Anyone who knows me knows this isn't what I usually post, but I think its possible to express everything with one line. Well at least in this case.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Inhabit - Owen G. Glenn Building Project
This project was about us taking our thrash-hold [sic] project (see last entry)and translating and transforming it so that it was "appropriate" for O.G.G.B.(the business school building on the UOA campus).
From my last project I took the idea of vertical or overhead grounding conditions and the idea of creating a study space into this design. I used these elements to comment on the public nature of the undergraduate spaces and to create a new, more intimate relationship between a single human body and the architecture (O.G.G.B. is a massive building and the only place with a intimate relationship with the induvidual is the bathrooms). The site is under the fairly private skydecks on levels 3 and above that are available primarily to post graduate students (such is the hierarchical nature of the building. The site is also consequnetly interacting with the large glass wall of the main atrium between levels 1 and 2 - a perfect place to comment on the public nature of the building as it is visible from the interior and also the motorway which passes alongside the building. My design took the form of pods or "bubbles" through the common association of the bubble with induvidual space - "my own little bubble".
If anyone has any questions please ask.
From my last project I took the idea of vertical or overhead grounding conditions and the idea of creating a study space into this design. I used these elements to comment on the public nature of the undergraduate spaces and to create a new, more intimate relationship between a single human body and the architecture (O.G.G.B. is a massive building and the only place with a intimate relationship with the induvidual is the bathrooms). The site is under the fairly private skydecks on levels 3 and above that are available primarily to post graduate students (such is the hierarchical nature of the building. The site is also consequnetly interacting with the large glass wall of the main atrium between levels 1 and 2 - a perfect place to comment on the public nature of the building as it is visible from the interior and also the motorway which passes alongside the building. My design took the form of pods or "bubbles" through the common association of the bubble with induvidual space - "my own little bubble".
If anyone has any questions please ask.
Thrash-Hold [sic]
Here are my horrendously late images for my last project and presentation. I don't think there is really enough work on there and I got criticised for having proportionally a large amount of writing compared to mapping (as mapping was the basis of my design). I also think I'll redo these pages so there is more clarity surrounding my design and how it looks overall - it currently relies on the models which isn't helpful when you are having to compile a portfolio). Anyway this project was all about the tresh-hold and on reflection maybe a more compact design located at the thresh hold would have been better than a large design trying to act as an extended thresh hold.
Looking at these images I am acutely aware of how good they are at NOT communicating my design in the slightest. Better luck with the next project I hope.
Looking at these images I am acutely aware of how good they are at NOT communicating my design in the slightest. Better luck with the next project I hope.
Opps x2
I forgot to put my last project Thrash-hold (sic) up.
Anyway here it is. Its not as bad as my first project but I still got a lot of criticism on it from my tutor's so hopefully I'll be able to tidy things up and add more work to this when I go to submit this.
actually I lie I only have these saved as pdf's so I can upload them. I'll do it at University tommorrow when I have access to photoshop (my trial expired a few days ago).
As well as uploading the Trash-hold images I will also upload the images from my latest project for which I must say I've had really good tutors and have (consequently) really enjoyed.
Sorry about the wait.
Anyway here it is. Its not as bad as my first project but I still got a lot of criticism on it from my tutor's so hopefully I'll be able to tidy things up and add more work to this when I go to submit this.
actually I lie I only have these saved as pdf's so I can upload them. I'll do it at University tommorrow when I have access to photoshop (my trial expired a few days ago).
As well as uploading the Trash-hold images I will also upload the images from my latest project for which I must say I've had really good tutors and have (consequently) really enjoyed.
Sorry about the wait.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Peer Review 001 - David Duan (Jaiwei)
David (Jaiwei) Duan–Model/Laser cut group - http://davidduan.wordpress.com/
What is it?
A sorting machine for ideas represented on paper. More of a system than a machine, in which either flat pieces of paper or scrunched up paper are randomly sorted by a fixed arrangement of maze like pathways. In his own words his design acts like a sieve for ideas. Ideas enter by being dropped into the top and come out sorted into different piles at the bottom. The idea operates on a large scale, with a height that covers a floor and being able to take paper up to an A1 size. The design is integrated into the studio, done so by attaching to the wall and spanning the space between level 2 and 3.
How did he use relevant technologies?
