I will make entries for each of my trips, as a general overview. This is as much for myself to document the sessions chronologically, as fro my tutors to get a chance to see what is going on. I will also include my notes on the tutorials (see below) but these are primarily the texts also sent to my teaching colleagues for continuity between our tutorials. I will also include other events and meetings, and in some cases these my become separate posts. my aim is to go back to these notes later to be able to follow the development of Dip16, and potentially use it as material in my reseach case. The tutorial notes will be set in similar format to this paragraph (to indicate that it is a bit extensive), while other general comments wwill be in regular text.
Back from three days in London, 29th – 31st of October, including tutorials and a text seminar with all students at the AA and a review at the London Met. I did the AA tutorials on my own, since Andrew and Jonas L had to be in Korea. A bit frantic, and a lot of things to keep track of to keep all 14 students on the roll. Very invigorating, but also demanding. I am not so happy about doing it myself this time, and will have to discuss planning issues with my colleagues. The AA sessions included a meeting with each student for ca 30 minutes discussing their work, a presentetion of the Krets projects PARCEL and SplineGraft as well as my thesis and a text seminar in which students presented selected articles on the themes of architectural elegance, morphogenetic design, tooling and design tools.
The tutorials were pretty good, the students are setting up their experimental material systems, that explore formal principles with material aspects and digital design systems. They had one GC session last weekend, and another today, run by Gustaf Fagerström (London Met), Andrei Martin (Westminster) and Thomas Tong (AA Dip16). The students are getting introductions to parametrics this way, and rpetty soon we will have more advanced ssessions in which I will also participate. A particular interesting project is the one of Kwan Joo who is taking on the whole production chain, in a very interesting way, and is the first to address “production ecologies” such as we have outlined it. I will check for Skanska possibilities though my Swedish contacts. I hope to add issues of project communication and logistics ti his very advanced ideas on prefabrication and formal variation. See below for more details.
I also had a meeting with Lars Hesselgren, former SmartGeometry colleague of Robert Aish, primarily regarding a second ssark seminar, preliminary set to February 5th 2009. Lars is very eager to get in contact with Stockholm firms and the Swedish context in a similar way, and in regards to the issues of different software vendors, he also would like a more open forum (Robert is now Autodesk director of software development, Lars is Research director at KPF, but also has a close relationship with Bentley, who owns GenerativeComponents). The idea of the open forum fits very well with the ambitions of ssark medialab, as expressed in the Robert Aish seminar. The February event will be someow supported by Bentley, and they may have an additional event on the day after or so. After our meeting, Lars contacted Mattias Hemingsson of Bentley (who I also know), and there was a bit of confusion; I think that Mattias did not appreciate not to be invited to our Aish session. We took this approach at ssark since there would have been possible conflicts during the session, and I did not knwo how Robert would have responded to this. He would probably have been a bit more quiet…
Another matter of interest is the ambition Lars has to push integraiton of analytical software to the CAD, parametric and project management packages. These links are very weak today, and has great potential. He wants to form a small group to push this, including Tony Baxter who will work on the Bentley integration of recently aquired Hevacomp. This is also in response to Autodesk´s recent purchase of Ecotect, which has been used at the AA, and also at the KTH (by the two diploma students Olof and Pär I believe). I could potentially becoome a part in this group, and Lars is want a small introductory meeting at the AA in London before christmas. In early spring, we may do a seminar with students to truy this out. The field is really about building performance, including energy issues, but to me is really about linking tools and conceptually it can reinforce the idea of testing of parametric prototypes. This is also very relevant to the publicaiton for Arkus that I should get started with. Very interesting! Lars also suggests a visit to the SmartGeometry conference in San Fransisco in March, and maybe I can get a contact with Stanford and CIFE in relation to this (were Thomas Wingate is a research engineer).
I met Marco Poletto and Claudia Pasquero of Ecologic studio briefly, they really want to do a collaboraiton between their intermediate studio and Dip16.
The review at London Met had invited guest Daniel Norell. Students are working with designs fro their workspace at the Lmet, and there is a budget to actually manufacture one proposal. After a bit of chaos as a result from bad planning (not really appreciated by me), we had an ok session. The 8 students are not very familiar with the concepts and tools, and are starting pretty much from scratch. We (Gustaf Fagerström, Tom Tin gand myself) had to write a new brief Wednesday night, to get them to the next phase. The Lmet MA-program, in which I am only spending a few hours every second week in turorials and should not do planning, is interesting since they do not have to fulfill RIBA requirements, and can be more experimental that the AA teams. They do not have the capacity of the AA studnets though. There is a Lmet blog, with an entry from the review here: http://adds.transparente.net/2008/10/30/brief01-final-crit-with-invited-guests/
All for now, tutorial notes below.
/ jonas
AA Tutorials 081029-31
I presented my projects and the thesis on Wednesday morning, with discussion after. Lot of talk around the compositing of materials in the Krets projects in relation to unit work. I also put an emphasis on that the Krets projects were not developed as parts or components of larger structures / buildings, but more or less as self contained projects. This is different from unit approach of material systems.
