Haecceity by jacobriman.design

THE NATURE OF SANDSTONE IN THE DIGITAL AGE

Dissertation U300099

JR. Jacob Riman 12039426 Supervised by Ricardo Assis Rosa 30/01/2015

Fig.1

A dissertation presented to the School of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University in part fulfilment of the regulations for BA (Hons) in Architecture. Statement of Originality

This dissertation is an original piece of work which is made available for copying with permission of the Head of the School of Architecture

Statement of Ethics Review Approval

This dissertation involved human participants. A Form E1BE for each group of participants, showing ethics review approval, has been attached to this dissertation as an appendix. Signed:

Word count: 10,038

DEFINITION OF HAECCEITY: Noun [mass noun] Philosophy

The property of being a unique and individual thing: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The haecceity of a thing is what makes this particular thing what it is in particularâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Origin

Mid 17th century: from medieval Latin haecceitas, from Latin haec, feminine of hic 'this'. (Oxford English Dictionary, 2010)

Fig.2

LIST OF CONTENTS 5.

List of contents

Outline

Understanding sandstone

11.

Stone and tools

11.

The geology of sandstone

13.

The meaning of the material

15.

Tools and processes

17.

Cutting sandstone

17.

Theories about working with sandstone

19.

Haecceity

23.

3D documentation

23.

Photogrammetry

25.

27.

Physical engagement

27.

The test material

29.

The process

33.

Learning from the material

37.

Employing 3D technology

37.

3D scan evaluation

39.

3D printing architecture

41.

Questionnaire

41.

Response questions

45.

Open-ended question

47.

Consideration of responses received

49.

Conclusion

52.

Bibliography

53.

54.

Figure references

56.

Appendices

The technology Using 3-D scanning in architecture

Extended Reading

Fig.3

OUTLINE

This dissertation looks at sandstone, at its physical properties and texture, as well as considering how architects, stone-masons and individuals interact with it in order to develop an understanding of how sandstone might be used and valued in a world where digital design and fabrication processes make possible a very different vision of the uniqueness of stone and where the craftsmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hand is dislocated from the creative process. The technologies of three-dimensional scanning and printing potentially herald a paradigm shift in how stone is perceived and understood. Fabrication technology such as additive manufacturing goes beyond the dislocation of the hand from the process of creation, potentially to the point of entirely removing the human element. The reason sandstone is the focus of the study is because in recent years 3-D printing technology has developed to the stage where a synthetic stone can be printed, utilizing a process similar to some powder bed printers binding powdered quarts together to form rudimentary synthetic sandstone. This dissertation will study the unique interrelationship between digital fabrication and natural materials. The particular focus on Sandstone and additive manufacturing will investigate how these can complement each other.

Fig.4

UNDERSTANDING SANDSTONE There is a rich history of culture and craft which can be drawn on in the exploration of sandstone and which might contribute to our understanding of its future. To understand the haecceity of the sandstone, and how that translates into our experience of it, we need to recognize the processes that are required to transform ubiquitous rock into an object or architectural space that can be experienced. As with any other stone, the process of generating form has always been inherently subtractive; the stone is quarried, taken from the Earth, sawn into rough blocks, before being further cut down and formed by chisel or, more recently, by some digital CNC (computer numerical control). The journey itself leaves marks and traces on the surface of the sandstone and moreover chronicles its formation in the tactility, hue and size of its grain spanning tens of thousands of years. A digitally fabricated facsimile surely cannot carry this, which arguably can be thought of as the stone’s heritage. As Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari argue, the relationship of things is not based on matter and form but “material and force” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p.337); that is to say how different materials and processes are brought together “mix and meld with one another in the generation of things” (Ingold, 2010, p.2) defining not only the explicit physical but also the discrete qualities of a ‘thing’. Is a digitally conceived and 3D printed future going to be devoid of this? Will the richness of worked sandstone for example be lost? As designers and makers, architects are, by definition, concerned with techniques of fabrication, eloquently summarized by Stephen Grange “Architects have always built things out of the available technology. When this is changed so has the built output” (Cruz, 2013, p.2). When a new and worthy technology is invented as the geologist, engineer and architect Chris Luebkeman highlights, there is a process of discovery and adoption. Sometimes there are avant-garde applications that draw attention but in general it is only when a viable and developed strategy for the technology’s application exists that it becomes widely adopted. Designers and makers are fundamentally concerned with fabrication which necessitates an upto-date understanding of the making processes, their correct applications, and how they affect the end product from both a tectonic and experiential points of view (Kolarevic, 2005).

An Acheulean hand axe, the first designed and crafted object, by Homo habilis 1.76 million years ago. A.k.a. The Genesis Object Humanity has always made things in order to survive s, tools, shelter. And after time we developed craft passed mere functionality, ornamented objects began to be made. History bears proof that there is an inherent desire to create a superior object to the last, not only in function, but in aesthetics. “Sand is a magical material of beautiful contradictions. It is simple and complex. It is peaceful and violent. It is always the same, never the same, endlessly fascinating.” (Magnus Larsson, 2009)

Fig.5

STONE AND TOOLS When discussing the architectural use of sandstone, it is often assumed that one is talking about permanent structures, but talking of sandstone in terms of permanents is contradictory. The porous nature of the stone means its surface is constantly alive, changing and eroding. This degradation can be viewed by some to be an aesthetic improvement, even ornamental. Such changes will, over time, typically give the surface a more naturalistic aesthetic and texture. The nature of sandstone allows its geographical origin and age to be identified but it is the changes that the stone goes through that are more interesting. The stone first goes through tooling and finishing processes (applied to it prior to installation) and then subsequently through environmental processes such as rain, frost and wind throughout its lifetime in situ, all of which is recorded as an architectural element. Like the individual rings on a tree stump, discoloration and blemishes of a sandstone surface tell of environmental events such as heavy concentrations of pollution, flooding etc. An imperfect, textured face is more open to conversation (easily relatable) and conveys a vast amount more information than a surface which is impersonal in its regularity and clinically cold in its perfection. Sennett describes the American sociologist Veblen’s reactions to Ruskin’s ideas as celebrating Ruskin’s views on the value of the hand-made, and quotes Veblen as saying “the visible imperfections of hand-wrought goods, being honorific, are accounted marks of superiority, of serviceability, or both” (Sennett, 2009, p.117). The texture of architectural sandstone can only become richer over time, as the surface weathers and it begins to increasingly show its history of ‘serviceability’. Highlighting the qualities of the handmade object and natural materials, marking them as something that should be valued.

THE GEOLOGY OF SANDSTONE

What will eventually become sandstone starts life as pre-existing rocks and minerallic crystals which are ground down over time to grains ranging in size from 0.0625 mm to 2 mm (defined as ‘sand grains’ in geology (Scholle, 1979, p.vi)). Sedimentation results in the accumulation of these grains, these deposits which are compacted by successive layering of material over tens of thousands of years. The porous nature of the compressed grains allows cementitious minerals to infiltrate and fill up the ‘pore spaces’ between grains, over time solidifying a mass of individual grains into a single unified material. The countless variables and incomprehensibly longtime taken by this process perhaps go some way in accounting for the inherent, inbuilt value perceived in such materials. Stone is quarried and worked using highly specialised and labour-intensive processes all of which leave marks and traces in the grain of the stone. 11

Fig.6

The stone itself is unique, a product of tens of thousands years, its existence is a documentation of these process of creation, use and wear. The properties of natural materials dictate how they are employed and worked to create the end product, requiring a direct collaboration between the natural material and the craftsmen that carve it. No such direct collaboration is required to generate 3-D printed sandstone products, formed by predetermined movements of a machine opposed to a craftsperson working with the martial for months or years, as these are determined by lines of computer code, a distant process offering the craftsman no ‘feel’ for the raw material.

