Multiple (Personal) Realities

The other day, the notion of portable worlds (realities) struck me the other day while waiting in line for something or other. We are wholly unaware of the complex systems at work that make our lives, and the tasks within it, possible. We order fast food, and while waiting for it, check into our own little reality, our cell phone, to see if something important in that defined and relative reality has happened. At an airport terminal, we are completely unware of the complexity required to get us from point A to point B, oblivious to the coordination of countless data interactions, transactions and transformations in order for a successful trip. We choose to evade, escape and retreat whenever possible into our personal realities, tailored to our individual needs, interests and requirements. The phrase “..He is in his own little world”, is literally taking on a whole new meaning. What if (just for fun, let’s take this trip)…..the progression continues? What if we continue to construct, develop and ultimately begin to inhabit the individual realities, and abandon the natural one?

At one time, we all shared one reality, the natural reality. The sun rose up, we endured the battles, trials and challenges of the day, and when the sun went down, we rested and prepared for the next day. We may have had different perspectives of that reality, but it was an all-encompassing natural reality that we all shared, interpreted and participated in.

The passage of time has delivered us to an environment that is inundated with countless and individual realities, tailored to the myriad perspectives of reality, rather than reality itself. At what point do these individually created worlds that define, organize and influence our life journey surpass the natural reality within which we all exist? Taken to the extreme, if we all retreat into the individual realities we create, and nobody observes the complex and natural reality within which we exist, does it then cease to exist? Or, with it unoccupied, is it free to get transformed, reconstructed (restructured) into another natural reality, one in which we evolve to share again?

Fun, fun……  

RBP

9/2/14 

All images Copyright, Lazarus Designs, 2014

The LD Jam Session

I took a small break from my residential work the other day, and simply asked myself “What if I took the Lazarus Designs logo (in its metallic state) and transformed it”? The exercise turned to be pure exploration of the creative moment. What happens if I do this…..what does it look like when I do that….what if, what if, what if.

I read somewhere that when the Who composed their songs, Peter Townsend and Roger Daltry pretty much knew what the song was going to be about, and sound like. They composed their music with a destination in mind. In contrast, The Rolling Stones would get together and simply jam together, create and collaborate in the moment, and discover their music through their process. Obviously, both approaches were successful, but in my mind, the beauty of the Stones method was in the almost organic growth of the music, In other words, the song, the rhythm and beat, and even the lyrics, were discovered through the process of creation, and the collaboration of the musicians and their instruments.

This exercise was very much like a Stones jam session, and was immensely enjoyable! What I’ve learned, and indeed I am struggling with are a couple of things. If intent is absent, then is the result accidental? There is a collaboration that occurs between me, and the program I use to create these compositions (products). At what point am I merely relying on the tool to produce the composition? For example….I have countless yellow rods in the composition, and they were inserted by me for the simple reason that I wanted to contrast the fluidity of the LD, and suggest an underlying component of rigidity, or construction. Through the rendering process, I discovered that their reflections on the metal surface were much more intriguing than the rods themselves. Am I simply exploiting the program to produce content…..art without an artist, music without the musician? 

The other thing I am struggling (considering) with is if you don't have a destination, how do you determine if the composition, the product, is finished? Does it matter? I can change the frame dimensions, alter the lighting source, change materials endlessly (which I have somewhat demonstrated in the images). If I were to use the music analogy again, at what time do I decide to go into the studio and cut an album? 

In any case, I enjoy the creations and all I can say is……Discovery through process and collaboration with a machine .....”It’s a gas gas gaaaas”!!

RBP

8/15/14

The Fabric of Architecture-Continued

I thought I would share some additional studies along the “The Fabric of Architecture" line.

What I’m looking for I am not quite sure of. …..sure is fun searching for it though!

Still learning, still searching....and still inspired!

RBP

4.11.14

All images, copyright Lazarus Designs

FABRIC of ARCHITECTURE

Fabric of Architecture-4.2/ 1.6 

I’ve been looking to buy some additional books on architectural representation, art by architects and theoretical musings about the current state of architecture. Looking for a book seems a bit archaic today, as I have a vast library at my finger- tips but there is something to be said for actually turning a physical page!  

