F R E N C H & M I C H I G A N S T U D I O W O R K S H O P G A L L E R Y A B O U T R E S I D E N C Y F A M
M A K I N G M A C H I N E SU N C O M F O R T A B L E W I T H A N D R E W
W I T
Curatorial Assistant Kathryn Zimmerhanzel sits down with Andrew Wit to talk about his work in
robotic fabrication.
K Z: When considering robotic fabrication, my initial impression is something very detached
and streamlined. Your projects seem almost to counter this, working in a way that introduces
aspects of craft. Could you discuss how you came to this? How do you achieve these qualities
through machine- based processes?
AW: I do think that robotic fabrication can be a detached process. T he robots that we work
with are similar to those used in companies such as General Motors, T esla, or any large
manufacturing company where computer processes are created and then repeated
hundreds of thousands of times with minimal change. With the high level of repeatability and
low cost associated with manufacture, craft is difficult to find within this process. T ake, for
example, your hand- held smart devices. T hey are beautiful artifacts, but there is no sense of,
or residual elements remaining from, the machine that fabricated the object. In the end you
are left with a completely perfect artifact. For mass production this works, and so that is one
way of looking at robotic fabrication. But for us, we choose to see the robot as an extension
of the hand, striving more for the creation of tactile environments rather than efficiency.
However, as we advance, robots are becoming more hands- on. In Germany, there is a large
robotics manufacturing company called KUKA. T hey recently released one of the first
industrial robots utilizing human sensitive touch feedback (KUKA IIWA). T his now makes it
possible to program your design computationally, run it through the robot, and, with your
hand, adjust the robot’s movement in space. T his takes us back to a more tactile process.
Just as when you are painting and you adjust the pressure of the brush running across the
paper, a similar level of feel can now be accomplished in real- time as the robot is in motion.
On top of this, the robot now remembers how you modified its motion, so when you run the
same code again, it runs the modified operation. Now you have the ability to design your
artifact first on the computer and then reprogram it by hand in real- time.
K Z: How have you applied these advancements in your own work?
Currently in my research, we are attempting to work with, and further, this concept with low
cost prototypes. What we are currently working on is building a miniature robot, based on the
proportions and movement of our full size KUKA KR 60 industrial robot, out of Legos. With it,
we have the potential to design an artifact, run the code first through the small robot,
manipulating it by hand to recalibrate the large robot’s code, which adds a new layer of craft
to robotic design. So basically, we are striving for the ability to tweak every aspect of the
design process very easily without ever having to pick up a physical tool. If we don’t like the
outcome of our initial preprogramming, we can just come in by hand and quickly twist one of
the six axes in a different way, and rapidly compare various outcomes.
It seems, at the moment, that there is a growing dialog on robotic craft, but it remains difficult
to find situations where designers have had the ability to apply the methodology. Robotic
fabrication is a challenge for designers, because even with simple machines, there are
aspects of complexity. I am referring to the size and programming of the machine, the
navigation of its movement through space and its inability to detect collisions on its own. Our
robot is not aware of anything, including itself. And so, with the robot we are attempting to
give it a higher level of intelligence and awareness by embedding sensors and linked
microprocessors. T hat way, if someone does walk into the work circle, the machine will
immediately stop and they won’t be injured. Safety is a problem we must consider every time
we work with the robot. In the raising of the robots awareness, we are trying to make the
designer’s hand and the robot a singular tool; and through this, reintegrating craft into
process of robotic design and fabrication.
K Z: So much of design is about finding solutions to problems. In fabrications done by hand, it
seems like a pretty linear trajectory from problem to design solution. How is this altered when
robots come into play?
AW: Much of the time, it is inventing new solutions to problems that previously had none. And
so, it’s a bit different from picking up a hammer and performing an action that gets, say, this
nail from this point into that material. It’s more about deriving completely new ways to put
things together. T he machine allows us to bypass the hammer and nail through the
investigation of new material combinations and fabrication techniques. For me, the
interesting concept behind robotics is that if you are presented with a problem, you can build
a tool to solve that problem. T he invention of the tool becomes a whole new fun game as well.
So, you are no longer limited to the tools that can be found in your local hardware shop, and
now spend time figuring out how you build something that attaches to this machine that
allows for the creation of something else. Machines that make machines basically. Once you
make the desired tool, you have created a totally new process for solving a given problem.