THE MEANING OF THE MATERIAL

Hylomorphism, an Aristotelian concept, describes the creation of a thing as being a combination of matter and form. Deleuze and Guattari by contrast describe the creation of a thing as being a combination of ‘material and force'. Tim Ingold argue in his article ‘The Textility of Making’ that the process of formation and the transformation of materials is actually what defines the object that is made. Ingold's interpretation gives material an active role in its own formation which accords more closely with the way sandstone has been shaped by craftsman over time (Ingold, 2010). A material’s singularities thus inform and differentiate the end product making it unique. To better express this concept, Ingold uses the metaphor of a carpenter sawing planks, adjusting the pitch of the saw, the force, speed and length of each stroke of his arm, reacting almost imperceptibly to the flows and changings of the material (Ingold, 2010, p.98). Looking past the specific tool and material to the process and the semiconscious nature in which the craftsman responds to the material; the metaphor becomes universal. Thus the crafting of natural matter into a designed object is to engage with and be informed by “A continuous variation of variables, instead of extracting constraints from them” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p.410). In contrast, a mechanical version of the carpenter’s saw ‘feels’ nothing and lacks the capacity to respond to localised material quirks; every revolution or back and forth of the cutting blade is mechanically identical. To borrow from Ingold’s terminology, the lines and flows of force, the shifting textures, are ignored or obliterated by the mechanical cutter. This is eloquently described by Richard Sennett “the uniform perfection of machined goods issuing no sympathetic invitation, no personal response” (Sennett, 2009, p.109). To remove the hand from the fabrication process negates the craftsman’s contact and appreciation for the subtlety of the material, meaning that every process carried out on the material is neither tailored for nor sensitive to that specific piece of material. This is efficient process standardisation. The next logical step in efficiency after the standardisation of process is to normalise the material itself, into an artificial constant, further distancing products and architectural elements from the “superiority, of serviceability” (Sennett, 2009, p.117) of Sennett. Would Ingold’s carpenter sense and therefore respond to any lines of force when cutting a synthetically consistent engineered timber? 13

Mason (John Barr in 1930) dressing a stone block Fig.7

TOOLS AND PROCESSES

Peter Rockwell is a seasoned lecturer and practitioner of stone carving. In his book ‘The art of stone, working, a reference guide' he remarks that “any object worked in stone is a document that, correctly understood, describes its own manufacture”(Rockwell, 1993, p.5). He goes on to state that stone carving as a ‘technology’ is rarely documented by those that understand and who are native to the processes, “usually the only accurate evidence is the object itself” (Rockwell, 1993, p.5). ‘Stoneworking’ can be seen as a general term, an overarching title to a technical craft. It is the tools that are specific. Rockwell highlights the almost universal existence of a series of ‘basic tool shapes’ which can be found almost everywhere and in any time, where metal tools have been employed. These generic tool forms; the pointed chisel, the flat chisel and the roundhead chisel are bases which are then subject to a vast diversity of variations and iterations as a result of the time and the material to be worked. The factor of ‘time’ can be further broken down; time period, coupled with geographical location creates certain stylistic criteria that the material is required to adhere to, and the mason aspires to achieve. Time is really defined by the technology available, specifically the metalworking techniques available at the time that the tools were produced. The form of the tool and the method of its use are defined by the material to be worked. The pointed chisel was used in a same manner (held at 90° to the surface being worked) in second millennium Egypt as it was employed in the 19th century by granite workers in the United States. The fact, due to the consistent properties of the material, that the tools’ form and methods of use has not changed significantly, highlights the general nature of stoneworking ‘processes’. Though the metallurgy and forging techniques that produced the steel tools of the 19th century were vastly superior to the late Bronze Age technology of the Egyptians, producing far more durable tools, their design and how they were employed remained a constant parallel to that of the material. Barring the introduction of large mechanical cutting systems, the working methodology of stone carving and sculpture has not changed significantly throughout the thousands of years stone has been worked with metal tools. The processes are tailored to the specific materials and styles, aimed at reducing the risk of breakage and mistakes. Here again is Rockwell’s concept of general rules that govern process with a second layer of almost infinite branching and variation in response to specific materials. ‘Process’, Rockwell suggests becomes a general term, as does ‘stoneworking’. Understanding this, exemplifies that “the nature of the stone, always has an influence” (Rockwell, 1993, p.11). The physical properties of a sandstone block are key to how a mason realises a sculpture or an architectural element from it, above specific tools and working methodologies and even technology, the individual properties of stone rule.

Fig.8

CUTTING SANDSTONE

In modern quarrying, stone cutting operations of the softest types of stone (including many varieties of sandstone) utilise toothed saws blades. The majority of saw cut rock is worked with a toothless blade 10 to 20 cm in high and less than 5 mm thick. These stone saws achieve an improved cut by using abrasives; usually a sand and water mix is fed into the cutline as the saw movies back and forth or in some cases continuously in one direction. With harder stones such as granite industrial diamond powder is bonded to the metal blades. This process effectively grinds a thin ‘channel’ through the rock creating a clean flat cut plane, leaving only very faint horizontal marks across the face. Rockwell notes that it was not until the industrialisation of the stone cutting process that sawing techniques were used for architectural stoneworking applications. Before mechanical stone saws “almost all, if not all architectural work was done by hand [using chisels]” (Rockwell, 1993, p.46) producing squared blocks of varying size often with flat surfaces, called ashlar blocks. Hand operated stone saws were reserved for paving and internal non-structural applications. The vast majority of pre-industrial stone buildings were therefore built of hand carved blocks squared and set by masons, each imparting their own subtle mark on the building and the greater built environment of the time. However a large amount of today’s architectural stone especially ashlar blocks, thinner panels for facades and paving slabs, are cut to size and finished with the same mechanical sawing process. Saw cut stone is thus a familiar texture that can be found everywhere stone has been employed in construction post industrial revolution.

THEORIES ABOUT WORKING WITH SANDSTONE

Rockwell writes that the first law of working with stone is that it is fundamentally a subtractive process, “always taking material away” (Rockwell, 1993, p.10). Dictionaries often divide the word ‘sculptor’ into those that carve (subtract) and those that model (buildup). Working with a finite material that is not uniform and may vary in how it shatters or cuts throughout its volume, means that sculptors must be aware before they sculpt, of the ways the material may break or shatter, and adjust their mental picture of their projected work before they begin. Most works of sculpture are highly premeditated but even so, the piece is unavoidably in flux as the work progresses. The experienced stone carver gives over his conscious mind to the extent that “methods have a repetitive unconscious element, as in the way one holds the tool, but also conscious elements in that the product can be measured and judged”(Rockwell, 1993, p.87). The craftsmen can take a mental step back to see the developing work as a whole, even as he works on a particular aspect or element instinctively reacting to the materials grain and any inconsistencies. “The carver does not think about how a tool will be held… or about how it will be used” (Rockwell, 1993, p.87). The working of the stone (micro) is an unconscious process based on a tactile understanding of the immediate materials properties and a conscious (macro) understanding of where any element sits within the overall three-dimensional design. 17

Fig.9

Each mark left by the passing of the craftsperson’s tool, Richard Sennett notes, leaves a hint of “his or her presence on [and in] the object”, an unconscious sign that reads “I made this… I exist”(Sennett, 2009, p.130). To borrow a line from Martin Heidegger from 1971 (Ingold, 2010, p.181) an object presents itself “in its thinging from out of the worlding world”. Here Heidegger is describing the haecceity of a kite, but the ‘thinging’ of how a kite gathers, interacts and moves through the wind can easily be replaced with how a craft person’s tool moves over and reacts to a block of stone being worked. Continuing with Heidegger’s image, seeing the kite as a block of stone and the ‘flyer’ of this kite as the craftsperson, Ingold eloquently articulates, the “flyer and the kite should be understood not as interacting entities, alternatively playing agent to the other… but as trajectories of movement, responding to one another in counterpoint” (Ingold, 2010, p.96). Thus the rich grain of carved stone such as sandstone is overlaid with an equally rich humanistic texture that, if recognised and appreciated adds an ornamental meaning to the form and an understanding of how it was achieved. Louis Kahn is known for his belief in a material’s sense of its own destiny. Famously he told his students that if lacking inspiration, they should ask their materials for advice. “You say to a brick, ‘What do you want, brick?’ And brick says…”(Wainwright, 2013). This inbuilt ‘identity’ of a material must come from its characteristics and the potential ways it can be worked. So the ‘ornamental meaning’ of a sandstone block, and its ‘identity’, is defined by its architectural properties and how it can be cut, formed and finished. This in turn defines how the material will be used within a design. To understand the physicality and discrete nonphysical qualities of sandstone and how this informs one’s experience of it, the source of the material’s haecceity, it’s ‘thingness’ needs to be understood.

HAECCEITY

The continuing advances in fabrication technology today mean that even the solidity of stone can be questioned; it is now possible to talk of generating sandstone objects in terms of additive manufacturing. Successive layers of sandstone’s base component (granules of quartz) bound together in the creation of an entirely digitally determined 3-D printed form. This technology forces us to question what is perceived as ‘manmade’ or ‘handcrafted’. It is undeniable that certain materials invoke feelings, even a sense of appreciation, which extends beyond the mere objects that they form. It is hardly a trade secret that architects use the connotations of materials to evoke feeling or emotive response from users/observers of their buildings, such as lavish patterned marble floors, or the lustre of polished ebony or rosewood. Some generic characteristics of these ‘perceptibly valuable’ materials and objects are fairly obvious; solid and heavy feeling, designs that show off and celebrate the materials they are made from.

