Catherine Sellergren
Architecture Design Studio 101 Spring 2014 Final Por;olio
Kazimir Malevich Suprema=st Composi=on 2
Model 1 Objec4ve:
Study Malevich’s composi5on. Strategize transla5ng the two . dimensional pain5ng into a three dimensional from. Create a model.
Model 1 represents my interpreta=on of the upper leB quadrant of Kazimir Malevich’s Suprema=st Composi=on 2. I felt that the elements from the original work share a collabora=ve necessity to the overall design yet assert their independence of each other through volume and seemingly contradictory trajectories.
In interpre=ng Malevich’s piece, my primary goal was to effec=vely express each elements’ independence while simultaneously promo=ng their interac=ons as a whole. My secondary goal was to learn how to properly use my materials in an efficient way while adequately transla=ng my intent to a three dimensional form.
In order to express the separa=ons between the elements, as well as their significance to or over another, I enhanced the dis=nc=ons by way of ver=cal separa=on. Each element would be connected, therefore reliant on the next for support, but by varying the planes I could create a s=mula=ng visual journey of the structure. My primary cri=que of the final product is the lack of drama between the ver=cal elements. The differences in eleva=ons are minimal, thus perceived as hesitant. By enhancing such factors, aesthe=c reliance will be placed upon overall structure rather than superfluous aBerthought.
Model 2 Objec=ve:
Create a second version of Model 1. Improve ver=cal juxtaposi=ons. Eliminate base.
Model 2 is simply a reitera=on of Model 1, with emphasis on ver=cal drama, structural integrity, and a consciousness of the aligning planes. Propor=oning the elements in a premeditated way was elemental. Simplifying the en=re piece was a priority, preferring to place focus on how the elements interact.
Model 3 Objec=ve:
Recognize design elements present in Models 1 & 2. Create repe==on through layering. Promote interest through hide and reveal technique.
The concepts surrounding Model 3 were to add visual interest while increasing stability and cleanliness. I wanted to provide an element of fluidity to an otherwise highly geometric structure. By opening up some of the planes of the structure, I could reveal its skeleton, and doing so would naturally carry our eyes from one end to the other, crea=ng a visual pathway. This process increased visual interest from every angle, engaging us be\er and piquing our curiosity as we explore the variants and duali=es that exist between the angles and curves. Light and shadow are enhanced which delivers an amplified vantage. The added complexity of this model, in comparison to the previous two, gave me a chance to express my crea=ve direc=on with Malevich as a distant star=ng point. The experimenta=on that went into Model 3 allowed me to learn considerably more about the strengths and weaknesses of my materials, and how to solve issues that my materials administered along the way.
Model 4 Objec=ve:
Simplify the structure. Use language to instruct another on how to build Model 4.
Crea=ng instruc=ons for the building of Model 4 was par=cularly challenging for me. My tendency is to be very intui=ve with my model building: I visualize the structure before my building process starts, and think in propor=on rather than measurements. I also build as I go, making slight adjustments of my concept as each element is added to the founda=on. Because of this, structuring my plan and expressing it in a way that would effec=vely translate to another how to build it was complicated. I started by reducing the elements to the fundamental por=on of the design, which was the eye shape. The purpose of paring the design back was to simplify the overall process in order to meet =me constraints. I focused on being methodical with my assembly, and implemented efficiency rather than the level of experimenta=on that I would have in execu=ng the former models. While I feel that I was mostly successful in my instruc=on, I recognize that adop=ng an ever increasing vocabulary will improve my ability to communicate my intent.
Gesture Studies & Blind Drawings This series of gesture studies, using charcoal and newsprint, were my introduc=on to the connec=ons between loose, quick efforts that illustrate the basic lines, movements, and forms of architecture. Star=ng with blind drawings, I quickly captured the linear quali=es, mee=ng points, and the darks and lights of an image of a Japanese train sta=on. Each study served to highlight the individual aspects of forms, which were brought together in two final ten-‐minute studies where I could reference both the images I was drawing and the sheet of newsprint I was drawing it on, which introduced accuracy.
Model 5 Objec=ve: Create a model based on gesture drawings. Focus on drama and enhancing the chosen adjec=ve “heroic”.
Depar=ng from the Malevich-‐based models, I started exploring using loose drawings as simple star=ng points for my next model. I created a series of linear drawings, which I imagined as footprints or profiles for the model, sketching approximately fiBeen before I se\led on one that u=lized a spiral form. Because the basis of the drawing would be the footprint of my new model, I strategized how I would manifest heroic quali=es into it. I decided to combine the towering effect of ver=cal stature with fragile, reaching elements that would support a three-‐=ered can=lever extruding from the models abaB region.
The contrast of the weight of the three ver5cal arced planes with the bu?resses would provide a balance and element of surprise, and con5nuing the themes yet applying transforma5on as the elements rotate would serve as a unifying property.
