MArch Y01 Dissertation: Manchester School of Architecture - Olivia Mihale by olivia.mihale

Exploring architecture’s pluri-dimensionality with the use of 3D laser scanning technology.

All the work in this paper is part of the Research Methods 2 : Dissertation Unit at Manchester School of Architecture. I hereby attest that all work in this dissertation is my own.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my tutor, David Johnson, for his constant supervision and valuable advice which led me to the creation of this work. Through all the ups and downs of this experience, he managed to remind me of how enjoyable and fun writing has always been for me. I would also like to thank him for allowing me to delve into such an interesting matter, as while I was discovering the complexities and intricacies of the built environment, I have managed to discover and explore the ones within me. I would also like to thank my family and friends, who have been a constant support especially during these trying times. But most importantly, I would like to thank my mum for always being there for me, this year and for the past 23, as I couldn’t have done it without her. I hope you find as much pleasure in reading this as I have found in creating it!

000. FIGURES

List of Figures

Page Number

1. Figure 0: Case Studies (Data from: Forensic Architecture, 2013; Factum Arte, 2016; ScanLAB Projects, n.d.; Qualinet Databases, 2020; Vimeo, 2014)

2. Figure 1.1: Artificial Device/Photographic Gun (Source: Give me a gun and I will make all buildings move: An ANT’s view of Architecture, 2017:1)

2. Figure 1.2: Living Death Camp (Source: [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

3. Figure 1.3: Tomb of King Seti (Source: [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

4. Figure 1.4: Bartlett Transformations (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

5. Figure 1.5: Shipping Galleries (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

6. Figure 1.6: San Lorenzo de Tarapacá (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

7. Figure 2.1: Cosmic Thing (Source [adapted from] Semantics Scholars, 2002:online)

8. Figure 2.2: are we human? cover (Source: This is Paper, n.d.:online)

9. Figure 2.3: Tomb of West Kennet (Source [adapted from] Thoth Witchcraft, 2018:online)

10. Figure 2.4: Space, Time and Architecture Cover (Source: Archive, 2013:online)

11. Figure 2.5: Lascaux Painting (Source [adapted from] Pinterest, n.d.:online)

12. Figure 2.6: The Piazza del Popolo (Source [adapted from] Met Museum, 2003:online)

13. Figure 2.7: Scan of Shipping Galleries (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

14. Figure 2.8: Lascaux Painting (Niépce, 1826)

List of Figures

Page Number

15. Figure 2.9: The Original Kodak (Source [adapted from] American History, n.d.:online)

16. Figure 2.10: Eadweard Muybridge: Figure Hopping (Source [adapted from] Wide Wall, 2018:online)

17. Figure 2.11: Eadweard Muybridge - Daisy Galloping (Source [adapted from] Wide Wall, 2018:online)

18. Figure 2.12: Edison’s Kinetoscope (Source [adapted from] lomography, 2011:online)

19. Figure 2.13: Representational Media Timeline (Data from: Pinterest, no date; The National Museum of American History, no date; Lomography, no date; FARO, no date; The Atlantic, 2015; Le Jardinier, 1895; Better Photography, 2020; Science and Media Museum, no date; Britannica, 2021; Wide Walls, 2018; Open Culture, 2015; Saatchi & Saatchi, 2015; Edl, Mizerak, Trojan, 2018; Briggs and Burke, 2009)

34-35

20. Figure 2.14: San Giovanni in Conca reconstructed model - VI Century (Source [adapted from] Guidi and Russo, 2009:78)

21. Figure 2.15: San Giovanni in Conca reconstructed model - XIII Century (Source [adapted from] Guidi and Russo, 2009:78)

22. Figure 2.16: San Giovanni in Conca reconstructed model - XVI Century (Source [adapted from] Guidi and Russo, 2009:78)

23. Figure 2.17: Mackintosh Building 3D laser scan (Source [adapted from] Architect’s Journal, 2016:online)

24. Figure 3.1: Staro Sajmište historic location plan (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

25. Figure 3.2: Staro Sajmište historic photograph (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

26. Figure 3.3: Wall Painting inside King Seti’s Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

46 5

List of Figures

Page Number

27. Figure 3.4: Sectional cut through Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

28. Figure 3.5: Scan of Bartlett 2017 Summer Exhibition (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

29. Figure 3.6: Sectional Perspective scan of 22 Gordon Street (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

30. Figure 3.7: Bird’s eye view of Shipping Galleries scan (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

31. Figure 3.8: Bird’s Eye close-up View of Shipping Galleries (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

32. Figure 3.9: Detail of house roof after earthquake, Tarapaca (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

33. Figure 3.10: Brid’s eye view of Tarapaca scan (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

34. Figure 4.i.1: Staro Sajmište 3D scan (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

35. Figure 4.i.2: Scan showing historic layers of site (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

36. Figure 4.i.3: Scan showing historic layers of site 2 (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

37. Figure 4.i.4: Historic maps of Staro Sajmište 1937 & 1944 (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

38. Figure 4.i.5: Plan layout of fairground (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

39. Figure 4.i.6: Plan layout of concentration camp (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

40. Figure 4.i.7: Satellite view of site today (Source [adapted from] Google Earth, 2019:online)

List of Figures

Page Number

41. Figure 4.i.8: Destroyed buildings of former concentration camp (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

42. Figure 4.i.9: Ground penetrating scans showing traces of former architecture on site (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

43. Figure 4.i.10: Underground feature showing sewage lines (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

44. Figure 4.i.11: Axonometric view of feature A (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

45. Figure 4.i.12: Underground feature of unclear nature (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

46. Figure 4.ii.1: Facsimile of King Seti Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

47. Figure 4.ii.2: Video of 3D scanned model of Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

48. Figure 4.ii.3: Online 3D scanned model of Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

49. Figure 4.ii.4: Photos of Tomb facsimile (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

50. Figure 4.ii.5: Sectional cut-through of 3D scanned model showing different levels of the Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

51. Figure 4.ii.6: View from video of 3D scanned model of Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

52. Figure 4.ii.7: View from video of 3D scanned model of

Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online) 53. Figure 4.ii.8 a.: Tomb Entrance - Room A (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

54. Figure 4.ii.8 b.: Room A (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

71 7

List of Figures

Page Number

55. Figure 4.ii.8 c.: Room E - View of wall (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

56. Figure 4.ii.8 d.: Room F (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

57. Figure 4.ii.8 e.: Room G (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

58. Figure 4.ii.8 f.: Room J (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

59. Figure 4.ii.8 g.: Room K - Upward view (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

60. Figure 4.ii.8 h.: Room Jb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

61. Figure 4.ii.9 a.: Eye-level view of Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

62. Figure 4.ii.9 b.: Walkthrough view (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

63. Figure 4.ii.9 c.: Upward looking view of ceiling painting (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

64. Figure 4.ii.9 d.: Flythrough view of Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

654. Figure 4.ii.10: Traced map of Tomb (Source: Author,2021)

66. Figure 4.iii.1: Scan of 22 Gordon Street in 2013 (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

67. Figure 4.iii.2: Scan of 22 Gordon Street in 2018 (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

68. Figure 4.iii.3: Parallel of 2013 and 2018 scans (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

69. Figure 4.iii.4 a.: Raising of scaffolding at 22 Gordon Street (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

70. Figure 4.iii.4 b.: Old facade removal (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

List of Figures

Page Number

71. Figure 4.iii.4 c.: Building without facade (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

72. Figure 4.iii.4 d.: Preparation for additional structure (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

73. Figure 4.iii.4 e.: Weather changes - cloudy (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

74. Figure 4.iii.4 f.: Weather changes - sunny (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

75. Figure 4.iii.4 g.: Workers on site (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

76. Figure 4.iii.4 h.: Addition of vertical structure (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

77. Figure 4.iii.4 i.: Progress on vertical structure (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

78. Figure 4.iii.4 j.: Addition of lateral structure (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

79. Figure 4.iii.5: Double-exposure shot - old and new fabric (Data from: ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

80. Figure 4.iii.6: Parallel shot - 2017 and 2013 timelines (Data from: ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

81. Figure 4.iii.7: Double-exposure shot showing the superimposition of building layers (Data from: ScanLAB Projects, n.d.; Noun Project, n.d.:online)

82. Figure 4.iii.8: Network of agents interacting with the built fabric (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

83. Figure 4.iv.1: Aerial view of Figurehead (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

84. Figure 4.iv.2: Ship Bridge exhibit (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

85. Figure 4.iv.3: Main gallery space (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

81 9

List of Figures

Page Number

86. Figure 4.iv.5: Ship Bridge exhibit photograph (Source [adapted from] Science Museum, n.d.:online)

87. Figure 4.iv.6: Showcase of objects on a boat (Source [adapted from] Science Museum, n.d.:online)

88. Figure 4.iv.7: HMS North Star Figurehead (Source [adapted from] You Tube, 2019:online)

89. Figure 4.iv.8: Plan view of Shipping Galleries (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

90. Figure 4.iv.9: Showcases arrangement (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

91. Figure 4.iv.10: Detail view of Royal Navy warships (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

92. Figure 4.iv.11: View of 2 display cases in the gallery (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

93. Figure 4.iv.12: Aerial view of main gallery space (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

94. Figure 4.iv.13: View of display case and figurehead (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

95. Figure 4.v.1: Aerial view inside house (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

96. Figure 4.v.2: View of destroyed house (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

97. Figure 4.v.3: Detailed view of destroyed house (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

98. Figure 4.v.4: Google Street view 1 of house 1 (Source [adapted from] Google Earth, 2019:online)

99. Figure 4.v.5: Google Street view 2 of house 1 (Source [adapted from] Google Earth, 2019:online)

100. Figure 4.v.6: Google Street view of house 2 (Source [adapted from] Google Earth, 2019:online)

List of Figures

Page Number

101. Figure 4.v.7: Aerial view of San Lorenzo de Tarapacá (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

102. Figure 4.v.8: Close-up shot of street layout (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

103. Figure 4.v.9: Street view (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

104. Figure 4.v.10: Internal view of destroyed house 1 [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

105. Figure 4.v.11: Details of housing [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

106. Figure 4.v.12: Internal view of destroyed house 2 [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

107. Figure 5.1: Scan of German Pavilion with blind spots (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

108. Figure 5.2: Internal view of house with blind spots [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

109. Figure 5.3: Entrance to central exhibition and blind spots (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

i.Living Death Camp

ii.Tomb of King Seti

iii.Bartlett Transformations

iv.Shipping Galleries

v.San Lorenzo de Tarapacá Figure 0: Case Studies (Data from: Forensic Architecture, 2013; Factum Arte, 2016; ScanLAB Projects, n.d.; Qualinet Databases, 2020; Vimeo, 2014) 12

CONTENTS 000. FIGURES

00. ABSTRACT

01. INTRODUCTION

02. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Architecture & Complexity

Architecture as a Changeable Entity

Media Technology & Buildings Recording

3D Laser Scanning Technology

03. METHODOLOGY

Analysis Framework - Interview - Discussion

Introduction to Case Studies

04. ANALYSIS

i. Transparency - Living Death Camp

ii. Alternative Access - Tomb of King Seti

iii. Time - Bartlett Transformations

iv. Movement - Shipping Galleries

v. Details - San Lorenzo de Tarapacá

05. DISCUSSION

Discussion

Blind Spots

Conclusion

101

06. BIBLIOGRAPHY

102

07. REFERENCES

105

08. APPENDIX

110 13

ABSTRACT

00. ABSTRACT

The built environment (understood as all architecture and beyond) has always been a complex matter, a conglomeration of social, political, economic, geological and more often than not, material layers, engulfing us in its intricacies and pluri-dimensionality. The human need to make buildings easy to comprehend, however, has led to representational methods that sometimes abstract them. The invention of photography, soon followed by motion picture, were technological breakthroughs which allowed people to represent the built fabric, but only in this simplified manner. Hence, in their trial to achieve perfection, humans have lost sight of the multitude of data that is so intrinsic to architecture. Current portrayal methods tend to misrepresent the plurality of the built fabric, since they try to capture as much knowledge in as little space as possible. The thesis of this dissertation therefore questions the current methods used in representing architecture. As highly accurate technologies such as photography or videography have the tendency to frame architecture in a way that impedes us from profusely comprehending and even immersing within the built world, is there another way to achieve representational holism? With the development of novel technologies such as 3D scanning, new methodologies might allow us to attain a higher accuracy in conveying architecture. Presumably, a myriad of complexities can be added to those captured by either photography or motion picture through these emerging technologies. Ultimately, the aim of this dissertation is to interrogate how the intricacy and pluralism of the built environment could be better conveyed. As novel technologies, such as 3D laser scanning, provide us with additional layers of understanding, will we finally be able to portray the built environment as a purely changeable, livable entity, an agent within a complex network of heterogenous interactions? 15

INTRODUCTION

01. INTRODUCTION

Ever since the invention of modern media – such as photography and motion picture, different representational techniques have been used in disseminating information. These methods of portrayal have been prevalent within the field of architecture due to two main characteristics: their quickness of producing outputs and their acceptance as highly accurate means of depiction. However, in recent history, there has been a growing dissatisfaction with the overall achievements of these methods, since they present limitations in portraying change. Within New Materialist studies, Latour and Yaneva advocate for the lack that these sorts of depictions bring, as well as question the validity of such static visuals: “we too need an artificial device (a theory in this case) in order to be able to transform the static view of a building into one among many successive freeze-frames that could at last document the continuous flow that a building always is.” (Latour and Yaneva,2017:81)

(Figure 1.1 showing the “artificial device“ (Latour and Yaneva, 2017:80)). The aim of this research is to debate the issue of the mostly static and time-ignorant representation of architecture, while concomitantly identifying an alternative mean for recording and portraying complexities of the built environment. In order to do so, the first part outlines the main literature surrounding the issues of current architectural records. At the same time, it highlights a novel means which has the potential to enhance our ability to depict architecture: 3D laser scanning. Figure 1.1: Artificial Device/ Photographic Gun (Source: Give me a gun and I will make all buildings move: An ANT’s view of Architecture, 2017:1)

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.2: Living Death Camp (Source: [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online) Figure 1.3: Tomb of King Seti (Source: [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

Figure 1.4: B a r t l e t t Transformations (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

Figure 1.5: Shipping Galleries (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

Figure 1.6: San Lorenzo de Tarapacá (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

INTRODUCTION

As this technology possesses a high level of technical accuracy, can record change rapidly and has the capacity to capture vast amounts of measurable data, it comprises the potential to innovate the way in which architecture is conveyed at present. The later part is divided in a series of sub-chapters that are appropriating the theoretical concepts analysed in the Literature Review as a means to create a framework for debating the potential of 3D scanning as representational practice. This framework tackles the issue of change, the multiplicity of viewpoints and the overall complexity of representing the built environment. A series of case studies are analysed through this method. The work of ScanLAB - Figure 1.4, an innovative scanning practice based at UCL, features as one of the most important examples of the use of scanning in recording architecture’s multiplicity. The other case studies are representative of scanning’s capacity to record postdisaster changes (Tarapacá Village in Chile - Figure 1.6), identify the historical layers of a site (Living Death Camp - Figure 1.2), preserve physical artefacts within the digital realm (Shipping Galleries in London - Figure 1.5) or provide alternative access to an otherwise highly inaccessible establishment (The Tomb of Seti in the Luxor Valley - Figure 1.3). The choice of the Case Studies was based on their diversity and visual accuracy, but most importantly, their direct focus on presenting evolution. Ultimately, a discussion analyses some of the downfalls of the technology and finally highlights the potential of 3D scanning as a representational means to capture the multi-dimensional nature of architecture.