Grey granite floor Fig.10

Sandstone wall in Oxford city center Fig.11

The physical attributes of sandstone vary dramatically depending on the type and the geographical location of where it was quarried. But generally, after it has been worked into a form such as an architectural ashlar block, sandstone is warm in colour with a tactile grainy texture (being that most types of sandstone cannot be polished this persists irrelevant to how the surface of the stone is left, smooth, rough-cut etc.). A generally softer material than most other architectural stone, sandstone it is physically warmer in temperature and less anonymous. This gives it a sense of relatability that harder stone such as granites and marbles may lack. Such harder materials are frequently used in official and dominating architecture often seen in banks, government or monarchical buildings etc. whereas softer warmer stones are generally used more for residential, municipal and educational structures. However those objects and architectural spaces where attention to detail and obvious craftsmanship have been employed in their construction go a long way in presenting the materials as explicitly valuable (even if in reality they are not the highest quality or monetarily the most valuable). The presentation of and the craftsmanship in forming a material strongly affects how it perceived. In Christopher Hight’s engagement with digital technology, in The SAGE Handbook of architectural theory, he suggests that technology capable of bridging the gap between the material and immaterial means that architecture and design would be free from construction material limitation. He envisages “material constructions that are no longer determined by a normative and finite world of construction types” (Crysler et al., 2012, p.427), but then warns that there is a potential to “naturalise what has already emerged as tropes… and proliferate them with new conventions” (Crysler et al., 2012, p.426). Perhaps the potential for almost boundless form and detail as well as the synthetic nature of the potential materials may give reason to question the value of digitally fabricated objects over those crafted by hand. Additive (3-D) processes can easily create false or fake attributes, for example, solid looking but hollow, attributes typically too difficult, time-consuming or painstaking to achieve using traditional subtractive processes. This is especially true where cost and availability of skilled craftsmen are factors. This implies that there is a certain level of unconscious trust in solid and handcrafted products, which echoes Veblen’s ‘truth and trustworthiness’ (“honorific[ness]”) of “visible imperfections of hand-wrought goods” (Sennett, 2009, p.117). This fosters the idea that if it can be seen how something was made and made well, be it marks of a craftsman’s pointed chisel on a sandstone cornice or the perfect meshing of a dovetail joint. In both these examples a sense value is provoked. If such details can be captured, assimilated and replicated using digital fabrication technology it might be possible to enjoy the best of both worlds.

Photogrammetry

Fig.12 Photographing an object from all possible angles

Fig.13 Softwhere matches photos and generates 3D point cloud

Fig.15 Final in-engine 3D asset ready to use

Fig.14 Softwhere then generates detailed 3D model

3D DOCUMENTATION THE TECHNOLOGY

When looking at digital fabrication technology, the technology of converting three-dimensional digital geometry into a corporeal object, it becomes increasingly obvious that one should also understand the rudiments of three-dimensional scanning technology. The technological reversal of 3-D printing where existing geometry is captured and converted into 3D digital geometry. 3-D scanning technology was initially developed in the manufacturing industry for quick and repeatable automated quality control checks. Parts on a production line are three dimensionally scanned using a 3-D laser scanning system similar to, but far more automated, that was used in the documentation of the boulder during the physical research element of this paper. The scanner creates a digital model of the manufactured part which is then cross examined against a ‘master’ 3-D model of the part detailing the exact desired geometric data. If the manufactured object does not fit within specified tolerances, staff will be alerted and the errors’ location and nature within the production line will be investigated. Such roots highlight the rapid and reliable qualities of scanning technology and the level of detail that can be capturing for analysis of replication. The technology is also being increasingly used in areas such as architectural and geological conservation and surveying. Over the last few years English Heritage has been carrying out a series of case studies to assess the viability and necessity of utilising three-dimensional scanning in restoration projects. “The recording of position, dimensions and/or shape is a necessary part of almost every project related to the conservation of cultural heritage, forming an important element of the documentation and analysis process” (Heritage, n.d., p.3). As laser scanning systems have advanced and become more accessible the technology has found further applications with designers, artists and architects all of whose work in some way sits astride the physical world and the designed or desired but currently immaterial.

PHOTOGRAMMETRY

Perhaps symptomatic of the rising interest in the ability to 3-D scan (capture) objects, a form of scanning technology that requires no specialised equipment (just a camera and a PC) is becoming increasingly popular. The technology can even be used employing a mobile phone and certain ‘apps’ as the technique for extracting geometry is entirely softwarebased. Photogrammetry works by collating a series of photographs of an object taken from many different angles, preferably against a plain white background. The software then identifies visual reference points on the overlapping photographs and uses this to construct a 3-D form to wrap the 23

3d scan of the Bank of england taken by UCL students. Fig.16

Axo of 3d scan Manor House, Cotswolds taken by ScanLabs for English Heritage, conservation. Fig.17

photos around. The process produces a scaleless model of variable threedimensional geometric resolution. The focus on photography however means that the model can be ‘skinned’ in a photorealistic texture matching that of the original object. This is a quicker but less accurate (compared to laser scanning) 3-D capturing and representation technology but one that is potentially more visually persuasive.

USING 3-D SCANNING IN ARCHITECTURE

A company called Scanlab, established by Matthew Shaw and William Trossell, both of whom are tutors based at the Bartlett school of architecture, UCL (University College London), has been conducting a series of research projects into the uses of 3D scanning and visualisation technologies. Their research covers all scales from the micro to documenting whole swathes of forest in full colour geometrically precise detail (the macro). The bulk of their research looks at how 3-D scanning processes can be incorporated into a designer’s workflow. In a paper they published in ‘FABRICATE: Making Digital Architecture‘ (2011) Trossell and Shaw summarise several of their research projects before concluding that contemporary designers are increasingly becoming aware of and reacting to the divide between physical creation processes and those that are digital. “The combination of 3-D scanning and digital manufacture provides an immediate and direct link between the traditional maker and the digital designer” (Glynn & Sheil, 2013) – page no. Such a digitally augmented workflow would allow designers to interact with physical references. Working with 3D scanning and printing technology from the beginning of the design process, potentially leads to a more haptically informed design process where the definitions of digital and physical design become increasingly blurred. Looking into the application of 3-D printing in architecture and its effect on the discrete qualities that invoke a sense of value in physical objects and how this can be read and documented, it becomes increasingly evident that 3-D scanning technology cannot be discounted. The nature of the technologies are strongly linked, both processes are concerned with physical form and how it is interpreted. It is digital geometry, mapping on the one hand, creation and replication on the other. Scanning has been incorporated into the physical investigation (found later on in this paper) looking at working sandstone and the application of digital fabrication technologies. 3D scanning technology's ability to capture sandstone and architectural works in all there facets will be assessed, in order to determine what level of subtle detail can be captured.

[Please show photos with annotations and highlighted areas. Be very descriptive and analytical as an archaeologist would ].

Fig.18

PHYSICAL ENGAGEMENT To gain a first-hand understanding of the tactile qualities of sandstone (‘the discrete qualities, properties or characteristics of a thing’ defining its haecceity) a number of physical tests and a short research by design investigation into the application of digital technologies was carried out.

THE TEST MATERIAL

A small sandstone boulder (roughly spherical with a diameter of around 350 mm and weighing around 10 kg) was sourced from a materials and reclamation yard in East Sussex. From initial inspection it was obvious that it had not been used in an architectural application beforehand. There was no indication that it had been subject to any work, shaping or finishing at all. The first tactile experience of the material (boulder) was one of a solid, robust, hefty object, warm rather than cold. You could feel the ‘graininess’ of the material and even rub some free without effort. Due to erosion and weathering the surface of the boulder was very soft and easily marked and scratched. In comparison to the majority of architectural stone, the material felt soft, even responsive to touch. It is possible to feel, if not actually see, the porosity of the material. Additionally the soft grain of the boulder’s faces that were exposed to stronger winds and/or rain can be identified by noticeable weathering and the surface colour discolouration (darkening). At this point the boulder is just a lump of natural rock but there was definitely a noticeable ‘thingness’ to its texture and weight, sense of mass.

