student journal

STUDENT JOURNAL

CARLIN LYON (637315)

ABPL30048 STUDIO AIR

2015 SEMESTER 1

TUTORIAL 11

TUTOR: CAITLYN

WEEK 01 TASKS

TitleTable of ContentsTask 01 _ IntroductionA1 _ Design FuturingA2 _ Design ComputationA3 _ Composition/GenerationA4 _ ConclusionA5 _ Learning OutcomesA6 _ Algorithmic Sketches

B1 _ Research FieldB2 _ Case Study 1.0B3 _ Case Study 2.0

010304061013191921

2325

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WEEK 01 TASKS 02

TASK 01 _ INTRODUCTION

WEEK 01 TASKS

My name is Carlin Lyon. I am an architecture student

at the University of Melbourne, in the final year of my

undergraduate dress.

As far as I can remember, I have always been deeply

interested in design, but my passion stemmed from

graphic design in particular. I enjoyed digital art,

design and visual composition, however I pursued

architecture because I felt it held many more

opportunities and perspectives on design thinking.

Digital tools such as Rhino and Revit are great ways

to virtually represent a building, or even a more

abstractedly designed form. Recently I have had a

lot of fun exploring Vray rendering in Rhino, and am

fascinated by the process of digital translation from

life to programmable date; for example computing

the parameters of the sun or understanding digital

and real space. My first experience with digital

fabrication and parametric design was in 2013 under

Virtual Environments, where I was exposed to a new

design approach with a far less linear process and

outcome.

03

WEEK 01 TASKS

IMAGE: Virtual Environments, Carlin Lyon

04

TASK A1 _ FUTURING

WEEK 01 TASKS

2.

3.

05

There is a strong sense of growth and movement in Van Herpen’s designs

which are a result of an algorithmic process; they have a very successful

outcome where it appears as if a dynamic form has been preserced in

hard geometry. There is also a clear symmetry in a lot of her works which

emphasises the applied mathematical thinking to the forms.

A difficulty with parametric design, I suspect, is the ability to respond

directly to the site/brief/body whilst using such a complex process.

I believe Iris Van Herpen’s designs have a direct relationship with the

model which only enhances the overall effect - a kind of shell or even

armour.

It also appears that she didn’t just use modeling software as a tool - the

algorithmic nature is strongly integrated in the design as a whole. Her

designs ARE algorithms. However they clear have a sense of consideration

for composition which solely comes from her personal sense of design.

The technology of her designs goes beyond anything imagined without

the aid of computer software. Her designs take part in a new direction of

fashion, as they take on sculptural form extended from the body, rather

than just an idea of clothing and body, sleeve, pant leg etc. A lot of

her designs were 3D printed which also adds to the sense of unity and

holistic design - everything joins or relates to everything somehow1.

The use of 3D printings was incredibly new to the runway and opens

up a radically different opportunities for smaller design pieces. As

with computational design, one of the bigger dangers is the lack of

consideration for fabrication. As the lines of fashion and sculpture are

becoming blurred, we can now start to think about unified forms with

a high level of complexity, being printed together as a single strong,

wearable piece. The juxtaposition of strong and wearable is interesting

to me, as you can design something that looks like an extension (even if

scaled) of the body, yet have it look rigid and stiff.

Comme des Garcons also employed a similar sense of parametric design,

which suggests that computation has instigated a new overall mentality

of the limits of fashion.

1 http://www.additivefashion.com/iris-van-herpen-and-3d-printing-the-beginning/

Iris Van Herpen, 2012

WEEK 01 TASKS

4.

06

WEEK 01 TASKS

5.

6.

07

TASK A1 _ FUTURING

WEEK 01 TASKS

Bloom is an installation of plastic cells which combine to make

various parametric forms. As it only has three main connection

points on each cell, there is a (not necessarily linear) connection

and pattern between all the potential formations. It’s also

interesting how the idea of growth and ‘building on oneself’

extends to the audience’s engagement with the installation,

and not just in its parametric design. The work is considered a

game, which has infinite outcomes.

However, despite similarity and a clear relationship between

all the forms created, the individuality of each maker is still

strongly evident. An interesting idea raised in the Oxman

reading was that with technology, firms often employ the

approach of ‘research by design.’ This suggests that various

iterations created through programs inform the next stage of

iterations. As technology is undoubtedly becoming a key part

of architecture practice, computer programming becomes a

universal tool for design. However, as the reading mentioned,

there is still an element of unique style within a practice, which

demonstrates how they respond to, and choose to use this

universal tool. Bloom captures this idea as it uses the same

starting elements (like the tools in a program) but the choices

of connections and overall form still carries the flavour of the

individual and how they approached the ‘game.’

The installation was unique in its purpose, a recreational

building block which did not have such linear connections.

It was not a set of lego which only built up. It challenged the

future mentality that we can build with non-symmetrical, non-

linear, non-straightforward things, yet still attain forms such

as furniture. It also responded well to its site as its parametric

undertone promised growth in its form aesthetically. No

matter how the pieces were joined, it still appeared that it

kept developing or was frozen in time; it was never ‘finished.’

There is some criticism in its superficial purpose - a bit of fun -

however I think that it was an important installation to change

the mentality of parametric relationships and growth.

Bloom, Biothing, 2012

08

TASK A2 _ COMPUTATION

Before thinking about how computers will help

evolve design, I think it’s important to consider the

different ways computers relate to us as designers.

The ‘Computation Works’ reading (Brady Peters)

mentions various relationships between designers

and computers, for example designers do their ‘job’

then introduce an intensive team of highly skilled

computer guys when they’re ready for that next

stage. In contrast there is a more integrated approach

where designers use the tools intuitively, almost as

an extension of their designing. I think that the latter

is more effective, there is no loss in translation, it

can enhance a design which has more opportunity

than the single designer’s mind; a more expansive

and interesting future direction for computation.

