Abstracted Reflection: Beauty in the Eye of The Machine by Francis Thompson

ABSTRACTED REFLECTION BEAUTY IN THE EYE OF THE MACHINE.

FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON / MADALYN LASLETT

Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne S-I LAB FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON 757758 MADALYN LASLETT 1057654 Touch Me, Please. With contributions from MANNING MCBRIDE SAMUEL MURNANE Semester 1 2021

P. B

CONTENTS A. POINTS (P. 3–15) B. LINES (P. 17–27) C. SURFACES (P. 29–37) D. PHOTOGRAMMETRY (P. 39–49) E. EXHIBITION DESIGN (P. 51–133) P. 1

GROUP 1

P. 2

EDITOR: COPYWRITER: RESEARCHER: ILLUSTRATOR:

Manning McBride Samuel Murnane Madalyn Laslett Francis BURNE THOMPSON

A. POINTS (P. 3-15)

P. 3

A. POINTS. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

SCANLAB PROJECT BARTLETT TRANSFORMATION 2013-2018 Over four years University College London (UCL) renovated the Bartlett School of Architecture. Over that time, ScanLab was engaged to scan the building occupied in 2013 (Wates House), the intermediate building (on Hampstead Road), the new home of the school (22 Hampstead Road) and an entirely new satellite campus of the school (Here East, Stratford). The flow of occupation over the images produced from the scans tells the story of many moments of a timeline presented as one.

P. 4

Here East

Hampstead Road Wates House 22 Hampstead Road

1. Location of scans over four sites in London, UK. 2. Scan during occupation of intermediate location on Hampstead Road. 3. Composite image of scans before and after of Here East. The building was the shell of the 2012 London Olympic media village. 4. Overlaid scans taken at Wates House. First set of scans taken just before vacating (2014). Second set taken during Bartlett Summer Show of 2017. 5. Hamsptead Road intermediate campus prior to renovations as an empty warehouse 6. Hamsptead Road intermediate campus after to renovations, during occupation.

A. POINTS. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 5

A. POINTS. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

The Bartlett Transformation scans by ScanLAB explore a dialogue between a past and emergent site. The exact overlays of the campus prior to and immediately after renovation show the comparison of, and create a dialogue between, the two spaces, one brimming with occupation and one empty. This occupation is then again represented in the complexity of the scan itself and the many positions the apparatus needed to be placed to seek out the true scan. It is this overt comparison between temporal junctures that is in fact inherent in all scans and even every fragment of a scan as unlike a camera, the scanner must move slowly around, catching some moving objects and omitting others. Despite the completeness of the simulation delivered at the end of a scanning session, the data is a compilation of snapshots through time and space and perceived reality. Concurrent to this fragmentation is the question of viewership. The scan is a complete 360-degree space and yet we as humans must then fragment and break down this hyper real space to view and understand it.

P. 6

A. POINTS. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

X Z°

Y (X,Y,Z°)

DIGITISATION To call a point cloud a Doppelganger positions the scan as disassociated from its roots in reality. Traditionally the Doppelganger is “biologically” unrelated and a harbinger of bad luck. The scan is more analogous to a specter in that it is an after image of a time and location in space that no longer exists, yet it presents itself as if it does. It is within these representations that errors and illusions lie.

1. De Statua, Leon, Battista Alberti

The scan is fundamentally a set of instructions, just as Alberti had originally attempted. Yet while every fragment of a scan is inherently a faithful copy of the scanning apparatuses origins in time, place, space, geometry, perceived material quality, usership and unbiased views, collectively these fragments create a profound reality of illusion and arbitrary image. This profound reality contains refractive errors and negative interior spaces that manifest as traversable spaces. Furthermore, the emulation of arbitrary spaces, like that of the inside of a reflection or inside a solid column, appears familiar, yet totally removed from the real.