LITERATURE REVIEW

02. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Within the broader historical account of architecture, recording its material realities has always been a task linked to the formal, and predominantly static, characteristics of buildings. A theoretical start to counterbalancing this reductivist method of representing architecture (Gorny, 2018) can be the framework proposed by John Tresch – a professor of Art, Science and Folk Practice, in his text about objects as complex conglomerations (2007). Moreover, new materialist debates also consider complexity of the built environment as a relevant topic, especially from the standpoint of its digital representation (Colomina and Wigley,2017). Hence, the aim of this literature review is to underline how traditional methods of recording and presenting architecture have been limited in showing the multi-dimensional and multi-layered nature of the built fabric and delves into emerging methods of conveying this plurality. It will initially focus on the complex nature of architecture, analysing different theories that can be used to facilitate a better understanding of it. It will further consider how varied media have tried to incorporate a multi-plural approach as a necessity in conveying buildings. A closer focus will be given to 3D laser scanning technology and its potential to communicate a deeper understanding of our environments. This literature review follows a four-part structure with the first half setting a theoretical lens while the second half explores a more pragmatic materialization of these aforementioned concepts through a historical and contemporary lens.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The first section scrutinises our general perception of buildings, which is mostly limited and static, underlining how frequently, agents that produce change (such as the passage of time, human inhabitancy, natural phenomena etc.), are being ignored. The underpinnings of such an approach advocate for a more heterogenous understanding of how our building environments work, while underlining the shortcomings of our current thinking. Its objectives are to go beyond the contemporary perception of the world as a binary domain where the supremacy of the subject (the human) subdues the object (all non-conscious material entities) and obliges us to acknowledge agency to all entities. The next subchapter focuses on a series of theoretical debates centered around representational tools in architecture (mostly photography and videography). All theoretical frameworks introduced in both parts question the validity of current means of conveying the built environment and underline the lack of more dynamic, complex and multi-layered outputs. The third part gives an overview of the modern history of representational media, while tackling the question of the copy and the original from the standpoint of an increasing degree of accuracy. The question of photography and motion picture as agents in recording change is considered from a wider perspective, while 3D scanning technology - perceived as having the potential to cover more ground than these, is touched upon briefly. The final section offers an in-depth examination of terrestrial and aerial laser scanning. This novel media is expanding our capacity to explore the architectural realm in an unprecedented way, through intricate and pluralistic depictions. An examination of the current applications of 3D scanning technologies in architecture emphasizes its plethora of uses, current and future.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Architecture & Complexity Despite being aimed at making daily life easier, technological development sometimes ends up by replacing complexity with ignorance, limiting our perspectives on the world and impeding any kind of immersion within our environments. According to Martin Heidegger, “The fundamental event of the modern age is the conquest of the world as picture.” (1977, cited in Tresch,2007:85).

At face value, this affirmation seems to hold true, but only if (representational) technology is interpreted as a means to an end, a powerless tool subdued to the aims and wants of human agents. However, “Approached with the proper receptivity, [however], a bridge, a subway car, a steam engine, a synthesizer, a washing machine, a gun, a standardized fruit fly, or a genetically modified mouse can reveal the ways in which individual things and the world humans share with them are made present.” (Tresch,2007:91). In this way, technology can become an allay, a more nuanced solution to a complex world. Hence, Tresch uses the concept of “cosmic things” - Figure 2.1, to refer to the fact that “an ordinary object may contain an entire cosmos” (2007:84) and “cosmogram” to state that “a cosmos may be treated as just another thing” (2007:84). In this manner, we are able to comprehend the complexities of the world without losing sight of its multi-layered nature.

Figure 2.1: Example of cosmic thing (Source [adapted from] Semantics Scholars, 2002:online)

LITERATURE REVIEW

The built environment is one of those “cosmic things” which people have always tried to relate to, but have unsuccessfully lost sight of its wider picture. As an intrinsically visual field, architecture has always been represented through means that solely convey its visual qualities. However, in recent post-humanist literature, a more anti-establishment epistemology is being proposed, where the duality between humans and non-humans is being renounced for a shared agency approach. This philosophical stance has been largely debated within new materialist and post-new materialist studies, and is in strong opposition with the excessive formalism of architectural representation. Tresch makes progress in this direction through his text by delving into the world’s complexity, which can inductively be applied to architecture. This complexity can be seen as a result of timely processes and human intervention, where a symbiosis is present within the human-built environment relationship. By comprehending this pluralistic presence of architecture, we are closer to a more holistic understanding of the field, since “The world of design […] is more in the planetary domain of overlapping geological and biological layers of artifacts at different scales and time frames and especially includes the ways that those layers are looked at, […]” (Colomina, Wigley, 2016:17) - Figure 2.2.

Additionally, Harraway’s approach to the world implies a renunciation of the modern divide between human and non-human agents, where a shift towards an agency driven environment is proposed “Situated knowledges require that the object of knowledge be pictured as an actor and agent, […] never finally as slave to the master […]” (1988:592). 24

Figure 2.2: are we human? cover (Source: This is Paper, n.d.:online)

LITERATURE REVIEW

In direct relation to architecture, these theories suggest that it is the design layers that communicate the ubiquitous quality of buildings by helping us perceive them as agents within a time-oriented, heterogenous network. O. Harris and C. Fowler – lecturers in archelogy, voice these ideas through a more detailed discussion on the topic of material things seen as agents. In their text on the Tomb of West Kennet - shown in Figure 2.3, they debate between Ingold’s and Harman’s readings of Latour and finalise their argument with Karen Barad’s concepts. The feminist theorist is a proponent of the idea that agents (human or non-human) can be both “webs of relations or bounded entities […]” (Harris and Fowler,2015:133) and proposes the theory that “places the work involved in translating entities and relations at the forefront.” (Harris and Fowler,2015:133). Hence, architecture becomes a complex entity, neither defined by its relationships to other agents, nor an a priori object, where no historical account is necessary for it to manifest. Therefore, the built environment can act both as fixed object and as fluid matter. John Law’s theories on agents add another layer of depth to these concepts. His article on alcoholic liver disease tackles the idea of objects being understood as either regions, networks, fluids or fire (Law, Singleton, 2005). The latter concept (fire objects) is further delved into in the context of design (Law, 2002) where Law applies it to aircraft design. This can inductively be applied to architecture, which becomes a network of complexity “that come(s) with absences that are also presences” (Law,2002:117). Figure 2.3: Tomb of West Kennet (Source [adapted from] Thoth Witchcraft, 2018:online) 25

LITERATURE REVIEW

This binary “interaction” can manifest before a building is constructed - during the design processes; or postconstruction - as part of its ongoing evolution. This relationship highlights how design concepts can be misleading, but more importantly, how the state of occupancy of a building is a complex concept, sometimes misunderstood and oftentimes, misrepresented. This confirms the presence of discrepancies between architectural representations and architecture itself. Hence, the built fabric can be read through the lens of several new materialist and post-new materialist philosophers as a rich and multifaceted matter. In the context of this dissertation, architecture will be explored as a complex entity - both a bundle of relations or a bounded entity, whose translations, visual or otherwise, are manifest through ongoing change, which, however, does not affect its essence. Moreover, architecture becomes a sequence of absences or presences, in a state of transition, which can ultimately be depicted as an agent that transpires complexity at every corner.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Architecture as a Changeable Entity To capture this multiplicity of layers, a focus on the fluctuating and changeable nature of architecture should prevail. A direct prerequisite of Latour and Yaneva’s work (2017), it is also a consequence of the aforementioned theories on complex objects. Initially, emphasis should be placed on time as a disregarded layer of architecture’s manifestation. A pivotal work in this area is Yeonkyung and Sungwoo’s paper discussing Giedion’s space-time concept (theory which can be found in his most famous work, shown in Figure 2.4 (Archive, 2013:online)), understood initially as “a definition of modern architecture as the realization of a new space concept“ (2018:15). Giedion explains this term based on two notions: simultaneity and movement, and, at first glance, his analysis seems successful. However, a series of discrepancies surface, as time only seems to be “a new spatial characteristics of modern architecture” (Yeonkyung, Sungwoo,2018:21) rather than an additional dimension of it. In order to combat this, time has to be perceived as a layer in itself rather than an extension of one of the preestablished dimensions of architecture. Moreover, literature on environmental perception further explores the insufficiencies that representational technologies bring about in relation to our impression of the environment. In a study by Harry Heft – a professor of psychology, and Jack Nasar – a professor of city and regional planning, the need for dynamism, and a higher degree of complexity in visual representations become evident. Their study used both static (photographs) and dynamic (videos) representations of a certain environment. Participants had to rate their viewing experience based on two sets of criteria which referred to the impact of these representations. The experiment’s results showed a higher degree of receptivity towards dynamic displays, as subjects felt more compelled and intrigued by the films of the environments.

Figure 2.4: Space, Time and Architecture Cover (Source: Archive, 2013:online) 27

LITERATURE REVIEW

This attraction towards dynamism can be easily translated to architectural representations. Hence, the study confirms that static visuals such as photographs, lack the necessary richness needed to convey the multilayered and changeable nature of the built environment. Additionally, more dynamic representations, such as films, might be better at capturing architecture’s complexities. However, videography is still insufficient in capturing all minute qualities and changes of the built environment. Improvements could be attained, though, through an elevated, multi-layered, and ideally time-oriented, approach. In trying to find methods to achieve this, the following section looks at how architecture has been represented throughout history and how emerging portrayal techniques might offer an improved interpretation of it.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Media Technology & Buildings Recording “Just as all buildings hold within them the potential of becoming architecture, so the documents that precede, surround, and follow buildings are constitutive players […] in creating architecture” (Hayles and Gannon, 2012:485)

, hence, all the media pre- and post-construction make up the wealth of architectural discourse, confirming the fact that representational methods are as important in manifesting the built environment as are the material realities that physically embody it. Therefore, a direct link I found between our perception of the built environment and how this is depicted. It has only been one century since the first-time people started talking about the “media” (Briggs and Burke,2009), however, the beginnings of visual representations date further back, with the Lascaux paintings - Figure 2.5 - in France being one of the first known traces of “media” created by humans. In terms of architecture, the Grand Tour - Figure 2.6 shows one of Piranesi’s etchings created during this period, which is a typical example of a reproduction technique dating from the 18th Century, was one of the most renowned ways of studying and portraying buildings. Techniques from back then, such as sketching or modelling, are still greatly employed in conveying the built environment today, however, current technologies have made their use less frequent or important. This progress, from analogue methods to photography, videography and CAD, has influenced the way architecture is portrayed. In order to achieve a multi-dimensional, complex and dynamic representations, the question remains: what technology is next in line? Is 3D scanning technology (Figure 2.7 shows a model created through scanning technology) the future or architecture? Could it properly convey the changeable and pluralistic nature of the built environment?