‘Design Futuring’ is even more radical in that they

suggest computation will become accepted as part

of our mentality, not just our process. We need to

assess the current ‘state of our world’ so that we can

tailor our mentality towards design to work with our

environment, and integrate programming into that

thinking and response to it. Whether there is action

immediately or not, I think it is clear that digital

design will become part of the way we think.

It is difficult to fully predict where the future of

computation well end up; do we invest our time in

learning everything, becoming fluent in all design

languages, or do we stick to just our professions?

I think there’s an ambiguity in where architecture

extends to and that it’s worth testing those limits -

computation is the perfect means to start.

Ultimately there is always the danger of the software

being used solely as a tool with buttons to press,

however hopefully the future of computational

design will mean a great opportunity for complexity

in design.

WEEK 02 TASKS09

WEEK 02 TASKS

WEEK 02 TASKS

Voussoir cloud is an example of algorithmic

tessellation, where the cells mildly vary depending on

their location and what is around them. It does not

immediately appear that there is a consistent pattern,

as each cell scale and distance apart is different as

they join in a variety of points and faces. However,

there still is some overall physical connection between

all of the forms - they all fit and seem to depend

on each other to maintain the overall structure. The

kind of dependency between the elements is largely

reliant on computer based generation, therefore

digital computation would heavily influence the

design and aesthetics. Without computer generation,

this kind of design would not be possible, or at least

without this level of complexity. The opportunities

with computational design will undoubtedly change

design thinking in the future.

7.

WEEK 02 TASKS

TASK A2 _ PRECEDENT 1

Voussoir Cloud, IwamotoScott Architecture, 2008

11

WEEK 02 TASKS

The structure itself, as intended by the architects1 tries

to achieve the act of compression while maintaining

the aesthetic of a lightweight material. Every element

within the structure physically relies on the rest as

an interdependent system. The form of the structure

itself also alludes to two completely different

experiences and appearances. From underneath, the

structure appears as ‘vaults’ which are somewhat

oppressive and have a strong, enclosed atmosphere.

However from above, it looks like a soft blanketed

material - like a cloud. Not only is the tessellation of

petals important for structural integrity, the architects

are also aware that material choice is important. The

thing wood laminate is both flexible enough to curve

slightly for the overall form, and to be able to fold 1 http://www.iwamotoscott.com/VOUSSOIR-CLOUD

tabs for fabrication and joining, but the arced form

(perpendicular to the petal surface) adds strength in

its tension. The level of curve along the petal edges is

computed based on its neighbouring petals, drawing

off of tangents from the centers of each panel. This

reminds me a lot of other tesselating commands

like the voroni component which essentially splits a

surface into cells, following some sort of center based

grid - i.e. they are not just randomly sized and placed.

When written about in Dezeen2, it is mentioned

that the architects purposely confuse the structural

and material systems. Their ability to use little cells

as structural components, due to the nature of the

laminate, is a major benefit of cell tessellation.

2 http://www.dezeen.com/2008/08/08/voussoir-cloud-by-iwamo-toscott/

Swoosh Pavilion at the AA, is an example of something

that isn’t just static and made of simple geometries.

Each cell has a slightly different scale and distortion,

but overall they have a systematic relationship. Like

Voussoir Cloud, there is a systematic relationship

between the elements that has a complexity beyond

what we can imagine and detail out without the aid

of computer softwares. There is also an element of

fluidity that borrows from the structure as well as

the aesthetics of the design. Both designs are their

structures; they are not a structure with a facade,

rather an architectural manipulation of their structural

elements which is an advantage of computational

exploitation. With the Swoosh Pavilion, it also appears

to follow the idea of scales, potentially mimicking or

inspired by biomimicry where many scaled beings

taper down to a tail. The relationships between the

scales however are clearly a result of programming.

Before computation, there was only basic opportunity

to take inspiration from the patterning of nature

and pre-existing things. However now we have the

ability to map the growth, decay, and movement of

patterns and units. The performance of design is now

considerably more dynamic with the opportunities of

computation.

A UK article1 on the pavilion read the structure

as a swirl that emanated from a central “fulcrum”

and slowly decayed as it wound outwards. This

sense of changing form at different points lends

itself particularly to algorithmic design as it follows

a consistent, yet non linear action to define the

form. Consequently the students had the ability to

seamlessly transition the structure from shelter to

seat, from the varying structural heights and densities.

The students themselves noted that fluidity was a

key driving factor, and the goal was an interactive

space. The form definitely suggests activity, and

interaction even between the elements within the

form. There is a “sense of cohesion”2 between the

vertical pieces as they follow a manipulated grid in a

sense. The students also mentioned the limitations of

computerisation, and were aware that they couldn’t

rely on just the commands of the programs. They had

to resort to hand models towards the later stages,

however the computed geometry was a significant

base for the design execution.

1 http://www.bdonline.co.uk/swoosh-pavilion-swoops-into-view-at-the-aa/3116685.article2 Quoted from one of the students in: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/swoosh-pavilion-swoops-into-view-at-the-aa/3116685.article

WEEK 02 TASKS

TASK A2 _ PRECEDENT 2

Swoosh Pavilion, Architecture Students at the AA, 2008

WEEK 02 TASKS 12

8.

TASK A3 _ COMPOSITION/GENERATION

WEEK 03 TASKS13

Often generation in architecture is an unavoidable stage in the process, but it is

particularly enhanced through the use of digital softwares. The Oxman reading

supports the idea of integrated computational design processes, especially as it

allows us to create systems, not just a static form. The level of complexity in the

relationships between forms is constantly changing, as we find new connections

and ways of altering forms, which consequently change the next layer of forms.