P. 7

A. POINTS. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 8

FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON

A. POINTS. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON

3 1. St Paul’s Cathedral Detail View 2. St Paul’s Cathedral Overall View 3. MSD Overall View 4. MSD Detail View

P. 9

A. POINTS. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 10

MADALYN LASLETT

A. POINTS. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

1. St. Paul’s Cathedral Pew Activity Detail 2. St. Paul’s Cathedral Interior 3. MSD Facade Detail with RGB projection of texture interruption by student activity 4. MSD Facade, Scan 3 in RGB

MADALYN LASLETT

P. 11

A. POINTS. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 12

MANNING MCBRIDE

A. POINTS. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

MANNING MCBRIDE

P. 13

1. St Paul’s Cathedral Detail View 2. St Paul’s Cathedral Overall View 3. MSD Overall View 4. MSD Detail View

A. POINTS. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 14

SAMUEL MURNANE

A. POINTS. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

SAMUEL MURNANE

P. 15

1. MSD Overall View 2. MSD Detail View 3. St Paul’s Cathedral Overall View 4. St Paul’s Cathedral Detail View

P. 16

EDITOR: COPYWRITER: RESEARCHER: ILLUSTRATOR:

Francis Burne Thompson Manning McBride Samuel Murnane Madalyn Laslett

B. LINES (P. 17-27)

P. 17

B. LINES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

In his introduction to Digital Fabrications: Designer Stories for a Software-Based Planet, Galo Canizares illuminates the developing integration of technology into the everyday activities of humans. Small gestures, minute in solace, have an accumulative effect on our physiological beings. Shaping the way we think, behave and relate to one another. A simple but effective example is in the number of interactions one might have with technology in their morning routine. Through technology, we are informed of time, temperature, current events, communication capital, etc. Canizares uses these examples in order to highlight the agency of technology. Canizares also highlights the flux of software change and development, questioning the role and agency of the architect in the process. His implication that architects have less control over their workflows because of the ubiquity, invisibility and flux of software is astute. But it requires expansion. It is important that in this claim Canizares is not suggesting this change is for better or worse. Of course, there are many positive benefits that new technology and processes have had on the discipline of architecture. But it is in the constant change that the role of the architect changes to that of an adapter or facilitator. The most successful being those who capitalise on

P. 18

rapid change in technology and workflows. In the chapterNotes on HashtagArchitecture, Canizares introduces the notion of internet space, drawing connections between it and the compositions of Russian Suprematism. In internet space, users move through an infinitely deep three-dimensional space via a series of two-dimensional interfaces. Similarly, the Russian Supremacists explored compositions that were freed of both two- and three-dimensional space, and leaned towards an illusory, irrational space. In these compositions, the viewer is forced to constantly ask questions of how to interpret the work. Although a compelling comparison, there is a disconnect between the goals of suprematism and internet space. Suprematism encourages ambiguity and discomfort in the viewer. While as previously identified, internet space is about achieving a frictionless experience for the user. In internet space and our interactions with technology, the user is not to ask any questions at all. Thoughtless interaction at the whim of the software’s agency.

B. LINES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 19

1. Cultural Analytics of Large Datasets from Flickr, Ushizima et al. 2. & 3. Stills from ‘How Not to Be Seen: A Fucking Didactic Educational .MOV File’, Hito Steyerl

B. LINES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

TO INFINITY AND BEYOND Infinite modeling space and web browsers alike confront the modern architect with infinite opportunity and resources. This can yield the most fruitful projects with a deep connection to computational power and organic form presented as parametrics, or it can simply confuse and over-complicate. Every click, every autonomous hand gesture is a decision to move forward, backward, or sideways through imaginary infinite space and time.

P. 20

B. LINES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 21

B. LINES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON

P. 22

1. St Paul’s Cathedral Overall View 2. St Paul’s Cathedral Detail View 3. MSD Overall View 4. MSD Detail View

B. LINES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON

P. 23

B. LINES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

MADALYN LASLETT

Distance: 1.816994 ∆X: 0.0053505 ∆XY: 0.124543 ∆Y: 0.124430∆XZ: 1.812729 ∆Z: -1.812721 ∆ZY: 1.816986

P. 24

1. MSD O 2. MSD around) 3. St. Pa 4. St. Pa above th

B. LINES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

MADALYN LASLETT

Distance: 9.542708 ∆X: -9.542627 ∆XY: 9.542628 ∆Y: 0.003714 ∆XZ: 9.542706 ∆Z: 0.038971 ∆ZY: 0.039147

Old Facade Section through Old Quad. Old Facade Detail (Class standing ). aul’s Cathedral Reflected Ceiling Plan. aul’s Cathedral Detail (Highest point he nave). P. 25

B. LINES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

SAMUEL MURNANE

P. 26

1. St. Paul’s Cathedral Long Section. 2. St. Paul’s Cathedral Detail Section. 3. MSD Old Facade Plan. 4. MSD Old Facade Detail Section. 2