However, the tools and robots are not as accurate as you might think. And because of this,
you can begin to record and anticipate the imprecisions of the machine. For example, when
fabricating an artifact as small as a phone or hand held device, it may look and feel perfect. In
this situation, the robots are operating within a tiny enclosed area where tolerances can be
held extremely high and movement kept extremely low. Accuracy and repeatability begins to
depend on your tool and the size of your work area. With projects of this scale, it is as if you
are working with the edge of your finger. T his allows you a high level of precision. But now, if
you have something that is 10 or 15 feet off the robots center of gravity, with a machine
weighing over 3,000 pounds that is fabricating something small, vibrations and other
imperfections may begin to appear. So what I began to do with the T _Series furniture is to
look at these vibrations and imperfections as positive design elements, and investigate how
to integrate these unexpected motions into the design process. For me, everything doesn’t
need to be as precise as the objects we deal with on a daily basis. You can force the machines
out of their comfort zone by moving them back and forth over long distances very quickly,
creating imperfections within the machine’s output to produce interesting, uncontrolled
patterns as you fabricate the artifact.
So in this way, fabrication is no longer as simple as running a board through the planer. You
begin to analyze the patterns that machine inaccuracies might cause, and construct the
object with that in mind. If you want the artifact to be flawless, the machine can easily be
calibrated to do so. But, we can now begin to harness and program the imprecision of the
machine as well, creating a new tactile process of architectural craft.
K Z: I was going to ask you about that idea of the accidental. Much of the time in art, and I am
sure in design as well, you fall into a kind of error, or more a happy accident, and begin to work
with that. Could you talk more about how you experience and integrate this type of error in
the designs?
AW: Definitely. T here was a prototype that we fabricated [T _T hree] where the top surface of
the material was planed completely smooth. However, on the underside of this same table, I
began to work with the grain, texture, and imperfections of the wood. I determined a new
series of cut paths that the machine would take, creating them in a way that was not
necessarily the most efficient. In this process, the machine gets kind of finicky; it bounces
around, especially in tight radiuses. If we slowed down the machine it would be completely
precise; but rather than do that, we ran it quickly because I knew that this would allow for more
texture to appear. So now, running your hand around the finished object, the areas that are
lowest or closest to the ground feel the most textured, while areas on top are absolutely
smooth. T he result is a very interesting transition moving from super smooth to super rough.
T o do that by hand with repeatability would be very difficult.
A lot of my peers mentioned to me that they were really disappointed; they didn’t understand
why the most interesting aspects of the design were located on the bottom of the object. But
for me, whenever I sit at a table, I always first touch the bottom. Because I can see the top and
its sensorial translation is so apparent. I am always looking for a textural experience, a
disconnect between the visual and the tactile. I like to produce artifacts that result in
engagement, confusion even. T hat is one of the interesting things that we are beginning to
be able to test, a sort of calculated imprecision and making allowances for this in craft.
K Z: Incorporating error seems to add a whole other layer of complexity to both process and
product, how do materials fit into this? T hose for the T _T hree table seemed to present a
challenge.
AW: Well, all the material that we had for this project was scrap, donated because it wasn't
perfect. But they were still amazing. From these donated materials, we used several different
wooden boards of various species for the creation of T _T hree. We had a really beautiful piece
of cherry that was extremely twisted, so beyond repair that you couldn’t run it through a
planer to flatten it out. We also had a piece of mahogany, white oak, and two smaller boards of
walnut, none of which were perfect. Each piece was 3- D scanned individually, and then CNC
milled in a way that you wouldn’t usually, to flatten the lumber on both sides. We then
rescanned the lumber, and digitally assembled it, giving us the precise shape of the base
form. We then used a tensile modeling software from a company I’ve been working with for a
while to generate a minimal surface geometry. T his gave me a catenary based form, which
essentially provides a very minimal surface that allowed us to really thin down the material
while still leaving it structural. We then physically assembled the boards and, looking at the
direction of the wood, I extracted their grain patterns in Adobe Illustrator. Once the grain
patterns were extracted, we created cut patterns where the machine would either cut with or
against the grain to produce the desired gradient of texture. T he process for this project was
basically taking found materials and manipulating them with atypical tools in a way that gave
them a new life.
K Z: So when you are designing with these programs, would you say you being with an image
of the resulting form in mind?
AW: No, not at all. I go into the design process with absolutely no preconceptions. I originally
assembled the lumber a certain way because structurally it made sense for what we were
trying to make. For example, with the T _T hree, there were initial research initiatives we
wished to test such as utilizing a tensile fabric modeling software for form finding, pushing my
knowledge of the machine and finally using the imperfections of the machine as a new design
methodology. T hrough these processes, I rapidly created a series of formal design iterations.
Each iteration investigated the relationship between software, material and machine. After
fifty or so iterations, a final form was determined. As I have only a few days to complete these
types of projects, design and prototyping is done rapidly.
Although for T _T hree we began with no final image or end result in mind, this is not the case
with every project we create. For example, we will be initiating a new robotically fabricated
project during the spring of 2015, in which we will be investigating robotic composite weaving,
or how to weave material in a way that is structural using robots in an architectural scale.
Basically, this project will be like sewing a shirt, but in a way that can support an entire building.