They suggest that representational design is key in the generation of design into

form. There is a digital sequence in our design process which relies heavily on the

generation and iterations of forms. A new concept to me was ‘research by design’

which suggests a series of outcomes inform the next stage of outcomes and so

forth - a chain. Computer softwares such as grasshopper are incredible means

for altering renditions of an idea - it is not necessarily blind generation of slightly

different looking things, rather an opportunity to tweak smaller modules within

the form, while still following the overall rule sets. It means that we can create

so many different compositions with the same underlying technique, style, idea,

pattern, relationship and other design paths.

Biothing’s Agentware Research and their installation Bloom which I mentioned

earlier is a fantastic example of design generation using algorithmic principles

and relationships. They suggest clear overall systems, yet there is still a controlled

irregularity to the design. The kind of networking involved in this design goes

beyond the potential of direct composition. There are limits to controlling where

each element sits to achieve balance and other principles. However, with algorithmic

generation, an idea drives the design, but there are complex relationships and

systems created through computation to express it. This particular project involved

key use of fields, which is a new concept to me. It is not as straightforward as

generating a pattern or dividing a surface into a grid, instead there are many

external factors which induce a sort of ‘magnetic’ field. This plays with attraction

of curves, from the centers of the groups, and how the curves respond out of that.

There is also evidence of connection between the groups which could suggest a

merge or similar type of computation has been used.

WEEK 03 TASKS 14

TASK A3 _ COMPOSITION/GENERATION

WEEK 03 TASKS15

WEEK 03 TASKS

Composition has classically been produced through hand made

designs, literally composed through physical sketching - for

example in architecture, Venturi largely based his ideas of balance

and architectural principal by his composition of shapes on a page.

However with the development of technology, there has been a radical

shift to computational design, that has a less direct influence on which

element is placed where, rather the generation of relationships and

dependencies between different elements. These elements however

are not static.

Yayoi Kusama, a Japanese artist, is unique in the sense that she has

touched in the successes of generation from rules and relationships

even with her hand-made paintings (pictured next page). She does not

view the elements, e.g. spots, as single static elements, rather a network

of units that respond to the densities of 3D or 2D shapes and patterns.

Her recent architectural installation, a collaboration with Louis Vuitton

(Selfridge’s, 2012) was the official translation from her design thinking,

into architectural creation; the generation of dotted patterning is clear

in her design. The sizing of the dots are relevant to their positioning on

the different surfaces and between other scaled dots, so it is evident

that it is not simply a randomised composition, it is a calculated

generation. Particularly with this scale of work compared to paintings,

there are limitations with handmade work, and computation of form

becomes necessary. This kind of design as a whole would not have

been imagined initially in her mind, rather a starting idea that would

be developed over a process. It is remarkable how a clear example

of computational cutting of sheeting metal with computed ruling, can

relate so strongly to her original hand paintings, and consequentially,

her design thinking.

YAYOI KUSAMA

16

YAYOI KUSAMA

WEEK 03 TASKS17

WEEK 03 TASKS 18

TASK A4 _ CONCLUSION

I am fascinated by the evidence of growth and development in parametric design, which follows non-linear rules. This means that although a form may follow a rule, we cannot immediately identify what that pattern is; although of course there is still evidence of some relationship. I intend to take an approach to parametric design by ensuring a presence of an overall system in my work, while still maintaining the fine complexity and opportunity from the algorithmic thinking.

With the programs themselves, I want to continually use them throughout the entire design process, so that it is integrated with how I think about the design, rather than just use it towards the end for the final outcome. This way the opportunities are far greater than the imagination in my head (especially given that I

am new to parametric design.)

REFLECTION

I am surprised at how much we have learned about parametric design so quickly. The concept of algorithmic function is new to me in the design context, but I feel that I am getting a grasp on how it relates to physical forms, and more importantly design ideas.

This new understanding would have helped me in previous designs when considering relationships between elements in a form. Also, in parametric design you often have modules or components that fit together with rules, in contrast to considering a building as a whole and single unit.

WEEK 03 TASKS

TASK A5 _ REFLECTION

19

WEEK 03 TASKS

Van Herpen, Iris, Crystallization, 2011 (Cover Photo)Van Herpen, Iris, Crystallization, 2011 Van Herpen, Iris, Capriole, 2011Van Herpen, Iris, Crystallization, 2011Andrasek, Alisa, BLOOM, 2012Andrasek, Alisa, BLOOM, 2012IwamotoScott Architecture, Voussoir Cloud, 2008Architecture Students AA, Swoosh, 2008

0102030405060708

REFERENCES

20

TASK A6 _ SKETCHES

WEEK 03 TASKS21

WEEK 03 TASKS 22

TASK B1 _ RESEARCH

WEEK 03 TASKS

Using strips as a base element allow great opportunity

for relationships and pathways between the lines. They

have the ability to change direction, reconnect to where

they started, move through different parameters and be

influenced by surrounding fields. Loop_3 by Co-de-iT

architects particularly employs the idea of strips looping

back around itself, gravitating back to a central pull, and

bending around pulled out points. Interestingly, there is

not a single strip continuously looped and folded around

the overall shape, rather layers of individually closed

loops. These are not regular either, they do not follow a

pattern of symmetry between each ‘arm.’ I think that this,

like the base example Pavilion, Biothing, shows the ability

to alter the paths of curves and strips using fields. It seems

as if there are pressure points or gravitational pulls which

influence the direction of the curves. This differs greatly

from parametric design with tessellation or patterning.

There is not sense of repetition, rather the presence of

many individual strips that are pulled and stretched and

looped around, each very unique but have an overall

relationship to their fellow strips.