B. LINES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

SAMUEL MURNANE

P. 27

P. 28

EDITOR: COPYWRITER: RESEARCHER: ILLUSTRATOR:

Francis Burne Thompson Madalyn Laslett Madalyn Laslett Francis Burne Thompson

C. SURFACES (P. 29-37)

P. 29

C. SURFACES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

DRAWING VS. DWG In both his presentation to Harvard and his article Everything is Already an Image (2017), John May discusses the apparent contrast between grandfathered terms of architecture (drawing, photograph, image) and their literal meanings and the inaccuracies in their application when examined closely. In great and verbose detail, May details the intricate differences between image and photo(graph), where the former is a process of electronic reactions and the latter is a process of chemical ones, and between drawings as produced manually in the pre-CAD era and CADproduced architectural representation. Realistically though, May is arguing a point that does not need arguing. The basis of his argument is a very specific set of axioms, a very specific set of examples and words that are simply synonyms of each other. To suggest that we have not “used a drawing to build anything in decades” but are instead using “simulated orthography” or “telematic managerialism unknown to orthography” (pp. 20) is simply making an argument akin to tomayto vs. tomahto. This is not to say that we believe there is no differences between a hand drawn plan and one produced with the aid of a computer or between a photo developed in a dark room and an image displayed on a computer screen, because of course there is. The redundancy in May’s argument lies simply in the entire lack of necessity for it. The argument can clearly be made, as May proves over 17 pages, the question remains though whether it should be an argument at all. While the pedantic exercise in word specificity is a bit unnecessary, May’s discussions regarding the adaptability of the consciousness to interpret information P. 30 depending on the delivery method are convincing. As May puts it, “distinct technical ages are bound up with distinct conceptions of time,” thus forming culture by externalizing memory. When we are deciding what to “externalize” or record, we prioritize the important details. This is especially important to consider when the recording and transmission methods are time consuming (e.g. clay tablets). This concept can also be applied to the study of languages and linguistics. Language is a

key part of culture, and is one of the primary ways we share knowledge and memories. A study by Gibson et al. (2017) details the accuracy with which speakers of different languages identified colours (1). Factors that affected the outcome were things like whether the participants native language had a name for the color they were shown. It was found in a prior study (Berlin & Kay, 1969) that the first colours named in any language are black and white, then was red, then green and yellow, then blue, then brown etc. For example, English has eleven words for colour categories, Berinmo (Papua-New Guinea) has five, and Tsimane (Bolivia) has three. Basically, we name the colours of the things we want to talk about and that are of importance to our lives which inevitably limits the recording and transmission of memories using language. SOURCES Gibson, T. & Conway, B.R. (2017). Languages don’t all have the same number of terms for colors - scientists have a new theory why. Retrieved 31/02/2021 from https://theconversation.com/languages-dont-all-havethe-same-number-of-terms-for-colors-scientistshave-a-new-theory-why-84117 Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Jara-Ettinger, J., Mahowald, K., Bergen, L., Ratnasingam, S., Gibson, M., Piantadosi, S.T., & Conway, B.R. (2017). Color naming across languages reflects color use. PNAS . doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1619666114 May, J. (2017) Everything is already an image. Log. (40)

C. SURFACES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

1. Colour Identification Surprisal Ratings (Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Jara-Ettinger, J., Mahowald, K., Bergen, L., Ratnasingam, S., Gibson, M., et al., 2017)

P. 31

C. SURFACES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

May demonstrates an interest in the various means of distilling or representing reality in the virtual. Increasing computational power, May identifies, is correlated with a shrinking separation between the two. Contemporary film sets have begun to use the virtual to encase and then affect, physically, the ‘real’. Shows such as ‘The Mandalorian’ utilise curved LCD media walls to generate dynamic backdrops with Unreal Engine real-time rendering. These backdrops are bright enough that lighting considerations can be controlled by the ambient luminosity of the panels. Controlled by Unreal engine, this use-case demonstrates a new form of composite reality wherein the virtual is wrapped and warped around the real, such that the ‘signalization’ of this composite reality through ‘digital photography’ distorted the curved representation of reality such that real and virtual are indistinguishable. Through this medium, image capture moves from a planar capture to volumetric capture.

