ARCHDRC 373 Elective Study 2016
Digital Workshop: Contingency + Praxis
Rijuta Chakraborty ID 8958926
Introduction to subtractive painting:
Earlier in the semester, my first submission (A) explored the effects of different medias such as string, paint and ink can be used to imprint static images on a surface. To elaborate, I used a gridded structure on a surface before utilising line density in my medias of string and ink to create a static image as a result of repetitive line making.
The method which explored the use of paint however was subtractive rather than additive like the other two methods as I scratched the paint off a wooden block, the negative space in turn producing the static image.
The result of this exploration showed that the most effective images produced were from the ink and paint methods, of which I chose the latter for further experimentation with the robotic arm for Submission B. The content of this report is an analysis and recording of my process and production from this method of subtractive line making on a painted surface.
Development: One of the most notable things from the scratched block of wood was the natural texture that was established from my subtractive method. This was important to exhibit in my further studies as it showed how something chaotic could be an unexpected result of a calculated method. Lawson (1990) talks of how in "architecture... elements may seem both precise and rebellious, systematic and chaotic, mathematical and imaginative and it is this combination of contrasts that was the focus of my experiments.
First Attempt: In order for my project to be a screen it needed to be on a translucent or transparent surface which meant that I needed a different method to erase the paint from the surface as a wooden block does not have the same properties as clear acrylic. I used a combination of white acrylic paint and texture pastes painted on the surface of the clear panel to create the base and used a brush to remove the paste from the panel to parallel the earlier notion of scraping paint off the wooden block.
In my first attempt with the robot arm, the tool that I had crafted informally out of a brush, ruler, highlighter and tape proved to be less than successful. Even though the movements of the robot were recorded in my screen, any form or shape that was scripted was unrecognisable due to the large head of the brush.
Second Attempt: In my second attempt, to redeem the efforts of my first, I explored with a smaller brush manually first before testing with the robot arm but instead of using the head, I used the end of it to create more distinction. This proved to be more successful as it left a subtle path indicating where the brush had been. To attach the brush end to the template for the robot arm, I used a small piece of polystyrene which would both secure the brush as well as giving it any required leeway for movements.
Testing this improved version of the tool out with robot arm showed similar results except the clarity of the path was at times compromised by the clumping of texture paste. This aesthetic issue, reviewed by Lawson (1990), was later solved by reducing the ratio to which I combined the texture paste and paint. Also, the thickness of the layer of paste applied to the screen and the waiting time between when I applied the paste to when the robot would begin subtractive painting varied between twenty to thirty minutes in order for the paste to slightly set. This meant that it would be less likely to gather and clump alongside the edges of the moving silicon brush which with further experiments showed to be true as they had positive results.
Third Attempt: To improve on the clarity of the path required further developments. Swapping the wooden brush end for a silicon tipped brush that allowed for lenience on the pressure from the robot arm resulted in a clearer path being created from the movements of the robot arm.
The surrounding texture was more apparent in contrast to the patent lines being left on the transparent/ translucent screens also due to the off-centre composition of the paths. This experiment, unlike previous educational exercises which were primarily based upon product as opposed to process, as discussed by Lawson (1990), shows how the texture on the surface could result in an image being 3D and even sculptural as opposed to just a static image created from a scripted path on Grasshopper.
Lighting: With this element, the addition of creative lighting could have an even more significant impact as texture on the screens produced from the robot arm would produce something dynamic that personifies something intangible in the tangible as mentioned by Frascari, Hale and Starkey (2007). Using different transparencies of acrylic boards also allowed for a difference in how the light was received coming out at the other end of the panel. Where the clear screen allows the passing light to pulse and flicker through the paved textured base, the opaque screens are more soothing and atmospheric. The transparent screens were also projecting the path onto surfaces as a result of the oncoming light unlike the opaque screen which showed no modulation between the paved and unpaved base which welcomes new potential outcomes of subtractive painting.
Conclusion: In summary, my project exploring the effects of subtractive painting evolved into something that ramified three dimensions from a surface that was once two dimensional. The use of a more passive tool such as the silicon brush as opposed to the wooden back end of a brush allowed for a distinctive path being established between the foundation of a textured base. Though further practices with the robotic arm could have proceeded to more explicit designs on the screens, the process itself and not the end product was the gratifying experience of this course.
Gallery:
References: Frascari, M, Hale, J, & Starkey, B. (2007). From models to drawings: imagination and representation in architecture. London; New York: Routledge. Lawson, B. (1990). How designers think. London; Boston: Butterworth Architecture.