There was an obvious use of the laser cutter in the production of his final design and appears to be some use in the mock up stages. The laser cutter has been used in the conventional way but has produced a convincing and precise result.
How is the design informed by the literature?
There is a direct link to the paper piles/collections found in the literature. David’s concept was to automate autonomies and randomise the process of organisation seen in the literature. This has been done effectively and been adapted to suit the ‘trash’ produced in studio
Critique
David’s idea, while simple is beautifully effective. His presentation in which a miniature version was operational with only a minor hitch which was due to the scale it was presented at rather than a specific design flaw. I like the way this design results in communal regeneration of ideas and encourages students to regenerate ideas rather than throw them out or store permanently in their lockers without another thought. It was designed with the architecture studio at the University of Auckland being specifically in mind which has created a unique form reference to his design. This relevance to the building is seen through the use of the 45o angle consistently present in the building’s design and in David’s system, showing he has an understanding of the building that he is designing for. The idea of movement in David’s design, seen as like the studio structure the design structure is exposed, is particularly strong and dynamic which is a unique feature as many designs result mostly in the static storage of designs. Possible critiques could be that this system does not allow for the regeneration of models (unless photographed) and in his A3 pictures it looks as if the system is inconveniently located directly in front of a studio window. Presentation could further be improved by taking photographs without the interference of plastic bags e.t.c.
Overall I think David’s design works well, fully engaging with the text’s concepts and offering a working, plausible solution to the design brief.
What is it?
A sorting machine for ideas represented on paper. More of a system than a machine, in which either flat pieces of paper or scrunched up paper are randomly sorted by a fixed arrangement of maze like pathways. In his own words his design acts like a sieve for ideas. Ideas enter by being dropped into the top and come out sorted into different piles at the bottom. The idea operates on a large scale, with a height that covers a floor and being able to take paper up to an A1 size. The design is integrated into the studio, done so by attaching to the wall and spanning the space between level 2 and 3.
How did he use relevant technologies?
There was an obvious use of the laser cutter in the production of his final design and appears to be some use in the mock up stages. The laser cutter has been used in the conventional way but has produced a convincing and precise result.
How is the design informed by the literature?
There is a direct link to the paper piles/collections found in the literature. David’s concept was to automate autonomies and randomise the process of organisation seen in the literature. This has been done effectively and been adapted to suit the ‘trash’ produced in studio
Critique
David’s idea, while simple is beautifully effective. His presentation in which a miniature version was operational with only a minor hitch which was due to the scale it was presented at rather than a specific design flaw. I like the way this design results in communal regeneration of ideas and encourages students to regenerate ideas rather than throw them out or store permanently in their lockers without another thought. It was designed with the architecture studio at the University of Auckland being specifically in mind which has created a unique form reference to his design. This relevance to the building is seen through the use of the 45o angle consistently present in the building’s design and in David’s system, showing he has an understanding of the building that he is designing for. The idea of movement in David’s design, seen as like the studio structure the design structure is exposed, is particularly strong and dynamic which is a unique feature as many designs result mostly in the static storage of designs. Possible critiques could be that this system does not allow for the regeneration of models (unless photographed) and in his A3 pictures it looks as if the system is inconveniently located directly in front of a studio window. Presentation could further be improved by taking photographs without the interference of plastic bags e.t.c.
Overall I think David’s design works well, fully engaging with the text’s concepts and offering a working, plausible solution to the design brief.
Peer Review 001 - Kelly Chapman
Kelly Chapman –Model/Laser cut group -http://www.kelly-nicoletti-that-office.blogspot.com/
What is it?
Using a blazer/dinner styled jacket Kelly’s trash can system involves attaching pieces of fabric (including metal chain and some usually un-wearable fabrics) to the inside of this jacket. Kelly’s design allows for storage of materials that have inspired her and/or hold specific meaning to her. The material’s act as patches for her jacket and are free to be placed anywhere she desires (no fixed path) allowing for versatility and variety. By using materials there is almost no limit on the ideas (fabric) that can be attached to Kelly’s jacket, meaning she can continue to use it and add to it.
The design is inspired by the childhood story “Wild Rose” in which a young girl wears black clothing with fabrics of all different colours on the inside as an expression of indecision and personality. This links to Kelly’s design as she use colour as representation of ideas and through the way numerous ideas are allowed to come together in one garment.
How did she use relevant technologies?