Figure 2.5: Lascaux Painting (Source [adapted from] Pinterest, n.d.:online)

Figure 2.6: The Piazza del Popolo (Source [adapted from] Met Museum, 2003:online)

Figure 2.7: Scan of Shipping Galleries (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online) 29

LITERATURE REVIEW

In terms of visual culture, one massive development was the invention of the camera, dating back to 1826, with Niepce’s “heliography” and the first permanent photograph “View from the Window at Le Gras” shown in Figure 2.8 (Niépce, 1826). The following cornerstone in the history of photography was marked by Louis Daguerre who managed to “develop precise photographic images” (Briggs and Burke, 2009:161). The appearance of the “snapshot” in 1880s brought another breakthrough, as it made photography more available to the common layman from both a technical and economic standpoint. It was during that period, in 1884, that George Eastman invented the Kodak (shown in Figure 2.9), an accessible camera for anyone, everywhere. The following year, he “[…] proposed a list of the uses to which the Kodak could be put” (Briggs and Burke,2009:163). On this list, one of the usages mentioned architectural photography “by engineers and architects who could survey work in progress” (Briggs and Burke,2009:163) - one of the first references to the use of photography to record change in the built fabric. Moreover, according to Cubitt, there has always been a “Struggle over the control over time in digital media” (2014:246). His approach takes an economic and political standpoint, however, the statement holds true from a representational perspective as well “The photograph, as a crystallized form of time past, is absolute in that it presents a time that has fulfilled itself. In so doing, it is no longer a temporal object but spatial, time becoming space at the moment it fulfils itself.” (Cubitt, 2014:237). The idea of time

Figure 2.8: Lascaux Painting (Niépce, 1826)

and change being hard to capture within visual depictions has therefore always been a controversial affair in the history of media. Figure 2.9: The Original Kodak (Source [adapted from] American History, n.d.:online) 30

LITERATURE REVIEW

A great leap in terms of depicting transition, movement and time, however, came with Eadweard Muybridge’s work, as he was “The 1st man to successfully employ a camera sequence to convey the sense of movement” (Briggs and Burke,2009:163). His body of work, some of which is depicted in Figures 2.10 and 2.11, mostly captured living subjects, but his final outputs were a clear representation of how time and change can be shown through the medium of photography generally. Muybridge’s success also came from the fact that he was capable to “arrest motion, […] making visible incremental gestures usually lost in the blur of continuous movement.” (Smith,2013:77). In this manner, his breakthrough allowed people to go beyond their bodily capacity and see the unseeable, which garnered a lot of interest from individuals both in the immediate fields and beyond. On the other hand, an obvious drawback still persisted, in that photography only managed to show change through the use of multiple frames, not in separate instances. It is this arrested state that is still present in today’s depictions, preventing photography from completely encapsulating the multi-faceted nature of architecture. In terms of moving images, its development happened concomitantly with that of photography. It was with Edison’s invention of the Kinetoscope (Figure 2.12) that the advancement of film started. In 1895 Louis Lumiere introduced the cinematograph in Grand Café in Paris. The interest in cinematography has raised exponentially ever since, so much so that by the 1920s and 1930s it

Figure 2.10: Eadweard Muybridge: Figure Hopping (Source [adapted from] Britannica, 2021:online)

Figure 2.11: Eadweard Muybridge - Daisy Galloping (Source [adapted from] Wide Wall, 2018:online)

became apparent that “it was via Hollywood that the cinema was influencing ways of thinking, feeling and, not least, dreaming in quite different social contexts.” (Briggs and Burke,2009:168-169). Figure 2.12: Edison’s Kinetoscope (Source [adapted from] lomography, 2011:online) 31

LITERATURE REVIEW

This is only a brief overview of a continually expanding history (also illustrated in Figure 2.13), however, it becomes obvious how important visual media has been throughout history. Even if these means haven’t always been used to depict architecture, their impact on the wider public has been just as large within this field as it has been within others. Another topic worth mentioning in relation to architectural representations is that of the debate of the copy vs. the original. The issue of replicating artefacts has been especially controversial since the raise of technologies such as photography, which can capture a work in great detail. As mentioned before, architectural records are currently focusing on architecture’s static qualities, however, this does not mean conflicting issues cannot arrive. Benjamin’s essay on reproductions sheds some light in this area, his belief being that “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, […]” (1936:21). It becomes clear that current methods fail to create exact copies and this confers a sort of uniqueness to replicas. However, in aiming to create copies that are increasingly more accurate and which consider parameters such as time and change, the issue might resurface stronger than before. Considering all this, it becomes clear that despite the evolution of photography and motion-picture, there is still a disparity between their representational achievements and how architecture should ideally be portrayed. The following sub-chapter will look into 3D scanning technology and how this might elevate current depicting methods of architecture.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Figure 2.13: Representational Media Timeline (Data from: Pinterest, no date; The National Photography, 2020; Science and Media Museum, no date; Britannic

LITERATURE REVIEW

Museum of American History, no date; Lomography, no date; FARO, no date; The Atlantic, 2015; Le Jardinier, 1895; Better ca, 2021; Wide Walls, 2018; Open Culture, 2015; Saatchi & Saatchi, 2015; Edl, Mizerak, Trojan, 2018; Briggs and Burke, 2009)

LITERATURE REVIEW

3D Scanning Technology 3D laser scanning technology hasn’t been around for long, but its high levels of accuracy and flexibility in postprocessing situations have made it increasingly popular within architecture. The beginnings of the technology came around the 20th Century when a new generation of 3D scanners and additive fabrication tools (Mario Carpo,2017) started to develop. Its most common uses are within the field of architectural heritage where buildings are recorded and preserved as digital artefacts. Historic England says that “Knowledge of the position, size, shape and identity of the components of a historic building or site is a fundamental part of a project related to the conservation of cultural heritage. […]” (2018:1). Additionally, scanner’s capacity to unravel strata of history have made them a prerequisite in trying to portray diachronic representations of establishments. Guidi and Russo’s research into recording “San Giovanni in Conca” Basilica in Milan highlights the potential of this technology to add an extra layer to replicating heritage. They used this technology in correlation with other methods to reconstruct a series of digital models representing the evolution of the Basilica - also shown in Figures 2.14, 2.15, 2.16. This proved 3D scanning’s efficiency as a tool in association with others such as archival texts or historical plans. Moreover, Devilat’s paper on 3D scanning as a recording technique for listed buildings shows that this technology is both useful in pure replication and also in helping with further interventions into the built fabric “the amount and accuracy of the data collected with the 3D laser scanner can be used as a basis for the construction of a progressive record […]” (Devilat,2014:9). Moreover, she elucidates the importance of understanding that records are only singular versions of an evolving artefact, multiple footage instances being necessary for creating accurate representations of buildings. 36

Figure 2.14: San Giovanni in Conca reconstructed model VI Century (Source [adapted from] Guidi and Russo, 2009:78)

Figure 2.15: San Giovanni in Conca reconstructed model XIII Century (Source [adapted from] Guidi and Russo, 2009:78)

Figure 2.16: San Giovanni in Conca reconstructed model XVI Century (Source [adapted from] Guidi and Russo, 2009:78)

LITERATURE REVIEW

As far as employing 3D scanning to convey change in architecture, this has been used in a more practical manner in disaster management situations. The 2014 fire within the Mackintosh Library at Glasgow School of Art is one example - Figure 2.17, that showcases the power of this technology to explore transitional stages in the life of an establishment and how relevant these sort of artefacts are in case of unexpected disasters “[…] currently in development, virtual reconstructions of the library can be made showing the evolution of the structure overtime […]” (Wilson et. al. 2017:30). Additionally, Devilat’s records of the post-earthquake state of San Lorenzo de Tarapacá, Chile are of relevance as the area is at high risk of earth movements, often experiencing earthquakes. Her PhD research has helped with improving the restoration works in the area, as her scans proved useful in maintaining a better accuracy of the deteriorated built fabric after an earthquake in 2005 (Devilat,2014). The abundant capacity of 3D scanning has also culminated in recent years when mixed-methods have been used in recording the built environment. Practices such as ScanLAB are exploring different approaches in representing architecture with laser scanning at the forefront. Some of their scans are post-processed in a way that allows the intersplicing of timelines and, therefore, convey a pluralistic representation of architecture. Hence, current approaches are coming closer to a more effective method in creating what Latour and Yaneva were proposing, an “artificial device” (2017:81) that will be able to portray the complex nature of architecture.

Figure 2.17: Mackintosh Building 3D laser scan (Source [adapted from] Architect’s Journal, 2016:online)

METHODOLOGY

methodology

03. METHODOLOGY

The Literature Review offers an indication of the problematic nature of current architectural representations. The lack of a dynamic component – depicting both the complex nature of our environment and its definite change over time – results in an incomplete portrayal of buildings. Hence, to tackle these issues, I advocate for the possibility of finding more complex representational tools. By analysing a series of Case Studies, the potential of emerging methods of portrayal are highlighted. The main medium used is 3D scanning – with some elements of videography, which aims to create a pluri-dimensional and complex portrayal of the built environment. The methodology proposes an analytical framework based on the aforementioned theoretical concepts. This will be used in parallel with a graphic analysis of shots taken from different sources portraying the case studies. The framework begins by analysing current methods of representing architecture (static visuals, time lapses, videos) and considers the ways in which 3D scanning technology is able to enhance this portrayal. The following concepts will be assessed:

methodology

I. Transparency will refer to the number of layers that can be identified throughout depictions. It is expected that within 3D scans, given the higher level of transparency, a multitude of strata will overlap within the same view. In contrast, other mediums only allow for one layer to be discovered at a time. This criterion relates to Colomina and Wigley’s takes on how the world of design is built as a multitude of layers, all overlapping each other (2016). The tangible elements which will be highlighted are type of environment, scale, number of layers identified and newfound relations identified by virtue of these unseen layers. II. Alternative access will emphasize the capacity of scans to be copied and reused indefinitely, as they repeatedly generate unique representations of the same artefact. This can create a multitude of interpretations of the built environment, which will go beyond those visible to the naked eye. Hence, technology is not restricting our views, but rather, it is enhancing our ability to see. These notions relate, from the perspective of the copy, to those tackled by Walter Benjamin (1936) as well as to Devilat’s work on post-disaster scans in Tarapaca, Chile (2014). This criterion will consider the primary purpose, success in achieving the primary purpose and alternative purposes of the scans. III. (Perception of) Time will analyse the effect of time on architecture and how it influences change. In this instance, 3D scanning coupled with other representational tools – especially video post-processing, will underline fluctuations in the built fabric. This concept relates to notions of absence and presence which John Law delves into (2002) and also touches upon Giedion’s philosophy of time in architecture (Yeonkyung, Sungwoo,2018). 40

methodology

Focus will be placed on different aspects that are indicators of change such as physical transformations, presence of human and non-human agents, physical absences and presences and number of timelines. IV. Movement (& Point of View) will analyse the capacity of visuals to portray the built fabric as a “living”, “breathing” entity, an actual agent, instead of just a static object. It will focus on the idea that 3D scanning allows us to overcome our bodily shortcomings, by endowing us with the power to perceive architecture from unprecedented viewpoints. This relates to Latour and Yaneva’s ideas on developing a tool which can represent the agency of architecture and convey it as a “movable” entity (2017). The criterion is concerned with the presence of a sense of movement, type of perspective, transparency as a means to achieve a new viewpoint, relationships identified within different perspectives and the use of viewpoints to understand circulation. V. Details will investigate the capacity of visuals to convey large amounts of information. In contrast to videography and photography, 3D scanning is distinguishable for its capacity to capture vast amounts of measurable data. Hence, the 3D laser scanner is superior, as it can capture details of an entire establishment, not only of a framed portion of it. This idea refers to concepts mentioned in Historic England’s report on 3D scanning and its uses for architectural heritage (2018). This subchapter will look into number of scales, number of spaces scanned, accuracy of details and sense of materiality.

methodology

Interview As part of the research, an interview was conducted with Ms. Devilat – a researcher into the use of terrestrial 3D laser scanning for seismic-prone heritage areas. The aim of the interview was to understand from a first-hand perspective the direct benefits, as well as the reasons behind using such a new methodology in portraying the built environment. The answers were insightful, relevant and have been used to reinforce arguments within this paper.

Discussion The final part of the dissertation will be a discussion. This will look into some limitations of 3D scanning technology and how they compare to the general achievements of the technology. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn based on the findings of the main chapters which will act as a reflective piece on the main thesis rather than as a definitive statement.

methodology

Case Study Introduction The framework expounded on will be used on five Case Studies which had been chosen as representative for the varying ways in which 3D scanning can be employed in architecture. In the interest of clarity, one illustrative case study has been chosen for each criterion. This does not imply that similar characteristics cannot be found within other case studies, but that they are most tangible in the chosen one.

CASE STUDY INTRO

Figure 3.1: Staro Sajmište historic location plan (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

Figure 3.2: Staro Sajmište historic photograph (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

CASE STUDY INTRO

Living Death Camps Transparency is most evident in the Living Death Camps project (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.2) - a collaboration between ScanLAB and Forensic Architecture. Both practices employed remote sensing technologies to record areas showcasing historical traces at the Staro Sajmište camp. The site’s purpose has evolved over the years, ranging from an exposition pavilion, to a death camp and ultimately to a place of residence for artists and the impoverished. These programmatic transitions have always been linked to political matters. It was therefore not unusual that, in 2013, governmental affairs threatened another change in the site’s purpose. For Serbia to become part of the EU, it had to satisfy the requirements of the Stockholm agreement, which asked for a commemoration pavilion to be built within every country that took part in the genocide of World War II. Staro Sajmište had been chosen for this purpose despite unanimous disapproval from its inhabitants. The critical nature of the issue led to a thorough investigation of the site as a means to protect it from further developments. Finally, the collaborative project tried to unravel the historical layers of the site in order to commemorate its memory and save it from another reuse (Forensic Architecture, 2013).

CASE STUDY INTRO

Figure 3.3: Wall Painting inside King Seti’s Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

Figure 3.4: Sectional cut through Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

CASE STUDY INTRO

Tomb of Seti The Tomb of King Seti (Figure 3.3, Figure 3.4) was chosen for the alternative access criterion, since the main aim of its scanning was to provide accurate information for the creation of a physical facsimile. Research wasn’t only necessary for understanding the value of the relics, it was also needed for the development of laser scanner technology capable to capture even the tiniest amount of close-range, surface details (Factum Arte, 2016). The final outputs of the project were a series of digital and analogue models, as well as research papers and an exhibition which currently holds facsimiles of two of the chambers within the tomb.

CASE STUDY INTRO

Figure 3.5: Scan of Bartlett 2017 Summer Exhibition (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

Figure 3.6: Sectional Perspective scan of 22 Gordon Street (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

CASE STUDY INTRO

Bartlett Transformations The Bartlett Transformations Project (Figure 3.5, Figure 3.6) was chosen for the time criterion as it addresses the issue of change in a straightforward manner by conveying transformations within Bartlett’s studios over a period of three years. The recording of 22 Gordon Street building is an alluring piece of visual media, facilitating an easy understanding of the evolution of the built fabric. The renovation project was the work of Hawkins/Brown and besides being scanned, it has been recorded through photographs, videos and time-lapses.

CASE STUDY INTRO

Figure 3.7: Bird’s eye view of Shipping Galleries scan (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

Figure 3.8: Bird’s Eye close-up View of Shipping Galleries (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

CASE STUDY INTRO

The Shipping Galleries The exhibition at the Shipping Galleries (Figure 3.7, Figure 3.8) was held in the largest gallery space of the Science Museum in London and showcases the importance of movement and dynamism within architectural representations. There is little photographic evidence available of the space. This can be associated with the innovative technique used by the museum curators to capture the character of the exhibition before closure – 3D scanning technology. The final outputs were created by ScanLAB from a highly dense point cloud, post-processed into a digital model which is now open source and presents amazing views of the former gallery.

