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

DISCOVERY THROUGH PROCESS-Part 2

LW1.5

This is 2nd post in a series of posts regarding explorations of process derived solutions in lieu of target based solutions. These explorations have been inspired by the work of Lebbeus Woods, an architect who believed that true creativity was discovered outside the box, and challenged our perceptions and understanding of architecture.  Please visit lebbeuswoods.net to get a glimpse of his collected work, theory and thoughts.

Random Discovery Series

This process, was essentially the same as the Image Interpretation Series (see previous post), only this time it employed the use of a random collection of lines. Since there was no underlying order of the collection of lines, there does not exist an original essence or DNA defining the nature of the end product. This allows for an unlimited number of  solutions, or varieties on a theme. I Have included several “snap shots” if you will, that capture the evolution of the product.....as well as some developmental offshoots (deviant species?). In many ways, I find the collection of these snap shots and deviants more intriguing as it focuses on how the product was developed, and the inherent potential of exploration of the possibilities within each product.….which is why I have included them.  

LW1.0

LW1.1

                                                                                                       

LW1.2

LW1.3

LW1.4-R1

LW1.5-R2

So what have I learned from this series of explorations? Perhaps the most interesting item is that from a fairly simple base point (random lines, with no particular order or arrangement) a complex collection (environment?) can be generated. Again.....I am after discovering possibilities within the process, without prior determination or pre-conception. I am not after a target finished product. Because of this, am I seeing more possibilities? Given the same input (the base collection of random lines), what would someone else generate? Also these studies are meant to explore the process, the evolution of a compositional product. Within that evolution, the product begins to develop its own identity, but that identity is influenced through my decisions. An example of this, is the vertical collection of yellow bars on the left (see LW1.0 through LW1.3) were inserted without the assistance of the initial collection of lines. As such, I am bringing intention and deliberation to the product as it develops. Does this insertion corrupt the process? Is it part of the process? Does intention and deliberation validate the process? 

The last two studies are essentially variations, (and hint at another series of explorations) but employ a software generated rendering technique. Is this now a cooperative development where there are two entities influencing its evolution? Does it become a different product at that particular branch in its evolution?

Oh so much to learn and so much more to come......

RBP

2.9.14

DISCOVERY THROUGH PROCESS-Part 1

Iteration 34-V.2

I’ve recently been looking at a lot of the work created by Lebbeus Woods, an architect who passed away about a year ago. He has always inspired me, but I have never had a chance to take that inspiration to the next level…..until now. I’ve been studying a lot of his work, and perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of his work, it seems to me, was that he was not interested in what the finished product was…or if he was, he wanted the finished product to be determined by the design process, without any pre-conceptions. For Lebbeus Woods, the art of design was about discovering the unknown, through the creative process, rather than using a process to reach a pre-determined solution. It almost seems as if he wanted to liberate architectural form, idea and theories from the pre-conceptions and deterministic thinking that continually generate a recognizable product of architecture.

In that spirit, I began to explore different processes that eliminate a target destination (a finished product in which all decisions are made to achieve a preconceived target idea). Essentially the goal was (is) to explore processes in which the end product is discovered during the process, evolving from internal factors and forces found within that process.  This is the first post of what I hope to be many, that I will share a few studies employing processes where the end result, the product, is not a target destination but rather a discovery….. …….Thank you Mr. Woods for the inspiration!

Image Interpretation Series

This process employed the under-layment of an image, and evolving a product from the interpretation of the data contained within the image. While there is a “signature” element (evidence of my involvement in the process) within the compositions, the original essence of the image remains.

 The Path

The Abstracted Path

Sangre De Christo Arts Center, HGF Architects

SDC-Iteration 33

Falling Water, Frank Lloyd Wright 

FW-Final Iteration 

So what have I discovered? While the process eliminates a target destination, it does not necessarily eliminate pre-conceptions. In these cases, the pre-conception is the image itself. The image, or more specifically, the information or data contained within the image influences the process much the same way as a pre-conception does. Regardless of the decisions I make through the process, the DNA if you will, of the original image is always present. This is not necessarily a negative outcome to the process, just a realization that in deed "the apple doesn't fall from the tree". 

On the other hand the cover photo, Iteration 34-v.2, was essentially generated and evolved from SDC-Iteration 33, and it would be pretty difficult identifying that as a product generated from the original image( Sangre De Christo Arts Center). So what does that mean? If I do enough iterations, will the product evolve and mutate into something where the original seed (the image in this case) is unrecognizable? That process sounds vaguely familiar and Darwinian. 

In terms of the larger picture and many of the issues that Lebbeus Woods was intrigued by, I think I have a better understanding now of his complete body of work. It seems to me that he was searching for methods, indeed a process, that kept the study, the theory, the practice and the reality of Architecture dynamic. Lebbeus Woods recognized that if the input(program, challenge, question, goal, etc) is always processed exactly the same way, each and every time, the output( solution, product, answer), is destined to be the same, each and every time. Without exploration and the discovery of possibilities that exist outside the realm of conventional thought;Without investigating and exploring the creative process; then the whole of Architecture is destined to be a stagnant existence, void of any true evolution. That is the underlying genius of Lebbeus Woods, and I am forever grateful and continually inspired by that genius.   

This is the first in a series of posts regarding Discovery through Process. More to come………………

RBP

2.7.14