(Thank you Liz for the dry brush technique)
With this test, im inverting the hologram and background relationship. If in the recon, my hologram was the ghostly white image, in this test the hologram is the super defined and material projection, whilst the background is flat.
I had a chat with Manijeh today and it was really useful. I think there are a series of binary relationships that are embedded in the project. The most obvious one being the relationship between what is flat and what is three dimensional- But I think this spawns a number of other binaries-
1. 2D and 3D
2. Material and Immaterial
3. Form and Void
5. Object and Image
6. Subjective and Objective
These are the contradictions that we are constantly faced with, when we talk about architecture. These contradictions do not exist to over rule the other, rather they both exist as uncomfortable doubles. It is through the exchanges between the binaries that we create spaces.
Im very wordy right now, and iv not yet made sense of everything i’m trying to say. Will hopefully have an update soon.
In the 1970s, Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein showed that the information stored in a black hole is proportional to its surface area rather than its volume. This encoding of three-dimensional information on a two-dimensional surface came to be called the holographic principle.
the architecture of the unbuilt, which exists on paper, works like a hologram, such that its not about the volume that it creates, but more the surface area that it fills up. It is the encoding of three dimensional information on a two dimensional surface.
The context that the hologram occupies, is the black hole (the void that I keep filled), but once the infilling stops, the back hole dies.
The conundrum was: What happens to the information that was originally part of the black hole? Is it lost forever? If so, it violates a basic tenet of quantum mechanics that information is neither lost nor created. The holographic principle came to the rescue; physicists used it to show that the information of the constituents of the black hole is actually encoded in the radiation that emanates from its surface. So no information is ever lost.
I was reading about the hologram and came across a dubious article that claimed that if you break a hologram, each piece will still record the entire image before it was broken. This was fascinating, however not entirely true.
What is true is :A hologram is NOT : something you can break into little pieces so that each piece contains the same information as the whole thing. This is a common misconception. If you break a hologram which contains an image of, let’s say, a bicycle some distance behind the plate, you can still see the bicycle in each piece. HOWEVER, each piece shows the bicycle from ONLY ONE direction !
By breaking the plate, unlike a photo, the image has not been broken. Instead, the viewing angle of the image has been drastically reduced for each shard, which therefore contains a lot less information than the whole hologram did. Also, the information is different on every piece, because it shows the recorded image from a different angle.
The holographic principle, simply put, is the idea that our three-dimensional reality is a projection of information stored on a distant, two-dimensional surface. Like the emblem on your credit card, the two-dimensional surface holds all the information you need to describe a three-dimensional object—in this case, our universe. Only when it is illuminated does it reveal a three-dimensional image.
This raises a number of questions: If our universe is a holographic projection, then where is the two-dimensional surface containing all the information that describes it? What “illuminates” that surface? Is it more or less real than our universe? And what would motivate physicists to believe something so strange? That answer to the final question has to do with black holes, which turn out to be the universe’s ultimate information-storage devices. But to understand why, we will have to take a journey to the very edge of a black hole.
It doesn’t matter which black hole we choose, because each one looks essentially the same. Only a handful of qualities distinguish them: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Once an observer knows these three things about a black hole, he or she knows all that can be known. Whether the black hole contains the remains of a thousand dead stars, or all the lost socks from every Laundromat in the galaxy; whether it is a billion years old or was born yesterday; all of this information is lost and inaccessible in a black hole. No matter what is inside a black hole or how those innards are arranged, a black hole will “look” just the same.
This strange quality give black holes something that physicists call maximal entropy. Entropy describes the number of different ways you can rearrange the components of something—“a system”—and still have it look essentially the same. The pages of a novel, as Brian Greene points out, have very low entropy, because as soon as one page is out of place, you have a different book. The alphabet has low entropy, too: Move one letter and any four-year-old can tell something is wrong. A bucket of sand, on the other hand, has high entropy. Switch this grain for that grain and no one would ever know the difference. Black holes, which look the same no matter what you put in them or how you move it about, have the highest entropy of all.
Entropy is also a measure of the amount of information it would take to describe a system completely. The entropy of ordinary objects—people, sand buckets, containers of gas—is proportional to their volume. Double the volume of a helium balloon, for instance, and its entropy will increase by a factor of eight. But in the 1970s, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein discovered that the entropy of a black hole obeys a different scaling rule. It is proportional not to the black hole’s three-dimensional volume but to its two-dimensional surface area, defined here as the area of the invisible boundary called the event horizon. Therefore, while the actual entropy of an ordinary object—say, a hamburger—scales with its volume, the maximum entropy that could theoretically be contained in the space occupied by the hamburger depends not on the volume of the hamburger but on the size of its surface area. Physics prevents the entropy of the hamburger from ever exceeding that maximum: If one somehow tried to pack so much entropy into the hamburger that it reached that limit, the hamburger would collapse into a black hole.