Scanning using photogrammetry Photograph taken

Section line Generated model

Missing area

Fig.19

Fig.20

Scanning using a laser scanner Scanning in progress

Generated 3D model

Fig.21

Fig.22

Locating cut planes

Fig.23

Fig.24

THE PROCESS

The initial documentation of the boulder involved a series of photographs being taken from all angles. These were then collated and exported to a photogrammetry software package. The intention was to generate a photorealistic and geometrically accurate 3-D model solely based on the photos taken. Unfortunately the technology is rather limited in that it can only capture flat and convex geometries with any accuracy as it effectively needs to see every surface in profile. Thus the many crevices and indentations in the boulder proved impossible to document in detail. The second phase of documentation employed a more standardised scanning technique using a NextEngine desktop 3D Laser Scanner. This is a method less accessible to the public. A series of 17 overlapping 3-D scans of the different faces of the boulder were taken and combined into one highly geometrically accurate and to scale 3-D model. This 3-D model was then interrogated to work out where the most efficient cuts could be made to create two large flat surfaces whilst minimising wastage. This was achieved via experimenting in the 3d digital model space with the position of intersecting planes. This exercise undoubtably increased the efficiency of the end cuts and the ease and speed of choosing their positions and orientation in a way that is not achievable in the physical world, negating the risk of trial and error. In preparation for cutting, the boulder was cleaned of dirt and loose surface material using a coarse brush, then the cutting planes were identified using the computer model as reference. For the first surface cut, a ratchet strap was used in conjunction with a wooden jig to secure the boulder to the worktop in the desired orientation. A metal hacksaw was initially used as its teeth are the closest match to that of an industrial stone saw. The blades quickly dulled however and were relatively ineffective. A plain toothed crosscut wood saw was then tried and proved to be far more effective, cutting far quicker through the sandstone and simultaneously providing far greater control. Several minutes and roughly 50 mm into the initial cut, the saw’s effectiveness seemed to drop off almost instantly; closer inspection revealed that what had been observed on the surface of the boulder as strips of a metallic substance in fact penetrated deep into the boulder’s interior. It was this highly resilient material that halted the saw blade’s progress, and after several attempts to cut through the material using a metal hacksaw it was decided to try and chip through the hard but brittle material. To do this a larger rip saw toothed handsaw was employed. The duller more spaced out blades were more effective at chipping away at the metallic material. In places where the seams were thicker the area had to be first cleared of sandstone using a wire brush and then the metallic elements chipped away using a hammer and chisel. Once the first face was cut, the placement of the boulder for cutting the second face was much easier as it was simply laid down on the new flat surface with the second cutting planes at a right angle to this. To ensure a 90° angle between the two faces was achieved an engineer’s square was referred to several times throughout the cutting process. 29

Clamping Jig

Revealed grain

Fig.25-40

First cut

Second cut

Chiseling

Final object

Revealed grain Fig.41

Nearing the completion of the second cut, a large number of the metallic seams coalesced, requiring more chiselling to remove them from the cutting blades path. Though great care was taken, there was a significant amount of unintended material lost when the metal elements where chipped out due to the highly brittle nature of the material and how it had formed around chunks of the sandstone. This left a sizeable indentation in the otherwise flat surface of the second face.

LEARNING FROM THE MATERIAL

The grain of the stone is far more visible when viewing the two faces that were cut. Having a flat expanse of the material allows for comparison (both visual and tactile) of different areas, colours and patterns. The specific type of sandstone that makes up the boulder used in this investigation would most probably not be selected for architectural work due to its irregularity of pattern and colouring, as well as the presence of the brittle metallic substance (making the stone unpredictable and very challenging to work). This aside, the patternation of the cut surfaces of the boulder is very aesthetically pleasing and shows a huge variance in colouring, from deep ochres to very light yellows. Surprisingly the texture/granular feel of the surface does not alter cross this wide range of visual variation remaining uniform until the stone is intersected by a seam of the metallic substance. Cutting two flat faces of a single unspecified sandstone boulder using incorrect tools does not make an expert but it did highlight the very true nature of Ingoldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s image of the Carpenter sawing planks. Even for the short time that I was working the stone, I developed an intuitive understanding of which saw to use and how much force to apply to each stroke. After dealing with several of the brittle metallic seams, the angle and position of the chisel to apply and the force behind the blows of the hammer to use, became an unconscious decision that did not see me attempting to second-guess how the material was going to react with each blow. The experience has made it very easy for me to imagine that if one was to study the material and its workings through physical interaction and trial and error that a certain â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;understandingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; between a craftsman and a material would develop and defy technical/academic expression.

Final object and intervention Fig.42

Generating the patch to be 3D printed Fig.43

Bolder and 3D printed patch Fig.44

EMPLOYING 3D TECHNOLOGY

The cut boulder was then laser scanned again to allow for easy comparison against its initial form and to assess the quality of the surfaces and textures produced and captured. Looking at both the physical and the computer model the unintended indent in the second surface had a large impact visually and potentially from a functional viewpoint (if the block were to be incorporated into some form of construction). The three-dimensional model allowed me to calculate the effective missing volume of the indent, a volume of 124921.14 (+/0.0001) cubic millimetres, with the deepest point (taking the desired surface as an XY plane) 23mm beneath the desired surface level. Using Rhinoceros V5.5, a highly versatile 3-D modelling software package, the flat surface of the second cut plane was extended over the indent. The gap between this and the actual sandstone boulder was then filled, effectively creating a virtual cast of the area precisely to scale. This geometry was then isolated from the model of the boulder, converted into a solid printable object (often known as a watertight model), the resolution adjusted so as to be suitable for the 3-D printer and exported as an .STL file (Standard Tessellation Language). This file was prepared in the driver software for the 3-D systems inkjet powder printer (450 dpi resolution), located in the print bed and the 3d printer set in motion. The end result was a precise (within tolerances of 0.1 mm) physical replica of the digital patch required to fill the indentation in the boulders second surface. Initially, when the 3D printed patch was positioned over the boulder, it seemed as if the print was slightly off as it did not at once slip into place. However after a small amount of adjustment the piece fitted into the indent perfectly, meshing so closely that there was no real possibility of lateral movement or wobbling of the element once within the boulder. In fact removing the element proved quite challenging. On further analysis of the digital model that it was printed, from it was realised that some surfaces were slightly concave, wrapping around facets of the sandstone boulder that were initially too subtle to detect by eye. The patch almost imperceptibly extended the flat surface to the desired edge as well as meshing with the unworked rough sides of the boulder.

3D SCAN EVALUATION

By its very definition the haecceity of a thing is irreplaceable. The discrete qualities that give a material its â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;thingnessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, are not necessarily based on mere physicality, going deeper than the geometry and surface texture. It follows that for an object to be replicated retaining its sense of value, the same materials must be used and worked with similar tools and techniques. Though replicating the physical value, this still produces an undeniably new object. 3-D scanning and printing, even at extremely high resolutions, may replicate the object potentially more faithfully (capturing tooling marks etc.) but it will only be the external geometry. When the object is handled the change of material and density will give it a distinctly 37

“If you look at the introduction of any new technology, you could argue whether that has been the new technology in the past 30 years. The first phase that it goes through is imitation. The second one is some outrageous or injudicious application, and the third is appropriate application.” Chris Luebkeman - (Kolarevic, 2005, p.291)

Imitation – additive manufacturing (3-D printing)

technology has been around since the 80s, and in the last 10 years it has been used more and more steadily in creating models, imitations, of architectural designs at a micro scale.

Outrageous – the current technology has advanced

significantly, allowing for ostentatious architectural spaces to be printed at a smallscale, Dillenburger and Hansmayer’s Digital grotesque being the current ‘achievable’ paradigm.

Appropriate – this third phase is what highlights 3-D printing as a ‘new’ architectural technology, as there is yet to be a successful application of the technology in the built environment.

Radiolaria pavilion by Shiro Studio, (Measuring 3 x 3 x 3 metres) printed in one process with the D-Shape 3D printer Fig.45

different feel, as the replication is only true to shape, not true to the nature and imperfections of the original material. Only when the ‘thingness’ isn’t fully understood or the object to be replicated is not of natural materials does it seem possible to accurately capture and reproduce an object with all of its connotations and value.

