreign it soon became more involved. How is it that design can represent non-tangiable patterns and processes in nature, and how can these contexts be interpreted in the most justifiable manner.
Figure 1.14 Final modelling for Module 1. Note: does not include the intricacies initially desired (evident in Figure 1.15)
I think in the end I had answered my own questions through blind exploration, to arrive at the idea that amlifying and exaggerating one aspect of a chosen context may be unsuccesfull, but identifying the most relevant attributes, while being anchored to the desire to maintain an appropriate balance, will result in the most fitting form.
Context and form interact and influence each other in many ways, often without knowing it. I think losing sight of the core of either one will result in a loss of direction. Whether its a literal or abstract interpretation, there is always a balance, which can be maintained.
Figure 1.15 Modelling of the desired interaction of the two forms
Digital Media and its Possibilities
DESIGN
Modelling
Simplifying the concept Approaching the refinement of my lantern concept (through digitisation) I was unsure of the possibilities of modelling the form in Rhino. I was yet to understand the limitations of various media, specifically virtual media, in relation to my design inquiries. While drawing had allowed me to explore forms more widely, the early digitisation process seemed to be restricting the possibilities
Figure 2.1 Following the initial stages of the design process and moving into the digitisation process I discovoured my modelling was ambitious in terms of my limited experience using Rhino (as I had predicted). It was therefore appropriate to simplify the design to a certain degree, with the hope of incorporating the intricate aspects (demonstrated in figure 2.2) later on.
Figure 2.2 Intended form, yet to be explored digitally
Digitisation
Modelling in Rhino
Figure 2.3 Digital modelling method 1. This approach was unsuccesfull, due to the shape of the form and what I was trying to do
Figure 2.4 Digital modelling method 2. I had more success with this, however I was still faced with the problem of creating an opening.
Already I was experiencing limitations, but not necessarily with digital media, moreover I was limited by my initial ability. This forced me to step back and think in more depth about the limitations of various media. With the birth of more advanced virtual media in recent years we are able to explore many possibilites, and with further advancements we may only be limited by our own abilities.
Figure 2.5 Digital modelling method 2, with a more appropriate form. This was the most succesfull as it allowed for the creation of an opening on the flat surface by manipulating the panelling.
Figure 2.7 Early exploration: Box / cube panelling
Figure 2.8 Early exploration: 3 dimensional triangular panelling
Digitisation
Modelling in Rhino
Figure 2.9 Further exploration: customised shape
Figure 2.10 Further exploration: pyramid panellling
Figure 2.11 Further exploration: ribbed panelling
Figure 2.13 Further exploration: pyramid panelling, larger offset, and ptOffsetFacesBorder comand
Figure 2.12 Further exploration: Pyramid panelling, fewer control points
Figure 2.14 Further exploration: more offset with ptOffsetFacesBorder command
Figure 2.6 Manipulating control points to create an opening in the panelling, to allow for the development of the fluid form
Digitisation
Filtering Light
At each step now I was reinforcing the original concepts I had developed. I was able to represent the rigidity of the outer form I had hoped for, and began developing the light filtering properties I planned using the ptOffsetFacesBorder command and segregating the model. In this way it can be seen that through virtual media design enquiries can be fully explored, and later on translated to a physical model.
Figure 2.18- Motril Footbridge, Spain The parametric design of this Spanish footbridge (located in the town of Motril) displays the possibilities of filtering light. Built in 2011, the bridge was designed to close the gap between the gardens of the Explanadas and the Park Pueblos de las AmĂŠricas. It is a continuous curve constructed with rigid shapes, as is the panelled form I developed in Rhino. I am particularly interested in the use of glass as well as the lighting underneath. The glass is inserted in each panel, like the paneling of my design. In addition LED lights are used to link the panels underneath the structure to those with the glass in them. The glass incorporates the natural light, while the LED create artificial light. This precent is therefore particularly relevent, and also provides me with an understanding of the potential of using openings in panels to filter light.
Figure 2.17
Figure 2.16
Figure 2.15
All light (emerging)
Minimal light
Partial light
Digitisation
Fluid Form
Through various attempts at creating a panelled form that retained fluidity while being constructed of rigid panels I was finally able to loft individual pieces from a flat surface placed within the existing form. Figure 2.19 Lofted fluid form, modelled through a great deal of trial and error
The greatest obstacle in creating this contrasting form was, as mentioned, the balance between rigidity and fluidity. While sketching allowed me to easily exploit this concept, it was another story with virtual media. Once again I was faced with the need to conform my concept to the virtual modelling and fabrication possibilities (in line with my ability in these areas)
Figure 2.20- Cosmic Leaf Cosmic Leaf by British designer Ross Lovegrove features a fluid form illuminated by a light source above the meshed skin. This demonstrates the ability to create a fluid form using a harsh, rigid material.