That research led to a website that I frequently visit: the website of the late visionary architect, Lebbeus Woods, and a post-commentary on the work of architect, Thom Mayne (Lebbeus Woods-Thom Maynes Mind).The work shown in the post is intense, suggesting a mind that operates on a higher plane than most, and without a shadow of doubt, is uniquely, creatively and inspirationally original. What I see in the work shown on the post, is someone searching for a new vocabulary, a new language through which to explore the creative process and lift architecture out of its current accepted manifestation. It goes far beyond art, and hints to the depth of the underlying orders and dynamics of our physical environment. This particular work questions in a very real and tangible way the role of architecture as objects that occupy and define the physical environment.  It seems to ask….Can architecture, can the built environment be a cohesive fabric that binds all those objects into one physical entity?  The work shown in the post and the mental ingestion of it, along with the commentary by Lebbeus Woods, moved me to first imagine and create an extension (variation) of the Lazarus Designs logo.

Lazarus Designs-Metallic Transformation 

Unlike a lot of my recent discovery through process endeavors, this time I started with a destination. Starting not from scratch, but from the logo of Lazarus Designs I began to interpret the logo using just two warped planes of implied metallic surfaces. The exercise was engaging, and I began to glimpse opportunities and possibilities, and began to understand (not in depth, just the scratch the surface type) of the underlying forces which Mayne was exploring. I began to explore those possibilities and challenged myself as to figuring out the methods. The more I looked the more I saw, the more I did, the more I wanted to do. This is the nature, beauty and mystery of the creative process. I began chasing ideas in three separate and distinct pieces, grasping to understand the language of the work that inspired me.

Fabric of Architecture-4.2/ 1.1 

Fabric of Architecture-4.2/ 1.6

Fabric of Architecture-4.2/ 1.6 

Fabric of Architecture-4.3/ 1.1

Fabric of Architecture-4.3/ 1.3 

Fabric of Architecture-4.2/ 1.9

Fabric of Architecture-4.2/ 1.6

Fabric of Architecture-4.3/ 1.1

Fabric of Architecture-4.3/ 1.4

Fabric of Architecture-4.3/ 1.6 

 Inspiration, true inspiration is infectious. It’s viral in nature and once contracted, will not depart until it has been addressed.  

RBP

3.23.14 

All images, copyright Lazarus Designs

THE DISRUPTION.....POSITIVE

I revisited an earlier product that I had developed in my Image Interpretation Series the other day (see Discovery through Process, Part 1), as I wanted a small break from the construction document production of a house I am currently designing.  I didn’t have the time to start an investigation from scratch, so I chose one already started, and thought I would just do a variation. I’ll be honest; this was a product that I wasn’t all that engaged with as it seemed like the potential was waning considerably the more it developed. With fresh eyes, and temporal distance from the earlier process, I took a second stab at the products evolution. The original source of inspiration was an image of an old truck (I’d like to give credit where credit is due, but the source of the image has been lost in the vast storage of information contained within the Internet, but I do thank you anonymous photographer!). I went through my discovery process, with the result being what I call The Humming.  There’s a tune there, it’s in my head but it hasn’t found the words yet.  

The Old Truck (photographer unknown)

The Humming

The second investigation essentially started with me asking the program (Revit for all you interested readers) for its interpretation of the product. Basically I look at the product through the rendering command of the program. The first image Interface unplugged was the result. It contains no user input as to material or color selections, falling back on its defaults. My first impression was that it was interesting, if not just a bit vague. It didn’t jump off the screen screaming “….Look at me!”

Interface-unplugged

I then began making decisions, interpretations as to the products feel and evolution. All of them interesting, and all of them much more engaging than the original Humming. After all was said and done, I realized that I was essentially dictating the style, for lack of a better analogy, of the song. For unknown reasons, the product had a definite pop music feel……not too deep, easy on the ears and doesn’t remain in memory for very long. My assessment of the collection informed me that the product's evolution took a wrong path. There was potential in that first, stripped down version that required further investigation. It was mysterious, and an honest revelation of the products nature….and I had dismissed it as I didn’t understand it. Why?

Interface on 96.2-All Hits, All the Time

Unplugged versions of songs, that is to say any music that requires investment into the story being told and engagement in the effort behind the sounds being produced requires mental ingestion. It requires that you listen to what is being performed as opposed to hearing what is being performed. In hindsight, I was looking for a sound bite, and dismissed the first interpretation because it required mental investment and engagement. Please remember, I just wanted a break from my construction documents!

