proj1_reaction

As typical after each of these exercises, the balance between questions raised and answers suggested remains heavily skewed to the former. Given the framework of experimentation, the question of practical application is essential and unavoidable. At the conclusion of the class presentations, it was apparent that first we must consider not “how” to apply our studies, but “what” were our studies?

Remembering that we all started from basically the same point, the staging, recording, and diagramming of a human action, it is important to recognize the different paths people took in exploring the action, giving image and form to the action, and presentation.

I saw most projects falling under three categories of conceptualization, which lead to typical methods of representation.

1. Objectification of Gross Form: Typically the result of lofting key points, the form of the original action is identified and maintained throughout presentation; animation dominated by moving the object across the view frame exposing specific volumes and surfaces. See Fiver or Mercedes.

2. Imagination of Relationships: Segmentation or duplication of a single complete (or “summary”) form; concentration on important point sets (as defined by planes) or the disposition of the entire form over time. See Jonathan or Dorit.

3. Hybrid: Usually involving manipulation and animation of overall form during/as presentation, often to the point where it can no longer be said that there is a single summary form throughout. See Carl (or Beret).


As predicated in the assignment preface, the animation experiments require multiple steps before becoming what is typically considered “architecture”. Or perhaps that is to say, they require further testing: testing in a different medium.

I imagine the next step for each of the three different approaches will in turn be unique themselves. They would range from refinement of a single model (Objectification) to the study of a sequence (or perhaps pulling highlights/compelling moments) in the morphing of the Hybrid concept.

Another difficult question to answer is the relevance of the emergent form’s relationship with its original input: the diagram of an action over time. In my own study, I felt torn whether to represent the original action and relationships, or to embellish the emergent form. Of course I felt the pull towards editing and sculpting the digital model, but to what end? Without program, without ground plane, I resolved to consider the form as solely an investigation of the dynamic relationship of the original action.


As a side note, the biggest challenge for me rooted in this last point, and dealt with the idea of the narrative. The refinement of the original form, the further abstraction of animation, and the unlimited potential of video editing often lead to a very vague road of no parameters. As the “model” became more about the form/volume-making and less about the integrity of the original action diagram, the less clear the strategic narrative was.