P. 32

Lucasfilm, 2020

C. SURFACES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

Lucasfilm, 2020

P. 33

Epic Games, 2020

C. SURFACES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 34

FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON

C. SURFACES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON

P. 35

1. St Paul’s Cathedral Crossing Column Fragment 2-6. MSD Old Facade Window, Individual Scans

C. SURFACES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 36

1. St. Paul’s Cathedral Organ 3. Each Si-Lab class member. 2. Si-Lab Class standing around, waiting for the last scan of the MSD Facade.

MADALYN LASLETT

C. SURFACES. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

MADALYN LASLETT

P. 37

P. 38

D. PHOTOGRAMMETRY (P. 39-49)

P. 39

D. PHOTOGRAMMETRY. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

PROCESS Photogrammetry turns multiple images into a point cloud and eventually a mesh that can be rendered, manipulated and used in various 3D modeling applications. Step by step instructions below detail the process by which we created 3D models of artifacts on campus for this assignment. 1. Photograph the artefact. A series of photos of the object at 10° increments is required. If it is “flat” (e.g. facade, rock face) approximately 18 images (covering 180°) are required. If the object is “round” (i.e. can be viewed in the round) at least 36 images are required. Multiple rows (as seen on pages 38-39) of 36 images can be used to ensure the “top” and “bottom” of the object appear in the final model. 2. Add photos to a Metashape project. 3. Mask the photos (individually). In the case of this assignment, masking had to be done manually because it is impossible to remove the object from the background to take a photo of only the background. 4. Align photos. This creates “tie points” and is the initial math the program does to determine the location each photo was taken from (camera). Make sure to crop the region to the area of interest. 5. Generate dense cloud. This is the high density point cloud that the mesh will be built from so it is important it is high resolution. 6. Remove extraneous points (optional). 7. Build mesh. We found the best results by using the interpolated option. P. 40

8. Remove extraneous polygons using the gradual selection tool. 9. Export model as “.obj” file. This is a mesh file and can have the texture mapped onto it.

DISCUSSION There is a degree of ease and accessibility to the workflow of photogrammetry. Cameras of sufficient resolution are ubiquitous, and software is free (albeit only within education or as a limited-time trial). As a result, the speed and resolution at which all real space can undergo signalisation threatens to increase dramatically. As demonstrated in the results of the following photogrammetry exercises, photogrammetry demonstrates the potential for digital appropriation. Most singular physical objects can now be reproduced infinitely and with minimal errors – especially highly visual objects like artworks, where viewer blind spots and the void produced by photogrammetry are the same (i.e. the areas not accessible to photogrammetry are already unobservable from the human eye.) The imagined form of reproducibility posited by Alberti’s de Statua in the post orthographic mode outlined by May promises a reversal of architectural modes of design where the flow from digital model to physical form is not only inverted but completely collapsed, as physical and digital now share a reciprocity that dissolves the difference between the two.

D. PHOTOGRAMMETRY. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 41

D. PHOTOGRAMMETRY. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 42

FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON

D. PHOTOGRAMMETRY. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON

3 1. MSD Pedestal Photogrammetry Sequence 2. Upper Pedestal 3. Pedestal in situ 4. Pedestal Carving Detail

P. 43

D. PHOTOGRAMMETRY. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON

P. 44

1 1. Britannia, Overall 2. Right Arm, Front 3. Right Arm, Rear

D. PHOTOGRAMMETRY. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON

P. 45

D. PHOTOGRAMMETRY. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

Row 1 (19)

Row 2 (19)

P. 46

Row 3 (16)

MADALYN LASLETT

D. PHOTOGRAMMETRY. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

MADALYN LASLETT

P. 47

Goddess Statue Three Row Photogrammetry Sequence

D. PHOTOGRAMMETRY. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 48

MADALYN LASLETT

D. PHOTOGRAMMETRY. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

MADALYN LASLETT

P. 49

3 1. Goddess Statue 2. MSD Old Facade Railing Segment 3. Goddess Statue Rear 4. MSD Old Facade Railing Segment Rear

P. 50

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN (P. 51-55)

P. 51

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 52 2

1. Full Exhibition Setup 2. Lazy Susan Table Top Displaying a Photogrammetry Sequence of Images. 3. Subtle but Explicit Invitation for the User to Explore the Art.