A curious thing happened…….I couldn’t get the unplugged version out of my head. After taking in a magic show; a trip to the airport; and enduring a wakeful hour interrupting my nightly escape from reality, I realized my error. The error was due to my external pressure and direction to produce something familiar. I brought prejudice to the products evolution, failing to identify the internal nature of the product. This goes against my whole “Discovery through Process” theory.

The true nature of the piece, based on internal discovery………….

Cover The Interface

  Disruption of The Interface

Disruption-v1.0

Disruption.....another branch of evolution?

RBP

3.17.14

The Locality of The Construct?

Image courtesy of: Astrophysics.pro

A friend of mine, Bryan Cantley of the architectural laboratory Form:ula recently began a dialogue regarding the state within which our physical and digital creations exist, and whether there was a locality that those constructs inhabit.......

"There is an interesting zone of occupancy that we usually don't talk about... the zone of the imagined world, or at least the zone of the representation of architecture. What happens then when we recognize that all of our drawings, models, sketches, ideas, populate some type of ethereal space...And what happens when those ideas, this projects, those representations... actually happen to meet... to converse... to argue... to acknowledge? 

The Mobile Gatherspace and the AMP no. 001 obviously do not attempt to occupy the same conceptual or functional space... but given the fact the Mobile-G is a transient architecture, always looking for a home, its next place download... what if?

Airship and airfield. Thumb drive and USB port. Column and footing. Can anything be gained from the dialogue of recognizing this taboo-space? 

In this projective cast, we must be reminded that we consume geometry, not produce it.

Maybe it's indicated space. Occupying the interstitial space of vision. I think about the countless sheets of mylar and vellum... the stacks of sketchbooks... the studio crammed with models [garage sale anyone?]... and then I think about the hard drives of data... data space.... WHERE are those models? More to the point, WHERE are the worlds these constructs inhabit? Can they be located? What are their boundaries? In a series of projects that are 'theoretical'... in what universe do they reside? 

I started thinking about whether they were in a series of completely different worlds, controlled by their file names... or whether they might be a single space, inasmuch as VR can be singular.

So... although it's not a breakthrough or new idea... it's a significant realization about the nature of representation, experimentation, and theory. I hopefully open a dialogue in architecture that might leads to other conversations about what I might label as 'conclusionary space'..."

Bryan Cantley, Form:ula,2014

For what is worth Bryan, my two cents……

It seems to me that one can argue that the physical reality within which we exist, is a static representation of  the more dynamic, complex and fluid reality…….of our thoughts. The physicality of the universe is to some extent an extremely complex recording of our comprehension of all things physical. Without consciousness, does it even exist? Does Schrodinger’s cat, regardless of whether its’ dead or alive, even exist without an observer? The difference between a physical model, which exists outside the digital plane, and a virtual model that exists inside the digital plane is only the format through which the construct was represented and recorded. It’s all the same…….snapshots of the ever-changing, dynamic universe (quantumality vs. reality?) that exists through our collective consciousness. Reality, as we perceive it, is a collection of constructs that we accept and agree to exist within. At one time, humanity existed in a reality where the world was flat, and revolved around the sun. That reality, that snapshot, that representation no longer exists, and is continually changing, evolving and replacing (recording over, saving, saving as?) the reality that preceded it. Reality is a nothing more than a construction of perceptions and observations; I’ve been told that Mars exists, have seen pictures of little robots traversing the surface of it, and agree with the construct as it has been described and represented…….although I’ve never actually observed the planet Mars.

At some point, a project, work of art, a particular symphony, the planet Mars, did not exist. They did not exist in reality…..until the conception of the idea, and its consequent observation. At that point, they begin to exist in a singular quantumality (I know, weird right?), that is to say it exists in many different states within the host creator. Upon the instantaneous act of sharing with external observers, and regardless of the medium through which the idea is shared, a fixed and static representation of the idea achieves a certain quantum characteristic. It now exists in a countless number of states within each observer’s memory, in a countless number of realities and becomes a product of the collective consciousness. That singular idea, and the collective information contained within that idea, has achieved superposition in that it exists simultaneously in an infinite variety of states, and in an infinite number of realities. My impressions, my perceptions, recollections and interpretations are slightly different than those of other observers. The instant that the idea is shared by a separate observer, a dependent representation of the original idea is created (recorded, saved, or saved as) and the process is recycled, reiterated and never ends.