At this juncture, I had reached a reasonable amount of mastery with my materials, yet I struggled with the new course I was taking with Model 5. The previous models had all been improvements upon the one before, to start anew was daun=ng and I wasn’t sure where to begin. Formula=ng a game plan evaded me, so I experimented quite a lot in the building of this model Once I found the rhythm of my process and the model began to take shape, my frustra=on ceased and I proceeded to comple=on. I observed that the rec=linear aspects of the =ered annex conflicted with the other areas of the design. I also speculated that crea=ng some reveals in the layered frontal strata could provide a view to the opposite side, and perhaps the shape of that opening could be used to refine the shape of the can=lever I wanted to change. This would unify the elements that were currently working against one another.
Model 6 Objec=ve: Consider how gesture studies set the stage for model studies and how model studies inform further gesture studies. Build a new model.
In this new itera=on of Model 5, I decided to explore repe==on and texture, drama=c ascensions, and the overall advancement of the cohesion of my design. The repe==ve element that is dominant thus far is the use of curvilinear planes and edges which create a rhythm, thus effec=vely drawing our eyes from the edge of the structure where the dominant planes converge, across to the arms that reach skyward delicately. I chose to con=nue the repe==on of this theme by placing two circular reveals in the two taller forms, and replace the three =ered can=lever with a sweeping plane that was made up of grada=ng discs supported by bu\resses, which concluded at the highest point of the structure with a smaller oblique projec=on. That smaller can=lever would be made up of three tear-‐ shaped layers that projected over the top of the ver=cal frontal mass.
In approaching Model 6, I wanted to provide viewers an emo5onal experience that would combine curiosity and awe as they explored the aspects of the piece. Transi5oning from the weighty mass of the tower por5on of the structure to a fragile connector suppor5ng the transforming climbing round discs, I found that the cap5va5ng orbital plane did create such a response from my audience. The heterogeneous aspects between the monolithic curvilinear frontal planes and the more elegant mo5on of the soaring oblique in the rear accomplished my goal, and the circular reveals unified the two as desired.
Model 7 Objec=ve: Create framing structures for the previous Models. Explore consistency and depth. To build the framing for Models 7, I chose to use basswood as the main material, with chipboard for areas that needed more flexibility. My focus for Model 7 was to figure out a method for building it by adding to a base piece by piece. As I worked my way through the model, I measured, cut, and glued each piece as I went along. As needed, I would cross brace between the upright studs with smaller pieces. My strategy allowed me to create a frame, but it was inconsistent in rhythm, and there was li?le planning involved prior to star5ng on the build.
Model 8
I resolved to be more organized in building the framework for1414 Model 8. I worked on a formulated layout before star5ng the build, using my insights from the earlier framework to be?er plan its execu5on. This allowed me to space the studs of the structure in a more organized fashion. By doing so, I created a par5al structure that had increased in its visual appeal, I also recognized how consistency in spacing of the supports offered structural integrity.
“The Wall Transfigured: Memories Resurrected, Reconfigured, and Propagated”
In an5cipa5on of our final project, I explored the concepts of sec5oning, folding, and tessella5on through as series of nine models. Beginning with loose, fluid concepts, I built quick itera5ons that allowed me to visualize many different u5liza5ons and theories in a short amount of 5me. I observed the interac5ons of the materials and what did and did not create a striking effect. I also contemplated possible materials and connectors, an5cipa5ng the strengths and weaknesses of each. The Final Project goal is to create an environment that transfigures the courtyard of Batmale Hall by crea5ng a site-‐specific structure that evokes an experience for the viewer which is enhanced by the preexis5ng wall and how the structure interacts with the available space. Addressing design, budget, designated roles, and construc5on were cri5cal aspects of the process. Problem solving from the design stage through the building of our installa5on was necessary to achieve the desired end product and group sa5sfac5on.
Final Project Learning Outcomes: 1. Create architectonic solu5ons to a set of abstract problems. 2. Evaluate a proposed architectonic solu5on against the problem requirements: • Evaluate the idea of making and unmaking • Assess the complex rela5onships of parts to wholes • Appraise the process that leads to a constructed design that sa5sfactory responds to the site and program requirements 3. Analyze and communicate designs visually, orally, and in wri5ng and model form using an architectural vocabulary. 4. Apply a visual language that is two-‐ and three-‐dimensionally responsive to form, space, and context. 5. Examine how architects and interior designers create sets of func5onally and aesthe5cally expressive solu5ons.
Sectioning Inspired by the skeletons of boats, and this café in Lodz, Poland by XM3 Architects, I used a sec=oning approach in three models to create separate units comprised of planes with curvilinear edges that transformed as they con=nued along the axis. The kit of parts would create a unit that could operate independently or as a whole with the other, smaller units. The overall shape of the form transforms in rises and hollows as the curvilinear planes evolve, losing mass in one area while gaining in another.