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

TOUCH ME, PLEASE. This exhibition seeks to explore the accessibility, error, and appropriation possible (and highly probable) with the rise of the post-orthographic and its accompanying technologies. By re-producing a classic painting from the NGV’s eighteenth century collection as a full colour 3D print, we will undertake a sort of digital appropriation where the authenticity that is celebrated above all else in museum collections is dissolved. In its place, a democratised replicability offers interactions previously denied by the singularity of museum objects. Guests are invited to touch the brush strokes of a master. The simulacral recreation of our chosen piece will not seek to reproduce but to reconfigure an already existing piece, ideally one whose original will be easily recognisable to those attending. The piece will be scanned using photogrammetry while its original environment will be scanned using LiDAR (subject to NGV approval). An accompanying table displaying the photogrammetric source images will generate an understanding of the original through a reversal in the photogrammetric workflow.

P. 53

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

FULL COLOUR 1:1 SCALE 3D PRINT OF SCANNED ARTWORK

600

LAZY SUSAN TABLE TOP PRINTED TO DISPLAY PHOTOGRAMMETRY SOURCE IMAGES 1500

P. 54

1. Exhibition, First Draft

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

50”

3D ROTATING VIEW OF NGV SALON ROOM

Touch Me, Please.

250

1000

P. 55

GUARD ROPES INVITE THE USER IN TO INTERACT WITH THE ART INSTEAD OF RESTRICTING ACCESS

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

BEYOND GEOMETRY While its definition is still coalescing, coagulating, the post-orthographic has been seeping into design processes and outcomes alongside the increasing prevalence of the computer and its ever expanding suite of software. The core implication in the proliferation of post-orthographic design is the dissolution between the real and the virtual and the digital. Architectural thinking and architectural construction are the two principal aspects of the profession but post-orthography has both reveal and exacerbated the tension between the two. Despite the potential now to produce infinite “drawing” images from a digitally rendered model, builders are still expectant of those 3 orthographic modes of spatial communication (plan, section and elevation). While there is no denying that the post-orthographic age is very much upon us with contemporary design work rooted so strongly in the realm of the digital, a tensioned connection with physical manufacture is unavoidable. With building information models (BIMs) becoming more and more the norm for building documentation, it is impossible to move data simply as a drawing without taking care to include all the linked data and logic that aggregate to form the outputs. As architects, we can no longer draw a line on a page or in a simple coordinate system for output. We must now be governed by the laws of “families”, “sets”, coordinations (distinct from coordinates), and each programs processing limitations. It is against these limitations that architectural thinking must now push, as “boolean wizards” architects must now synthesise P. 56 software awareness and proficiency at a level such that thinking does not become beholden to technical ability.

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

REFLECTION: POST-MID-SEMESTER After presenting the exhibition design draft seen on the previous pages, we reflected on our plan and decided to change directions as detailed in the following pages.

P. 57

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

“[1992:] A TRANSFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF VISUALITY PROBABLY MORE PROFOUND THAN THE BREAK THAT SEPARATES MEDIEVAL IMAGERY FROM RENAISSANCE PERSPECTIVE” P. 58

Jonathan Crary Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century MIT Press 1992

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

ABSTRACTED REFLECTION: BEAUTY IN THE EYE OF THE MACHINE The image and its genesis increasingly lie within the machine, its software and its algorithms. Authorial intent must now contend with computational algorithms, a medium infinitely more complex than the conventional hand and pen with infinitely more powerful processing capabilities. Architectural production and, by extension, its representation is now a calculus of software skill as much as it is creativity or “talent”. Decisions are no longer directly linked to the outcome but rather indirectly influential of the final product by way of computer input, processing and output. Jeff Koons’ recently exhibited Venus is, itself, a contemporary re-materialisation of Wilhelm Christian Meyer’s porcelain Venus sculpture from the 18th century, was the substrate for our explorations. Venus simultaneously represents an ancient archetype of beauty and a modern coated fluidity and resists the photogrammetric techniques that were deployed to digitise the work.

This exhibition is an exploration of the abstraction of reproduction using the infinite densities of information that can be found in the physical world and how, through its discretisation, it can be made digital and malleable. The abstraction begins with Koons’ own, when he replicated Meyer’s work in mirror-polished stainless steel. Then, in a series of our own abstractions, we explore how the errors resulting from photogrammetry’s limitations (i.e., scanning reflective surfaces with limited sub-optimal photos) generate new geometries. The smooth drape of Venus’ sheet becomes a rocky topography to be analysed using geographic techniques, while the smaller, three-dimensional components: the hands, the birds, and the face become indexes for comparison of the quality of different photogrammetry results. These binary artifacts were explored and mapped whilst conventional notions of beauty are scanned, manipulated, fragmented, and reconfigured.