Bryan Cantley of Form:ula, suggests that”…we consume geometry, we do not produce it”.  It is an intriguing suggestion. Our physical reality, that is to say the observable universe is not produced or constructed, but rather consumed or processed. As such, the finite and the static reality within which we exist, is nothing more than a byproduct of that which we consume: A residual physical memory of thought, creativity and intelligence. What an absolutely intriguing concept. Something (some-thing) physical…..created from nothing (no-thing). It’s not possible, but here we are, talking, sharing, recording and representing (re-presenting) the constructs that occupy our thoughts. Perhaps it is the observer that is within the physical confines of Schrodinger’s Box, and it’s the cat, in all its possible states, that is outside the box. Perhaps our role within the realm of physical existence is not to produce and construct reality, but simply to witness and record its possibilities………

RBP

2.24.2014

DISCOVERY THROUGH PROCESS-Part 4

Un-Intent, Infinity Minus 1

This is the last post of the “Discovery Through Process” series, at least for a while. My other reality, (the one in which risers heights, wall sections and misc. details and construction documents rule the day), requires a visit! I have learned much (thank you Mr. Lebbeus Woods), and an interesting thing has happened. Inspiration is coming from within…..from within the process, from within the products themselves. Rather than chasing ideas, ideas are beginning to unveil themselves…..asking for attention, and requiring investigation. From a creative standpoint, it doesn’t get any better than that….ask anybody who has sat down in front of a blank canvas, a quiet piano or a story not yet written.

Before I get far along, I want to touch on my continual use of the term “product” ……why use that term in lieu of words like “composition” or “graphic art”?  Product is such a generic, unattractive term when describing something created through the mysterious and ethereal process of artistic and creative process. My take is this……..A product is the result of a process that has converted raw material, in whatever form, into something tangible and real including automobiles, computers, cell phones and even razor blades.   What material can possibly be rawer than thought and ideas? Without thought, without the idea…….there is no product, there is nothing.  A composition or work of art is not a large enough term for what I am seeking. I’m interested in the material (the thought, the idea, the creation) behind the music, the architecture and art. 

The Un-intentional Series

I began this series to a certain extent, to ward off ideas of pre-conception and determined intent. Again, I am looking to discover options and possibilities within a process. The process is the generator, not a pre-determined motive or destination. In this particular series, I used what looks to be an image of a scratched metal surface where over the course of time, by different people, processes and events, none of which were related, affected the surface of the metal (figure 1). The thought was to see if numerous unrelated marks that occurred at unknown intervals of time, could generate a product…..and more specifically a product of interest.

Fig. 1, The Canvas

This series gave me the most feedback of all the series. I was frustrated, gave up on this particular investigation for quite some time. It seemed like I was forcing the issue, and as such, the solution was not going to be internally generated. Here’s the interesting part: the computer, the program itself inserted just enough dynamics, just enough energy to break the inertia of stagnation. Without going into too much detail, I was working (developing, fighting and cussing) in one particular graphic mode, represented (after the fact) in Figure 2. Due to some feedback on another product (Thanks Mr. Cantly for the “tasty” remark), I realized that I had not studied this particular investigation in another graphic “rendered” mode. With the push of button, the computer goes into its rendering mode, and renders it according to either defaults or informed input……and there it is, the spark of possibility, the spark that guides the rest of the evolution (figure 3).

fig. 2, stagnation

Fig. 3, The spark

I’ve commented on the dynamics of interfacing with computers before (see Creation, Collaboration and Unintention, April, 2013, Blog Archives). This product again reinforces just about every point I was trying to make in that post. Without the computers (program) input, this product would not have evolved, would not have informed itself, and would for all intents and purposes, have been aborted. It owes its existence to the input and influence that the computer had on the process. If this isn’t Discovery Through Process, I don’t know what is! The iterations that came after the spark are below.