CASE STUDY INTRO

Figure 3.9: Detail of house roof after earthquake, Tarapacá (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

Figure 3.10: Brid’s eye view of Tarapacá scan (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

CASE STUDY INTRO

San Lorenzo de Tarapaca The San Lorenzo de Tarapacá project (Figure 3.9, Figure 3.10) is representative for the detail characteristic. It was part of Bernadette Devilat’s PhD, which aimed to record a heritage region in Chile that had been affected by an earthquake in 2005. Her final output was a complex 3D terrestrial scanned model used to showcase the state of the village after this natural disaster. Devilat’s digital reconstructions of the area are astounding due to their high level of detail and their aesthetic appeal. Her project also allowed for the creation of a flexible yet permanent digital artefact (Devilat,2021).

ANALYSIS

TRANSPARENCY

type of environment | scale | number of layers identified | new relations identified by virtue of layers

ALETERNATIVE ACCESS primary

purpose

success

achieving

primary

purpose

alternative

purposes

T I M E physical transformations | presence of agents | physical absences & presences | number of timelines

M O V E M E N T

sense of movement | type of perspective | transparency for new views| viewpoints & perspectives

D E TA I LS scales

number

spaces

accuracy

details

sense

materiality

TRANSPARENCY

I.TRANSPARENCY

TRANSPARENCY

Transparency The built environment’s complexity is one of its most valuable characteristics. To comprehend this pluralism, one needs to understand how architecture’s constitutive agents relate to each other and how these connections create a whole. One way to achieve this is by deciphering the multitude of layers (Figure 4.i.2, Figure 4.i.3) that are active participants in creating complexity. The transparent quality of 3D scans is a potential medium through which users could fathom this hierarchy so intrinsic to the design field. In order to appreciate this at a practical level, a case study has been analysed through a layer-oriented approach. The Living Death Camp project focuses on two main strata of information – above ground and below ground data, which underline the historical importance of the site in order to salvage it from potential redevelopment. Overall, the project accentuates the shift that a layered reading of the built environment would create in our understanding and portrayal of it.

Figure 4.i.1: Staro Sajmište 3D scan (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

Figure 4.i.2: Scan showing historic layers of site (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

Figure 4.i.3: Scan showing historic layers of site 2 (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

TRANSPARENCY - HISTORICAL MAPS/GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES

Figure 4.i.4: Historic maps of Staro Sajmište 1937 & 1944 (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

Figure 4.i.5: Plan layout of fairground (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

Figure 4.i.6: Plan layout of concentration camp (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

Figure 4.i.7: Satellite view of site today (Source [adapted from] Google Earth, 2019:online) 58

TRANSPARENCY

The overall area of Staro Sajmište can initially come across as not architecturally relevant due to a general impression of carelessness. In spite of this, its historical richness is what makes Staro Sajmište of utmost importance. In the present case, the absence of a cultural knowledge of the area, coupled with a strong emphasis on a formal reading of it, leads to an ignorant and limited understanding of the multi-dimensionality of this built environment. Despite the plethora of photographic account of the area, its legacy is so embedded in the archaeological, architectural, historical, economical and even social layers of the site (Colomina and Wigley,2016) that it appears unperceivable at first glance. In historic photographs, on site plans as well as in today’s Google Earth data, Staro Sajmiste is showcased as just another part of central Belgrade (Figure 4.i.4 to Figure 4.i.7), where a bi-dimensional representation reigns supreme. One of the most distinct architectural features of the site is its panopticon layout, remnant of the days when the area was used as a concentration camp. This is one of the last remaining links of Staro Sajmište with its turbulent past, the arrangement of the buildings around the central tower managing to reinforce its historical richness. Beyond this interaction, the multitude of the area’s layers is kept hidden. In order to find a more profound understanding of Saro Sajmište, one needs to investigate the evolution of the site and to fathom the set of agents that influenced its ongoing evolution.

TRANSPARENCY

In order to do so, Forensic Architecture has collaborated with ScanLAB to clarify the site’s legacy. Their use of 3D terrestrial scanners and an underground penetrating radar, shows the overlap of archaeological layers with above ground entities. Figure 4.i.8 displays the former buildings of the concentration camp, while Figure 4.i.9 captures the intersplicing of layers, containing data about the past architecture, as well as sewerage systems and even prehistoric relics. By virtue of the transparency of the scans, the overlap of elements becomes apparent. Hence, Staro Sajmište is, concomitantly, the leftover plasma of all the damned souls of the former concentration camp, the home of the first TV broadcast in the Balkans and the accumulating artwork of artist residents. It is in this conglomeration of layers that one can assimilate the assemble that Staro Sajmište is.

SCANS - TRANSPARENCY

Figure 4.i.8: Destroyed buildings of former concentration camp (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

Figure 4.i.9: Ground penetrating scans showing traces of former architecture on site (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

TRANSPARENCY

Additionally, Figure 4.i.10 to Figure 4.i.12 represent a series of underground recordings showcasing the archeological richness of an empty area of the site. Based on witness accounts, this zone, located next to the former German Pavilion, was supposedly a graveyard (Forensic Architecture,2013). After underground investigations were conducted, a series of unknown features were discovered (Figure 4.i.10 to Figure 4.i.12). Even though they initially seemed of minor importance, we are made aware that their relation to the site is extremely valuable. Feature C (Figure 4.i.12) is critical as it opens up the possibility of the site being linked to pre-historical events (Forensic Architecture,2013). These discoveries are made obvious through visual means, such that the number of layers within the site goes beyond what has been inferred from its photographic account. These strata’s intersplicing and overlapping happens at a historical, social, political and even economical level. Hence, the use of 3D scanning in combination with non-invasive and non-destructive archeology methods results in a visually rich and meaningful reading of the site, emphasizing the significance of a complex and pluri-dimensional comprehension of the built environment.

SCANS - TRANSPARENCY

Figure 4.i.10: Underground feature showing sewage lines (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

Figure 4.i.11: Axonometric view of feature A (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

Figure 4.i.12: Underground feature of unclear nature (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

ALTERNATIVE ACCESS

II.ALTERNATIVE ACCESS

ALTERNATIVE ACCESS

Alternative Acess An important characteristic of 3D scanning technology is its ability to capture measurable data (Devilat,2021). In this context, this endows scans with higher flexibility than other media. The resulting point-cloud models can be put to a myriad of uses, long after the scans have been recorded. At a metaphorical level, this can be associated with the plurality of the built environment, which in itself is the blank canvas for different uses. In practical terms, this facilitates workflows and offers a variety of potential uses for the recorded data (Figure 4.ii.1 to Figure 4.ii.3). The case study picked as representative for this feature is the project developed by Factum Arte – “The Tomb of Seti: Recording and Facsimile”. The final output wasn’t a scan per se, but a physical model, a facsimile of some parts of the Tomb. This testifies to the high levels of accuracy of scanning technology as well as its potential to be employed for different purposes.

Figure 4.ii.1: Facsimile of King Seti Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

Figure 4.ii.2: Video of 3D scanned model of Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

Figure 4.ii.3: Online 3D scanned model of Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online) 65

ALTERNATIVE ACCESS - FACSIMILE

e Figure 4.ii.4: Photos of Tomb facsimile (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online) 66

ALTERNATIVE ACCESS

The scanning process of the Tomb was accomplished using a multitude of technologies, each catered for different scales and detail levels (Factum Arte, 2016). The final 3D model is a highly complex piece of visual media – an overlap of multiple scans and megapixel photographs. The main purpose of the model was the creation of an exhibition facsimile, process that required a high level of precision all throughout, during scanning, post-processing and physical construction. The photographs on the following page depict the final product (Figure 4.ii.4 a to e) - a complex and accurate replica of two rooms within the Tomb of King Seti. The exhibition at Antikenmuseum Basel seems to have provided visitors with an exquisite experience owing to the high quality work. Without previous knowledge on the project, one could easily assume that the images in Figure 4.ii.4 a to e are actual photographs of the original artifact. Such assumptions testify to the conundrum between the original and the copy debated by Benjamin (1936) as the facsimiles seem to have succeeded in replicating the space to the last detail. The photographs are also useful in conveying this sense of authenticity, as they provide just the right amount of detail. The somewhat restrictive medium camera shots are ideal in covering imperfections of the physical model. Hence, the replicas seem to have copied the right amount of decay of the wall paintings (Figure 4.ii.4 a to e), the correct spatial layout (Figure 4.ii.4 c and Figure 4.ii.4 d) and parameters such as height or colour palette (Figure 4.ii.4) stayed the same. Despite all these similarities, the spaces of the exhibition only present a minor area within the Tomb – the “Hall of Beauties” and “Pillared Hall J”.

ALTERNATIVE ACCESS

The overall intention of Factum Arte is to create a complete facsimile of the antique remains, however, even when finished, the sectional layout is improbable to be kept as is within the original environment as the Tomb was designed on several levels (Figure 4.ii.5). Moreover, the need for appliances and lighting (Figures 4.ii.4 c, d, e) also imposes a modern conundrum on how best to replicate the environment without losing the genius loci of the place. The digital artifacts, on the other hand, offer a virtual yet accurate reproduction of the Tomb, without losing much of its details. The scanned model (Figure 4.ii.6, Figure 4.ii.7) had been initially used as basis for the construction of the facsimiles, and its high level of detail can be inferred from this primary use. Not only did it manage to provide in-depth information on the state of the relic, but is now an open-source digital artifact (Figure 4.ii.6, Figure 4.ii.7). Its secondary use was the creation of a virtual walkthrough which can be observed on Factum Arte’s website (Figure 4.ii.6, Figure 4.ii.7). Both the walkthrough video and the model itself manage to immerse the viewer in the ancient space, as they convey these spaces in a novel and user-oriented way. The antithetic relationship between an antique entity and its technique of representation actually contributes to the uniqueness of its depiction, making it stand out from other variations on its visual representations.

SCANS - ALTERNATIVE ACCESS

Room Fa

Room F

Room E

Room J RoomI

Room H

Room B Room C Room D different levels of the Tomb

Figure 4.ii.5: Sectional cut-through of 3D scanned model showing different levels of the Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

Figure 4.ii.6: View from video of 3D scanned model of Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

Figure 4.ii.7: View from video of 3D scanned model of Tomb (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

ALTERNATIVE ACCESS

The high degree of flexibility is one other key advantage which sets apart this technology from other tools. Access to the online 3D model (Figure 4.ii.8 a to h) offers the possibility to zoom, pan, orbit and explore at one’s leisure the majestic areas within the tomb. The model enhances the user experience by creating a sense of freedom which is almost equivalent to physically standing within those chambers. In what concerns the video (Figure 4.ii.9 a to d), it presents less flexibility but it conveys an exhaustive depiction of the Tomb. The eye-level views (Figure 4.ii.9 a), flythroughs (Figure 4.ii.9 d) and walk-throughs (Figure 4.ii.9 b) and some upward-looking perspectives (Figure 4.ii.9 c) create a holistic image as they manage to convey naturally the internal layout and circulation (Figure 4.ii.10). A further potential use of the scans is as a study tool. Hence, the digital artifacts are not just appealing visuals only meant for “public entertainment”, but they have the potential to help with in-depth research and studies of the Ancient World. As the Factum Arte website mentions: “The Lucida’s resolution is high enough that every crack and brush stroke are recorded – allowing the close analysis of surfaces in the tomb which can be difficult to access even for experts.”(Factum Arte,2016), hence the final product can be used in a myriad of ways, by virtue of its high fidelity to the real artifact and its great level of detail.

g h f

Figure 4.ii.10: Traced map of Tomb (Source: Author,2021)

SCANS - ALTERNATIVE ACCESS

Figure 4.ii.8 a.: Tomb Entrance - Room A (Source Figure 4.ii.8 b.: Room A (Source [adapted from] [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online) Factum Arte, 2016:online)

Figure 4.ii.8 c.: Room E - View of wall (Source Figure 4.ii.8 d.: Room F (Source [adapted from] [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online) Factum Arte, 2016:online)

Figure 4.ii.8 e.: Room G (Source [adapted from] Figure 4.ii.8 f.: Room J (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online) Factum Arte, 2016:online)

Figure 4.ii.8 g.: Room K - Upward view (Source Figure 4.ii.8 h.: Room Jb (Source [adapted [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online) from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

Figure 4.ii.9 a.: Eye-level view of Tomb (Source Figure 4.ii.9 b.: Walkthrough view (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online) [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online)

Figure 4.ii.9 c.: Upward looking view of ceiling Figure 4.ii.9 d.: Flythrough view of Tomb (Source painting (Source [adapted from] Factum Arte, [adapted from] Factum Arte, 2016:online) 2016:online) 71

TIME

III.TIME

TIME

Time Without considering the transformations of our surrounding environments, we lose sight of one of the most persistent characteristics of the world – its ongoing development. A key in perceiving this is by fathoming the relationship between time and architecture and its direct impact on the evolution of a building. Giedion’s concepts on simultaneity and movement were first steps in this direction. They were, nonetheless, limited, as they only focused on time as an embedded characteristic of the other physical layers of architecture. Within this dissertation, the aim is to differentiate time as an additional layer of the design world. The case study which best represents this idea is the Bartlett Transformations, as the digital record shows two different timelines (Figure 4.iii.3) of the same establishment in order to accentuate the importance of time, and implicitly change.