Strips and folding might also be used as a definition of

surface. It reminds me of some exercises I used to do with

paper, where if you lightly score lines, even curves along

the paper you could push the paper edges together, to

neatly distort it along the lines. In Silico’s Curved Folding

Pavilion appears to represent this similar application,

where they have individual manufactured strips with their

unique curves and 3D qualities, which fit together neatly

along their sides to form an overall surface. Computation

is strongly evident through the unflawed matching of

each piece to each other, and the

The Archepelago Pavilion lends itself somewhat to In

Silico’s approach, where it uses individual strips to make up

a surface. Differently however, the strips create a smooth

finish and almost seamless surface of the structure. It is as

if strips and folding is used to panelise the piped nature

of the pavilion.

23

WEEK 03 TASKS 24

TASK B2 _ CASE STUDY 1

WEEK 04 TASKS

4. Tried to loft but I think the loft

tool did not know which direction

to loft in and what lines to use - I

attempted to reorientate the base

grid at each point on the curve but

I didn’t succeed as evident in the

right hand column on the following

page

2. The extrusions were still a

very ‘flat’ representation of the

overall geometry, so I also tried

to pipe the curves, and this gave

a considerably better result with

the renderings, as there was now a

form to each of the tendrils.

25

WEEK 04 TASKS 26

TASK B2 _ VERSION 1

WEEK 04 TASKS

TASK B2 _ VERSION 2

WEEK 04 TASKS

Ref fig. 4

Species 1 Species 2

Base Curves

There were drawn in rhino,

and selected in grasshopper

to be divided, and worked

on essentially

There is so much

opportunity with the cull

tool, I am able to create all

sorts of patterns

Changed the height of the

curve groups, altered the

scale of the PCharge and

Decay command which

affects the density/pull

I redefined the vector

planes of the circles at the

divisions, which are the

base of the groups, some

are now perpendicular

First attempts at changing

slider bars, changed the

influence of the fields, which

as I understand, operates

much like a magnetic field

Again selecting curves to

deem ‘false’ i.e. they are

not drawn

Started to look at the

information lists, and culled

some of the curves which

came out from the center

I replaced the base circle

with an ellipse, hence the

increased density in some

ends of the circle, while the

middle is sparse

01 01

03 03

02 02

04 04

WEEK 04 TASKS

Species 1 Species 2

Changed the PCharge to a

significantly higher value,

which meant the curve

clusters came much tighter

together

Here are some failed

attempts at lofting the

curve, initially I tried to loft

around the center of each

cluster manually, no success

Extrusions of the curves,

this gave them some

substance rather than just

being lines

There was confusion

however in the central

axis of the overall form,

where there are so many

overlapping surfaces

Varying the length of the

curve clusters, looks too

splayed out so you do not

get the effect of the overall

shape

If I defined the vector

direction then I could

get a loft that essentially

extruded along a vector in

the XY plane

I played with different

thickness and height of the

extrusions. I also tried to

loft along the curve but the

definition couldn’t read it

I decided lofting, although

looking cool, was a very

rough execution, and

started to get complex

beyond my comprehension

01 01

03 03

02 02

04 04

WEEK 04 TASKS

TASK B2 _ VERSION 3

WEEK 04 TASKS

WEEK 04 TASKS

Ref fig. 2

RENDERED PIPE - VERSION 3

TASK B2 _ VERSION 3

WEEK 04 TASKS

WEEK 04 TASKS

TASK B3 _ REVERSE ENGINEERING

WEEK 05 TASKS

WEEK 05 TASKS

This was the earlier attempt at box morphing, which still had some success. The mesh was obviously a very rough way to recreate the panel, but it was ablse to follow the surface quite well. It meant however that I had to create a 3D element to the panels. This evetually showed when the panels were scaled. The scaling was also a bit odd as it followed the

nature of a ‘morphing’ box morph, rather than a clear transition between two panel types. The most unsuccessful part was the change in the panels. I relied on the stretching and tension in the panels, solely from the pull of the base surface curves. This was not enough to give the variation I needed for the overall form. Next I tried a variable wall...

The way I initially read the form, was that there was some kind of panel across a full surface, where the tension between the corners responded to their relative location on the form, or the stresses of the pull in that area. I initially approached this using a box morph, which gave me a general representation of the form, but I was limited to a uniform, pre-

made mesh as a panel, which had to have a minor 3D element.

The next method I explored was panelling a surface grid through grasshopper. This meant that it was a 2D surface, like the precedent, and I was able to control the grid more easily, especially with an attraction point.


WEEK 05 TASKS

WEEK 5 READING

The Function of Ornament

Moussavi, Farshid and Michael Kubo, eds (2006)

WEEK 05 TASKS

I thought that the reading this week on ornamentation

was particularly interesting, so I thought I’d note it

down. Architecture is a way of formalising culture,

we take the essence of our society, what makes it

unique and turning the idea into the building blocks

of our design, much like the principle I’m exploring

of paneling a form - there is the basic surface or

landscape that we must dress, and we need to find

the appropriate key to dress it with.

Progress is finding new developments in our culture,

new ways to rearrange the ideas into formal designs.

How we represent the ideas formally has changed

throughout history. For example modernism

translated the ideas of culture of design literally; a

linear and straightforward translation. Essentially

the way we view the communication of design is

“historically framed.’ The reading suggests that

there are more successful representations of design,

ones that have the ability to adapt to the social and

cultural changes in our society. More stylised formal

design however is more confined, limited to formal

elements, which is only one way of design thinking.

More commercialised buildings limit the depth of

involvement from the architect. The requirement, or

rather what we see as the focus, is designing the outer

‘design’ of a building - which are often multipurpose,

or have a generalised typology. Generalised space,

e.g. shopping centers whose interior is not necessarily

specified or tied to the context it is in - it is just loosely

a ‘shopping center.’ It suggests that we are no longer

designing for a client, the personal investment and

client relationship is removed. We are essentially

design straight for the need at the time, it has been

dehumanised.