3D PRINTING ARCHITECTURE

This study examined a small material sample but the processes and produced ‘fix’ could easily be scaled up to a more architecturally relevant scale using industrial machines capable of printing load-bearing sand structures. The technologies’ capacity to achieve such 3D printed architectural spaces was proven in 2013 by Michael Hansmeyer and Benjamin Dillenburger with their ‘Digital Grotesque’ project which is featured in the book ‘Fabricate: Negotiating Design and Making’. Though 3D printing technology has been around for a comparatively long time, it is only recently that the hardware has reached a stage where it is conceivably applicable to the 3-D printing of components at an architectural scale. The term ‘architectural scale‘ within this context for it seems to arouse images of enormous gantry-based machines, like a massively scaled up version of Enrico Dini’s D shape printer, printing entire houses in one process. Though several engineers and architects (such as Enrico Dini) have embraced this vision, it can be argued that such grandiose vision of the technologies’ applications are a symptom of the current excitement surrounding the prospect of printed architecture. The current architectural projects that seem to hold the most promise (or at least are currently the most feasible) use 3-D printing in a similar way to a brickmaking machine, printing interlocking elements to form an aggregated building, facade etc. A good example of a project that embraces smaller scale modular printing is Building Bites by Brian Peters. He used a desktop 3-D printer ‘hacked’ to extrude a ceramic slip casting material just as standard 3-D FDM printers (fused deposition modelling) extrude plastic to print complex and unique bricks. The bricks are then air dried before being fired, a similar finishing process to the majority of construction bricks used today. The 3-D printing of bricks allows for complex, highly aggregated structural elements to be created from a massing of smaller 3D printed interlocking components. Thus, the object seen on its own may not seem to be of an architectural scale but as with bricks and masonry blocks the aggregation of a large number can create any variety of forms of any scale. The outlandish grotto (a perfect example of Luebkeman’s ‘outrageous application of a technology’) produced by Hansmeyer and Dillenburger in their digital grotesque project (2013) is a perfect example of this. 64 manageable sand printed bricks were printed to create the 3.2 m high 16 square meter installation. If though they had taken full advantage of the bed size of the industrial sand printer they had access to, the installation could have been printed in just six large elements. This is interesting given that the printable volume of a machine is traditionally seen as the limiting factor in 3D printing. However, the weight and dimensions (4×2×1 m printable volume) of these blocks would make transportation and erection near 39

Fig.46

impossible. Thus the algorithmically generated 3-D model is broken down into smaller parts suitable for packing onto 120 cm2 pallets and being lifted and positioned by just four labourers (Gramazio et al., 2014, p.97). Employing the technology in such a way provides, according to Hansmeyer and Dillenburger, a “larger compositional and constructive freedom and a rationalised fabrication of unique, non-standardised architectures” (Gramazio et al., 2014, p.97). It is worth noting that new technologies don’t have to be exclusively reserved for new architectures. 3-D printing could be applied, retrofitted and incorporated into existing architecture in the form of embellishment, extension or restoration. The practical experiment carried out in the research perhaps highlights just one avenue of investigation into potentially ‘appropriate’ applications.

QUESTIONNAIRE To ground the research in the current contemporary culture of design, a questionnaire was distributed to several architectural and masonry practices as well as a 3-D printing company catering for artists, product designers and architects. The objective was to gather the views and opinions of those practising within architecture, stone masonry, and digital fabrication. The intention when writing the questions was to develop an understanding of how the test group applied value to materials by looking at handmade versus machine-made and whether the textures and properties of materials should be explicitly displayed or polished to flat uniform surfaces. The questions asked are given below along with the anticipated responses (in Italics), and the actual responses and the initial analysis following beneath that.

RESPONSE QUESTIONS

A tick box exercise where there are five options 1 through to 5 1 = Yes very much so

3 = Unsure/undecided

5 = No not at all

(When the ‘average’ is discussed it should be understood as the mean average of the results)

Q1- The first question asks whether a person consciously values handmade over machine made irrespective of economy and functionality. ‘Would you be willing to pay more for a handmade product that functions identically to a cheaper robotically fabricated product purely due to how it was made?’ The average response was expected to lean slightly towards yes, but due to the nature of the test groups’ work and educations (almost exclusively architectural) those answering will appreciate there is a balance between material quality and cost and therefore answer practically. [1.5 – 2.5] The average response (the mean mathematical average) is 3.09 almost precisely in the middle, i.e. undecided. Although not within the expected range the answer is not surprising. It is a pragmatic answer that puts functionality above potential, though not specified, aesthetic and materialistic superiority. It is perhaps likely that if it was specifically stated that the handmade product was aesthetically superior whilst remaining functionally identical that there would have been a slightly stronger pull towards ‘yes’. Q2- The second question enquires whether there is a preference between tactile slightly irregular surfaces and ‘perfectly’ flat, smooth material finishes. ‘In your opinion, do material finishes with small irregularities in surface and texture appeal to you more than the relative anonymity of perfect finishes?’ A reasonable move towards yes was expected from the average here, as tactile surfaces create seemingly more inviting, warm spaces than the use of comparatively anonymous flat polished surfaces. [1.5 – 2] The response to the second question was again less clear than expected averaging out at 2.77. In light of this result and looking back at the question it seems that it would have benefited from a specific scenario being included. There are certainly situations where smooth polish surfaces are not only applicable but advisable. If the opportunity arose to revisit this research Q2 would perhaps be altered to include a specific scenario and maybe even a specified material. However, the result is still illuminating even read as a general question, effectively, ‘do you prefer, textured surfaces to smooth’ it shows that there is only a subtle (less than expected) preference for more irregular, textured finishes. Q3- Question three asks whether people are conscious of materials, that they come into contact with, evoking feelings or a sense of value. ‘Do the materials that surround you and that you interact with affect how you feel about architecture and products i.e. the marble floor of a church, the brass handle of the door, et cetera’ Here a strong yes was expected. However, the exact extent of how people feel a material’s influence on them is seemingly and unquantifiable but very relevant and interesting piece of information. [1 – 2]

The ideas explored by Ingold in ‘The textility of making’(Ingold, 2010) and of Richard Sennett in his book, ‘The craftsmen’(Sennett, 2009) talk of such subtleties in far more robust terms than they are experienced, well at least noticed, in everyday life. So the average result of 1.53 perhaps highlights that though it may not be at the forefront of one’s mind the influence of materials on how one feels, about the values of an object or space, is not entirely unconscious. Q4- A similar question to Q2 focusing on how materials are finished (and thus represented in architecture). However, the question is about the material itself rather than the just a finish and how obviously the end object should display the nature of it, how important is the material to the end piece? ‘How far do you think the natural materiality of architectural components should be expressed i.e. perfect smooth and uniform (no materiality) or with visible tooling marks on and material imperfections (displaying the nature material as its)’ A reasonably strong yes was expected here, as the majority of the test group are people that work with and specify materials on a daily basis; most probably developing an understanding and respect for them. [1.5 – 2 .5] Fractionally below the lower end of the estimated range, the average of 2.55 is still in favour of ‘displaying the nature of the material’ where appropriate. There seems to be some support for celebrating the materiality, but perhaps the significant amount of reserve the result show is informed by the test groups professional experience/expertise. Obviously it is unpractical and untenable in many architecture applications to have excessively rough or unfinished materials. It seems that these responses are more grounded in the reality of designing for clients and users than initially expected. Q5- Question five asks people whether they think that natural materials add a sense of value to an object or space. ‘Do you think that natural materials have an individuality that synthetic/ engineers materials lack. If so does this add a unique value to an object?’ A strong yes, was also expected here as it is seemingly undeniable that natural materials have individuality over synthetic ones. However it is more a question of if the test group attribute significant value to this. [1 – 1.5] Again, just below the expected range 1.64, but still strongly in support of the idea that natural materials have an individualistic value over their synthetic counterparts. The less extreme responses than expected are consistent and seemed to highlight that those answering them are applying the practicalities of architecture as a profession, instead of simply architecture as a subject of academic discourse.

Detail of digital grotesque by Dillenburger and Hansmayerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Fig.47

OPEN-ENDED QUESTION

The final question allows those participating to impart their own opinion of whether additive fabrication has a rightful place in architecture, alongside hand worked natural materials. ‘The above architectural space was 3-D printed entirely from synthetic sandstone in 2013. As the technology develops there will be more opportunity to use additive fabrication (3-D printing) in architecture. Should the technology be widely embraced by architects and designers or does synthetic material sculpted by machine lack the rich materiality of a natural hand worked material to the point that this outweighs the benefits of using additive fabrication?’ A wide range of responses was expected, not necessarily all in support of the superiority of natural materials. Here the nature of the individuals work and views on materiality in the built environment will lead to a rich variety of experienced opinions. Overall, it was expected that there will be a general agreement on the value of natural handcrafted materials but their practical concerns may take away from this. There will most probably be many that suggested that both materials have a place in future architecture. Out of the entire group of 44 responses to this questionnaire there was not a single comment that explicitly rejected digital fabrication technology. Several responses, however, did foresee problems with embracing the technology saying it has the potential to “devalue workmanship” (response 8) and prompt a “deskilling of labour” (response 39), these seeming to be the main reasons for outright disagreement with the use of the technology architecturally. Well over half of the responses at some point concede that they feel there is a superior value, to natural materials that cannot be replaced or replicated by synthetic means. Two responses in particular, serve to highlight this; “From the photo the sculpture looks completely artificial and bears no resemblance to natural sandstone” (response 16) and “Hand tool marks can be a joy. I see no real beauty in the ‘3-D printed’ item above, but would admit to a feeling of marvel at how it was achieved” (response 20), both questions referring specifically to the image of Dillenburger and Hansmayer’s Digital grotesque provided in the questionnaire. The space created by the digital grotesque project is undoubtably a ‘marvel’ and it would also be far beyond the reasonable scope of any architectural project if it were to be carved of natural stone, by far the biggest point raised by the responses is that of economy. “Ultimately cost will always dictate the outcome” (response 9), “the reality is cost will override most choices” (response 3) etc, many seem to agree with the sentiment “if it means that we can create ‘Works of Architecture’ rather than cheap buildings perhaps we should!” (response 40).