Figure 4.iii.1:Scan of 22 Gordon Street in 2013 (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

Figure 4.iii.2:Scan of 22 Gordon Street in 2018 (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

Figure 4.iii.3: Parallel of 2013 and 2018 scans (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online) 73

TIME - TIMELAPSE no facade

scaffolding

Figure 4.iii.4 a.: Raising of scaffolding at 22 Gordon Street (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

Figure 4.iii.4 b.: Old facade removal (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

Figure 4.iii.4 c.: Building without facade (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

Figure 4.iii.4 d.: Preparation for additional structure (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

Figure 4.iii.4 e.: Weather changes - cloudy (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

Figure 4.iii.4 f.: Weather changes - sunny (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

Figure 4.iii.4 g.: Workers on site (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

Figure 4.iii.4 h.: Addition of vertical structure (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

no facade

cloudy weather

sunny weather

workers on site

lateral extension

Figure 4.iii.4 i.: Progress on vertical structure (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online) 74

Figure 4.iii.4 j.: Addition of lateral structure (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2016:online)

TIME

Time-lapses are a great way of making change a palpable entity as they provide an account of physical developments in a straightforward manner. The Figures 4.iii.4 a to j present snapshots from a time-lapse which recorded the construction process of the 22 Gordon Street (Bartlett Studios building) development over a period of 12 months. The time layer is made obvious here, as the stages of construction showcase a clear representation of absences and presences (Law, 2002). Starting with the erection of the scaffolding (Figure 4.iii.4 a) – presence of temporary aid structure, the removal of the old façade (Figure 4.iii.4 b, c) – absence of a building facade, the construction of lateral and vertical extensions (Figure 4.iii.4 h, j) – presence of a new structure, transformations are made evident all throughout the video. Moreover, the presence of workers adds a human touch, as their movement is a clear indicator of the progression of the project (Figure 4.iii.4 g). As an exterior shot, the film provides additional information about the passage of time, as changes in weather and the shift from day to night clearly illustrate development. Despite all the upsides, there are several drawbacks that deem this kind of visualization incomplete. The most obvious one is the singular view point. This approach might seem beneficial for consistency, but in actuality restricts any apprehension of what is happening on the other sides of the building. Moreover, the lack of internal visualizations diminishes the effect of the film, as it makes it ineffective in capturing an overarching understanding of how time has affected 22 Gordon Street.

TIME

On the other hand, the scans produced by ScanLAB at two different points in time offer an alternative, more nuanced rendering of the changes within the built fabric. During post-processing, a series of aesthetic decisions led to the use of elements such as double-exposures (Figure 4.iii.5), time parallels (Figure 4.iii.6) and an increased level of transparency (Figure 4.iii.7). These approaches have managed to highlight the tremendous difference between two stages in the life of the establishment (in 2013 – pre-renovation and 2017 – post-construction) in an unprecedented manner. Our understanding is facilitated both by these postprocessing techniques, and also by the flexible nature of the scans themselves, which allow for a multitude of relationships to be uncovered. Firstly, the increased transparency enables us to perceive an intersplicing of timelines – especially evident in Figure 4.iii.5, where the interior structure of the studios is overlapped with the additional structure and the exhibits of the 2017 Summer Show. This visualization offers a global perception of the transformation by conveying a direct comparison between the built fabric, back in 2013, to the populated building of 2017. The time parallel (Figure 4.iii.6) underline the change of the space by analysing absences and presences – the initial state of the building is empty, almost pristine and lacking any human trace. The entity in 2017 portrays the plurality of the design space, with final furnishings in place, exhibition boards presenting student work - an overall conglomeration which depicts architecture’s agency.

SCANS - TIME building extension

2017 Summer Show Exhibition

Figure 4.iii.5: Double-exposure shot - old and new fabric (Data from: ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

populated studio space

exhibition boards

Figure 4.iii.6: Parallel shot - 2017 and 2013 timelines (Data from: ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

floor finish

visible spaces beyond wall partition exhibition boards

blind spot

servicing

Figure 4.iii.7: Double-exposure shot showing the superimposition of building layers (Data from: ScanLAB Projects, n.d.; Noun Project, n.d.:online) 77

TIME

Moreover, in comparison to the time-lapse, the interior scans are showcasing a higher level of detail, as flythroughs are coupled with double-exposure shots (Figure 4.iii.7) which manage to present the way the building was inhabited at the time of recording. This is ultimately compared to the pre-renovation state of the studios, as empty floors are overlapped with exhibition boards and barely discernable, yet present, servicing. In this manner, change and time become evident as a series of physical transformations. Finally, the overall effect of the scans manages to increase our understanding of an architecture which is in constant flux, a “breathing”, “living” and decaying entity. It is this state of the built environment that testifies to Harris and Fowler’s idea of a fixed object which is, at the same time, a fluid matter (2015). Ultimately, a heterogenous network of agents (architects, professors, construction workers, the scaffolding, even changes in the weather) (Figure 4.iii.8) is making its presence felt and with it, elevates architecture to its true status, an equal entity part of a larger network. Hence, the scan becomes the epitome of the building’s evolution, where time is materialized through a seemingly ethereal, yet extremely effective series of transformations.

SCANS - TIME

students

professors

workers

weather

c onst r uc t ion work

architects

Figure 4.iii.8: Network of agents interacting with the built fabric (Source [adapted from] ScanLAB Projects, n.d.:online)

MOVEMENT

IV.MOVEMENT

MOVEMENT

Movement Architecture is mostly perceived as a stable environment, since its principal aim is to offer a shelter to human agents. It is by this nature that we dissociate any type of flexibility with buildings or most physical spaces. For obvious reasons, we tend to attribute movement to intrinsically mobile agents, and never assume it to more static entities. Nonetheless, buildings are non-static, as even when they don’t move, they bestow movement upon us through exploration. It is this motion that represents one of the most intimate ways in which human agents get accustomed to their environments, as well as a straightforward manner of immersing oneself in the here and now. In order to analyse this quality, the Shipping Galleries project was chosen as case study. As the physical manifestation of the exhibition does not exist anymore, it is left to visual media to convey a sense of place and immersion for those interested (Figure 4.iv.1 to Figure 4.iv.3). The scans produced by ScanLAB manage to achieve this by showing a vast number of viewpoints that capture the fluidity within the exhibition. These ultimately create a sort of intimacy that comes close to an in-person experience of the gallery.

Figure 4.iv.1: Aerial view of Figurehead (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

Figure 4.iv.2: Ship Bridge exhibit (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

Figure 4.iv.3: Main gallery space (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online) 81

MOVEMENT - PHOTOGRAPHS

structural column

Figure 4.iv.5: Ship Bridge exhibit photograph (Source [adapted from] Science Museum, n.d.:online) structural beam

lifeline

sailor jacket map

alcohol

Figure 4.iv.6: Showcase of objects on a boat (Source [adapted from] Science Museum, n.d.:online)

balustrade

structural column

Figure 4.iv.7: HMS North Star Figurehead (Source [adapted from] You Tube, 2019:online)

MOVEMENT

The photographic evidence of the Shipping Galleries is rather bantam, which makes it hard for those curious to get a comprehensive interpretation of the former exhibition. Initially, the two areas captured in photographs (Figure 4.iv.5, Figure 4.iv.6) expose a sense of immersion, yet due to being medium camera shots, they frame the views undesirably. This leads to a rather static and pre-established hierarchy of agents, where the Ship Bridge (Figure 4.iv.5) and the overly-populated display of objects found on a boat (Figure 4.iv.6) act as singular, central elements. Additionally, due to the static nature of photography dynamism is not present in these representations. Moreover, in Figure 4.iv.5, a set of mechanical devices take center stage, while the architectural elements of the room – support columns, beams, guarding - become secondary elements. These depictions confine the viewer to a predetermined reading of the space, as these areas seem overly crowded by material objects. Finally, a scan (Figure 4.iv.7) which appears to be similar to a photograph due to its high opacity level, adds dimensionality and dynamism to the space through its wide-angle view of the Figurehead of the HMS North Star. However, the one-point perspective and the lack of transparency in the image restricts a multiplicity of perspectives, as our gaze will stay fixed on the statue – which becomes the primary agent in this depiction.

MOVEMENT

In contrast, the shots on the following page are frames taken from a video depicting the 3D scanned model produced by ScanLAB. The most evident difference between the two types of visualisations is the dynamic quality of the film which illustrates the gallery. Even though it was an aesthetic choice rather than a raw output of the technology, the transparency of the scans is successful in presenting the different agents without offering an obnoxious primacy to any element. The depiction is capturing the space dynamically, as the entire video conveys the exhibition through a multitude of viewpoints – all adding up to an immersive experience. The 3D scans also manage to provide both detailed and an overall impression of the gallery space. The presentation of different scales gives the space a sort of flow which is close to actually experiencing it in person. There are enough close shots to appreciate the most important exhibits, as well as their interaction with other parts of the gallery (Figure 4.iv.9, Figure 4.iv.10). The transparency of the model, once again, is shedding light on the complex network of relations which reinforce the idea of multiplicity through a sort of inferred sense of movement. The viewer tries to understand how the space used to be occupied and, in doing so, manages to imagine how visitors filled the gallery. The plan view (Figure 4.iv.8) of the gallery facilitates this reading by offering a global perspective, further enhanced by access to more detailed views.

SCANS - MOVEMENT

Figure 4.iv.8: Plan view of Shipping Galleries (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

Figure 4.iv.9: Showcases arrangement (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

Figure 4.iv.10: Detail view of Royal Navy warships (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online) 85

MOVEMENT

Figures 4.iv.11 to 4.iv.13 are medium camera shots and have a one-point perspective as common denominator. This aspect could lead viewers to believe that there is a pre-established hierarchy of elements, which might seem static. Whereas this might hold true for the photographs previously mentioned, the semi-transparent quality of the scans, coupled with flythroughs (Figure 4.iv.12) and eyelevel perspectives (Figure 4.iv.11, Figure 4.iv.13) permits a ubiquitous reading of the space – where the structural columns (Figure 4.iv.11 to Figure 4.iv.13) seem to dissolve in order to allow for the more important elements of the exhibition to come to the fore. These overlapping layers manage to capture the architectural qualities of the space, while facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the exhibits. Moreover, as highlighted by the dashed circles, a duality of positioning is achieved, since viewers can delineate the immediate structural elements (as with the columns in Figure 4.iv.11, Figure 4.iv.12) or exhibits (Figure 4.iv.13) without losing sight of the agents beyond them. Furthermore, Figures 4.iv.11 and 4.iv.13 are examples showcasing two central elements – the two display cases (Figure 4.iv.11) and the figurehead and display case (Figure 4.iv.13). This sort of outlook is more compatible to an inperson experience of the gallery, as a real-life visit would imply dealing with the space as a “cosmic thing” rather than a “cosmogram” (Tresch,2007). Hence, the hierarchy of objects actually opens up wide-ranging interpretations of the space as the imbrication of layers and agents is manifest of a pseudo-realistic experience in a very virtual realm. Ultimately, the number of agents participating in the complex web of relationships reaffirms the dynamism of architecture, where display cases and actual exhibits entangle within a metaphorically movable environment.

SCANS - MOVEMENT

Figure 4.iv.11: View of 2 display cases in the gallery (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

Figure 4.iv.12: Aerial view of main gallery space (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

Figure 4.iv.13: View of display case and figurehead (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online) 87

DETAILS

V.DETAILS

DETAILS

Details The idea of details delves into the capacity of different representational technologies to capture agents at different scales and from different angles in order to create a more “real” representation of them. The more accurate and dense architecture is being portrayed, the better chances are that it will come across as having agency and being a valuable node in the entire network of entities. For this criteria, the most appropriate case study was the digital reconstruction of the San Lorenzo de Tarapacá heritage area in Chile. The scans showcase a thorough overview of the area affected by an earthquake in 2005 and the final outputs capture, as Devilat mentions in her interview, details she wasn’t even trying to record (Devilat,2021) (Figure 4.v.1 to Figure 4.v.3). The idea of a technology that is capable to record this vast amount of information, and at the highest quality, could produce a valuable shift in the way architecture is portrayed.

Figure 4.v.1: Aerial view inside house (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

Figure 4.v.2: View of destroyed house (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

Figure 4.v.3: Detailed view of destroyed house (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online) 89

DETAILS - GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES

Figure 4.v.4: Google Street view 1 of house 1 (Source [adapted from] Google Earth, 2019:online)

Figure 4.v.5: Google Street view 2 of house 1 (Source [adapted from] Google Earth, 2019:online)

Figure 4.v.6: Google Street view of house 2 (Source [adapted from] Google Earth, 2019:online)

DETAILS

The post-earthquake investigations supervised by Devilat provide a series of insights inaccessible through any other means, since photographic records of the area are limited. In what concerns other types of visuals, Google Earth shots have been taken from similar areas in the village. Figure 4.v.4 to Figure 4.v.6 present street views of two different establishments affected by the 2005 earthquake in Tarapacá. The most striking characteristic is their decaying state, as no apparent restauration work has been undertaken since the 2013 scans have been taken (Figure 4.v.7 to Figure 4.v.9 are from 2013 while Figure 4.v.4 to Figure 4.v.6 are from 2019). Figure 4.v.4 and Figure 4.v.5 are showing the same stone and wooden battens roof house, while Figure 4.v.6 is capturing a wooden frame house in an even more devastating state. The quality of the images is high, as they are crisp and materiality is accurately conveyed. There is a striking discrepancy between the yellow steel fence and wooden wall (Figure 4.v.6) in comparison to the stone used to build the first house (Figure 4.v.4, Figure 4.v.5). However, the general feeling is of tranquillity, as the colour palette is dominated by light yellows and muted ochres which make architecture appear like a seamless continuation of the landscape. In spite of the wide range of details that the photographs present (lamp pools, the hills at the back – Figure 4.v.4 to Figure 4.v.6), data about the internal spaces of these entities is visibly missing. The scarcity of this information makes any speculation about the living conditions and general internal layout of the housing arduous to comprehend, hence the idea of an architecture which is “alive” is lost.

DETAILS

Alternatively, Devilat’s scans (Figure 4.v.7 to Figure 4.v.12) are technically superior to any photographic recording there is. As she mentions in her interview, not only do these scans contain an enormous amount of measurable and accurate data, but this characteristic makes them extremely flexible as they can be used for countless purposes (Devilat,2021). In this particular case, the digital reconstructions of the village aimed at presenting an overview of the area, and their success is a direct result of the number of scales covered in the final videos. The extreme-long aerial shots (Figure 4.v.7) are a great means to gather a global understanding of the village – it is with these that we discern that the central nexus of the community is to be found at the listed Church. Likewise, close-up shots (Figure 4.v.9) manage to transpose oneself within the village, presenting an almost in-person experience of the area.