The inescapable conclusion is that all the information it takes to describe a three-dimensional object—a black hole, a hamburger, or a whole universe—can be expressed in two dimensions. This suggests to physicists that the deepest description of our universe and its parts—the ultimate theory of physics—must be crafted in two spatial dimensions, not three. Which brings us back to the hologram.
Where is the surface on which our universe is inscribed? What illuminates it? Is one version of the universe more “real” than the other?—are still unresolved. But if the holographic principle is right, we may have to confront the notion that our universe is a kind of cosmic phantom—that the real action is happening elsewhere, on a boundary that we have not yet begun to map.
The visionary project manifests during the culmination of surreal circumstances that bring together events, spaces and characters. Through extracting the paradoxical and sometimes absurd life of Tatlin, it becomes clear that in order to conceive a vision as radical as the Monument to the third international, it requires a project which is not just shaped by its objective, physical contexts, but more importantly, through the subjective realities of its author. Tatlin left behind two simple elevations of the tower and a string of staged photographs of him. He only allows us to see what he chooses. Whilst limiting the dearth of material allows us to reimagine the project, resituating and reshaping the tower to suit new roles and contexts. In this way the unbuilt project takes the form of an architectural legend that can be retold countlessly.
Our fantasies of the unbuilt architecture are provoked through the ambiguity of their author’s life and work, which allows us to re enact them endlessly. The tower should never be built, as construction forms just another means to represent a drawing, limiting its sustained relevance. The tower thus eternally drifts in the space between reality and fiction. It is only ever built by the unexpected – an image or a suggested narrative.
A few points that stood out-
1. The argument needs to focus on the Hologram less in the literal sense, but more as a halo of the unbuilt work outliving its time and author.
2. Tom mentioned the need for a surreal juxtaposition that would make the argument a lot stronger- Something as absurd as claiming the Eiffel tower is Invisible
3. I knew that the problem with the presentation was that it was Tatlin heavy, this needs to change to something more abstract.
4. If architecture is a projection, the hologram is a pure form of projection.
Tyen: What do I not want to do? Do I want to make a new monument?
Manijeh: The hologram, speak more about it
Tom- why did you choose these particular backdrops?I am taking a figure ground switch, one thing that is the tower is not there, its everything around the tower.
Manijeh: Iv not made it the backdrop- inventing the relationship between everyday life, and the hologram.
Tom- I would see through the tower, so we physically see what is inside of it.. We have a skeletal reading of it, but there is a tangible quality to it. The tower is so opaque and solid in the project. It needs to be more invisible. When people have to build it, they have to reinvent it.. it isn’t a blueprint, it does not work.
Mark- Draw attention to the fact that, while perhaps in the unit, the term unbuilt, initially means something was somehow designed.. Maybe contingently not built. This seems to be of a more, complex order. The unbuilt character of it seems to belong to the tower.
Its like diversions of the tower are built.. Without deriving from the actual built tower, or as it were, from the elevations. The relationship between it as an articulated shape, and its followers, is not nearly as clear as we would assume. This is accidental, but its incompletion, the way in which it has been subjected to being unbuilded.
Its not a tower to general so and so.. it’s a tower to the third international, or anyone who recognizes part of themselves in it. The incompletion plays a more active role, than I am assigning to it. This has a technical side..
If you follow the argument that architecture is a form of projection, and that construction takes place when the projection is complete.. This is something that is projection. The light or hologram, is not less of a construction, than turning it into iron or steel, but it is more of a pure projection. It has to wait for the probabilities of the hologram, for it to be completed.. but it does not involve its traditional building.
Its not unbuilt, its rebuilt and rebuilt.
Tom: what is there what is not there has to be clear.. in that sense, the theatre is not helping.. its contacting, but opening in another sense. Need to go back to what im showing physically and symbolically. Phd of Eiffel tower, and the invibility of the tower.
Invisibility or its unbuildability and its tangibility. Need a surrealist juxtaposition. I can extrude downwards.. nothing that’s designed, can be extruded downwards.. Or like Eiffel, and liberty, you can go inside it.
Tyen: The architectural project that was spawned from this moment. Love your drawings from last year, need to push that.. Don’t lose that.