Fig. 4, Un-Intent, Act 1

Fig. 5, Un-Intent, Act 2

Fig. 6, Un-Intent, Act 3

Fig. 7, Un-Intent, Act 4

So, what have I learned? First and foremost is that discovery through process works, has value and can generate a wide ranging, if not unlimited, resource of creative potential. I’ve learned that added complexity does not necessarily equate to a more evolved product, just a different one. In this particular series, what I find to be one of the more intriguing aspects is the idea of anonymous co- creators. The people and processes that scratched the metal surface…..influenced the evolution of this product. They were, in effect part of the process, and their contributions were exceedingly important to its development. What if, rather than a scratched metal surface, I started with the scratched patterns of an ice skating surface and the marks left behind from a figure skater? ….or a period of hockey?  In one scenario, I have the artistic intent of a figure skater, and all the “programing” that goes into the performance versus the dynamic and chaotic nature of hockey players interfacing with each other.

Lastly, and perhaps the most important, I am beginning to realize the true value of discovery through process. The value is not in the final (is it ever final with the “save as” command) product. The value of these products is determined by how many other creative doors are opened. If at the end of the process, you’re asking yourself “what now?” the product has not realized its full potential. If on the other hand, you are asking yourself “which particular idea, process or opportunity am I going to explore first?”, then the product has proved its worth. In other words……

The value is not whether or not the question is answered, but rather how many questions are generated from the answer.  

More to come…..eventually.

RBP 2.21.14

DISCOVERY THROUGH PROCESS-Part 3

I mentioned in the last post being inspired by what I call the “blackboard” work of Lebbeus Woods. More specifically, the inspiration comes from three sources……The Wall Game, 2004 and the 100 Towers Project, 2007and apparently a studio project of his at Cooper Union, where groups of 3 students each worked on a blackboard for 30 seconds, and then relinquished the board to another group. All three projects can be seen at the Lebbeus Woods website.....lebbeuswoods.net  

The Blackboard Series

So what was I after? Well technically nothing since the product is to be discovered during the process without pre-conceptions, right? I will confess that I brought one goal to the process, which was the goal of achieving the dynamic weight that Mr. Woods mastered with chalk on blackboard, white on black, and his ability to find mass (volume, form?) from a void without no apparent order, and to some extent, chaos (specifically, 100 Towers).

So this process was different only in one way from the Random Discovery Series……this process had deliberate purpose. Rather than just discovery, the process also included a specific search. The three elements of the process…..random collection of line, a backdrop (the black board) and the search for mass, volume and weight within the chaos. Also, a quick tip with regards to viewing....the process is witnessed better by clicking on the first image....and simply clicking on the image again, which brings you to the next one.

BB1.0

BB1.1

BB1.2

 A quick note regarding the above series.......I have misplaced, lost or deleted the file, so the process has been terminated along this particular product's evolution. In frustration, I began again another series. In the interest of being concise, the snapshots are fewer and farther between. 

                                                                                                      

BB2.0

BB2.1

BB2.2

BB2.3

And then, yet another branch. It's the gift that keeps on giving.....

BB3.1

BB3.2

BB3.3

So What have I learned? First and foremost, goals tend to be elusive entities. I set off in search of an indescribable essence. I wanted to create (re-create?) the dynamic flow, energy and chaotic idosycrancies found in the random collection that Woods so masterfully captured.  While the resulting product(s) are captivating, they fall short of what I was looking for. Perhaps that's the beauty of product through process......there is really nothing to critique against since no bar was set. 

The other issue that I am trying to reconcile is that I have been equating evolution and development with complexity. While in many systems that may be true, its not always the case in creative endeavors (art, architecture, literature, etc.). What signifies the end of the process? At what point has a product matured to its completed status? I only bring this up, as I recognize that in the first couple images of the BB2 and BB 3 series.....there is a purity of element that is lost in subsequent iterations.

 I also think that, at least in this particular study, there are some limitations within the software I currently produce with. After this exercise, I've realized that an element is missing, and perhaps cannot be captured using a software program, a keyboard and a 3d mouse. That element is physical connection. In the work of Lebbeus Woods, you can almost see the thought process flow from mind, through hand, tip of pencil and directly manifest  itself into reality on the canvas, paper, and blackboard. My thought process is filtered and interfaced with a computer, and as such, a freedom of flow seems to be lost. Then again, the computer and software program are really no different than a pencil, paintbrush or piece of chalk.....Its just a different tool,  and I need discover how the tool can assist, as opposed to filter, the process. 

More to come………………

RBP

2.12.14