SCANS- DETAILS

Figure 4.v.7: Aerial view of San Lorenzo de Tarapacá (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

Figure 4.v.8: Close-up shot of street layout (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

Figure 4.v.9: Street view (Source [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online) 93

DETAILS

What sets scans apart from other visuals, however, is the interior shots - which are astoundingly detailed, almost to the extent that they seem surreal. Figure 4.v.10 shows the crumbling state of the stone wall and the almost collapsing wooden roof. The faded white paint, the steel reinforcement bars on the ground and the fragmented concrete floor all putatively convey the decaying state of the architecture. In spite of this state of decline, the essence of the space is still present, affirming Harris and Fowler’s theory of an architecture of transition, that never loses its essence (2015). Figure 4.v.12 is also conveying a sense of deterioration, yet this entity seems to have been more populated by human agents. The gravel and, more importantly, the broken furniture and leaning wall, provide the render with an intimate view of the former accommodation. The success of this visual is represented by the clear distinction between materials – wooden frame walls, wooden cupboards, concrete floor, which appear to be almost palpable. Admittedly, it is this accuracy of the scans which provides one with a proper understanding of both a microscopic and macroscopic perspective of the area. This further achieves the aims presented in Historic England’s report on heritage recordings and clarifies the interaction between buildings and the general layout of the site (2018). Ultimately, this precision, coupled with a high level of detail, and a strong sense of materiality creates a holistic understanding of the architectural character of the area which almost transposes one back to 2013.

SCANS - DETAILS

Figure 4.v.10: Internal view of destroyed house 1 [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

Figure 4.v.11: Details of housing [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

Figure 4.v.12: Internal view of destroyed house 2 [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online) 95

DISCUSSION

05. DISCUSSION Discussion This dissertation has delved into the complexities and intricacies of the built environment, how its portrayal has been somewhat static and limited throughout the centuries and has offered a solution to the lack of representational complexity. The overall focus has been placed on offering insight into the “cosmic thing” (Tresch,2007) that the built fabric is, by use of a technology that has garnered interest over the past decade – 3D laser scanning. Beginning with the need of a better representational tool and a consideration of the lack of intricacy in architectural depictions, a framework has been used to illustrate the potential of scanning in covering the gaps that other media haven’t managed to fill up to this point. To facilitate a practical understanding of the matter, a series of case studies have been used to illustrate the aforementioned lacks and showcase how scans could potentially overcome these impediments. The Living Death Camp illustrated how the built environment benefits from a thorough reading that goes beyond a surface-deep interpretation and how the layered nature of the design world (Colomina and Wigley,2016) can be understood by using an increased level of transparency. The Tomb of King Seti was successful in engaging with the plurality of architecture through the high accuracy of 3D laser scanning which captured the essence of a space without threatening the original’s authenticity. ScanLAB’s Bartlett Transformations successfully managed to materialise the time layer of the built environment by highlighting physical change.

DISCUSSION

The dynamic nature of architecture was captured within Shipping Galleries’ digital archive as it manifested the powerful capacity of the virtual to act as an immersion tool. Finally, Devilat’s scans of Tarapcá proved that details are essential in conveying a true sense of the atmosphere of an entity but most importantly, they all proved the performance of this emerging technology to portray architecture both as cosmic thing and as a “cosmogram” (Tresch,2007).

Blind Spots Despite the overall benefits of this technology, there are a series of downsides that 3D scanning still has to overcome. Firstly, one drawback is the incapacity of scanners to gather data around their sitting positions as well as beyond scanning targets. The former technical deficiency produces black circular spots around the areas on which scanners are placed during recording. The “black spots” are prevalent in all scans, as images from the Living Death Camp, Tarapacá digital reconstructions and Shipping Galleries case studies showcase (Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.3). Compared to photographs of similar zones, which manage to capture the entirety of the subject, the scanned models seem to be scattered with areas void of information (highlighted in dotted circles – black spots). Moreover, data is also lost whenever targets are used to help scanners understand the three-dimensionality of the space (highlighted in dashed circles). While these barren areas might seem like a tremendous drawback, their scale is relatively small compared to that of the entire scans. As noticed in Figure 5.1, the scan of the German Pavilion at Staro Sajmište has been successfully represented despite several “cavities” present in the pavement, which is not of particular importance in this case. 98

SCANS - DISCUSSION

blind spot blind spot blind spot

blind spot

Figure 5.1: Scan of German Pavilion with blind spots (Source [adapted from] Forensic Architecture, 2013:online)

scanning target

blind spot

Figure 5.2: Internal view of house with blind spots [adapted from] Vimeo, 2014:online)

scanning target

blind spot

scanning target

Figure 5.3: Entrance to central exhibition and blind spots (Source [adapted from] Qualinet Databases, 2020:online)

DISCUSSION

Ultimately, these lacunes are necessary evils, whose failings are greatly surpassed by the general complexity and number of details that scans can provide. Secondly, when specifically referring to 3D terrestrial scanning, another serious downside is represented by the technology’s incapacity to gather information about the social component of architecture (Devilat, 2021). Scanners are generally successful in recording highly detailed information and therefore can easily reproduce the ways in which people inhabit different spaces. Conversely, they cannot record the needs and desires of the inhabitants. As one can see in Figure 5.2, the furniture layout within the Chilean residence is indicating human presence, as identified through the ruffled blanket and the plastic bags at the door. Yet, no deeper knowledge about the inhabitants can be gained from the scan. At a first glance, this might seem important, however, for the sort of comprehension necessary in most cases, a clear representation of the phenomenological qualities of architecture is sufficient in understanding the overall nature of a specific space.

100

DISCUSSION

Conclusion Overall, this research piece attested to the complex and dynamic character of the built environment. It became obvious throughout that the conglomerate sometimes referred to as “architecture” far surpasses the potential of any representational technology in capturing its ins and outs. Methods so far are lacking the necessary depth and capacity to illustrate the true nature of the bult environment. 3D scanning itself is closer to a true depiction, but cannot be seen as a final response to this craved complexity. Possibly, a mixed methodology might be ideal with 3D scanning at the fore, since the complexity within architecture could never be captured through anything more simplified. Hence, the built environment needs a manifold approach, where the entities that make it up are illustrated as clashing, interspersing, interacting and melding into one another – where layers become one and many at the same time and where agents are in an ongoing state of flux, never completely fulfilled. Architecture is therefore constantly expanding and the search for its completion is aimless. It is only once this is understood that architectural representations will become absolute.

101

BIBLIOGRAPHY

06. Bibliography

1. Armstrong, A. R. E. (2006) ‘Architectural Archives/Archiving Architecture: The Digital ERA.’ Art Documentation, 25(2) pp. 12-17. 2. Benjamin, W. (2008) ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproductibility.’ In Jennings, W. Doherty, B. Levin, T. Y. (eds.) The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility and other Writings on Media. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, pp. 19-55. 3. Briggs, A. and Burke, P. (2009) ‘New Processes and Patterns’ In Briggs, A. and Burke, P. (eds.) A Social History of the Media. 3rd ed., Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 121-179. 4. Broadman, C. (2018) 3D Laser Scanning for Heritage Advice and Guidance on the Use of Laser Scanning in Archaeology and Architecture. 3rd Edition. Swindon. Historic England. 5. Carpo, M. (2017) ‘The Digital Renaissance of the 3rd Dimension.’ In Carpo, M. (ed.) The Second Digital Turn, Design Beyond Intelligence. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 120-130. 6. Colomina, B. and Wigley, M. (2016) Are we human? The Archeology of design. 1st ed., Baden: Lars Muller Publishers. 7. Cubitt, S. (2014) ‘Time.’ In Cubitt, S. and Malina, R. F. (eds.) The Practice of Light. A Genealogy of Visual Technologies from Prints to Pixels. 1st ed. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 235-264. 8. Devilat, B. (2014) ‘3D Laser Scanning of Heritage Areas after Earthquakes: San Lorenzo de Tarapacá, Chile.’ Opticon1826. 16(12) pp. 1-4. 9. Devilat, B. (2021) ‘Private Interview.’ Zoom, 23rd April. [Transcript] In online interview. 10. Devilat, B. and Gage, S. (2014) ‘The Role of the Record and the Paradox of the Original.’ In Asia CAADRIA Rethinking Comprehensive Design: Speculative Counterculture, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the Association of Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research. Kyoto, 2014. Gu, N. Watanabe, S. Erhan, H. Haeusler, H. Huang, W. (eds.) Kyoto: The Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, pp. 1-10.

102

BIBLIOGRAPHY

11. Fowler, C. and Harris, O. J. T. (2015) ‘Enduring relations: Exploring a paradox of new materialism’ Journal of Material Culture, 20(2) pp. 127-148. 12. Gorny, R. A. (2018) ‘Reclaiming What Architecture Does: Toward an Ethology and Transformative Ethics of Material Arrangements.’ Architectural Theory Review, 22(2) pp.188-209. 13. Guidi, G. and Russo, M. (2009) ‘Diachronic representation of ancient buildings: studies on the “San Giovanni in Conca” Basilica in Milan.’ Disegnarecon, pp. 69-80. 14. Harraway, D. (1988) ‘Situated Knowledges.’ Feminist Studies, 14(3) pp. 575-599. 15. Hayles, N. K. and Gannon, T. (2012) ‘Virtual Architecture, Actual Media.’ In Crysler, C. G. Cairns, S. Heynen, H. (eds.) The Sage Book of Architectural Theory. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 484-500. 16. Heft, H. and Nasar, J. (2000) ‘Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays.’ Environment and Behaviour, 32(3), 301-322. 17. Laing, R. and Scott, J. (2011) ‘3D high-definition scanning: Data recording and virtual modelling of the built heritage.’ Journal of Building Appraisal, 6(3/4) pp. 201-211. 18. Latour, B. and Yaneva, A. (n. d.) ‘Give me a gun and I will make all buildings move: An ANT’s view of architecture.’ Ardeth, 1 pp. 103111.

103

BIBLIOGRAPHY

19. Law, J. (2002) ‘On Hidden Heterogeneities: Complexities, Formalism and Aircraft Design.’ In Herrenstein Mol, A. and Law, J. (eds.) Complexities – Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. Durham and London: Duke University Press, pp. 116-141. 20. Law, J. and Singleton, V. (2005) ‘Object Lessons.’ Organization, 12(3) pp. 331-355. 21. Rose, G. (2014) ‘Visual Culture, Photography and the Urban: An Interpretive Framework.’ Space and Culture, Special Issue 5-13. 22. Shaw, M. and Trossle, W. (2014) ‘Digital Doppelgängers: Future Scanscapes.’ Architectural Desing, 84 pp. 20-29. 23. Tresch, J. (2007) ‘Technological World-Pictures Cosmic Things and Cosmograms.’ Isis, 98(1) pp. 84-99. 24. Weizman, I. (2012) ‘Architectural Doppelgängers.’ AA Files, 65 pp. 19-24. [Online] [Accessed on 2nd February 2021] http://www. jstor.org/stable/41762321. 25. Wilson, L. et. al. (2017) ‘3D digital documentation for disaster management in historic buildings: Applications following fire damage at the Mackintosh building, The Glasgow School of Art.’ Journal of Culture Heritage 31 24-32. 26. Yang, W-B. Chen, M-B. Yen, Y-N. (2011) ‘An application of digital point cloud to historic architecture in digital archives.’ Advances in Engineering Software, 42 pp. 690-699. 27. Yeonkyung, L. and Sungwoo, K. (2008) ‘Reinterpretation of S. Giedion’s Conception of Time in Modern Architecture– Based on his book, Space,Time and Architecture.’ Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 7(1), pp. 15-22.

104

REFERENCES

07. References

1. Author Unknown. (c. 17,000 – c. 15,000 BC) ‘Painting of Ox inside Lascaux Cave.’ Natural dies. In: Pinterest (no date) Lascaux, France cave paintings. [Online] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https:// ro.pinterest.com/pin/375628425142553492/. 2. Author Unknown. (n. d.) West Kennet Long Borrow aerial view. Thoth Witchcraft. [Online image] [Accessed on 6th May 2021] https:// thothwitchcraft.com/blogs/sacred-sites/west-kennet-long-barrow. 3. Author Unknown. (n.d.) Space, Time and Architecture book cover. Internet Archive. [Online image] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https:// archive.org/details/spacetimearchite00gied/mode/2up. 4. Author Unknown. (no date) ‘Bell & Howell Video Camera.’ Photography. In: Pinterest. (no date) Amazing Cameras. [Online] [Accessed on 7th May 2021] https://nl.pinterest.com/ pin/475059460666687556/. 5. Author Unknown. (no date) Photograph of Original Kodak camera. The National Museum of American History. [Online Image] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/ object/nmah_760118. 6. Author Unkown. (no date) ‘FARO Focus 3D Laser Scanner.’ Photography. In: FARO. (no date) FARO Focus Laser Scanners. [Online] [Accessed on 7th May 2021] https://www.faro.com/en/Products/ Hardware/Focus-Laser-Scanners. 7. Bartlett School of Architecture. (2016) 22 Gordon Street timelapse | 11 Feb 2015 – 31 January 2016. [Online video] [Accessed on 2nd April 2021] https://vimeo.com/153680033. 8. Daguerre, L. J. M. (1839) ‘Boulevard du Temple, Paris, 3rd arrondissement.’ Photography. In: Taylor, A. (2015) The Gift of the Daguerreotype. [Online] [Accessed on 7th May 2021] https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/08/the-gift-of-thedaguerreotype/401816/.

105

REFERENCES

9.Devilat, B. (2014) Virtual Reconstruction. [Online video] [Accessed on 17th April 2021] https://vimeo.com/user6044951. 10. Factum Arte. (2016) Recording Of The Tomb Of Seti I. [Online video] [Accessed on 21st April 2021] https://vimeo.com/237556464. 11. Factum Arte. (2016) Room 10 & 11 – Facsimile of the Hall of Beauties and Room J, as they are today 1. [Online image] [Accessed on 21st April 2021] https://www.factumfoundation.org/pag/1015/ scanning-seti-the-regeneration-of-a-pharaonic-tomb. 12. Factum Arte. (2016) Room 10 & 11 – Facsimile of the Hall of Beauties and Room J, as they are today 2. [Online image] [Accessed on 21st April 2021] https://www.factumfoundation.org/pag/1015/ scanning-seti-the-regeneration-of-a-pharaonic-tomb. 13. Factum Arte. (2016) Room 10 & 11 – Facsimile of the Hall of Beauties and Room J, as they are today 3. [Online image] [Accessed on 21st April 2021] https://www.factumfoundation.org/pag/1015/ scanning-seti-the-regeneration-of-a-pharaonic-tomb. 14. Factum Arte. (2016) Room 10 & 11 – Facsimile of the Hall of Beauties and Room J, as they are today 4. [Online image] [Accessed on 21st April 2021] https://www.factumfoundation.org/pag/1015/ scanning-seti-the-regeneration-of-a-pharaonic-tomb. 15. Factum Arte. (2016) Room 10 & 11 – Facsimile of the Hall of Beauties and Room J, as they are today 5. [Online image] [Accessed on 21st April 2021] https://www.factumfoundation.org/pag/1015/ scanning-seti-the-regeneration-of-a-pharaonic-tomb. 16. Factum Arte. (2016) Room 10 & 11 – Facsimile of the Hall of Beauties and Room J, as they are today 6. [Online image] [Accessed on 21st April 2021] https://www.factumfoundation.org/pag/1015/ scanning-seti-the-regeneration-of-a-pharaonic-tomb. 17. Factum Arte. (2016) Room 2 – Model of the Tomb photograph. [Online image] [Accessed on 21st April 2021] https://www. factumfoundation.org/pag/1015/scanning-seti-the-regeneration-ofa-pharaonic-tomb.