Reflections: Unfortunately, though the units created an intricate series of shadows as its light source moved, the sec5oning elements were not site specific enough to sa5sfy my goals for the project. They lacked the co-‐dependence that I sought to unify old and new components. Construc5on would be prohibi5ve as the weight of materials needed to recreate the model and support human ac5vity would likely have to be plywood. The mass would been unreasonably heavy which could create structural safety issues. It was also determine that the overall design would not offer a spacial transforma5on to the degree the site and project required. I wanted to create a more significant reward for the viewer than the sta5c sec5oned pieces allowed.
Portals Using simple forms constructed from rectangles scored to form halves then divided into triangles, I created three spaces that could be occupied. While they provided drama5c shadows and intriguing projec5ons of angles, they seemed too sta5c to meet the requirements of the site specific assignment.
Folding, Iteration 2
In this itera5on, I wanted to explore how folded planes could create geometric pyramids and then could be connected with others, I used a trapezoidal piece of chip board that was scored to achieve folding. I varied the size of the shapes and the placement of the scores which added complexity to an otherwise predictable form. The resul5ng structure was a series of triangulated “caves” that did provide interest, but not enough to provide an en5cing transforma5on of the space.
Folding, Iteration 3 Using a simple rectangular form repeated, I made opposing cuts to create trapezoidal and triangular planes. These planes protrude in oblique extrusions, folding to create voids, ascending, and descending planes which through rota5on make connec5ons with others. While the form resulted in a space that was en5cing from inside and outside, the size and weight of the end structure would be prohibi5ve.
Tessellation and Folding Combined
A]er watching a video of Ron Resch exploring the possibili5es of folding over ten years, I was inspired to do some experimenta5on of my own. A]er perusing several more videos of folding techniques in my free 5me, I began folding on different scales with different paper. I found that paper texture and thickness strongly affected my outcomes, with thinner paper lacking the structure needed to maintain a s5ff form, and size of form also affec5ng its tendency to maintain shape once folded. Se?ling on a form which began with a simple square, varied with triangulated segmenta5on and scored on one side or the other, I created mul5ples. I connected the forms at certain corners which allowed the planes to create shadow effects as the space in between used the void to frame a view.
Inspira4ons Ron Resch’s tessellated forms through folding a singular plane into a kine5c sculpture; origami tessella5ons using the twis5ng of folding forms to create more intricate spaces.
Technique I created mul5ples of my desired form by laying out a connec5ng succession of geometric rela5onships on the basis of a grid. The simple construc5on of its linear two dimensional form allowed me to easily reproduce the folded square in an efficient and iden5cal fashion. I mimicked the approach that Resch applied to his kine5c sculptures, but separated the larger squares from each other rather than leave them connected. This allowed me to further manipulate the structure’s planes into an undula5ng form.
Explora4on Because our class chose to use this form as the basis for our final project, I explored framing and translucency as possible aspects of construc5on. Though the light filtra5on effect that occurred using this process was intricate and delighaul, we as a class decided the required materials needed to achieve the framing effect would impose too much weight on the overall installa5on. This would make construc5on and prac5cality difficult and dangerous.
Op4ons We further explored site specific concepts with models produced by my classmates. Using a scale model of the outside courtyard and the wall we desired to transfigure, varia5ons on the posi5oning of others’ models were discussed un5l we agreed upon a suspended structure encompassing the southwestern corner of Batmale’s courtyard.
Process Op5ng to use thirty-‐ply chipboard and monofilament line as our materials, we sized three repe55ons of the original square pa?ern: one at four feet wide, one three feet wide, and the last two feet wide. We used the inner pa?ern of the two foot square to create on last form which was simpler than the previous, and cut each square down to its series of triangles, twenty four per each. Assembly was achieved by drilling holes into the corners of each triangle, which was fed with monofilament to 5e into the adjacent triangle. Upon construc5on, a tension deficit became apparent when the joined planes wouldn’t keep their shape. A square plane that would rest in cut notches would secure the axis.
Reflec4ons The challenges we faced during construc5on were many. Few of those involved an inability of materials to hold up with the required tension. We had an5cipated the strength of the materials would be our greatest foe, but it was the assembled units’ tendency to fall out of the desired form more that was our true conflict. Once we had our main components suspended, we created addi5onal tension between the elements by tying more monofilament between points, transforming the voids further and direc5ng the structure in a curvilinear fashion as it merged into the cement wall.
Cri4que The panel of judges reviewed our installa5on at semester’s end and their cri5cisms were quite valuable. We were complimented on our size transi5ons through the piece and recognized for the exis5ng connec5ons within our team, and how that allowed for the repe55ve produc5on required to produce and assemble the parts. Our risk level was high due to the complexity of the design, and we assumed that risk. The judges also pointed out that the structure lacks any real anchor to the site which could have been resolved by res5ng elements on the surface of the site prior to beginning their cascade, which, in conclusion could have made a connec5on with the ground and their pa?erns that we had le] unreferenced.