I somewhat disagree however, one designs a

shopping center based off the social culture it

is based in, or for the type of shops intended to

be included. Or, for a library, what kind of books

there are, whether it is children based, community

based, or if it is commercial. The architect should be

responsible for the interior of the space, how rooms/

voids work, why certain families are placed where

they are. The exterior is undoubtedly important, as is

aesthetics, but you cannot disregard the purpose of

these buildings - buildings are used by people.


WEEK 05 TASKS

WHAT I NEED ->

WEEK 05 TASKS

In this definition I first attempted a variable wall - I

built the base panel from nurbs curves from points I

selected along a base square and ones scaled form

that. I then created an overall bounded form, which I

paneled onto a lofted curved surface. Once I added

an attractor point, there was an obviously morph

between the base panel, and a square cell which I

had set up. However, it seemed as if the panels were

only defined between two diagonal points from the

square base of each cell in the grid, so it crossed over

itself. It was suggested that another way to do this

was to build a panel from 4 defined points.

This is how the panels seemed to respond to the

variation from the attractor point, but I wanted it to

morph like the image on the right.


WEEK 06 TASKS

The third attempt at reverse engineering was

successful - I found that I had to create the curved

edge panel, from previously defined corner points.

These corner points would later then be mapped

onto the paneled surface, where the corner points of

each cell are also defined.

Initially I started with a curve, and the grid was

defined upwards from there, however I found that I

was able to substitute the first part of the definition

with something from my previous attempt - where

the grid was based off a surface. This meant that I

was able to more freely play with the overall form,

and wasn’t restricted to a single loft.

The biggest difference between the previous two

methods, is that the first controlled variation in

the panels by inputting a starting forming, and an

ending form. The second however, controlled it by

weight of the curve on each side; it could make it

very prominent, or have no curve at all i.e. a square.

The latter makes it harder to substitute different

panel types. Perhaps something I will explore from

here is to panel 3D shapes and have variation.

TASK B4 _ DEVELOPMENT

WEEK 06 TASKS

Series 1 Series 5

Series 2 Series 6

Series 3 Series 7

Series 4 Series 8

Simple base geometry, first

tests of the latest paneling

method on an extruded curve

Revisiting the Biothing

definition I ended up with

last time, as I think there is

potential in creating a surface

that I can later panel

A more dynamic way of

expressing the attractor points

- points still independent of

surface, but can be positioned

in stresses of surface

Some failed attempt at lofting

the Biothing definition, in

order to try to get a base

surface to eventually panel

Simple grasshopper piped

base geometry from rhino

curves, DeBrep applied

to make surface more

manageable, then paneled as

before

An interesting combination

of the two definitions, which

includes the base pipes, and a

double layered paneled ‘skin’

which resulted

Combination of my Case

Study 1+2 definitions, DeBrep

the surface of my Biothing

result, then paneled between

the points on the pipe

surfaces

I tried to be a bit more

experimental with the

Biothing definition, spreading

out the divisions along the

curve, and getting a flatter

result overall


WEEK 06 TASKS

1 2

WEEK 06 TASKS

43

WEEK 06 TASKS


5 6

WEEK 06 TASKS

87

WEEK 06 TASKS


9 10

WEEK 06 TASKS

1211

WEEK 06 TASKS


WEEK 06 TASKS

Notes:

I want to capture the representational idea of the first selection,

with the more intwerwoven, less broken execution of the second

form.

De brep played a key role in combining my definitions from Case

Study 1 and Case Study 2; the idea that you can have one overall

form, seamless and united, then you can break it down into

more manageable pieces, and influence each of those in a more

complex and detailed way.

WEEK 06 TASKS

TASK B5 _ PROTOTYPES

WEEK 07 TASKS

Overall Form - Rigidity

Detail of connection - Moveable

TASK B6 _ PROPOSAL

WEEK 07 TASKS

FIELDSDENSITIES

CELLSTRANSLATIONS

SYSTEMS

When I visited Ceres, I noticed that there were all these

little systems across the fields, separated into working

cells. For example, the chicken coop had its own private

quarters, next to the vege patch where each bed was

neatly cropped and separated into vegetable types.

However, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to guess that the

chickens feed off crop scraps, so there are likely many

external connections between theses little modules of

activity.

This is why I think the current iterations I have chosen

are appropriate, as it visually represents the idea of cells

connecting together at one point, where each module

has the opportunity to do its own thing. There is also

evidence of repetition and systematic layouts, much like

the garden beds and market stalls.

WEEK 07 TASKS

There is an obvious translation between garden bed

and fruit stall box, between chicken and free range

eggs, where Ceres participate in all of the stages

mainting the animals and site. They are incredibly

proficient and self-suficient in there ways, it is a

closed cycle where even visitors can witness the start

to finish.

As well as at Ceres, the general length of Merri Creek

also has an obvious continuation of ecosystem at

different scales, including the many types of birds

around the area, and the aquatic life which is so

mysteriously hidden below the surface.

My proposal is a chicken/garden feeder/water

dispenser suit that is worn on the body, a uniform

for workers while carrying out daily tasks. I realise it

is a very radical idea, however one of my strongest

impressions of Ceres is that it is all incredibly labour

intensive. I think that the human connection to the

crops and animals is very important, so I would

not want to remove them, but potentially create a

feeding uniform with personal operation, but while

being more efficient. Because of the small scale,

responding to a human body, the suit has the

potential to be manually operated.

TASK B6 _ PROPOSAL

WEEK 07 TASKS

WEEK 07 TASKS

TASK B6 _ PROPOSAL

WEEK 07 TASKS

I think there is something very interesting about the

idea of densities. It suggests a variation in activity,

where some parts may be concentrated and others

less dynamic. All are important to achieve a well

balanced atmosphere, particularly at Ceres, where

there is a great need for simple open space, to

accommodate for students, animals, and general

agricultural work. It is also important, to have a

hub of activity, similar to the fruit market area,

where there is a sense of community and mutual

appreciation of what is achieved there. Therefore it is

quite appropriate to note the densities of Merri Creek

and Ceres geographically. The physical proximity and

concentration of things generally translates to the

level of activity or participation, so it us befitting to

concentrate on physical or geographical placement.