P. 59

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

EMERGING ISSUES IN ARCHITECTURAL REPRESENTATION TALKS BY JENNIFER BONNER & ZEINA KOREITEM, MODERATED BY MICHAEL HAYS & ELIOT NOYES An extremely seminal lecture for this project, the talk delivered at Harvard GSD in 2017 illuminates the tensions within contemporary architectural representation. These representations have altered dramatically with changes in the medium. From the advent of the digital and its expansion from prescriptive software to combinatoric sets of generative tools. Digital representations of architecture must navigate and communicate any combination of: formal intent, generative process(es), conceptual/ intellectual frameworks and observational biases. All these factors may or may not be appreciable in the final outcome and the result is often questions of authenticity and its subsequent connections with malleability. The malleability inherent in the digital removes understandings of process unless they are made explicit, as has been done both in this lecture and below. Through this obfuscation and eventual communication of process, process takes precedence over outcome in architectural representations. These exercises and explorations in representation are not a critique of contemporary architectural images, but are instead self critical investigations into the discipline.

P. 60

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

1. Confetti, the Peak Project, Zaha Hadid, 1982 2. Haus Gable, Jennifer Bonner / MALL, 2018 3. Best Sandwiches, Jennifer Bonner / MALL, 2016 4. Still Life, Jennifer Bonner / MALL, 2016

P. 61

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 62

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

PROJECTIONS I MILLIØNS ARCHITECTURE (as written by MILLIØNS Architecture) [1.0]

[1.2]

Over the past three decades the architectural process has been drastically reorganized by what Jonathan Crary calls “a transformation in the nature of visuality probably more profound than the break that separates medieval imagery from Renaissance perspective.” The gap between representation and technical intervention has been displaced to technical processes beneath our perception. The long history of paper-and-pen orthographic representation—geometric gestures of lines and points which provided architecture with a specific graphical language and a stable set of rules and conventions for so long— has dissolved and been replaced with an everexpanding repertoire of computational, “post- orthographic” mediums. These new mediums contain novel forms of automation that at times seem to prioritize “workflow optimization” at the expense of representational experimentation.

If it is true that we must now “reach through images to change things” a series of metaquestions emerge: How might techniques that belong to the world of the raster form the basis for material-tectonic decisions? How can images be reinserted into the process of architectural experimentation? What might be the consequences of such an approach for the processes of materialization that we collectively refer to as fabrication? How might contemporary processes of materialization be made to recognize the culture of the image? How does an image or raster image that is essentially always distorted communicate with automated tools? How might one work with images rather than on images?

[1.1] Today, architecture often finds itself caught in the dissonance between two competing subcultures. On the one hand, there is a culture of rendering, in which the image is regarded as an end-process “output,” often for promotional ends. On the other hand, there is a culture of fabrication, in which the architectural image plays no role during the transition from representational model to materialization; on this view, the priority remains a perfect symmetry between the digital model and its fabricated object. P. 63

1. Projectors I, MILLIØNS Architecture, n.d. 2. Projectors I, MILLIØNS Architecture, n.d. 3. Projectors I, MILLIØNS Architecture, n.d. 4. Projectors I, MILLIØNS Architecture, n.d. 5. Projectors I, MILLIØNS Architecture, n.d.

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

KOONS’ ABSTRACTION Venus, Jeff Koons, 2016-2020 Images from liveauctioneers.com and ngv.vic.gov.au The first step of the abstraction process that yielded our final exhibition result began entirely out of our hands with Jeff Koons’ recreation of the 18th century porcelain figurine designed by Wilhelm Christian Meyer and produced by the Royal Porcelain Factory (KPM) in Berlin. The following pages explore Koons’ abstraction of the original figurine. These pages are presented as comparisons, not side-by-side, but stacked. That is to say that we have aligned images on consecutive pages and welcome you to flip rapidly between them to accentuate differences as though they are being flashed on a screen.

