Saturday, February 28, 2009

Intention Midterm presentation

I'm planning to give my midterm presentation for next monday the following contents:

  1. Hypothesis - research questions - testing
  2. Input & output of research
  3. Architectural input
  4. Radiolarian input
  5. G.C. sketch
  6. Plan for the next weeks
After I spoke to Michela, Andrew/Elisa and Andre last thursday, I concluded after taking a little time to process their input, to keep the architectural image more in mind while proceding my research. I don't want to focus only on the tesselation of surfaces anymore, without having an architectural image of the output. But more on a complete spatial structure of a pavilion. I will keep in mind the possibilities of tesselating the surfaces and the knowledge I gathered on this specific subject. And apply them later on.

1 comment:

  1. Hi Maria,
    Presentation must be up to 5 minutes – therefore addressing it very precisely is important. Main focus should be your recent and upcoming work – therefore just state your research proposal in one slide.

    Here below a summary of recent e-mail discussion we had:

    I totally agree on the need of architectural meaning/quality. And I totally agree on the fact that optimizing a certain tessellation, extracted out of a radiolarian or other, does not lead to architecture or architectural quality automatically. I do not think optimizing tessellation is what you are doing – which is in my view more than that.

    Being fascinated by a natural shape can be, in my view, a valid architectural inspiration which has to do with aesthetic/perception/emotions. I would not advice following this fascination if purely formal. But you are trying to work with/understand the rules which are behind the beauty of these shapes – related their structural geometry – witch make them able of being strong and light at the same time. It seems to me you want to/are investigating the structural meaning behind the beauty of these shapes - starting from their micro-scale, to investigate the light geometry of these shapes in a building scale. Which is in my view is already an architectural-quality related task (lightness of structures can be an architectural quality). The choice of glass seems to me coherent with the idea of lightness.

    Working through geometry/materialization of light structural shape, transforming it from a micro to a large scale (on glass) - by designing a pavilion as result of your process.

    Coming therefore to the design of the pavilion you are going to do, I believe that better defining this case study would help your research. Having a context - or an idea of the pavilion you would like to work on - or deciding the kind of shape you are working with – or other similar choices/borderlines that define the starting points of your design, might help.

    To summarize, you would have in this case:
    1) an architectural case study which is your pavilion - with starting context or chosen shapes or whatever borderline you are interested in
    2) an architectural concept/quality - which is lightness (if I right understood your interest in radiolarians – if I am wrong, just tell it)
    3) a geometrical/structural investigation which links the two – using radiolarians rules to develop your architectural concept in the pavilion you are designing.

    Yes, I agree that main structure should be your starting point. I agree problem should be kept simple: if using tessellation for structural aims leads to too high complexity, yes, using it for addressing cladding might be an idea – even better if geometry still embed structural/constructional meaning (not purely formal).

    Hoping it helps - if not, let me know.

    PS: Send me your GC model if needed.