41
Architectural Design Studio 101 Spring 2014 / Jerry Lum Midterm Portfolio Jyothi Anagondanahalli
Architectural Design�Studio 101
Spring 2014 / Jerry Lum Midterm Portfolio
Jyothi Anagondanahalli
List of Projects
2
Icebreaker 1 Itera,on 1
Icebreaker 1 Itera,on 3
Icebreaker 1 Itera,on 4
Icebreaker 1 Itera,on 2
Icebreaker 1 Itera,on 5
Icebreaker 2 Itera,on 1
Icebreaker 2 Itera,on 2
Icebreaker 2 Itera,on 3
List of Projects
3
Icebreaker 3 Itera,on 1 Icebreaker 3 Itera,on 2 Icebreaker 3 Itera,on 3
Icebreaker 3 Itera,on 5 Icebreaker 3 Itera,on 6 Icebreaker 3 Itera,on 4
Icebreaker 1 - Iteration 1
Objec,ve : To design a 3D model out of a given 2D abstract design by Malevich. We were asked to chose any one part enclosing a few geometrical designs and to work on all three axes and come up with a 3D model within the dimensions of 8” * 11” * 6”. �
4
Strengths : Though the first 5 elements in the model were structurally the same, they all were aligned at different angles which made them look different in their appearances. There was a flow in the design. It could be either perceived as descending or as ascending order of the 6 different figures. It was considered as a good start.
Iteration - 1
5
Struggles : I was suggested to incorporate more of Malevich's design into my model, comprising more parts, as I had chosen a very small por,on from his work, and was also suggested to give more varia,on to the design, so that it looks different all together but s,ll have the same concept as the first one. �
Ladder to success : To consider a bigger cluster of elements to work on from the 2d image. �
Iteration 1 – Kit of Parts
6
As I was recommended, I chose to work with chip-‐board. There were a few difficul,es ini,ally wrt the design, as I was a liSle skep,cal dealing with abstract images/objects. Being amateur in abstract art, thinking on those terms was a liSle challenging. So I ini,ally started off designing an image having straight lines and perpendicular objects because, looking at the diagram, I mostly saw more of rectangular planes. Maybe I dint want to see any curvilinear planes because they would be difficult to construct. Having that in mind, I started cuWng out squares out of the chip-‐board, of different sizes. Once I had squares of 4 different sizes, I started aSaching them at various angles to each other and thus formed 5 similar structures and one completely different one.
Iteration - 1
7
Once I knew what theme I had in mind now, I just constructed this model without any further doubts or confusion. I created figures, of which 5 were similar, having 4 squares each and all aSached in the same form but aligned in a different way onto the plane, to give varia,on in their heights, to make it grow/ ascend to form the final structure which stands tall and thus giving a deeper meaning to the en,re subject. I planned to place all the 6 structures at equidistance. Also I placed the 6 different structures on a curved plane, which formed a part of Malevich's design. Made sure to cut out the curved structure within 11" and the en,re model was well within the given dimensions of 11" * 8" * 6" *.
Iteration - 2
8
Objec,ve : To con,nue working on the same 2D image and work on the previous itera,on to make it more complex and more interes,ng when viewed from different angles. It should be within the dimensions of 8” * 11” * 6”.
Strengths : The idea of having no base was appreciated. The color gave some depth to the model. Struggles : There was not much of a difference when compared to the previous one and not many parts from the Malevich’s design were considered. It looked very simple.
Iteration – 2
9
Ladder to success : To incorporate more number of planes from Malevich’s design and build a complex structure with no base and work on all 3 axes making it interes,ng when viewed from any angle.
Iteration 2 - Kit of Parts- 1
10
I chose to extend the same curved figure and formed an oval structure, as in the picture below. Like the previous itera,on, I arranged the cubes in a similar fashion with a slight change in individual arrangements. Here, no 2 pieces looked similar, while in the previous one, first 5 were all the same in their appearance, while the only change was in their placements on the board. I then thought of giving reflec,ons to these structures and hence cut out pieces of different sizes and instead of aSaching them just below the actual structures, I tried to add them to the curve which was on the other end, s,ll making it to appear like reflec,ons, when seen from a par,cular angle.