330

P. 64

0.1 Wilhelm Christian Meyer Venus 0.2 Jeff Koons Venus

0.1

2540

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 65

0.2

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 66

1.1 Wilhelm Christian Meyer Venus

Back

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 67

0.1 (Enlarged)

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

1.1

P. 68

1.2

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

1.2 Jeff Koons Venus at NGV 2.1 Wilhelm Christian Meyer Venus 3.1 Wilhelm Christian Meyer Venus

Back Head Segment Bird Segment

2.1

P. 69

3.1

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 70

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

2.2 Jeff Koons Venus at NGV 3.2 Jeff Koons Venus at NGV

Head Segment Bird Segment

2.2

P. 71

3.2

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

MODELING REFLECTIVITY Venus, Jeff Koons, 2016-2020 Images from ngv.vic.gov.au “With a stated intention to ‘communicate with the masses’, Jeff Koons is one of the most influential and popular artists of his generation. Venus 2016–20 is part of Koons’ ongoing Porcelain series which juxtaposes classical ideals of beauty with sophisticated contemporary production technologies. The over life-size, mirror-polished stainless steel sculpture is based on an 18th century porcelain figurine of the same name by Wilhelm Christian Meyer. Mirrors and reflection have long been a hallmark of Koons’s work and he has cited his love for the intoxicating quality of the reflection and its resulting distortion, as well as its ability to implicate the viewer within the work. ‘One of the most used words in philosophy is to “reflect”. To reflect is an inward process, but also an outward process,’ says Koons. ‘The use of reflective surfaces was to connect the work to philosophy and the experience of becoming. And that we not only have our internal life, but we also have the external world – this interaction is what gives us a future. Reflections tell the viewer that nothing is ever happening without them. Art happens inside them.’” -NGV

P. 72

The following pages explore the photogrammetry process of modeling this work using photos taken of an unideal (reflective) object, in an unideal setting (NGV Triennial, no control of lights, phone cameras, no control of environment). These pages are presented as comparisons, not side-by-side, but stacked. As before, we have aligned images on consecutive pages and welcome you to flip rapidly between them to accentuate differences as though they are being flashed on a screen.

0.1 Jeff Koons Venus Photo 0.2 Jeff Koons Venus 54 Photo Model

0.1

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 73

0.2

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

1.1

P. 74

2.1

1.1 Jeff Koons Venus at NGV 2.1 Jeff Koons Venus at NGV 3.1 Jeff Koons Venus at NGV 4.1 Jeff Koons Venus at NGV

Back Segment Bird Segment Foot Segment Drape Segment

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

3.1

P. 75

4.1

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

MODELING REFLECTIVITY Venus, Jeff Koons, 2016-2020 Photogrammetry from 29 Photos Details

1.2

P. 76

2,2

1.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photos Model Back Segment 2.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photo Model Bird Segment 3.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photo Model Foot Segment 4.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photo Model Drape Segment

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

3.2

P. 77

4.2

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

MODELING REFLECTIVITY Venus, Jeff Koons, 2016-2020 Images from ngv.vic.gov.au Details

5.1

P. 78

6.1

5.1 Jeff Koons Venus at NGV 6.1 Jeff Koons Venus at NGV 7.1 Jeff Koons Venus at NGV 8.1 Jeff Koons Venus at NGV

Chest Segment Clock Segment Head Segment Hand Segment

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

7.1

P. 79

8.1

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

MODELING REFLECTIVITY Venus, Jeff Koons, 2016-2020 Photogrammetry from 29 Photos Details

5.2

P. 80

6.2

5.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photo Model 6.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photo Model 7.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photo Model 8.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photo Model

Chest Segment Clock Segment Head Segment Hand Segment

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

7.2

P. 81

8.2

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

MORE IS MORE Two sets of images were taken of Jeff Koons’ ‘Venus’ to produce two comparative models. The first set was taken by Frank at 12:45 on 210417, the second set was taken by Maddy at 19:30 on 210418 (NGV Triennial closing night). Our first model uses only the latter set of images (29 photos) to produce a photogrammetry model while the second model uses both sets (54 photos). The following pages explore the differences between these two models. Again, these pages are presented as comparisons, not side-by-side, but stacked. As before, we have aligned images on consecutive pages and welcome you to flip rapidly between them to accentuate differences as though they are being flashed on a screen.