106

REFERENCES

18. Factum Arte. (2016) Virtual Tour of the Tomb of Seti. [Online image] [Accessed on 21st April 2021] http://www.highres.factumarte.org/SETI_VR/index.html 19. Forensic Architecture. (2013) An aerial image of the newlyconstructed Staro Sajmište. [Online image] [Accessed on 15th April 2021] https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/living-deathcamp-staro-sajmiste 20. Forensic Architecture. (2013) Living Death Camps - The Inverted Horizon. [Online video] [Accessed on 15th April 2021] https://forensicarchitecture.org/investigation/living-death-camp-staro-sajmiste 21. Glasgow School of Art’s Digital Design Studio. (no date) Sectional view through Mackintosh. Architect’s Journal. [Online Image] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https://www.architectsjournal. co.uk/news/in-pictures-3d-scans-reveal-extent-of-mac-work. 22. Google Earth. (2019) Google Street view in Tarapaca 1. [Online image] [Accessed on 17th April 2021] https://earth.google.com/web/@-19.92400182,69.50981059,1404.82434082a,0d,60y,145.9456371h,91.55885775 t,0r/data=IhoKFmx3UFMxUzc5VzdnakZjdlQ2aWFEQmcQAg?utm_ source=earth7&utm_campaign=vine&hl=en. 23. Google Earth. (2019) Google Street view in Tarapaca 2. [Online image] [Accessed on 17th April 2021] https://earth.google. com/web/@-19.92415355,-69.50966683,1404.71252441a, 0 d , 6 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 y, 3 0 8 . 4 7 8 0 9 2 5 5 h , 9 4 . 9 0 2 5 4 7 3 t , 0 r / data=IhoKFl9CNThDRDNBNUprTnNtSHlGVTBUZ2cQAg?utm_ source=earth7&utm_campaign=vine&hl=en. 24. Karadayilar, O. (2016) Are We Human? by Beatriz Colomina and Mark Wigley Cover. This is Paper. [Online image] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https://thisispapershop.com/products/lmp-are-wehuman-by-beatriz-colomina-and-mark-wigley. 25. Le Jardinier. (1895) Cinématographe Lumière poster. [Poster] Grand Café Paris: Date viewed around 1895. 26. Marey, E-J. (1886) ‘The Runing Lion Tamer.’ Photography. In: Fernandes, C. (2020) Étienne-Jules Marey. [Online] [Accessed on 7th May 2021] http://www.betterphotography.in/perspectives/greatmasters/etienne-jules-marey/48592/. 107

27. Maxwell, J. C. (1861) ‘Tartan ribbon.’ Photography. In: Science and Media Museum. (no date) A short history of colour photography. [Online] [Accessed on 7th May 2021] https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum. org.uk/a-short-history-of-colour-photography/. 28. Muybrdige, E. (1887) ‘Figure Hopping.’ Photography. In: Britannica. (2021) Eadweard Muybridge British photographer. [Online Image] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https://www.britannica.com/ biography/Eadweard-Muybridge. 29. Muybrdige, E. (no date) ‘Camel in Motion.’ Photography. In: Wide Walls. (2018) Mastering Motion - The Revolution of Photographer Eadweard Muybridge. [Online Image] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/eadweard-muybridge-motion. 30. Niépce, J. (c. 1826) ‘View from the Window at Le Gras.’ Photograph. In: Open Culture. (2015) The First Photograph Ever Taken (1826). [Online] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https://www. openculture.com/2015/04/see-the-first-known-photograph-evertaken-1826.html. 31. Noun Project. (no date) Architect. [Online image] [Accessed on 30th April 2021] https://thenounproject.com/icon/1904005/. 32. Noun Project. (no date) Construction worker. [Online image] [Accessed on 30th April 2021] https://thenounproject.com/ icon/2527288/. 33. Noun Project. (no date) Plus. [Online image] [Accessed on 30th April 2021] https://thenounproject.com/icon/2451899/. 34. Noun Project. (no date) Professor. [Online image] [Accessed on 30th April 2021] https://thenounproject.com/icon/751398/. 35. Noun Project. (no date) Scaffolding. [Online image] Accessed on 30th April 2021] https://thenounproject.com/icon/3059552/. 36. Noun Project. (no date) Student. [Online image] [Accessed on 30th April 2021] https://thenounproject.com/icon/1187694/.

108

37. Noun Project. (no date) Sun. [Online image] [Accessed on 30th April 2021] https://thenounproject.com/icon/64783/. 38. Nubigon. (2019) Science Museum - Shipping Gallery. [Online video] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=R9h7O3Aahu4&list=LL&index=3. 39. Ortega, D. (2002) ‘Cosmic Thing.’ Installation. In Tresch, J. (2007) ‘Technological World-Pictures Cosmic Things and Cosmograms.’ Isis, 98(1) pp. 90. 40. Piranesi, G. B. (c. 1750) ‘Veduta della Piazza del Popolo.’ Etching, 38 x 54 cm. In: The Met. (2003) The Piazza del Popolo. [Online] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https://www.metmuseum.org/art/ collection/search/362729. 41. Saatchi & Saatchi. (2015) Leica M-Monochrom (Typ 246). [Poster] Online: Date viewed around 2015. 42. ScanLAB Projects. (n. d.) ‘Shipping Galleries’. 3D laser scan. In: Qualinet Databases. (2020) JPEG Pleno Database: ScanLAB Projects: Science Museum Shipping Galleries point cloud data set. [Online] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https://qualinet.github.io/databases/ image/jpeg_pleno_database_scanlab_projects_science_museum_ shipping_galleries_point_cloud_data_set/. 43. ScanLAB Projects. (no date) Transformation – Wates House, 22 Gordon Street. [Online video] [Accessed on 3rd April 2021] https:// scanlabprojects.co.uk/work/bartlett-transformation/. 44. The Science Museum. (2010) View of Docks and Diving exhibit. [Online Image] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https://www. sciencemuseum.org.uk/what-was-on/shipping#&gid=1&pid=4. 45. The Science Museum. (2011) The Ship’s Bridge exhibit in the Shipping gallery. [Online Image] [Accessed on 5th May 2021] https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/what-was-on/ shipping#&gid=1&pid=6.

109

APPENDIX

08. Appendix Interview with Bernadette Devilat Interviewee: Bernadette Devilat Interviewer: Olivia Mihale Date of Interview: 23.04.2021 Location of Interview: Zoom Room List of Acronyms: BD = Bernadette Devilat, IN = Interviewer [Begin Transcript 00:00:00] IN: Sooo… how have you come in contact with 3D scanning and what characteristics attracted you to this technology? [00:00:14] BD: So, umm, I. Did you hear me well or should I put, um, my headphones? [00:00:17] IN: No, it’s perfect, can you hear me? [smiles] [00:00:19] BD: [smiles] Yes, it’s fine. Sometimes this microphone doesn’t work very well. So I’ve came to the UK, to London, to the University Collage London to do my PhD, and then, there was ScanLAB Projects. [smiles] You know that they, ummm, they have worked with 3D scanning technology at the Bartlett School of Architecture where I was doing my PhD and the, umm…, there was this possibility to use 3D scanning technology and my supervisor suggested to me like look at this, do you think this will be useful for you? Ummm, and, basically I don’t know if you have come across the work of ScanLAB, um, but is visually very compelling, um, so the first thing that [attracted] to me was woah [exclaims] this is amazing. And then to understand what it was, you know, like is not just something that looks nice, and something that you have never seen in this way but it’s also measurable data, aaand, of everything that you have scanned and therefore you can use it in so many different ways, so many different purposes, that it really attracted to me and in my case it really made a fit with my research which was, um, basically on how to reconstruct, um, and repair buildings after earthquakes.

110

APPENDIX

One of the things that was super difficult at the time was to, um, I have worked before in areas affected by earthquakes in Chile and one of the challenges was to obtain a measurable information of the buildings, as, as left by the earthquakes so [inaudible] and damaged and so on in a kind of comprehensive way and fast way as well because um, and, and, we would do that, I’ve done that before, just measuring by hand so obviously is, is a process that takes very long and is not that good in terms of, of the quality you get anyway, and it is also quite dangerous. So one of the things was to say I will try to use this technology and this case, I have to say, is not all through scanning technology. I only use 3D [inaudible] terrestrial laser scanning uh, which is one branch of the whole laser scanning technologies that are available in the world, um… and I basically tested it as, as a tool to see how much data you could get in very little time and um, in, in my research in Chile basically I set out three days to scan one of each of the, my case studies. So I have three case studies and I rented the scanner to scan three days in each of these three villages, just as a, just as an experiment to see how much data I could get and to see how useful it could be because three days is pretty much the time you have before an earthquake, um…, before um, like [smiles], earthquakes, before post-earthquake actions start to happen. And sometimes those actions means demolition. Um… so is good to, is good to have this tool, um, to have this information before demolitions and other changes. So this is how I came across with the technology. And, and I learned how to use it from ScanLAB, by working with them, for them, really. [00:04:13] IN: Um, woah, that is amazing. Um, ok, so you mentioned the fact that it’s faster this technology than any other means, um, and that it’s really accurate. Are there other um, benefits of this technology that make it better at capturing the complexities of architecture, better than videos or photography or time-lapses? [00:04:38] BD: Yeah, I mean, the thing is, for architecture especially, in my opinion, I mean maybe you will find many different opinions of this, um, but in my opinion, um, it’s very powerful because information is measurable. So that, that is kind of the main difference between other means. So photography is much more, is much more related to the user. So it’s much more [inaudible] to relate to what you’re documenting, everyone will recognize a photograph. Um, however photographs wouldn’t have measurable information.

111

APPENDIX

You could extract measurable information from photographs later on to the principles of photogrammetry and so on, but, um, what I’m trying to say is um, like they, they don’t come [smiles] photography doesn’t come with measurements, whereas 3D laser scanning comes with that. So you have both the photographs and you have the colour information from the photographs but you also have measurable information of the buildings. So you could use it in, in many, many different ways, um. But it means that you could, you could get much more data [inaudible] from what you though in the beginning you will need. So, hm, for example, um House in Ruins, um and [inaudible] um that [inaudible] stuff I’ve written, um, [inaudbile] for example House in Ruins in Tarapaca, one of the villages I was working in, all the ceiling was just about to, to fall. It’s probably already fallen now. Um… and these kind of things wouldn’t be able to be captured in any other way, not measurable. So now you have, you know, the exact texture of the, of this wooden structure that come, that it’s very, very old, um, and it’s probably not existing anymore, because, because it was in a very fragile condition. But it was scanned and, even, even when it was not the intent to capture that specifically, but because the scanner’s 3D, it captures everything on site, then you get much more data and that’s also very, very useful for the future because you don’t know how you will use the data in the future. I mean not always. So it gives you this, this flexibility. [00:07:01] IN: Um, so ok, so um, in terms of your scans of San Lorenzo de Tarapaca, um, did you have feedback from um, the community? Or how, I’ve seen some of the videos and they look amazing but how were they, they, how were they put to purpose? As in, was there interaction from the community? [00:07:26] BD: The funny thing is, that, um, they. I’ve been working before in that case [inaudible] specific that case, we started to work with colleagues in, when I was a student, an architectural student in Chile. Um, so after the earthquake in San Lorenzo de Tarapaca, we went there, um, in 2005 to document the damage but obviously we, we didn’t have any technology. We just did it by hand. Um, by hand, photography, using photogrammetry, using, um, kind of the things that we had at that moment. And we engaged with the community later on, by, because we worked in, um, post- [inaudible] and we built the library for the community so we have been working with them a lot so, it’s, it’s not that I get there and they didn’t know what, who I was. They, they knew me already. 112

APPENDIX

Um, so when I was um, scanning, eh, all the people would, you know, come and say oh, hello, what are you doing, what is this for? But they haven’t seen the result because, um, I mean, it’s, it’s online, but, um, but um I haven’t done like a proper event to show it to the community and its [inaudible] because it wasn’t part of my PhD, because and I haven’t [inaudible] I have applied to funds to do that but I haven’t got it. And I haven’t been able to travel there to, to do some things. So they haven’t seen it, probably they have seen it, some things online, um but not as, as, you know, this is what I did at the end. Um, so I think some, some people might have seen it, from my, my, because I have some local, some local people on my Facebook for example, so they might have seen it, but not, not as a proper thing. Um, like as a proper event. Which is something that I would like to do, you know, at some point, to show them: look, um, this is what it is. The problem is, um, there is also a, this is another point but they have also been, always been wanting to, for the government to do something else, they have, they are very remote area, they don’t um, they don’t have any, pff, um like help. So, um, it’s very tricky because when you are doing academic work, with your aims you are not going to reconstruct any houses, you are not going to help any people, you know. Um, it’s very tricky to come back and say look, this is the record and then what else? You know, like they expect you, you know, to, to so maybe you can show this to the authorities and they can do something. And that doesn’t really work like that. And, and it’s a little bit tricky because you don’t want to, to play with expectations of the people. So they haven’t seen it in a proper, in a proper event, um but that’s something, you know, it’s like, like something I need to do at some point [smiles]. Um, so no I haven’t received feedback from the community but I have received feedback from many other people around, um, local authorities mainly, that have been interested in the record. And, and, have found really interesting what I’ve been doing. I was invited to the, um, to a talk last year, that was then online, to kind of commemorate the 15 years after earthquake, um, last July. Is available online, but is in Spanish. But it was, um, [smiles], but it was, um organized, by the Ministry of Housing. So like, um, from, from the Governmental perspective, um, from the Government, they are like interested in this technology because it helps the representation of the area.