Fig.48

CONSIDERATION OF RESPONSES RECEIVED

The grain, craftsmanship and discrete characteristics of natural materials like sandstone may not be present in synthetically produced materials and 3-D printed elements. Such elements would most probably “not be viewed as artwork as a hand produced work would” (response 31) but it would be foolish to not take advantage of such technological advances. It is not ‘a one in - one out’ situation as 3D printed elements can be mixed with and used alongside more traditionally architectural components. Several responses raise the idea that part of an architect’s job is to specify suitable materials that achieve what the client wants structurally and visually, whilst keeping to the budget and adhering to building regulations. One does not need to look any further than the adoption of computer and parametric design within architecture to see that potentially like digital design software, 3-D printing may one day provide an economic way to execute highly complex designs and therefore be readily adopted. One response touched on this noting that the technology “will be more economic than handmade, which will therefore give designers a greater range of opportunity to be more creative, the adoption of BIM (Building Information Modelling) will increase the use of 3-D printing and also mass production” (response 27). There is certainly a sense from the generated dataset that even if 3-D printing and other digital fabrication technologies become the standardised norms there will always be elements that will warrant the specification of natural materials crafted by hand. It doesn’t seem that any of the participants of the questionnaire saw 3-D printing as a threat in terms of being a complete replacement for natural materials and traditional processes. Most seem to see it as a potential future tool that someday may be added to the technologies that architects and designers can draw from to achieve the desired forms and finishes within the real-world constraints of a commission. The results, especially of question 3 and many of the individual answers to the final open-ended question, support the ideas previously discussed about the perceived value of natural materials that are handcrafted. When viewed cumulatively the responses show a definite and recognised valuing of the textures and characteristics of sandstone, tempered by an economic and professional context.

Fig.49

CONCLUSION In this dissertation both the visual and physical properties of sandstone have been explored in an attempt to understand how the material is perceived and valued. Peter Rockwell talks about the “summing together of physical and visual characteristics (such as colour) gives certain stones a “feel” which makes them a joy to carve” (Rockwell, 1993, p.17), a ‘feel’ that certainly extends beyond just carving. The relatively soft sedimentary rock in general is visually very warm and pleasantly tactile. There is a long history of sandstone being used in architectural applications around the world. This focus on the architectural is due in part to the properties of the stone. Most sandstone cannot be polished to a smooth gloss surface, this coupled with its relative softness makes it less able to take and retain fine detailing; meaning that it is not suitable for most artistic sculpture. The fact that sandstone deposits are relatively accessible and easier to quarry than many other stone types goes a long way in explaining sandstone’s ubiquity in the built environment, of the past and present. This history of widespread use and its generally tactile finish is most probably what gives sandstone its feeling of being an honest, reliable material. The substitution of natural materials and the traditional techniques of working them with synthetic materials and 3-D printing processes satisfies the (symptomatic of contemporary architecture) general desire for rapid delivery and cost efficiency. This is unfortunate as ‘instant’ and ‘cheap’ is often the opposite of ’value’ and ‘appreciation’. Though there is undeniably a place for 3-D printing within architecture, short-term gratification should be recognised and avoided as a justification. Echoing the previously quoted sentiment of Christopher Hight, we must not “naturalise what has already emerged as tropes… and proliferate them with new conventions” (Crysler et al., 2012, p.426). However if the technology is appropriately applied in the design and construction of architecture it will greatly increase the freedom of designers in the creation of form and structure. As Richard Sennett comments “When the natural and the artificial, are set as opposites, human virtue can be attached to the first, freedom to the second. Craft skills are necessary to make these attachments and so heightened the conscious value of objects” (Sennett, 2009, p.141). Thus, if a balance between the use of 3-D printing in the future and sandstone can be established it may even bring about a more materially aware culture of design. The conducted physical research highlighted the large current potential of 3-D printing and especially 3-D scanning in augmenting the design process, increasing the freedom architects will have in fulfilling their specific briefs. As noted in one of the questionnaire responses “A good architect… will utilise the work [3D printed elements] to compliment the overall design concept… the principle of good design is universal to all materials and techniques” (Response 31), it is the responsibility of the designer to take 49

Fig.50

advantage of the available technology in the creation of the best design possible, whilst taking into account limitations such as cost and time. There is great potential for a combined approach to scanning and printing that will allow for highly accurate aggregation of complex construction elements and integration with existing structures. The grain of sandstone exposes the provenance of every individual architectural block or sculpture. The process of carving and building with sandstone is one that directly interacts with a huge duration of time and expenditure of labour. The time and the crushing forces that form the rock; the time and toil to excavate it; the time and labour of the craftsmen that forms and works the material and finally the potentially interminable time the structure/sculpture will stand bearing its load and slowly being eroded back to grains of sand. It is a somewhat cyclical process, irrespective of a specific time period or the advances of technology. Thus the grain of a sandstone block is a continuous thread connecting the form as we see it today to the materialâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s origin and is perhaps the clearest expression of the subconscious value attributed to sandstone and other materials; their haecceity.

CYCLE OF SANDSTONE IN ARCHITECTURE

Fig.51 51

Word count: 10,038

BIBLIOGRAPHY Oxford English Dictionary (2010) (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Magnus Larsson | Speaker | TED.com. [Online] Available at: http://www. ted.com/speakers/magnus_larsson (accessed 09/10/14). Cruz M (2013) The inhabitable flesh of architecture. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company Crysler G, Cairns S and Heynen H eds. (2012) The SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory. Los Angeles ; London ; New Delhi ; Singapore ; Washington DC: SAGE Publications Ltd Deleuze G and Guattari F (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia1 edition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Gramazio F, Kohler M and Langenberg S (2014) Fabricate: Negotiating Design and Making. Zürich: GTA Publishers Heritage E 3D Laser Scanning for Heritage. [Online] Available at: https:// www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/3d-laser-scanning- heritage2/ (accessed 23/12/14). Ingold T (2010) The textility of making. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 34 (1), 91–102. Available at: http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ content/34/1/91 (accessed 26/11/14). Kolarevic B (2005) Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and ManufacturingNew Ed edition. New York: Taylor & Francis Rockwell P (1993) The art of stoneworking: a reference guide. Cambridge [England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press Scholle PA (1979) A color illustrated guide to constituents, textures, cements, and porosities of sandstones and associated rocks. Tulsa, Okla: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Available at: http://capitadiscovery.co.uk/brookes/items/144114 (accessed 14/10/14). Sennett R (2009) The Craftsman. London: Penguin Wainwright O (2013) Louis Kahn: the brick whisperer. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/ feb/26/louis-kahn-brick-whisperer-architect (accessed 21/10/14).

EXTENDED READING 22 dkm says: J and 2013 digital grotesque: a 3-d printed room by michael hansmeyer. designboom | architecture & design magazine. Available at: http://www.designboom.com/architecture/digital-grotesque-a- 3d-printed-room-by-michael-hansmeyer/ (accessed 11/09/14). Anon (2010) A Thousand Plateaus. Bloomsbury Academic Anon The race to build the first 3D-printed building (Wired UK). [Online] Available at: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/04/ architecture-and-3d-printing (accessed 21/06/14b). Anon Turning dunes into architecture Available at: http://www.ted.com/ talks/magnus_larsson_turning_dunes_into_architecture (accessed 09/10/14c). Dunn N (2014) Digital Fabrication in Architecture. Laurence King Publishing Glynn R and Sheil B eds. (2013) Fabricate: Making Digital Architecture. Cambridge, Ont.: Riverside Architectural Press Gramazio F and Kohler M (2014) Made by Robots: Challenging Architecture at the Large Scale1 edition. John Wiley & Sons Harrison AL (2012) Architectural Theories of the Environment: Posthuman Territory. New York, NY: Routledge He W and Museum A (2009) Building the new Ashmolean. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum Available at: http://capitadiscovery.co.uk/ brookes/items/1175889 (accessed 14/10/14). Koolhaas R (1994) Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for ManhattanNew Ed edition. New York: Monacelli Press Koolhaas R, Mau B, Werlemann H and Sigler J (2002) Small, Medium, Large, Extra-Large2nd edition edition. New York, N.Y: Monacelli Press Leach N, Turnbull D and Williams C (2004) Digital Tectonics. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.â&#x20AC;Ż; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Levit R Contemporary ornament: the return of the symbolic repressed. Loos A (1998) Ornament and crime: selected essays. Riverside, Calif: Ariadne Press Moussavi F (2008) The Function of Ornament. Barcelona; Cambridge, Mass.: Actar Publishers

Picon A (2014) Ornament: The Politics of Architecture and Subjectivity - AD Primer1 edition. Wiley Sheil B (2008) Proto Architecture: Analogue and Digital Hybrids. London: John Wiley & Sons Smith M and Graham-Dixon A (2009) The Ashmolean Museum. [U.K.]: BBC2 Available at: http://capitadiscovery.co.uk/brookes/ items/1156144 (accessed 14/10/14)

FIGURE REFERENCES FC.