Iteration 2
11
While I started arranging these cut-‐outs, I also had to make sure of the dimensions which were given to us. So I thought of arranging it from the opposite end. The tallest structure had the smallest reflec,on and vice-‐versa. This made sure I had used the en,re given area/dimensions of 11" * 8" * 6" *. At the end, I tried to give it a uniform color and thus colored the en,re model in red.
Iteration 3 - Malevich’s Design
12
Original 2D-‐Design Tracing of the parts desired to be converted from 2D to 3D.
Top view of the 3D constructed Design.
Though this is not a part of the studio works, I wanted to aSach this as part of my porbolio because we did the same project digitally, almost at the same ,me in our sketchup class. It helped me in both the classes as the approach to the model was the same though it was much easier working digitally than doing the actual model.
Exterior Elevations
13 Front, Right Side, Rear & Lef Side
Different Views
14
Iteration 3
15
Objec,ve : To con,nue working on the Malevich’s design by incorpora,ng more number of planes from the 2D image.
Strengths : When compared to my previous itera,ons, this was a big leap with the design aspect as well as in succeeding in working on more number of planes from the Malevich’s design.
Struggles : Though each face on the completed structure looked different and interes,ng, 2 of the faces looked more like paSerns than like any abstract design.
Ladder to success : The designing techniques have to be polished and should think on the lines of being abstract and more crea,ve with complex structures.
Iteration 3
16
Face 1
Face 2
Face 3 Face 4
Malevich’s design Parts selected to convert to 3D
Iteration 3 - Kit of Parts
17
Afer considering a small cluster which falls on the base of the 2D design, I started to work mostly on the triangular shape, which formed the main piece of my structure. Since the model had to be interes,ng when viewed from all angles, I tried to work on each face of the pyramidal structure. Also used different sizes of cuboids in combina,on with the triangular shapes, just like in the design and worked on different axes to make it more complex. Giving a zig-‐zag or a corregated effect to the chip-‐board was a tough task. But that turned out to be my favorite and most interes,ng part.
Icebreaker 1 – Iteration 4
18
Objec,ve : to increase the complexity of design on the previous itera,on by giving more depth to it.
Strengths : each face was more interes,ng than the other and the spiral structure was the highlight. With no par,cular paSerns as such, the abstract feel was somewhat achieved.
Struggles : the spiral structure could have been penetra,ng from one of the faces instead of simple s,cking out of one face.
Ladder to success : to go beyond your imagina,on and to reach higher levels in both design aspects and crafsmanship.
Iteration 4 – Kit of Parts
19
Working on the similar model as the previous one, by increasing the complexity on each face and to beSer myself at design and crafsmanship was not an easy task. Having an en,re big face with the corregated effect given to the chip board was fun to start with. Unlike the previous itera,on, I tried to used small cube-‐like structures and give a spiral effect by joining each piece at different angles which made it look very interes,ng and aSached on the face that was plain, so that the spiral structure is more highlighted. The smaller triangular face had small strips stuck in no par,cular order but formed an interes,ng face with its abstract approach. The cuboidal structures of different heights placed parrallel to each other on one of the faces, gave more density and complexity in design.
Iteration 4
20
View 2 View 1
View 3 View 4 View 5
Comparison of the 2 Iterations
21
view 1 View 2
View 3
Icebreaker 2 – Iteration 1
22
This model’s instruc,on were given to me by one of classmate to re-‐construct. Except for one big curved face which was supposed to overlap, the rest turned out to be as instructed.
Objec,ve : To construct an abstract model that could be easily built within 2 hours by others (your classmates), with easy steps of wriSen instruc,ons given to them to follow, without looking at the actual model or any drawings.
Iteration 2
23
Strengths : We learn a lot when the other person is working on the instruc,ons wriSen by you, especially when they make some mistakes. That’s when we know how specific and clear we have to be when we write down the instruc,ons. We also learn from their way of wri,ng down the instruc,ons.
This current itera,on was constructed by me and the instruc,ons were passed on to a classmate to re-‐construct the same.
Iteration 2
24
Struggles : Unless the instruc,ons are very specific and clear with all the details, it gets tough to re-‐construct without having seen the model or any drawings to make it.