The example above shows the density, or rather

solidity of the panels where the topography is tight.

TASK B7 _ LEARNING OBJECTIVES

WEEK 07 TASKS

Looking at precedents, I find, is an invaluable way to

learn about design - not only do you see a completely

different imagination and design thinking, but also

how it is applied to computer programming. The

reverse engineering task was particularly influential

on my because I thought that it was enough to just

logically think through the stages of generation.

However, after creating a very similar panel using

three incredibly different methods, I realised that

it is so important to find the right method, for the

next step of the process. The side algorithmic tasks

have also taught me more than I realise, because I

am becoming more comfortable in improvising and

pulling out commands to alter definitions, while also

understand what it is I am doing. This way I am not

limited to scale bars. It is so easy to make things with

pre-set commands, however the translation between

each program gives so much more opportunity when

you understand it all.

In terms of interrogating a brief, this is the first time

that I have strayed from the path of a building or large

structure. I have decided to create a piece of fashion

(loose term) which responds directly to the people

at the site. I have learned new ways to approach a

site when it is focused on the human activity and

interaction there. I think also parametric design has

greatly helped my ability to achieve the ideas I want

- they can express through computation the abstract

ideas I explore, for example torsion, repetition, cells.

TASK B8 _ ALGO TASKS

WEEK 07 TASKS

WEEK 07 TASKS

WEEK 09 TASKS

PART C

FINALISING FORM

TASK C1 _ DESIGN INTENTION REFINED

Something that I have tried to maintain since my

interim presentation, was the idea of elements and

range and density. From my initial experiments

in grasshopper with variable walls, I discovered

that small pieces, or rather scales, gave so much

opportunity to create a sense of direction or

density in a form, which drew attention to an

overall anchor. As I have been encouraged from

the last presentation, I decided to alter my panel

type into a 3D scale. My precedent, FERMID

(referred to later) inspired the idea of movable,

interconnected panelling modules which can press

together densely, or open up in a splayed motion.

I want to achieve a form that appears malleable,

or that as a whole, it can formed to a surface, in

this case the body. I am carrying my initial idea

from the interim, the idea of a chicken feeder,

as I think it has a lot of potential to particularly

develop the aforementioned design goals. My focus

consequently, is the staff at CERES who would use

the suit on a regular basis. Therefore, I need to pay

closer attention to the way the suit interacts with

the body, something I had not considered in depth

before. If I had a base form, onto which the panels

are connected, which was somewhat malleable

and impressionable then I could essentially create

a second skin so that the workers would hardly be

impacted by it.

In a more abstract sense of the design, I still

maintain earlier ideas of modules informing other

modules as if in a network. This stems from my

observation at CERES where ever mini system was

part of a larger whole; for example the food was

grown and later sold in another part of the are, the

food market, or it was used in yet another part, the

cafe. I assume also that the animals, in particular

the chickens would also be related to other parts

too: the vegetable patches perhaps, whether they

are fed from scraps or used for maintaining the dirt,

or even if their eggs are used in the cafe. There is a

constant sense of connection and interdependency

which I want to make apparent in the connection

details of my design.

This is also were density is important, I observe

the are of CERES as a map of active density. Where

there are these mini systems, there is the hubbub

of activity and working, and sharing between users.

Then there are great extents of quiet land which

are slowly inhabited by vegetable crops or wild

animals. The pace of life in these places is much

more subdued. In my interim I mentioned that the

topography of Merri Creek was directly related to

the activity and inhabitation of the area by various

life forms, so I intend to continue to use this data to

inform my design aesthetically.

WEEK 09 TASKS

One of my strongest impressions of CERES was that it was incredibly labour intensive. In every area I visited there was always someone loading a van, doing intensive gardening, maintaining the shops or tending to the animals.

My idea is to help the process by creating a suit that makes everyday tasks more efficient. I am particularly interested in focusing my efforst on feeding chicken/vegetable gardens.

The suit would be used exlusively by the CERES team, and would become part of their uniform, if they were carrying out any feeding tasks. It needs to be lightweight, moveable, and efficient at dispersing feed.

Also, visually, I remember seeing some unique and very beautiful chickens, whose feathers staggered in their shades of grey for example. I sought to emulate that beauty, as it was appropriately connected to the purpose of the suit. The suit would both adopt the essence of its subjects, but still provide some protection from the poultry, who can be quite violent at times.

TASK C1 _ USER GROUPS

WEEK 09 TASKS

WEEK 09 TASKS

TASK C1_PRECEDENT - FERMID

FERMID uses parametric design to create variation

and actual movement into the work. The panels work like scales, rotating around

eachother to create an impressionable form, which

dictates the pressures and tensions at different places.

I think its choice of panel is very interesting as the way they are connected relates to everything around it, it

means that you to consider its neighbours before you

construct it or affect it in any way. It also means that if you were to influence it or shape

it in anyway, it would bring its neighbours with it.

The use of a pin joint here is crucial as it allows free movement between the

cells of the form. However, I would imagine that these are

not very loose connections, because that would cause

the form to sag overall.I wonder too, if I need a base

strip at all or if I should try to use the panel itself as the

binding strip between?But base strips give more

freedom to form to the body.

WEEK 09 TASKS

TASK C1_SITE AND DATA

Create base curves to

mould to user - the body

Divide curves so there are

points of reference

Create panels using nurbs curves, from previously

defined points

Scale by changing

direction, size of lines, offset

distances

WEEK 09 TASKS

WEEK 10 TASKS

This group of the definition concerns the base shape which drapes over the shoulder. It starts from a point and curves flow outward through a field.