It is a much more complex project, working at large scale with composites like carbon fiber. I,
again, don’t have an exact image in mind for the final project, no guarantee as to what it will
look like, maybe a house, maybe a blob. However, I do know it is a necessary step in my
research, and that there is a process I will create to achieve my desired outcome of a
lightweight flexible housing system. In such cases, I have a series of simple end goals from the
onset, and let my newly created tools drive my process. T his is how I typically go about my
projects—there is a concept, something that needs to be done or achieved, but no concrete
ideology concerning form for the end product. I just want to create something that I haven’t
seen before.
K Z: I know that you spent some time in Japan. How did this inform the way that you work
now?
AW: So many things have come together to affect the way that I practice and research—
from living here in San Antonio, studying at MIT , to practicing, teaching and traveling in Japan,
China, T aiwan, and Indiana. It is kind of a large conglomeration of cultures, ideas and
processes.
But, there are several things that really influenced me. T he first was knowing that in Japan,
buildings retain very little value. I find this very interesting. Here in the states, you want your
house to look like your neighbor’s house. You want this because if their house is worth
$400,000, your house should also be worth $400,000. In Japan, your house is worth zero. So,
when someone buys your house, what they are buying is the land. T he home is typically
removed before the sale is final.
T herefore, when you build something such as a house it can be highly specific to that person
or family. I have seen houses with rock- climbing walls that access hidden spaces or internal
slides and stages for their children. T his makes the home super private and specific to each
inhabitant. Although this does not happen in most cases, it is a design possibility you may
come across. But it is that family’s house and no one else’s. So now value is placed on the
individual and their experiences rather then the artifact and its relationship to its neighboring
buildings. T his idea is very important to me. Is this not how the artifacts we interact with on a
daily basis should be made? If I am making something, and investing my money, time and
effort into the artifact, why should it not be specific to me? T his is something I rarely see here
in the States. Another influence was the attention to detail found in everything from
packaging to buildings. As a person who scrutinizes every detail, I can really appreciate this.
But, in Japan, there is something truly amazing about how buildings are assembled. T he craft
and care necessary in put together a house was always most significant to me.
K Z: Can you identify any other inspirations?
AW: Inspiration is such a difficult aspect to identify. You wake up in the morning and the ideas
are just there. But something I would say inspired me was the curiosity and drive that people
had early on in the space program. What I am speaking of is the type of imagination and drive
for discovering the unknown that now is rarely visible. You witness the imagination in the
World Expos, or with the Metabolist architects, (a group in Japan who questioned the state of
architecture and urbanism in the 60's and 70’s). Or even with the inflatable projects within
"Ant farm’s”, inflatocookbook. I suppose I would say I try to emulate these high - spirited and
very conceptual models. T he technical part is okay, but I like there to be some sort of
exhibitionism. And I’d like people to somehow get inspired by these things again.
K Z: So your designs are about more than solutions, they are about devising a whole new
language to solve a whole new set of problems. Innovation as an intervention.
AW: We have to modify the way we design to encompass a whole new set of constraints. So
much of what I do is about making people aware of these issues. I think people are uneasy
with showing that language perceptibly. Like imperfections in tool- markings where you can
see what the tool was and how it worked or affected the material. In the things I do, you can
see every tool mark unless I don’t want you to see it. T hat is part of the process that I am
trying to make understood. T he easy thing to do is to erase. I just tell the machine to do it five
times more finely and it disappears. But, you would never know that gradient— where it went
from completely polished down to something that the machine itself was not comfortable
making.
Making Machines Uncomfortable is a continuation of Andrew Wit's essay Investigations in
Robotic Craft.
Andrew Wit is currently the International Practitioner in Residence within the College of
Architecture and Planning at Ball State University. He is also co- founder of the
interdisciplinary design office WIT O*. Wit earned his Bachelors in Science in Architecture
from T he University of T exas at San Antonio, and his Masters in Architecture from the
Massachusetts Institute of T echnology.
Wit has practiced, taught, and researched in the U.S., Japan, China, T aiwan and Hong Kong,
including offices of Atelier Bow Wow, T sushima Design Studio, and T oyo Ito Associates in
T okyo, and Poteet Architects in San Antonio. His collaborative works have been highly
published and won several awards such as the 2007 AIA Best of Practice award for UT enSAils,
2007 IFAI Outstanding Achievement Award, and the 2013 Guangzhou Vanke Project of the
Year for Guangzhou One.
Wit’s current research focuses on the relationship between robotics, digital fabrication,
adaptive environments and their relationship to architectural craft. Most recently his research
has taken form in a collaboration with T he Boeing Company, exploring the potential for
integrating aircraft technologies into the realm of architecture.
For more information on Andrew Wit's work, visit www.andrewjohnwit.com.