Manijeh: They way I went through Tatlin’s life wa developed more than the tower. Show the continuation of the tower post Tatlin’s death. As a story teller, how do I show when they are parallel, when they connect and when they outlive.
Tyen: Whats working to make it a seminal unbuilt project. Idea of the ambiguous, how can you push tht in the project? Ambiguity makes them seminal.
Tom: need another vehicle.. Look at it cinematically at eisenstien. Recreation of the revolution.. ore people died making the film than the real thing. Eisenstein may be a nice twin to the project. Get you out of the boxes
Natasha: whats not discussed is the hologram, where I have to insert myself into the project. This is where the project is under developed. The figure I bonce off to is me. Whats clear from the hologram, is the projective quality of the tower in its before and after state. The tower was inevitable. It’s the inevitability that is not realized, but manifested in an architectural time. This aspect is unaddressed.
Mark- The division of Tatlin into the different characters does not work, if I pushed it into a more abstract form, what he becomes is the sign of a certain division of labour. This is a central question about labour, including the labour that would work on the tower.
Imagine that they erected a huge tower, what would happen? It would be compared to the Eiffel tower..Socialist tower communist tower..Whats it for?There is nothing that people have not proposed that the Eiffel tower is for.. its nothing. In a socialist regime..
The hologram is crucial to the argument. IT IS the projection of a project. Something like the hologram, is its formal outcome, or formal mode of being.
It’s the idea of the hologram and not the literal thing.
It works! but there are a few things that i need to fix, like the background is a little too short, and the perspex deflects.. will see if this can be fixed, but for now i am determined to finish the sets! which take a lot of time.
I think iv got the scale about right now, i need to start making the background and props and narrative and argument :/
The technique im using, I have just learnt, is called ‘Pepper’s Ghost’. It was invented about 150 years ago and used widely in theatre. In the image we see a FANTASCOPE used to illuminate the character in a Pepper’s Ghost theatre. The fantascope is NOT projecting the ghost but illuminating a real actor, dressed as a ghost, the audience sees the reflection of the actor on the glass.
This will be the final set up for the hologram show. I will build an AMAZING FRAME (nervous) for the TV , a small podium/stage , wedged in the middle will be the inclined holographic screen, and a sheet for the changing background.
After a chat with Ari, it is now clear that that I need to create very simple images, with single objects that will frame the moment in Tatlin’s, life that conceived the tower.
The goal now is to create spaces, like the boxes I made early in the term. Except more focused and clear. It will be layered, with a few props each time. As I present I will keep changing the background, the floor and the props to tell the story. The hologram will always complete the image, and prompt the tower.
On other developments, Lana has showed me how to crop my frame in imovie, to get a much larger image in the screen. I will test this out tomorrow.
My script remains ambiguous.
Well iv spent a few hours trying to animate on Rhino and i finally made a small animation of the tower rotating! Now i need individually animate each part of the tower- This ill do later. Images for now..
1. The Sailor
2. The Busker
3. The Wrestler
I need to clarify a lot of things. But im just drawing for now..
For each plate I will have a single part of the tower projected as a rotating hologram. For instance, in the sailor image, only the inclined ‘mast’ of the tower will be projected. then the cube, pyramid, cylinder and so on. The final image will reveal the whole tower.
I was also thinking i should not mention Tatlin in the narrative, and present him as a series of characters, so that i don’t give away the tower from the start.
I am going to make 7 plates. Each plate will recreate a moment in Tatlin’s life in which the HOLOGRAM of the tower manifested. Sometimes this is literal, but sometimes it is figurative. It is the identities changed and events recorded, that were the material that built up the tower.
Contexts and Identities of Tatlin
1. Sailor- The ship (context) – The vessel of the imagination
2. Busker- The crowd/ Audience
3. Wrestler- The fight against the Monument/ Dictator
4. Artist- The Studio/ Picasso (His inspiration/ Precedent)
5. Stage Designer (Backstage/ Theatre)
6. Failure – Tatlin’s Apartment
7. Precedent (current)- Dip9/ My world/ Tatlin as my Precedent/ the hologram and legacy of the Unbuilt Project.
I am in the process of writing a script/ Narrative that will run through each of these contexts and identities- This is quite unfinished right now, I will post a draft later tonight, or tomorrow.
The material that builds the tower are not iron and glass, rather they are the events that surround Tatlin’s life. Its the several personas of Tatlin and their encounters that create a hologram of the tower.
I will attempt to piece together Tatlin’s tower through the rebuilding of Tatlin himself.
