Crisis Fronts is the online discussion forum and resource center for the Degree Project studio of Jason Lee and Michael Chen at Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York, USA
These are interesting, but strike me a still too complicated to lend a precise degree of control. You will recall one of the examples we showed last monday from the AA where the most basic unit was two plastic tubes anchored to a base and connected with a sliding collar. That is the type f simplicity that we're talking about here - one where one significant aspect of the change in the module's geometry can be measure wit mathematical precision. In the case of the individual unit, you want this degree of control.Next you would want to qualify this change as a intensive attribute and think about how many similar module working together yield a more complex series of relationships. I feel that if you were to attempt to model these current units, interesting as they are, you will have a hundred variables to consider in the scripts. Your goal should be to profoundly limit the number of variables.We've never seen the most simple versions of your prototypes - two loops pushing against one another while anchored; looking at the anchored next to one another, offset, etc. You could look at exploring graduated lengths over a repetitive series of units; you could look at a single length of tubing that you bend and connect to create a four-sided or radial series of adjacencies, etc. Why don't you take a look at these more straightforward versions before you move on to the more complex ones? You never established the range of control that you were looking for from the original series. If braiding is of great interest, try to reduce the degree of braiding to the most minimal (perhaps two tubes intertwined just once) before you make it more complicated. Believe me, there will be plenty of opportunities for a more complex behavior to emerge via the digital explorations in the next couple of weeks.
Post a Comment