All group have split (Michal / Jung Joon retains a collaboration to certain extents). Tutorials were done in teams, both first presenting than discussion between the projects. From now and on I suggest that we see them two-by-two, but talk first about one project then the other. Also suggest we shift the teams (this was considered a good thing), and give out a schedule beforehand for both Wednesday and Friday. They had one tutorial each this week, and a text seminar on Friday afternoon. They prefer two tutorials a week, and expressed concerns on this.
A general comment would be that very few have pushed drawings/portfolio work, but emphasized models. All were told to push portfolio/drawings as well. Also to make good use of the GC sessions and start to look for opportunities to use in material system.
For the material systems, I generally pushed them to think about scale, and the addition of other materials to give additional, now missing, performance (structural capacity, climate control, apertures, programmatic functions). I often referred to our ideas of compositing at multiple levels.
The 5th year abstracts have not been completed, but they should submit it beginning next week. Tom will put his abstract on the blog for reference (I had no reference to show them unfortunately).
I strongly suggest you see them on both Wednesday and Friday next week, they are moving forward but there is quite a bit of uncertainty. 4-5 plan to go to Israel, and I will get them in touch with Eran over the weekend. I have not given any clear directions of schedule next week, but promised this would be posted on the blog over the weekend.
On Friday afternoon we did the text seminar. Pretty god discussion ,although some are reluctant to comment on others presentation. Notion of Elegance was discussed at length, based on Schumacher and deLanda texts from AD. Tooling as well, with an interest in the notion of algorithms as recipes. The Schumacher Parametricism text was also presented, but very few had read it. The Aish text in AA files 52 was also briefly presented, brought up issues of tool making and/or software exploration.
group C / Maryan / Sakiko
Working separately but pushing things in an interesting way. Seems to be on track, both models and drawings.
Maryan is continuing tests with slumping plastic. Also tried glass, failed but she is trying again. I suggested stick to plastic. Suggested to look at partitioning of material before slumping, to achieve different variation, and also machining material to get different material thickness giving differentiation in material performance during slumping. Possibly also multiple layered slumped components. Also picked site to Istanbul, and started research on this. Interesting aspect of water in black sea, with no pollution. Also looking in spaces for water containment, with vaulted structures, suggested to go on with geometrical principles.
Sakiko has amazing geometrical folding patterns, laser cut in 2d, and also now milled for thickness as suggested by JL. Considered scale to be on a spatial level (component=room), but this would take away the folding principles, so I asked to reconsider. Drawings and models are great. Suggested milling in two steps; 1 removing parts of material creating a mold within it, 2 filling with alternate material, 3 milling again to create a composite of the intitial (mold) material and new material, engraved to be foldable and with different material performance across the surface, sometimes working as hinges.
group E / Claudia / MichaelIndividual work, but both have a very conceptual and poetic approach to performance of systems. Because of this, both were asked to consider a number of pragmatic issues, including programs and function (the research station and public domain part was pushed very concretely by me). Both lacking in material models, must focus on this as well! Both are working with the prortfolio, but need more rigour in using digital models and making drawings.
Claudia looking at floating components linked up, responding to sea currents and deployable in different locations and situations. She met George XX from Redding University (chair of biomimetics). He is in for tutorials in Emtech, and she will see him every two weeks. May also visit Redding. I pushed that she should make this available to unit for those interested in what Redding can give. Her components are very enclosed and linked in a simple way, like pods with tube couplings. Pushed to make them into a more integrated system, and also consider issues when it is not floating or submerged, as well as being submerged at different levels and include spatial pockets that could be entered. Wants to work in parallel with Israel / Simrishamn brief, which I approved (basically showing system deployed in two locations). No real physical models, only material sample of weaved tube. Tom suggests she is hooked on Rhino scripting, and thinks she cannot move on until she knows it better (assume she wants to do swarm things for the spreading of her systems in water).
Michael is looking at pneumatic structures using water, and feels he does not have the resources to make models (showing a ice cube plastic bag, and explaining principles with this. Wants to speak to Erland on how his project was developed. Pushed to find ways of development in other ways also. (can meeting with Erland be set up?). System will need additional structures to hold. He´s interested in material that shifts from structural to flexible with moisture, suggesting that pneumatic structures could be rigid when exposed to water, and flexible otherwise (or maybe other way around, which would be better).
group A / Andreas / kengo
Both continue the work on weaving/3d weaving and are discussing common issues. Generally I emphasized an understanding of weaving procedures in addition to weaving patterns, to make them think more of the fabrication issues. Also discussed addition of additional materials that can create a smooth differentiation of material properties over the structure, or when applied more separately will look at issues of climate control, apertures, light and programmatic/functional aspects. Also discussion on designing the “fibres” so they are not 1D or 2D, but can have s shifting cross section. Valid for both.
Kengo has designed a flexible space frame structure. Also acknowledges a history of tension structures reinforced to take compression. His flexible structure needs fixation to become self supporting. Consider adding elements into structure to achieve this, or use primary structure to carry limited spans of space frame. Not sure about site, may go on the Israel trip.