As Kelly’s design is fabric based she did not use make excessive use of the laser cutter. She did however experiment with fabric and the laser cut, to intentionally damage the fabric (of the jacket), but instead of using the laser cutter in her final design she opted for a more randomised way of damaging her jacket (through wear and tear).
How is the design informed by the literature?
This elimination of controlled damage linked to the prescribed text as it eliminated “joes”. Other than this Kelly’s design linked to the ‘trash-can’ theme and reading though the simple idea of a trash-can in which nothing is thrown away but reintroduced and recycled into a wearable garment.
Critique
Personally I liked Kelly’s design as it offered a different solution using wildly different materials than many of the designs and have no problem with only a light use of. The design is quite personal as it comes into physical contact with the body but has the potential of being subtly public if worn open (unbuttoned). Possible problems would occur when attaching a model – although parts of a dismantled model were attached and made to mould to the shape of Kelly’s body.
As a system of reintroduction of it may also have problems – as usually people pay little attention to the inside of their clothing and it could be argued that the garment would be used more as a dumping ground than a system of reintroduction for ideas – which to me was a fundamental element in the reading. This is to a degree counteracted by the highly tactile nature of the design and its recycled nature (possibly a different interpretation of the reintroduction idea in the text). Furthermore sowing fabric onto the jacket is time and effort consuming, meaning it may not appeal or be useful for a lot of people wanting more efficient designs. It is also not a communal solution, but that may be to the benefit of the wearer.
To conclude the jacket is well made, sculpted to fit Kelly’s own body, and would work well for tactile people, those on a limited budget or with space concerns.
What is it?
Using a blazer/dinner styled jacket Kelly’s trash can system involves attaching pieces of fabric (including metal chain and some usually un-wearable fabrics) to the inside of this jacket. Kelly’s design allows for storage of materials that have inspired her and/or hold specific meaning to her. The material’s act as patches for her jacket and are free to be placed anywhere she desires (no fixed path) allowing for versatility and variety. By using materials there is almost no limit on the ideas (fabric) that can be attached to Kelly’s jacket, meaning she can continue to use it and add to it.
The design is inspired by the childhood story “Wild Rose” in which a young girl wears black clothing with fabrics of all different colours on the inside as an expression of indecision and personality. This links to Kelly’s design as she use colour as representation of ideas and through the way numerous ideas are allowed to come together in one garment.
How did she use relevant technologies?
As Kelly’s design is fabric based she did not use make excessive use of the laser cutter. She did however experiment with fabric and the laser cut, to intentionally damage the fabric (of the jacket), but instead of using the laser cutter in her final design she opted for a more randomised way of damaging her jacket (through wear and tear).
How is the design informed by the literature?
This elimination of controlled damage linked to the prescribed text as it eliminated “joes”. Other than this Kelly’s design linked to the ‘trash-can’ theme and reading though the simple idea of a trash-can in which nothing is thrown away but reintroduced and recycled into a wearable garment.
Critique
Personally I liked Kelly’s design as it offered a different solution using wildly different materials than many of the designs and have no problem with only a light use of. The design is quite personal as it comes into physical contact with the body but has the potential of being subtly public if worn open (unbuttoned). Possible problems would occur when attaching a model – although parts of a dismantled model were attached and made to mould to the shape of Kelly’s body.
As a system of reintroduction of it may also have problems – as usually people pay little attention to the inside of their clothing and it could be argued that the garment would be used more as a dumping ground than a system of reintroduction for ideas – which to me was a fundamental element in the reading. This is to a degree counteracted by the highly tactile nature of the design and its recycled nature (possibly a different interpretation of the reintroduction idea in the text). Furthermore sowing fabric onto the jacket is time and effort consuming, meaning it may not appeal or be useful for a lot of people wanting more efficient designs. It is also not a communal solution, but that may be to the benefit of the wearer.
To conclude the jacket is well made, sculpted to fit Kelly’s own body, and would work well for tactile people, those on a limited budget or with space concerns.
Peer Review Session 001 - Jeffery (Chow, Chi-Ho)
Instead of having a formal crit process this semester we are having a more informal peer review session. These are my first peer reviews.
Jeffery (Chow, Chi-Ho) –Model/Laser cut group - http://jaeff.blogspot.com/2010/08/trash-can-project.html
What is it?