The small groups are repeated commands which help to scale the panels - they are placed in positions which allow me to control height, width and sharpness by governing the points which define them.

C2_USING GRASSHOPPERTHE CORE CONSTRUCTIONAL ELEMENT

WEEK 10 TASKS

WEEK 10 TASKS

On the left page and above, are some

of my sketches are I was trying to

understand the process of creating my

forms in grasshopper. Each element that

I scaled had to be done in a different

way, and sometimes I wanted to do a

scaling which involved all of the defined

points I had, so I had to find which points

I needed and how to connect them in

order to scale something in one go.

To the left are some of my initial thoughts

of connections were using pins which

were nailed into pieces of mdf or

boxboard, but I later found that this was

impractical given the thickness of the

materials, and the number of panels I

would have to make.

WEEK 10 TASKS

Interesting interations with extremes for different scaling

types - but they definitely test the limits of fabrication, and

functionality as a design

WEEK 10 TASKS

TASK C2_BETWEEN MODEL SPACE AND FABRICATION

This stage of the design was

critical as I had to consciously

think about the reality of

each iteration, in terms of

material and joints. My chosen

material is plypropylene palstic

sheeting, as I think this would

be the most succesful for the

forms in my design; Paper

would not withstand the forces

of being bend, it would either

fold, or would be far too flimsy.

Card would be very stiff and

likely buckle in unwanted

places. I originally considered

material when I was in the

beginning stages of this design,

but once I had more formal

iterations, I realised it would

be very dificult to create wired

structures for the material

to be in tension in between.

The benefit of plypropylene

sheeting is that it has a variety

of colours and opacities, it

is moveable yet strong, and

can allow more structural and

harsher joint methods.

I did various sketches as I

went of potential connection

details, but I knew that some

of the sharper (bottom right)

iterations would not be realistic

given the way polypropylene

bends. Also, one of the more

major shifts in the design, was

going from the scale of the

bottom row, to the scale and

number of panels as the upper

row of iterations. The bottom

row had panels which were

only 1cm wide, and it would be

imposisible to bend any thick

material in this way, as well as

fix it to something else.

WEEK 10 TASKS

TASK C2 _ FIRST PROTOTYPE

The key success of my prototype I found, was the movable

relationship between each of the panels and strips. As I

had mentioned in my refined design intention, I wanted to

be able to create densities and splayed out forms - These

twisting joints make the form retractable. It is considerably

more interactive that I had anticipated from the grasshopper

models, and I found a lot of joy in pushing the panels into

eachother, then pulling them out again. This also emphasised

the idea of gradual scale, as the panels neatly fit into their

bigger counterparts.

One of the failures of this prototype, was that one of the joints

split apart, and there was nothing I could do to save it. I later

found that this was due to the excess stretched material -

from when I created a hole in the plastic - that had bunched

up under the eyelet. There were two ways I approached this.

First I tried an alternate way of pulling the points into each

other (pictured) with a bent metal wire, and from here I could

potentially use the wire as an axle in the base strip. In theory

I thought this idea had potential, but in practice I quickly

realised the difficulty of cementing the bar in position relative

to the eyelets. Also, if I put the axle through a base strip, it

would be very loose and not hold any form that I intend it to.

The second approach was using a hole punch to create the

base hole. Initially I didn’t try this, as the tool I had made a

small hole which created the friction around the eyelet and I

thought the hole punch was too big. My fears were correct at

first, as the hole punch was slightly bigger than the ideal hole

for the eyelet, however I solved this by hitting the hammer

on the eyelet just a little bit harder! The pressure from either

side of the eyelet allowed enough friction for me to freely, but

importantly, control the form and movement of the eyelets.

WEEK 10 TASKS

WEEK 10 TASKS

TASK C1 _ TELESCOPIC NATURE

Physical prototyping became a significant

part of the design process, as it put theory of

joints and movement into real properties. For

example, my intentions with the base strips of

the panels were for them to loosely mold to

the shape of the body, in a draping or falling

motion. I later found however, that the level

of stiffness in the joints affected how it would

behave. If I tightened the eyelets for example,

I could have a considerable amount of control

over the form - the arms could even become

telescopic. I took this into account when

fabricating, to ensure that I didn’t have stray

panels which ‘flopped’. The biggest advantage

of the telescopic nature of the strips, was that

I could push and pull them into dense, and

spaced out ‘empty’ zones. This emphasised

my initial ideas of densities and variable forms.

Another thing I discovered was that I could pull

the ends of each scale up so that they protruded

more dynamically. This was accentuated by the

panel shape, position and gradual variation

in scale. It looked like there was an overall

direction and movement in the form.

WEEK 10 TASKS

There is this constant shift between physical

modelling and virtual alteration, back and forth

which inform each other’s process. Due to the

nature of the panels, certain shapes had a more

significant impact visually. I had many iterations

of panel types (pictured next page) which

looked lumpy or really flat, as the width of the

panel affected how the propylene would bend

around itself. Therefore the narrower, sharper

panels were far more successful (pictured

above). It also meant that the end point was

defined when I needed to express them in the

‘pointing out’ ‘active’ positioning. Also, with this

second prototype, I also strated to experiment

with different coloured materials. I found a

polypropylene sheet in a white matte colour,

and aalternated the panels. I think that this is a

stubtle but succesful way to denote variation in

the form (The scaling is still quite subtle but I

don’t want to exaggerate it as the larger panels

would become clunky). I will investigate later

on some ways to incorporate or fully utilised

the different material colours, it is also avalable

in black. The last thing to consider is eyelet

colours, which have corresponding colours to

the polypropylene sheets luckily.