Riman.Jacob (2014).Front cover 'Haecceity' title. [Illustrator and Rhino v5](22/01/2015)

Fig.1

Riman.Jacob (2014). Stone texture study, in and around Oxford City center. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.2

Riman.Jacob (2014). Stone texture study, in and around Oxford City center. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.3

Riman.Jacob (2014). Stone texture study, in and around Oxford City center. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.4

Riman.Jacob (2014). Stone texture study, in and around Oxford City center. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.5

Anon (2014a) Acheulean. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index. php?title=Acheulean&oldid=627369859 (accessed 22/10/14)

Fig.6

Riman.Jacob (2014). Stone texture study, in and around Oxford City center. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.7

Chapman-Taylor JW (1930) English: John Barr chiseling a stone for E S Wilkinsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s house in North Taranaki. Available at: https://interiordesignassist.wordpress.com/category/technology/ (accessed 26/01/15).

Fig.8

Riman.Jacob (2014). Photos of process. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.9

Riman.Jacob (2014). Stone texture study, in and around Oxford City center. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.10

Anon ( (n.d.)) grey granite floor. Available at: www.textures.me/textures/flagstones/grey-granite-floor (accessed 27/01/15).

Fig.11

Riman.Jacob (2014). Stone texture study, in and around Oxford City center. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.12

The Astronauts (n.d.) Photogrammetry. Photograph object from all possible angles. Available at: http:// www.theastronauts.com/2014/03/visual-revolution-vanishing-ethan-carter/ (accessed 26/01/15).

Fig.13

The Astronauts (n.d.) Photogrammetry. Photoscan matches photos and generates 3D point cloud. Available at: http://www.theastronauts.com/2014/03/visual-revolution-vanishing-ethan-carter/ (accessed 26/01/15).

Fig.14

The Astronauts (n.d.) Photogrammetry. Photoscan matches photos and generates 3D model. Available at: http://www.theastronauts.com/2014/03/visual-revolution-vanishing-ethan-carter/ (accessed 26/01/15).

Fig.15

The Astronauts (n.d.) Photogrammetry. Final in-engine asset is ready to use . Available at: http://www.theastronauts.com/2014/03/visual-revolution-vanishing-ethan-carter/ (accessed 26/01/15).

Fig.16

Anon ( (n.d.)) Detail Theft Work. ScanLAB @ The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL. Available at: http:// www.scanlab-ucl.co.uk/detail-theft-1/ (accessed 27/01/15).

Fig.17

Anon ( (n.d.)) colour axo. Available at: http://scanlabprojects.co.uk/projects/house (accessed 27/01/15).

Fig.18

Riman.Jacob (2014). Bolder. Photos of process. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.19

Riman.Jacob (2014). Diagram showing photogrammetry limitations. [Illustrator, Rhino V5 and Photoshop] (22/10/2014)

Fig.20

Riman.Jacob (2014). Photogrammetry results. [Illustrator, Rhino V5 and 123D Catch](22/10/2014)

Fig.21

Riman.Jacob (2014). NextEngine laser scanning. [Photograph](22/10/2014)

Fig.22

Riman.Jacob (2014). Generated 3D model. [Photograph](22/10/2014)

Fig.23

Riman.Jacob (2014). 3D model. locating cut planes. [Photograph](22/10/2014)

Fig.24

Riman.Jacob (2014). Axo. 3D model. locating cut planes. [Photograph](22/10/2014)

Fig. 25-40

Riman.Jacob (2014). Photos of process. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.41

Riman.Jacob (2014). Bolder. Photos of process. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.42

Riman.Jacob (2014). Bolder photos. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.43

Riman.Jacob (2014). Generating the patch to be 3D printed. [Rhino V5](22/10/2014)

Fig.44

Riman.Jacob (2014). Bolder. Photos of process. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.45

Anon ( (n.d.)) Radiolaria pavilion by Shiro Studio. Available at: http://designapplause.com/2012/interviewwith-designer-andrea-morgante-milan-2012/26427/ (accessed 27/01/15).

Fig.46

Riman.Jacob (2014). Stone texture study, in and around Oxford City center. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.47

Hansmeyer and Dillenburger ( (n.d.)) The World’s First 3D Printed Room. Available at: http://inhabitat.com/ the-worlds-first-3d-printed-room-is-a-mind-boggling-baroque-interior/ (accessed 27/01/15).

Fig.48

Riman.Jacob (2014). Stone texture study, in and around Oxford City center. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.49

Riman.Jacob (2014). Stone texture study, in and around Oxford City center. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.50

Riman.Jacob (2014). Stone texture study, in and around Oxford City center. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.51

Riman.Jacob (2014). Idea of ‘stone cycle’ sketch. [Pen drawing and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

Fig.52

Riman.Jacob (2014). Stone texture study, in and around Oxford City center. [Photography and Photoshop](22/10/2014)

APPENDICES THE QUESTIONNAIRE

THE RESULTS Q1

Would you be willing to pay more for a handmade product that functions identically to a cheaper robotically fabricated product purely due to how it was made?

Timestamp

In your opinion, do material finishes with small irregularities in surface and texture appeal to you more than the relative anonymity of perfect finishes?

How far do you think the natural materiality of architectural components Do the materials that surround you and that you should be expressed i.e. perfect smooth and interact with affect how uniform (no materiality) up you feel about architecture and products to visible tooling marks on and unhidden material i.e. the marble floor of a church, the brass handle imperfections (displaying the nature material as its) of the door, et cetera

Q6 - Open-ended question

Do you think that natural materials have an individuality that synthetic/engineers materials lack, If so does this add a unique value to an object?

The above architectural space was 3-D printed entirely from synthetic sandstone in 2013. As the technology develops there will be more opportunity to use additive fabrication (3-D printing) in architecture. Should the technology be widely embraced by architects and designers or does synthetic material sculpted by machine lack the rich materiality of a natural hand worked material to the point that this outweighs the benefits of using additive fabrication?

I think all materials should be balanced is their use; there is a place for every kind of material to be used, and it depends on the quality and the design intent as to the materials to be used. There is a perspective that could state that all materials are natural regardless of there fabrication. The need to create new buildings for the future will require new materials and shapes that 3-D printing will allow us to rise to the challenge. there will always be a market for hand made, however

12/17/2014 19:25:19

1 over lives have drastically changed in the 20th and 21st century by our ability to fabricate and create new objects and materials.

12/17/2014 20:35:56

1 Its a case of horses for courses. Hand crafting with natural materials has a special quality. But Sometimes machines have advantages. The reality is cost will override most choices and the industry lacks the long term view it should take when it comes to building for the future. I suspect the synthetic equivalent, whilst appearing elegant and fit for purpose, will have a shorter lifespan and will lack in other qualities that are needed to enable a building to perform properly, i.e. be breathable and capable of dealing with thermal movement, both intrinsically within itself and forces imposed by adjoining components, and how it deals with stresses within the building, etc. As a surveyor, I would be keen to know how such a product could be effectively maintained. For instance, reconstituted stone components look great and perform well, but once chipped, cracked or damaged cannot be effectively repaired because it doesn't have the benefit of through colour or the same binding structure offered by stone. No doubt, a synthetic product will embody similar qualities, which are great for the short term but 20 years on, I'm sure many building owners will be facing expensive repair bills.

12/17/2014 20:45:22

12/17/2014 21:46:22

1 However I do very much prefer the hand worked material along with its natural imperfections.

12/17/2014 21:52:49

3 3 d printing will loose the creativity, craftsmanship, artistic skills, artists, architects have as a natural talent.

12/18/2014 8:13:05

1 feasible. Furthermore specifying the right material and or finish for the given situation is an important part of a designers role.

12/18/2014 8:34:23

12/18/2014 8:42:50

2 de-values workmanship

12/18/2014 8:50:07

1 Ref. Q4, both tooled and fine finishes are both appropriate, depending on the circumstances, and sometimes together.

12/18/2014 8:52:46

2 Go with the real stuff. I am sure in the end however that 3D printing will be able to replicate the finer tooling, etc. so it will be probably be hard to distinguish.