Ladder to success : To be more specific with all the details and measurements and also have it listed in clear step-‐by-‐step format. Kit of parts
Iteration 3
25
Objec,ve : To re-‐construct a model by following the wriSen instruc,ons given by your classmate, along with step-‐by-‐step detailed drawings, within 2 hours.
Strengths : having given the drawing for each step, it was more convenient for us to built the structure with ease and we had to mainly refer to the wriSen instruc,ons only for the measurements.
Struggles : Since the diagram for the final arrangements of all the parts were not given, we had to be more clear in the wriSen instruc,ons. Here, I was a liSle confused when I was asked to arrange the rectangles in no par,cular way and it had to look abstract. Thus the 2 sets of models looks slightly different from one another.
Ladder to success : To be very specific in each level of wriSen instruc,ons, wrt measurements and other layouts.
Here, the lef model is the pre-‐constructed one by a fellow classmate, while the right one was constructed by me following the given instruc,ons and diagrams.
Icebreaker 3 – Gesture Drawings - 1
26
Objec,ve : To draw gesture drawings using charcoal s,cks, of the given 2D image to increase the level of observa,onal powers. We were asked to draw 5 different versions of the image without looking into our paper/sheet -‐ blind drawing. 5 different version were,
• Within 5 minutes draw the most important lines that we observe in the image
• With an extra 2 minute every ,me, for the next 4 ,mes, concentrate more on the important aspects and draw only the main lines forming the en,re image and also use high to light tones.
Gesture Drawings – 1 Strengths : I liked the easy and fast flow of the charcoal on the paper and thus it helped us create quick gestures. The blind drawings helped us to observe and concentrate more on main forms and lines which formed the image and thereby helping us learn the language of gesture drawings.
27
Ladder to success : To keep the drawings as simple as possible and to master the art of tectonic language through gesture drawings.
Struggles : Since it was my first ,me, using the charcoal got a liSle messy on the paper and also to get different tones by applying pressure on to the charcoal s,ck was a liSle tough.
Gesture drawing - 2
In the sketch below, we were finally asked to look into our paper and draw all the details from the image using different tones within 10 minutes. The blind drawings and the ,me limit truly helped us to just concentrate more on the main forms in the image and not the intricate detailing.
In the given picture of a natural environment, with some stone steps and wooden railings, along with lots of trees, rocks and greenery, the same gesture drawing had to be repeated within a ,me limit of 10 minutes, as shown in the picture above. With some prac,ce of working with the charcoal by now, it became easier to depict the main lines and show the varia,on in the tones and hence helped in learning the art of gesture drawings.
28
Gesture drawing - 3
Objec,ve : To implement one or two emo,ons/ adjec,ves in the form of abstract sketches and convey through gesture drawings using charcoal. We were asked to draw many sketches ,ll we were sa,sfied with what we wanted to portray and then work on the best ones to beSer them. I chose few adjec,ves like musical, playful and delicate to depict through my drawings.
29
Gesture drawing - 4
Making the best use of tones, these final drawings were evolved from the previous set of drawings. The emo,ons, musical and playful were kept intact and 3 different layers were added to each drawings to make it more complex.
30
Icebreaker 4 - Iteration 1
���
31
Objec,ve : Afer the tectonic drawings, a 3D model had to be developed which would emote all the adjec,ves considered and to add primary, secondary and ter,ary layers to it.
Strengths : Was able to come up with this idea only with the help of the sketchup tool kit, by using the offset tool from the tool palet. Unlike the previous models for which I used the chip-‐board, I wished to used a lighter/ thinner material which would easily bend and hence give a very delicate and smooth surface to the planes used. The adjec,ve that I used to emote is musical which was achieved by the use of curvilinear surfaces. Also I used just one piece of paper and the inner parts of each cut-‐out was used for next one.
Iteration 1
Struggles : The different layers were very delicate as designed but they were not firm in their structure. Also overall it looked very simple.
Ladder to success : To develop something that’s more firm in its structure by using a beSer material which would behave the way I wish to and to have more defined layers, by retaining the same adjec,ves well incorporated in the model.