Figure 2.21 Images demonstrate the section that the fluid form was lofted from (red to exaggerate contrast- will actually be black and white)
Design
Summation
Figure 2.22 Simplicity to complexity- form studies (Rachel Gottlieb)
It became clear through the transition from physical media to digital media that different media support different design enquiries. While they are different, thats not to say that they are necessarily limited.
voured) can exist through the user’s ability (which may have been the case with me). But does this mean that virtual media is limited? I don’t think that is the case.
Sketching allows for a vast exploration of concepts, however it is often not optimal for refinement. Physical modelling on the other hand is useful for refinment in addition to development. When faced with the need to convert physical models to virtual media problems arrose, requiring the simplification of my concept.
Rachel Gottlieb (Figure 2.22) has proved that it is possible to generate a complex system from simple forms. Her work is based on a grid of repeated wooden forms that are joined with elastic to create fluid forms from rigid lines. Interaction with the objects creates further complexity as each user can redefine the object’s meaning.
I guess I took from this the fact that virtual media can limit the exploration of design enquiries, when hoping to fabricate. Often we cannot replicate the natural, and I suppose imperfect designs that we can to a certain degree create by hand. However limitations, when it comes to virtual media (I have disco-
From this it can be summarised that different media are beneficial in their own distinct manner, and allow for different inquiries in design.
Possibilities and Constraints
FABRICATION
Fabrication Contents
Digital - Unrolling panelling
Virtual - Initial prototyping
Virtual - Scale prototyping
Virtual - Final Lantern
Virtual
Unrolling panelled forms
Figure 3.1 Reference image of unrolled panelling for the fluid form
Figure 3.2 Reference image of unrolled panelling for the rigid outer form
Virtual
Unrolling Panelled Forms
Figure 3.3 Unrolled sections, cut out to contruct protoype models
Physical
Partial prototyping, scale 1:4
Through the manual construction of prototypes I noted that the particular method of fabrication we had all undergone allows for fabrication that can be simple or even very complicated. While there are various avenues that this method of fabrication makes possible it is also limited. Structurally speaking, we are limited by the materials we use (in this case paper). In addition we are limited to a degree to rigid forms.
Figure 3.5 Pieces and sheets used to construct model (printed on A3 and cut manually)
Figure 3.4 Scaled prototype 1:4 (partial- used to identify flaws)
Physical
Full Scale Prototyping, 1:1
Problems Discovoured:
Figure 3.7 Full scale presented problems (paper was heavy and floppy in open section)
Figure 3.8 Similar to Figure 3.7 Proposed solution: structural ribbing
Figure 3.9 Panelling was not offset enough on panl 1.7, meaning that part of it overlapped and the panel did not fit the section. Proposed solution: offset panl 1.7 more Figure 3.6 Prototype to scale, printed on A0 paper than cut manually
Physical
Final Model Construction, 1:1
Figure 3.10 Unrolled panels for fluid form cut out (note- black paper as, intended originally)
Figure 3.11 construction of fluid form for final model, piece by piece
Figure 3.12 Fully constructed fluid form attached to panel 1.7 on final outer rigid form model
Physical
Final Model Construction- Lighting, 1:1 Figure 3.14 Lighting details (2 double A batteries in pack- with switch, with 10 LEDs)- should be replaced after a couple of hours of use.
Figure 3.13 Images showing wiring for lighting of fluid form (single LED in each pieceplaced in parallel) Figure 3.16 Fully constructed model with lights Note: problems that arose in 1:1 prototyping have been resolved with structural members in the opening, and improved panelling in section 1.7
Figure 3.15 Fluid form with rigid form surrounding it (note: light escaping from ends of individual pieces
Reflection Through the design and construction of this lantern, more than anything representations at each stage have lead to the eventual succes of the model. But can it be said that representations and material realisations are mutually dependent? I think it comes down to the idea of virtual versus physical. The most emazing concepts can be concieved and designed, but in the end we cannot discount the restrictions of real world modelling when digitising any concept for eventual construction. Virtual conceptualisation can be limited. In the construction of my lantern I discovered this. While on Rhino the form holds rigidly in its position, paper does not necessarliy perform this way, requiring me to revisit the opening of the outer form and construct structual members to maintain the desired form. This reafirmed to me the importance of prototyping, but more importantly for future studies and even careers the idea that there is a clear division between the possibilities of virtual and physical conceptualisation. They are, I think, mutually dependant, and therefore cannot be considered separately, or the succes of a design will be jeapordised.
References
http://www.contemporist.com/2009/04/16/cosmic-leaf-by-ross-lovegrove/ http://www.crookedbrains.net/2008/12/studies.html http://www.evolo.us/category/design/ http://www.evolo.us/architecture/la-fabrique-sonore-acoustically-amplifiesthesound-of-champagne-bubbles/#more-15717 http://www.evolo.us/architecture/black-narcissus-is-parametric-designedinstallation-based-on-contemporary-fashion/#more-15473 http://www.evolo.us/architecture/sofia-metro-station-proposal-peterrugearchitekten/#more-15723 http://funsterz.com/2012/02/28/ten-of-the-most-amazing-fountains-intheworld-10-photos-10-videos/