I think that machine sculpted material has its benefits within the field of restoration following for example fire damage or earthquakes.

As designers we are more often than not lead by our clients budgets and having the luxury to use natural products crafted by skilled workers is not always

Ultimately cost will always dictate the outcome, so 'fakes' will always be used. I would rather see machined natural material than synthetic, so that could be promising, and if 3-D printed sandstone weathered in a similar matter to the natural material I would certainly be interested in using it. (Weathering is an important aspect to the 'feel' and ambience provided by natural material, and, I think, an important aspect to consider in your research).

My personal opinion is that in today's society "time is money". If a machine is able to produce a building component(s) that offers significant savings in time and cost then I believe this will be the way the industry will develop. Just like machine assembly was embraced by the car industry. Turning specifically to focus upon the look and feel of the 3-D printed component - As long as the building I was working upon didn't specifically require handmade components then I wouldn't hesitate to incorporate 3-D synthetic/engineered materials on the agreement that they were fit for purpose and had no detrimental effect on the appearance. Just as a side note, if the surface irregularity was such an important part of the component part "Surely the 3-D printing program could be designed to apply a random finish to replicate hand crafted"

12/18/2014 9:00:36

12/18/2014 9:00:41

2 will be widely used.

12/18/2014 9:07:40

1 In a lot of situations you cannot replace the need for natural materials and which in many cases give better and more desirable appearance

12/18/2014 9:08:39

12/18/2014 9:09:07

3 I have no problem with a reproduction aesthetically. What is lost is the hands on craftsmanship but I think there is room for both.

12/18/2014 9:14:36

1 who are paying the bill (but then I am a Quantity Surveyor)

2 There is space for both. In the end it depends entirely on budget.

1 worry of the production side, having a sculpture that is made from natural materials (and hand made)adds more value to the work.

12/18/2014 9:44:50

12/18/2014 9:53:35

Yes it does lose a certain quality, but this is probably the future of the construction industry. Client's will want the cheaper alternative so in reality I believe that it

If we go down this route then skilled craftsman including stone masons will become a thing of the past. From the photo the sculpture looks completely artificial and bears no resemblance to natural sandstone.Whether this technology should be embraced is not down to Architect's and Designers to decide but Client's

Having studied design myself (product design at uni), I feel that although the use of 3D printing allows designers to create more detailed designs, without the As technology moves on we need to embrace it. If it enables us to carry out intricate repairs on old buildings etc then surely this must be good news especially as it should be cost effective, however, if we are using new technology on new buildings then we should be looking at new finishes which will probably have clean lines. I'm not sure that we should be using the new technologies to necessarily try and replicate the old but should be looking forward with it and to the new opportunities which it should offer.

12/18/2014 10:17:52

12/18/2014 10:28:26

2 i see no real beauty in the '3D printed' item above but would admit to a feeling of marvel at how it was achieved.

12/18/2014 11:06:39

2 Yes I think 3-D printing should be used more

12/18/2014 11:31:49

2 same manner that the prevelance of CGI in film has somehow eroded the realism of cinema rather than adding to it.

12/18/2014 14:58:01

4 cheaper and produces the same effect, I think the technology should be used by professionals.

12/18/2014 16:14:55

2 further to the appreciation and value of these products.

12/19/2014 8:38:01

2 If it was the only way ,but this will lead to loss of skill base also q4 is poorly worded

12/19/2014 8:39:07

2 new technology should be embraced because it will ecourage further improvements rather than stifle progress.

12/19/2014 10:57:23

2 The adoption of BIM will increase the use of 3D printing and also mass production.

12/19/2014 14:22:28

2 suit the desired effec.

12/19/2014 15:25:24

1 medium and should be embrased as a developing method to be used in conjunction with traditional craft techniques

12/20/2014 7:39:48

1 the work, skill and craftsmanship that has been put into producing something, rather than just the quality and detail.

12/22/2014 11:47:02

2 universal to all materials and techniques.

12/22/2014 12:43:13

2 for additive fabrication in the future

12/22/2014 14:27:28

12/22/2014 14:38:12

1 essential part to the design or is in view of people then the benefits still lie with those materials which have been hand worked.

12/22/2014 14:38:31

1 day.

12/22/2014 14:43:41

1 greater than the hand can and therefore can be more aesthetically pleasing

12/22/2014 15:30:07

1 natural materials.

12/22/2014 18:23:48

I prefer to see hand cut products especially if a smooth finish (or nearly smooth) is obtained. Hand tool marks can be a joy.

most of the beauty is in the craftsmanship, 3D printing allows far more complex things to be sculpted but in so doing they loose a realistic, crafted look in the I don't have any knowledge of the subject at all, but looking at the picture, I think it captures lots of detail/intricacy and looks like it's been hand made. If it's I believe that architecture should move with the times, and therefore 3d printing and the like should be embraced and utilised. There will always be people who prefer the handmade approach, and therefore this is not something which we will lose, it may just become less common - which in my opinion would only add

No doubt the cost of the 3D printed fabrication will be more economic than handmade which will therefore give designers a greater range of opportunity to be more creative. There is always a place for new techinologies within the industry that should be embraced. However this should not mean that hand crafted material/workmanship should become redundant. It depends on the project and situation and each process can be utilised by the architect and designer to best 3-D Printing still requires a high level of finishing, which I believe has to be done mostly by hand. Therefore there is still opportunity to apply craft to this new The example really needs to be seen at close quarters in order to answer this question but, in my opinion, the beauty of an object is as much about appreciating It all depends on the apllication in my view. A 3D produced piece of work will not be viewed as artwork as a hand produced work would. A good architect or interior designer will utilise the work to compliment the overall design concept, whereas a poor one will not, so the principle of good design is 3D printer is fine for new building works but restoration should utilise traditional methods unless it is cost prohibitive. I consider that ther will certainly be a place

In certain situations the use of 3D printing I dont think there would be a problem with for example behind the scenes and out of view but for areas where it is an In my opinion, it should be a combination of both 3-D Printed sandstone technology and natural hand worked materials keeping in view the overall cost, complexity and the sustainability of the material and life time. The architectural 3-D printed space could be appealing and easy to manufacture but the material used in creating the parts should also be evaluated in terms of the carbon foot prints because sustainable materials and sustainable buildings is the cry of the I believe that fine details enrich peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experiences and synthetic materials allow designers to embrace fine details in the art. Machines provided details much This technology should be embraced as it will hold its place very much so in the consideration/use of sustainable materials. There will always be the niche for

It all depends on the product, it location within the building, the surrounding materials, features and spaces, the intended use of the building and space the product is situated. I believe there is room for both natural material hand crafted AND engineered, as well as synthetic material hand crafted AND engineered. Depending on the factors above all 4 'finished' products can give a different feels. I believe we should embrace new products (like synthetic sandstone) and new manufacturing (like 3-D printing) to achieve to the design intent. Further I believe architects are best placed to bring these new technology to client's and advise where are best suited for the given situation/project.

12/23/2014 8:43:41

2 I believe any new technology should be embraced, however one of the problems with embracing new technology is the deskilling of labour.

12/23/2014 10:23:47

1 If it means that we can create 'Works of Architecture' rather than cheap building perhaps we should!

16/12/2014 12:08

2 sandstone.

18/12/2014 12:35

1 justice to the hundreds of hours of digital sculpting that would have gone into it....!

Mean average

3.4375

1.580645161

2.59375

1.71875

Chosen 1

Chosen 2

using natural stone gives an added beauty that cannot be produced in synthetic sandstone. ie natural graining and fishiors which cant be produced synthetic Mixed opinions - it's really cool visually from a distance, but close up it loses its charm when you see that it has not been hand crafted, however this does not do

Mean average per question 5

Chosen 4

Chosen 5

Question 1

Question 3

Question 2 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Question 4 1 2 3 4 5

Responses

Chosen 3

Question 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

3 2 1 Q1

0 1

Questions

ETHICS FORM

TURNITIN RECEIPT Similarity: 3%

Digital Receipt T his receipt acknowledges that T urnitin received your paper. Below you will f ind the receipt inf ormation regarding your submission. T he f irst page of your submissions is displayed below. Submission author:

Jacob Riman

Assignment title:

Dissertation Submission with T urn…

Submission title:

Haecceity_T he nature of sandston…

File name:

sitedata_temp_turnitintool_137558…

File size:

13.62M

Page count:

Word count:

14,283

Character count:

73,765

Submission date:

28-Jan-2015 12:13AM

Submission ID:

40122714

LINK TO EXTENDED PHOTO LIBRARY OF THE PHYSICAL INVESTIGATION

Or https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6ZeRh1vWvWmZklRSERqdzljWjQ&authuser=0 59

Fig.52