113

APPENDIX

[00:11:26] IN: Um, ok, um, yeah, I’ll have a look at that talk. And, um you might have mentioned some of this in your previous response but do you feel like people’s reaction to the, the 3D scans are more vivid, or more, um, are they more impressed the scans themselves than, um like actual, um like other media such as photography, or videos? [00:11:52] BD: [nods] Um, there is a component of novelty, of seeing something that you have never seen before in this way, that attracts attention. And, and that’s for sure. Ummm, in my, in my research, I mean when I started doing my PhD, it wasn’t really about these, but it got many, so much attention because the images are very, um, very kind of compelling. And also, because I got so much data that I have like the complete heritage areas in these three cases, which is, again something not been done before, because normally, you use laser scanning for one building, a couple of buildings, but I think I am one of the first ones to use it in a larger scale, um, [inaudible] a lot of technical challenges to do that as well, but um, it was doable. Um, but what I’m trying to say is like, um because this, this, like the first time was seen in this way everyone will ask, oh you are flying a drone, and I’m like, no, I haven’t flown a drone, um, actually, I did it in 2013, in 2013 there weren’t drones to use, like they weren’t, I think, you know. Now it’s possible to buy one, you know, is kind of affordable. But you know, at that time, it wasn’t. For example the images in San Lorenzo de Tarapaca you find that all these interiors of the squares are black because I don’t have the aerial information for that I only have the information from the streets. Like only the facades at some points. So if you don’t enter to the houses, you don’t have that information. Um, so, this is component of, well this is very amazing because [at that time] it hasn’t done it before which is great, but on the other hand, [inaudible] and I talk about these images in my book, you know, because it’s all supposedly this idea of, this is not the perfect render of this area, this is an area that was affected by an earthquake, so actually it’s not, is not how it used to be or anything like that because people always relate the record of 3D laser scanning: ah, ok, you are 3D laser scanning, so you can get the perfect version of the building and then you can replicate it. You know, and reveal it as it was. And it’s like no, no, no, no, I’m actually doing exactly the opposite. [smiles] I’m using the record to, to go beyond that. Because I have this information I want to do, um, I want to do another thing. Um, so, I think when you think about the relation of 3D laser scanning, like it’s novel, and like people doesn’t know it, and people are interested in. They say uhh, what is this? 114

APPENDIX

And they have this kind of visual component, um, but obviously that novelty will, will fade in time, you know. Like in [smiles] in ten more years everyone will know what is this about. It won’t be novel anymore. But, um, at the moment it is and what I’m trying to do, use that novelty to try and engage more in the research and use that to engage people in, in, in, in a participatory approach on how to look at the houses, how to look at the local construction. The construction processes after earthquakes. Um… I’m not sure if I’m answering all these questions. Sorry, sometimes I go talking on [inaudible] [00:15:23] IN: Oh no, you’re actually answering some of them without me asking so that’s perfect. Um, it’s really good. Um, I wanna move on to the use of, sorry. I’ll just restart. So most visual representations of architecture focus on its physical qualities such as materiality, form, layout. In light of this, how important do you think capturing the change of the specific space/place/building is in understanding architecture? [00:15:53] BD: Well, um, I think in general, it’s, it’s key. Um, um, I love the idea of the record capturing the change that something happening anyway. Um and I think this tool allows you to do that in a very, in a very nice way. Um, because you can use this data, place all these other scans and records alone. Like, for example, in San Lorenzo de Tarapaca, there has never been, well in any of these areas, there has never been like such a comprehensive plan. I mean there are like line maps, obviously, but that, that’s it. So now with this information you can combine it with you know, aerial information, and like old photographs, some things like that. You can start understanding a complete, new way of, of, of understanding the history of this place and especially this place says like, in my case, because they are affected by earthquakes all the time, they have been changing a lot over the years. So it’s not, is a little bit more different than heritage areas in here for example. That they experience little change because planning regulations, because they, because you’re not allowed to do much anyway. So the changes are a little more invisible sometimes and in, in historic parts of Europe. Um, well in my case the change is, is happening all the time. And, and this tool is very useful for that. However, there are a lot of things that won’t capture. Like materiality for example.

115

APPENDIX

Materiality will be only as a map, like as photographs, like a mapping of a photograph. So, um, yeah, so basically, um, you wouldn’t have, you wouldn’t know what is inside the walls for example. You know that is space, um, so you will get the thickness of that wall, um, but you want to know what is happening inside. You don’t know the material, um, I mean you can guess the material because of the pictures, but is not capturing materiality as such. Well, neither photography, or, you know, other methods. [00:18:21] IN: Um, ok. So um, how do you see this, I don’t know, 3D scanning evolving in the future or, as well as do you think it will evolve concomitantly with architecture? Will they become something codependent? [00:18:43] BD: Hm, in the future, I would expect that every, every architecture school will have a scanner. I don’t know in Manchester you have one. Um [00:18:57] IN: I don’t think we do. [00:18:59] BD: But, but I think, I think everyone should have. [laughs] No, I don’t think everyone should have. What I’m trying to say is I think the market will oblige that all architecture schools will own these. Is a little bit like, I think is the revolution, as, as CAD was at that moment. You know like everyone was kind of having these argues about should architectural students draw by hand or draw on the computer and then you have the old school saying they need to draw by hand because this is the technique, it’s things that you can’t do on the computer, which is true. Then you will have, you know, all kind of more contemporary schools saying look, they don’t know how to use CAD, they won’t have a job when, when they become architects. So you really need to tell them this is like the way to do it and help [inaudible] growth. And I think this is a little bit what will happen with 3D laser scanners. You will have to provide growth. But you will reach a point where working with an existing structure for example, which is, is the future, because, because of climate change, and, and this idea that you’re building from scratch [gesticulating] this building and, and, it will cost you millions and millions of pounds and, and this is something that you know, should be, it should be decaying all the time.

116

APPENDIX

You will have to work with existing structures much more because it will be, because it is more sustainable to work in that way. And it is much more difficult to work in that way because you need to have proper information of what you have as built. And in that regard, like you really need this information. So like, like 3D laser scanning and all these scanning techniques they, they come, they have such to be used and they will keep, will keep being used because they are very useful to understand the world as it is. You can work on top of that. Um yeah. So I believe it will, it will be embedded in architectural education. Probably not in the next 10 years, maybe in 20 more years, it will be something like, I’m not sure, maybe, maybe, less than that. It really depends on, in my experience it has depended on someone working on that in different universities for the university to become known, you know, in that area. Um, when I arrived here there was no knowledge of [inaudible] not too much at university. Um, there was, I mean a little bit, you know, but it wasn’t like embedded in the school, um, and now we’re trying to kind of create workshops and embed it and now for example I am working in India, and we are also doing projects on how to train people there to use the scanner, and giving them access to use the scanner, and they have to scan for example areas [inaudible] on World Heritage sites [inaudible]. So they will know all these technologies for the future and they don’t have to, to, they don’t have to use it, they just need to know it. You know like the architectural students should know that this is, this is something and that you might want to use or you might not want to use but is available for you and, and, it also gives you more detail information on about how to design as well. If, if you want to keep things, you know. Like I don’t know, like keep um, keep working on top of what is built. [00:22:44] IN: Um, yeah. It, it sounds great. In terms of other projects, um, what other projects are you currently working on, or if you wanna expand on the project in India. Anything that involves 3D scanning technology. [00:23:02] BD: Um, yeah, um. I will put the link in the chat. So, wait [inaudible] kinda copied from my. So this one, this one, the training project, so with this one we have given access to, to the 3D laser scanning and um, provided a lot of um training workshops, um so, to instill the capacity of 3D laser scanning in India, within our project partners, really, which is the [inteligible] University in India.

117

APPENDIX

Um, this is because so the idea is that they’ll know how to scan heritage and they will, um document heritage in a, you know in a better way and they will also try to embed that in architectural students but also because um they are project partners in, in this other project which I’m leading, which is “3D for H4India”. And then they um, we need them to know the tool and to actually carry, you know, obtain the data, capture the data, um by themselves, because of Covid, so this was all designed because of Covid as well. You know we can’t travel there and carry on the workshops by ourselves, um, because we can’t travel now. So we have embedded the capacity there which is also something very good, we wanted to do anyway, you know. We embedded the capacity there, then they can use it the tool to many other different ways without us. So it’s great. But then, um, because they can scan, the case studies of this other project, um, they are helping us to kind of develop this project. And this project is about very similar to my PhD but applied to India. To use 3D laser scanning to document um, historic settlement in India affected by earthquakes so we can develop other construction plan and a risk mitigation plan. Um, in order to avoid further damage and, and to be prepared to [inaudible] to how to prepare and, and retrofit houses in this heritage area using 3D laser scanning. So all the information is in there anyway. IN: Yeah… sorry, yeah. That did look great. I’ll have a, I’ll have a, sorry, I’ll look more into them after we finish [smiles]. And, um, this will probably be the last question. What would you consider to be the blind spots of the technology of 3D scanning? [00:26:16] BD: Um, again, I am referring only to terrestrial 3D laser scanning. Because everyone will put everything in the same bank, but I have focused only using terrestrial 3D laser scanners, um and such the things that I have found are difficult do not apply to other techniques. Um, so for example, one, one of the blind spots is to use it alone, like without other, without other methods. So for example in Chile, I used it, is very difficult to capture life in the sense of how people, the opinion of people and what they believe, you know. That there is, you can capture how they lived, because it captures, you know, you know, the, the furniture, everything. So you can have a go on understanding how they used their spaces but you don’t understand how, what they believed, what they want, how they have copped with the situation of the construction and so on. So I used 3D laser scanning and questions with the people and kind of merged those information together. 118

APPENDIX

And obviously old photographs and historic photographs and so on. And I think that is the correct approach. Use it as a basis, it’s not, it’s not the only thing you need to do, because it’s missing a lot of information. Um, a lot of information to use it for research, but if you want to document buildings, again, depending on building, you have to kind of combine, there are lots of, of authors referring to the combination of these methods. Like 3D laser scanning, terrestrial laser scanning, [inaudible] but then for example drones, to capture, to capture information, information from above, in case you can’t get it using the terrestrial one. Um, combine it with, with thermal sensors for example, to get information inside of the walls, combined with um, for example humidity levels, to, to see, you know, how the building is, is performing, um so combined with many other different, many other different social information. It could be quite useful, um, but by itself, is, is nice but it needs kind of to be thinking about. I think what I’m trying to say is it’s like, it’s a tool. Should do things that you need to do but it’s not like the only thing you need to do. Um, it’s only a tool, a very useful tool, to capture a lot of data, in, in, in little time but it’s only a tool. So you have to see it in that way. Um, and I think, I don’t know if that is the [pause] yeah, and do you think that architecture, that’s the last, will evolve influencing… Um, yeah. I think based on my experience, by using 3D laser scanning, I have been more confident on, on starting from what is on the site. And I think there is this one of these things about architecture where they normally teach you how to design something like, like, from, from, scratch as if there’s nothing there. And there is always something there. Always. Um, whatever site, you always have something, around it, is not like you are not, I mean yeah, unless you like [smiles] truly design like something in the middle of the dessert, um, yeah. No, no, everything, there is always something. And I think with this tool I have had more confidence of working on that. And if someone for example they ask, they ask me am I planning to do a house in Chile and we live here in London, work, not here, in London, at that time, and we were like how are we going to design this if we’re not there? And then we thought about the scanning, and that was the solution, to start designing from the scan. Um, and it was such an accurate design and, and allow us to, to feel that we were there, although we weren’t. Um and I think that, that kind of thing will affect architecture. You know, to like give you the possibility to, to I mean it’s happening anyway, people will do it anyway. Um, lots of architects will work with the conditions of the site anyway, um, but, but normally, that will be done on site, you know. But architects are a lot of time there. 119

APPENDIX

You know like, like, the xxx house with Venedeta, they, they live there, they started to change it, and, and , and to retrofit it, because they live there, you know? And they were there. They were close. But if you are not close, to, to the actual place, this will allow you to. I think it will create this kind of evolution on, on working more on what is available on site, on what has been built on site, [inaudible] And working from, not from scratch. Working from what is left. [00:32:02] IN: Ok, um, it sounds wonderful, I think you are completely right. Um, s, yes, this is the end of the interview. Thank you so much for taking part in this. Um, I guess good luck in your future endeavors, and if you want I can send you the final dissertation when I finish it. [00:32:21] BD: Yeah, it will be great to know what this is about. [00:32:25] IN: Um ok, great! And, um, have a really nice weekend! [00:32:31] BD: Um yeah, you too! Thank you very much! Bye! [00:32:36] IN: Bye!

120

APPENDIX

Consent Form Date 19/04/2021 Name Olivia Mihale Course Master of Architecture Department Manchester School of Architecture Building Benzie Manchester Metropolitan University Tel: 07760378249

Consent Form

Title of Project: Decoding the dynamic: analysing the capacity of 3D scanners to

represent the multidimensional nature of architecture Name of Researcher: Olivia Mihale Participant Identification Code for this project: 1. I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet dated 19/04/2021 for the above project and have had the opportunity to ask questions about the interview procedure.

Please initial box BD

2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason to the named researcher.

3. I understand that my responses will be sound recorded and used for analysis for this research project.

4. I give/do not give permission for my interview recording to be archived as part of this research project, making it available to future researchers.

5. I understand that my responses will remain anonymous.

6. I agree to take part in the above research project.

7. I understand that at my request a transcript of my interview can be made available to me.

Bernadette Devilat Loustalot Name of Participant

19/04/2021 Date

Signature

Olivia Mihale Researcher

19/04/2021 Date

Signature 121

I owe thanks to everyone who I have crossed paths with during my four years of architectural studies at the Manchester School of Architecture. And thanks to you, reader, for taking the time to delve into this piece of work!

122