Tatlin and Malevich wrestle
“I can look upon the sky as concrete material”
The visionary project is not shaped out of sudden instance of realization; rather it is crafted through the culmination of complex, unrelated events and individuals that coexist to realize a vision. In saying so, I argue that the visionary project manifests much before its formal inception. It exists in the contexts of its visionary’s life and it is through the making of the architect’s identity, that the visionary project is eventually realized. The city, at a certain moment in time, is equipped with the capacity to produce the vision- with social change, technological advancement, material progress and absurdist dreams, the visionary project challenges our worlds.
Through the framing of these views, I think what i’m trying to build is the many pieces of the tower that eventually define the final form- the tower existed much before its inception. Alongside this i’m also building the image of Tatlin.
I need to identify the presence of the tower with the many contexts of his life, sometimes they are very explicit, and sometimes they are ambiguous.. maybe some I just invent?
The next step is a story board, and hopefully a drawing.
Tatlin’s Tower only ever existed on paper- in two elevational views. The reason for this model was to see the tower in its entirety, from all dimensions and scales. The views would define the towers many contexts, within Tatlin’s life.
I will have another print of it next week, hopefully much stronger.
Post the seminar, the mies text in particular, raised important questions about authorship, framing and lies. The facts we have of the past are all pre packaged, framed into biased views, only ever giving us a single sided glimpse and understanding of them. Like the ghostly image of “Mies’s” tent floating in the image, Tatlin’s tower exists as only a single elevation. But what surrounds the tower is a plethora of unknown fictions.
“Unforeseen Past is uncanny and unpredictable like the future. It is not prepackaged for the immediate needs of the present.
Looking at the images of the past is disorienting because we are not always sure what was the figure and what was the background, what was personal and what was political. How could they have coexisted: superimposed or side by side? Can we glimpse some truth behind and before the image ? We see only the limits of our framing.
Seeing is not believing!
The picture is not worth a thousand words!
Thoughts from the tutorial-
Daniil Kharm’s poems take the reader on an eventful and bizarre loop of discoveries, only to end abruptly at an anti climax, leaving the reader in a state of despair and nothingness. Tatlin’s life follows a similar trajectory. He catapults to fame, living through multiple exciting personas and moments, but in an instant, is thrown back as an anonymous figure. But unlike Kharms’s poems that leave us with nothing to grip at the end, Tatlin’s life leaves us with a seminal piece of work that has outlived him by generations- the tower.
Tatlin sits in his apartment, behind him are the many roles he donned, that build the context to the inception of the tower.
In a desperate attempt to not print out boring A3’s, i’v ended up with a sort of paper stage. I still don’t know what it does, but for now, it just has some stuff in it (things im thinking about)
Tatlin’s life and times set the stage for the birth of the quintessential visionary project.. So what are the conditions that create Tatlin’s tower and paper architecture?
A stage/ platform/ Exhibition?
“There was a redheaded man who had no eyes or ears. He dint have hair either, so he was called a redhead arbitrarily.
He couldn’t talk because he had no mouth. He dint have a nose either.
He dint even have arms or legs. He had no stomach, he had no back, no spine, and he didn’t have any insides at all. There was nothing! So, we don’t even know who we are talking about.”
You think you know Tatlin? You do not.
Tatlin’s life seems to have been rich in absurd acts. Like Kharms, he believed in levitation, posed as a blind man while singing folksongs, worked for years on a flying machine that could not fly, set up chairs that could not be sat on, and went about in fancy dress. The German Dadaist George Grosz, who visited Tatlin, called him the ‘great jester’ and told of chickens running about his studio.
I am interested in defining the many identities of Tatlin that influenced the inception of the tower. Tatlin’s life is ridden with paradoxes and contradictions that are present in everything he invents throughout his career. He is known for his functionalist approach to his work, but accounts of his personal life suggest an absurdist lurking within him. From sailor to wrestler, revolutionary artist to busker, his multiplicitous character defines his oeuvre.
It is these unrelated events and circumstances that prompt the birth of visionary worlds, projects and positions, and understanding this context, I hope, will allow me to gauge into the crux of what defines Tatlin’s visionary world.
He lived in a small, old, dilapidated apartment… There was a completely rusted wire mattress leaning on the wall behind him with a few sleeping chickens sitting on it… Their heads tucked under their wings. They furnished the perfect frame to dear Tatlin as he started to play his homemade balalaika… Tatlin was no longer the ultramodern constructivist; he was a piece of genuine old Russia.