Jeffery’s design is an integrated floor design for level 2 studio space. A glass floor comprised of lift up lids sections lead down to a storage space under the floor. This space acts as visible storage space for drawings and models of all students. The floor being made out of glass allows for students to draw and write on the floor, which in turn allows for an open dialogue on stored ideas. The design has been thought out so that it can also b applied to the upper studios, and necessities such as the sprinkler system has been incorporated as further hanging storage for drawings. A standout feature is the pressure sensor lights that track the movement of those walking on the floor allowing for people to generate their own systems of randomisation to help inform regeneration of ideas.
How did she use relevant technologies?
Jeffery’s entire model was cut using the laser cutter; this resulted in a precise result that conveyed its message well. Further use could have been achieved though experimentation but considering the design that was not necessary. It would have been very effective if he had managed to put the hinge system in the model as his design is very much reliant on it. Regardless, the design and use of relevant technologies is very convincing.
How is the design informed by the literature?
Jeffery expressed that this design, while in developed from the literature does not have any direct links to the system discussed in the literature. It is far more haphazard and more suited to the studio environment. Despite Jeffery’s claim of lacking a direct link, I think it has good possibility for the recycling and regeneration of ideas in a communal way.
Critique
Jeffery’s design was one of the most convincing designs I saw during the peer review session. I particularly liked how his design became communal and acknowledges the fact that all designers often find inspiration from work that is not their own. I further like the open and anonymous dialogue that the class floor gives to the design. It is totally appropriate for the studio environment and allows for people working on different projects or in different year levels to comment on pieces of work. One of my few comments would be the board that his model was attached to, presumably acting as a piece of wall this could have done with being cleaner or even painted, as I found it slightly detracted from his model. When presenting he would benefit from having his model and paper work in the same location. My only concern about the design itself would be the scale of the lift up panels, and weather that would be feasible at the size they are, seeming to require so disruption to open, but to achieve its full visual affect I think the size is appropriate. Overall presentation of Jeffery’s work is convincing, both in model and drawn form. It gives a clear idea of exactly how the design would operate in relation to studio. His design is definitely worked on multiple levels and was extremely impressive.
Jeffery (Chow, Chi-Ho) –Model/Laser cut group - http://jaeff.blogspot.com/2010/08/trash-can-project.html
What is it?
Jeffery’s design is an integrated floor design for level 2 studio space. A glass floor comprised of lift up lids sections lead down to a storage space under the floor. This space acts as visible storage space for drawings and models of all students. The floor being made out of glass allows for students to draw and write on the floor, which in turn allows for an open dialogue on stored ideas. The design has been thought out so that it can also b applied to the upper studios, and necessities such as the sprinkler system has been incorporated as further hanging storage for drawings. A standout feature is the pressure sensor lights that track the movement of those walking on the floor allowing for people to generate their own systems of randomisation to help inform regeneration of ideas.
How did she use relevant technologies?
Jeffery’s entire model was cut using the laser cutter; this resulted in a precise result that conveyed its message well. Further use could have been achieved though experimentation but considering the design that was not necessary. It would have been very effective if he had managed to put the hinge system in the model as his design is very much reliant on it. Regardless, the design and use of relevant technologies is very convincing.
How is the design informed by the literature?
Jeffery expressed that this design, while in developed from the literature does not have any direct links to the system discussed in the literature. It is far more haphazard and more suited to the studio environment. Despite Jeffery’s claim of lacking a direct link, I think it has good possibility for the recycling and regeneration of ideas in a communal way.
Critique
Jeffery’s design was one of the most convincing designs I saw during the peer review session. I particularly liked how his design became communal and acknowledges the fact that all designers often find inspiration from work that is not their own. I further like the open and anonymous dialogue that the class floor gives to the design. It is totally appropriate for the studio environment and allows for people working on different projects or in different year levels to comment on pieces of work. One of my few comments would be the board that his model was attached to, presumably acting as a piece of wall this could have done with being cleaner or even painted, as I found it slightly detracted from his model. When presenting he would benefit from having his model and paper work in the same location. My only concern about the design itself would be the scale of the lift up panels, and weather that would be feasible at the size they are, seeming to require so disruption to open, but to achieve its full visual affect I think the size is appropriate. Overall presentation of Jeffery’s work is convincing, both in model and drawn form. It gives a clear idea of exactly how the design would operate in relation to studio. His design is definitely worked on multiple levels and was extremely impressive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