WEEK 10 TASKS

WEEK 10 TASKS

TASK C1 _ CLOSER LOOK AT JOINTS

WEEK 10 TASKS

TASK C2 _ CLOSER LOOK AT JOINTS

WEEK 10 TASKS

FABRICATION

MDF Panel for base, with

notches for insertion of

strips. Strips attached by

tying string around strips

and finally gluing. All

joints along the strips are

movable, fabricated using

eyelets.

WEEK 10 TASKS

WEEK 10 TASKS

Once I had found a final form and

had begun to consider frabrication, I

played around with material types and

particularly, material colours. I found

that the individual panel system meant

that I could fabricate each panel with

its respective strip piece (pictured

above) and attach all these elements

together at the end. Consequently I

had a lot of freedom with the colouring

of each panel. To inform my choice

of pattern, I referred back to part A

and B where I took datat from the

activity of the site. I found that the

topography and densities of landmarks

corresponded to the density of activity

and life in the area. I then abstracted

this desnity map to create a curve,

which the panel order follows.

TASK C2 _ FABRICATIONDETAILINGSITE DATA

WEEK 10 TASKS

WEEK 10 TASKS

TASK C3 _ RENDERING

Rendering was the final stage before I fabracated

the full model. It gave me a strong indication of the

success of the multicoloured panels, and I think it

is definitely a design choice worth pursuing. From

here I have chosen the different opacitices and

colours in polypropylene. I was also able to test

virtually, the shift between sagging panels, and

protruding ‘active’ panels. Although I feel that this

is a very basic indication, I can see how the nature

of the panel direction can so dramatically affect the

form. In terms of physical fabrication the jointing, as

discussed before, is the only thing that permits me

doing this. Another benefit of rendering is that I can

see, quasi-realistically, how the form will sit on the

shoulder. I want the base plate to act like an anchor,

that attached to the lapel of the CERES workers

uniforms. From here the strips will drape and form

to the body. Something interesting I noticed with

the prototyping is the agility of the strips, so I would

imagine at this scale, with so many strips, that

there would be a very interactive feel of ‘swishing’

around. If the user were to twirl, the strips would

respectively flair out like a long skirt for example.

This could be worked into the use as a feeder.

WEEK 10 TASKS

Experimenting with colourI tried a transparent blue in place of the colourless, to mimick the bright colours

sometimes found in chicken or exotic bird types - I don’t think this

is a design consideration worth pursuing as it adds no weight to the design, and I prefer the

aesthetics of the greyscale

WEEK 10 TASKS

WEEK 10 TASKS

TASK C3 _ FINAL MODELRESTING POSITION

In its execution, I think the design incorporates the feathered

appearance or impression of a bird, but still maintains a severity as if it is

a protective armour/safety gear.The base strips successfully

responded to the shape of the body, particularly as I moved it around

on them. Each strip had an added weight too which I did not anticipate in the Rhino and grasshopper model:

if anything, this aided the illusion of drapery on the body. The top plate/junction was the least successful as,

in my crit, it was mentioned that it detracted from the overall aesthetics. Perhaps a quick approach to fixing it

would be to render the plate black, however in a more complex solution, I could try to design a lighter looking

structure out of polypropylene too. The only worry is that I will lose

the rigidity and harshness of the immediate surrounding panels, if the

new base is too flopppy.

WEEK 10 TASKS

TASK C3 _ FINAL MODEL

WEEK 10 TASKS

TASK C3 _ FINAL MODELAGRESSIVE:

MY INTENTIONS WERE SUCCESSFUL

WEEK 10 TASKS

TASK C3 _ FINAL MODEL

PART C3_FINAL

FIXED TO SHOULDER

LAPEL OF CERES STAFF

UNIFORM

WEARING THE MODEL

KEVIN HUYNH

WEEK 11 TASKS

TASK C4 _ LEARNING OBJECTIVES

One of the main considerations I took from the final

presentation, was the main base plate onto which all

the strips are fixed. I started to explore lighter and

less obvious methods to create a central junction

for all the strip ends. The hardest part is accounting

for the weight of all the strips. I did some

experimentations with polypropylene (pictured

right) which allowed me to use the curve of the

material against itself, working both in compression

and tension. The only problem was however, that

not matter how high the stresses and pressures

against it were, the thickness of the material would

never allow me to take much weight. So far the

only successful method I have tried, which not only

worked in theory but also in practice was the mdf

base plate. Even with this I still had some difficulties.

I needed the strips to sit vertically in it, which meant

that it was really easy for the weight of the strips

to pull it out. Consequently however, I tried some

new methods. I put string through the ends of the

strips and sandwiched them in between the layers

of mdf. This stopped the lateral and vertical forces

in one go. To refine this method I would painted

the base plate black, to stop the overwhelmingly

obvious colour from distracting the viewer. In terms

of the strips and joints however, I am quite happy

with how it turned out. My initial experimentations

with the joints were not so successful until I came

across eyelets. They allowed so much control in

the position of the joints, and most importantly

the tightness of the joints. Without the movement

restriction that the tight joints allowed, I would not

have been able to express as clearly the different

forms of the model, at rest and ‘active’ when

pointing out, nor the retractable nature of the arms.

The particular process that I took with grasshopper

was incredibly helpful in understand relationships

between elements in an algorithmic sense too.

It was not as easy as just scaling all the panels

together in one go. Each of my panels were defined

by curves which were defined by points which in

turn, were defined by other points that had been

offset from division of the base curves. EVERYTHING

was interconnected and I think ultimately my

design somewhat showed that a little aesthetically.

Grasshopper’s role in my design thinking has now

radically shifted the way I approach a design. I used

to think of computational design as a mysterious,

untouchable force that created beautiful thing out

of accidents. I now see that the ability to manipulate

different points along a definition, and to know

exactly what you’re controlling gives so much more

depth to the overall design, and especially where

the design could go from there.

WEEK 12 TASKS

WEEK 12 TASKS

student journal

Documents