Tuesday, October 30, 2007

in the interest of this blog not falling to the wayside im actually going to put some work up (gasp!).

my proposal centers around digital sculpting as a method of generating architectural surfaces. you can read it here. feel free to critique it to pieces.

as you can see below, im not super good with the fancy-pants software yet, but theres all sorts of time left (right?). turns out its quite difficult stuff to work with, but im optimistic in the long run.


Blogger // JD said...

i'm in the middle of reading your draft and will comment more tomorrow. but it looks good so far. we might be able to generate an interesting debate, meanwhile, on the importance of surface continuity. i'm getting jaded in my research.

a tangent question, however: in the top rendering, how did you build your ground? is it a sloping backdrop? looks nice...

October 30, 2007 at 7:58 PM  
Blogger chris shusta said...

comments are definitely welcome... any yes, the continuity approach might end up being like banging my head on a wall, but im hoping theres some substance there.

as for the rendering, its just sitting on a flat plane. the smooth gradient is a byproduct of an area light (which im a big fan of). make them bigger and dial the intensity down for smoother shadows and transitions.

October 30, 2007 at 8:53 PM  
Blogger // JD said...

Sorry for the delay, but here’s my response:

It’s a very interesting proposal, studying digital sculpting software to investigate techniques for surface heterogeneity. I appreciate the critique of “smooth” surfaces (which have also been called “splippery”, “plaint” and “supple”). On a purely formal level, it would be nice to see some research into wrinkles, scratches, bumps, pimples, warts, etc. But maybe I’m stuck thinking of the demo where they showed how to “sculpt” an old man’s face.

My main question about your proposal, meanwhile, is this: you talk about this tool as a means of building intelligence into a surface by way of differentiating texture. Can you determine at what point a surface has reached its intellectual saturation? And if we examine the surface more closely, isn’t it actually a composition of multiple surfaces. This raises the question of materiality, tectonics, etc., bringing to mind a range of case studies. Perhaps you might look into Herzog & de Meuron’s Pfafenholtz Sports Center or the Eberswalde Library, where surfaces absorb images as a texture.

Along the lines of theory, the topic seems pretty heavy along the lines of sign / signified / signification, where surface texture (aka heterogeneity) behaves as a communicator or activator of sorts. Maybe you could read Lacan or even Freud (ack!).

Overall, though, I find it refreshing to see your surface research being such a deterministic investigation. But I still wonder how indeterminism might play a role. Keep it coming, and paint like an angel.

October 31, 2007 at 9:16 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home