P. 82

0.1 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photo Model 0.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 54 Photo Model 1.1 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photo Model Bird Segment 1.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 54 Photo Model Bird Segment 2.1 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photo Model Head Segment 2.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 54 Photo Model Head Segment 3.1 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photo Model Hands Segment 3.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 54 Photo Model Hands Segment 4.1 Jeff Koons Venus - 29 Photo Model Drape Segment 4.2 Jeff Koons Venus - 54 Photo Model Drape Segment

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 83

0.1

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 84

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 85

0.2

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 86

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 87

1 Set of 29 Images (Maddy) 2 Set of 25 Images (Frank)

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 88

1.1

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 89

3.1

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 90

1.2

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 91

3.2

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 92

2.1

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 93

4.1

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 94

2.2

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 95

4.2

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 96

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 97

1 Wilhelm Christian Meyer Venus 2 Jeff Koons Venus 3 Point Cloud (29 Images) 4 Photogrammetry Model (54 Images)

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 98

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

FOCUS SELECTION Two types of areas of interest were selected: 3D objects and surface topology. Both types were abstracted using the processes described in the following pages. 3D object segments (shown here in yellow, green and blue) became the basis for a formation of new geometries within the volume of a simple cube. The surface topology (shown here in magenta) was extracted and mapped as a real world topography. The final resulting physical model exemplifies the simplicities and complexities of serial iterations. It appears as a site model for some new architecture until one delves further into its genesis.

P. 99

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 100

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SCAN The roughness added to the sculpture through the process of scanning resembles some topography from some unknown place. An analysis of the drape segment using ArcGIS (a geographic information system, typically used to produce maps and analyze spatial data) yields ideal “sites” to locate representations of other parts of the model. The three-dimensional representation of Koons’s version of Venus becomes abstracted as an architectural site model. This questions whether architectural representation can present other art mediums effectively and whether, by doing so, another art medium is created.

P. 101

1. Digital Elevation Model 2. Topography represented with Hillshade effect [Following Page] Elevation Model [Pages 98-99] 3. Aspect analysis 4. Aspect site suitability rating 5. Slope analysis 6. Slope site suitability rating [Pages 100-101] Slope, Aspect, and Elevation Model

D C

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 104

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 105

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 106

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

A P. 107

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 108

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 109

7. Watershed analysis 8. Flow direction analysis 9. Flow accumulation analysis representing streams

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 110

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 111

10. Euclidean Distance from large streams analysis 11. Distance from large stream site suitability rating [Following Page] Multiplication of site suitability ratings

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 112

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

A P. 113

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

12.1

12.2

P. 114

12.3

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

ABSTRACTION OF COMPONENTS The translation of the digital into the physical is the essence of contemporary architectural production. Here the signalisation of Venus is reversed, with the image now manipulated to become physical. Importantly this is not a reversal of process but a continuation. Using the “image trace” function, new edges are generated that are the combination of photogrammetric, simulated light and algorithmic artifacts generated in sequence through prior abstractive steps. Here, two cubic re-presentations of Venus have been generated using additive and subtractive methodologies with the 29 and 54 models used as a basis, respectively. The resultant cubes are a further manipulation of the Venus substrate as that speak to a certain beauty that is found in the geometries resulting from this accumulation of glitches. Simultaneously, this pair of cubes is representative of new methods of architectural image making.

P. 115

12.1 12.2 12.3

(Opposite) Head Fragment Render Head Fragment Coloured Image Trace Head Fragment Image Traced Lines

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 116

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 117

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 118

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 119

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 120

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 121

VII

VI I

VII

P. 122

V V

IV V

IV IV

VII

V E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021. V

IIX

VII

III

VII

III

VII VI

VII

III

P. 123

III

VII

VI VII

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

V V

V VII

P. 124

VI VII

V V E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

IIX

VII

III

IIX

IV IV

III

VII

III

VII VI

VII

P. 125

III

VII

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 126

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 127

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 128

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 129

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 130

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 131

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 132

E. EXHIBITION DESIGN. GROUP 1. S-I LAB S1 2021.

P. 133

Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne S-I LAB FRANCIS BURNE THOMPSON 757758 MADALYN LASLETT 1057654 Touch Me, Please. with contributions from MANNING MCBRIDE SAMUEL MURNANE Semester 1 2021

NOITCELFER DETCARTSBA .ENIHCAM EHT FO EYE EHT NI YTUAEB

TTELSAL NYLADAM / NOSPMOHT ENRUB SICNARF