32
Iteration 2
Strengths : The adjec,ve used here was ‘musical’. The simplicity lied in the duplica,on of the ‘S’ curve. Giving the cuts half way through the thick chip-‐board at equal intervals on one of its faces, made the material very flexible to use and thus I was able to achieve the shape I desired. The 2 adjoining long curvilinear pieces of the model forming as ‘S’ shape were the key elements which depicts ‘musical’ . The use of thin strips not only helps the en,re model structurally, but also plays a very important role in being a part of the adjec,ve chosen by displaying a feel of rhythmic and lyrical sense to the whole structure.
33
Objec,ve : Add the best quali,es that describe ‘you’ to the adjec,ve used to make the previous model and explore more on the narra,ve parts.
Iteration 2
Struggles : Though this itera,on proved to be much beSer one when compared to the previous itera,on, it turned out to be simple yet again with very few planes and lacked complexity in the design paSern.
Ladder to success : To maintain the same concept and the design language as much as possible but to add more elements/ layers to form a more complex structure depic,ng the same adjec,ve, ‘musical’, and to develop a strong clear vision.
34
Iteration 3
Strengths : Keeping the similar structure from the previous itera,on as a base, I tried to make it more complex by adding few parts more to the base of the structure. Though the added parts were mostly of straight lines, the prominent curvilinear structures helped me in retaining the adjec,ve assigned in making the model.
35
Objec,ve : Con,nue developing the model based on the tectonic language with more complexity in design when compared with the previous model having the same adjec,ve, ‘musical’. Also narrate a story based on your life in rela,on with this current itera,on.
Iteration 3
Ladder to success : To have a sync in the rela,onships between every other part of the model and to con,nue to maintain the melodic beauty and grace of the previous itera,ons.
36
Struggles : Though the model looked beSer in most of the aspects when compared to the previous itera,on, the parts that were added to this itera,on were not that well defined as the rela,onship between few of the parts were missing.
Comparison of the 2 Iterations
37
Iteration 4
Objec,ve : To build frame-‐work of a model which is a refined work of the previous itera,on. To re-‐constrain the narra,ve and generate a rela,onship with each element and blend it with the current itera,on.
Strengths : Structurally it gelled well with the narra,ve and the use of simple material like chip-‐ board helped in aSaining a neat curvilinear structure which helped in retaining the adjec,ves intact. I believed in the rhythm in repe,,on and hence derived at this design.
Struggles : It lacked the complexity and looked incomplete in comparison with the previous itera,ons. It lacked the main element which was of ‘S’ form from my previous itera,ons, which formed the main characters in depic,ng the adjec,ves.
38
Iteration 4
Ladder to success : While maintaining the complexity in the design, do not miss upon the key elements from the main thought process. There should also be visible changes in density and complexity and more organiza,onal orders.
39
Kit-‐of-‐parts
Iteration 4
40
• Having a very musical background in the family, I was inclined towards music as well. But I was made to learn a string instrument at a very young age at 8 by my parents. Since it was a huge and heavy instrument, it was quite a struggle in the beginning. The first year or so turned out to be very difficult as my fingers hurt due to the plucking of the strings and also nothing sounded musical to me as I was thought all the basic skills. Hence the first curved structure in model with smallest width, depicts the struggle or less freedom to explore music, which forms the first phase of this musical journey.
• The second curve is slightly wider because that’s the period when I was introduced to many familiar songs and was able to explore myself with this instrument.
• The third and the final ring is the final stage of my 8 years of learning and exploring this instrument which was the fun part as I exhibited my learning and was appreciated and thus forms a bigger role in my life.
• It ends afer that because I was not able to take this music further as I got busy with studies and school and the busy life of travelling and making money. It is kept open at one end because I would wish to get back to this one fine day and explore more and enjoy the flavor of music in life through this instrument.
Midterm Summary
• GeWng started with the model-‐making was a tough task. It always got more interes,ng class by class but also got more complicated, and more detailed work had to be delivered every ,me.
• A systema,c learning at every stage helped us get beSer, along with the cri,cs given by Jerry and our classmates.
• Though ini,ally I found the chip-‐board very hard to work on, afer many itera,ons out of it, I feel very comfortable working with it now.
• I would wish to explore on other materials and learn to make more complex models using the combina,on of many materials.
41
