Porosity
Here is a recent example of what I have been talking about.
This script was written originally for practical purposes to control the orientation of some heavy timber beams that I intend to employ for my current studio project. The idea is simple: pick an object, and array the object between two curves, scaling to fit the gap as necessary.
What I discovered though, was that in scaling non symmetrical objects, especially around a closed curve, certain deformations and twisting occurred to the object, creating a varied porosity as the orientation (ie. the location/size of the curves) changed. I have created a preliminary animation (using some modifications to Carl Lostrito’s rendering function, now with Vray) to explore these possibilities.
Edit: Here is another run at it with a little different camera setup.
(via ugliest flashplayer ever)
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Very nice script effect!
Do you post it on your blog?
Andrea Graziano
November 7th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
This script interests me for a number of reasons. First that there is visual spatial effect that is the result of computerization. Especially that computerization does not exist for the purpose of producing this effect. My internal debate of late has been that i am attempting to coreograph the same happy accident that you have stumbled on. The conflict for me is that i need to insert value into what is being scripted. This is hard because i CAN afford to go off on tangental investigations.
So my quasi selfish request to you is the following: could you produce (or just post if you already have) some drawings that make explicit the parameters of the script. Possibly it could just be the resultant use of the script in your project. this is also true as j do not exacty as of yet understnad what the script does. I am fascinated to see also to what degree the animation will satisfy my curiosity
November 9th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Thank you both for your valuable feedback. As you probably noticed, both the Animation is up. I also created a new page to host my code in a more organized and visible fashion. You can find that link at the bottom of the post or on the right side of the page.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:59 am
After thinking some more about these comments:
Carl,
I have a very similar internal debate with this work. I believe the issue for me is one of the new methodologies that we are exploring, namely that of computation. What I think I am beginning to understand however, is that this process is not nearly as different as I anticipated…but what I do find daunting, is how one translates traditional processes (which I don’t really have a grasp on either) to computational methodologies without loosing their value (think NOX).
Terzidis has been most helpful to me in this regard (I know you have read him also). As a result, I think my current process has evolved to the following:
> Identify the relationships I am interested in
> begin logical codification of these relationships through a programming lexicon
> adjust original assumptions based on feasibility and clarity of these relationships
> modify/augment/edit logical relationship parameters to allow for flexibility of application
When I began initially, I expected overwhelming restriction throughout the codification/clarification process and therefore restricted design. This seems to be a common concern among designers unfamiliar with these techniques, and as you know, probably a leading argument for conservative rejection of computational methodologies.
What I have consistently found (and is reinforced by the theoretical discourse) is completely the contrary; The range of possible results from even the most minute changes to the original logical constructs (or even with no changes at all) are wildly different and present a framework far more flexible that I could have imagined. This you already know.
So to address your concern, as the nature of our respective projects is quite different, yours probably calls for even more rigor and consideration of the initial parameters and their manifestation (whereas I am allowed to focus purely on the techtonic). As I understand it this was the intent of your initial part whole animations…a sort of emergence of formal issues out of informal explorations (or vice versa depending on your definition of formal). Are these issues the parameters that you are looking now to instill with value?
You yourself say you are looking to insert value into what is [already] being scripted. From this statement, it seems to me that you might need to ask exactly the inverse: “How can value manifest in the script?” Perhaps I am misunderstanding your conflict, but to me these are very different questions. In the former, value takes a backseat to formal exploration…and in the latter, exploration of value results in the formal. I guess it ultimately depends on your intentions, but it might be worth considering.
I think the key here could be to start simple. One of the wonderful characteristics of these methods is their scalability, and therefore you might find your catalyst in a smaller box than expected. The danger here (especially in our environment), is that you are likely to be met with the most opposition at this stage. What is in fact exceptionally rigorous and considerate for us, can easily appear arbitrary and flagrant to those who can’t (won’t) even attempt to understand computational methodologies.
Finally, I do want to address your suggestion that this is a happy accident. I disagree. I believe it is much more about discovery and clarification of opportunity rather than accident, just as one discovers opportunity in any design methodology. Regardless of media or method, design is not compromised when results are unexpected.
That rhymes too
Thanks for reading.