Andreas is working with a strip based system of weaving. Working in wooden models in search of “local” materials (Sweden Simrishamn). Pushed to look at new materials based on local conditions (as in Biomime wooden fibers). Looks at Algae as parts of water cleaning processes etc. First looked at enclosed wovern units, but persuadead to instead continue to look at a continuous but differentiated weave with pockets in weaving that could incorporate algae containers.
group D / Haen Suk / Arye
Both are continuing the work with auxetic structures, but no longer as team. Again, forming of the cross sections of models pushed. Scale must be considered, as well as materials (multiple needed). Models done in regular paper (and Arye a semi functional cardboard model with metal joints). Must find better materials to prototype with, and develop portfolio part in drawings. Digital modelling must also be developed, and potentially looking at GC. For materials, control mechanisms of movement, such as shape memory alloys, are being considered. Haen Suk prefers tutorials more individual, thinks language an issue (he sent me an email on this).
Haen Suk is working with a (found) 3D principle, but is finding alternate ways of combining in to system. Will use Israel site and go on trip. Started to look at GC model for this principles, may be tricky.
Arye is looking first at 2D set up of auxetic structure, then on layered version with more elaborated joints (not working so well). Vague ideas on site at Black sea / Istanbul, based on the fact that he has never been in Turkey.. Should this be allowed?
group F / Sharon / Kyo Dong
Looked at models of agqua gel, using diapers. Had great difficulties to make diaper model work, possibly because of other materials included besides aqua gel. Moved on with separate models simulating behaviour (Sharon) or putting contraptions on diaper (Kyo Dong). Not very successful there either. Strongly suggested one more iteration, and maybe leaving aqua gel, instead looking for mechanics with similar potential. Also consider the purpose of the inflection. Also considered Hydrospan as alternate material. Have not been in direct contact with woman presenting hydro gel at Unfolding Value conference, strongly urged to get in contact with her! They both need strong support!
Sharon Set up a linear balloon model, controlled on one side by elastic parts, the other with rigid, making inflection of overall system controlled. Suggested to make new iteration, setting up system in two directions rather than one.
Ky Dong made a model of corrugated steel members that would be fixed to aqua gel system for control (again using diaper), not very successful. Made drawings and model (shown in photos). Considered himself to have “faked” behaviour when aqua gel did not work. I suggested to not see this as faking, but adding aspects/control systems needed. Explore and document this!
group G / Kwan Joo / Chi Sung
Working separately (and I met them separately), bit there are common issues of perforations in material, and actually the on-site completion of prefab elements.
Kwan Joo is taking on the whole production chain, in a very interesting way, and is the first to address “production ecologies” such as we have outlined it. High potential to join experimental work with real contemporary industry, suggested later also looking at issues of logistics etc. I will give him further references (based on my forthcoming research) when his project is more underway. Very interesting models of prepared prefab system, and ideas still of a precast outer concrete shell components fastened to a fabric or similar, with “unburned” concrete inside them for later activation. Model is very nice and even suggests self assembly, but I questioned the precast concrete shell, suggested to replace it with milled casts. Also the internal concrete to be set later, should perhaps be transported separately, and filled on site. Still concept of generic system for specific deployment would work. Also pushed for differentiation among components. New cnc-milled model underway, with articulation of units. Not sure how it works with new fabrication and casting principles, should be explored. Wants to see producers/manufacturers in London area (unkown to me, pls advice him!). I will check for Skanska possibilities though my Swedish contacts. Site uncertain. Maybe push to Swedsh sit eatually, for contact with Skanska as well as small scale producers?
Chi Sung has been pushing previous interest of perforated materials for sound insulation, and used the friction structure timber references for a developing a stacking system. Not really conceptually linked, suggested dropping the link to friction structures all together, but focus on an alternate strategy for triangulated “stacked “ component. Also suggested scale shift from macro (component ca 1 meter) to meso (components ca 10 cm). Continues to work with a deep component in a very interesting steel (?)/concrete composite, in which reinforcement becomes component boundary as well as cast. Wants to do Israel site, and therefore thinks concrete proper material. At least more advanced versions of concrete suggested, and alternate cast materials.
group B / Michal / Jung Joon
Common interest in weaving, using banded parts. Models in cardboard + plastic. In general the insertion of other materials is needed for structure, and scale may need to be rethought. Bot must work more in prortfolio+digital modelling.
Michal is doing straight forward stripes locked in position by resin. Single surface formed manually (suggested using cast). Other model in larger scale, with interlaced surfaces creating striated space. He suggest a makro scale, with band thickness perhaps 30 m. Needs primary structure. Also wants to do site in Poland (know JL discourage, I think it´s ok, brings in possibility of profound contacts for unit research purposes), with interest in tidal changes and different water front activities.
Jung Joon is doing an intricate interlocking feature similar to weaving but more advanced. Suggests also friction based structure. Models in simple paper. Should consider material thickness (again differentiated as well) for large scal component to work. Potential GC compontal development. Unsure of site.
Leave a Reply