Verifying the script:
In order to trust Processing, the software, I needed to start trying to recreate the results through anolog methods. I took a self-stopping vault system I developed last year at the AA, and printed it out with the laser cutter 3 different ways: 1. a smashed version of the processing output. 2. the pre-scored flat pattern, with the hope of deforming it. 3. The flat pieces seperated and then stitched together during construction:
Here are the results:
Method #1:
Method #2:
Method #3:
Nice job side-stepping the hand-drawn requisite. But, an entirely worthy experiment, indeed. Per our recent conversation (which occurred as I started writing this), I understand your attraction to method number 3, and would say I gravitate toward it as well, in terms of the effective recreation and representation of the initial model. However, why do you prefer it - not in terms of your model, but in terms of the process, and what will it speak to in fabricating a built environment? Are the areas of fold down, a byproduct of the process in its nature, an opportunity, a hindering element, or a area to be corrected in the next run through?
ReplyDeleteso different from last week (sort of?) it seems this was more about the realization (construction) of a physical form than the generation of it... er figuring out a way to take what is in the computer and make it in real space?
ReplyDeleteif so, then it seems that all three methods are interesting and i can imagine them being very material/process specific, whether that's what you want or not: 1) seems to represent maybe on site, not-prefabricated construction 2)seems like it would lend itself to a fabric type membrane 3) very prefabricated feeling
anyways, no idea if any of that relates/helps. adios.