I started making the model base which should allow me to work on the different pieces separately and replace them etc. Here is a test of the perceived linear movement and the model below –
I started making the model base which should allow me to work on the different pieces separately and replace them etc. Here is a test of the perceived linear movement and the model below –
I added Donald Judd’s concrete boxes in Marfa instead of the White Cube fragment which wasn’t really doing a lot until now. In this instance I tried to work with a mirror (the darker surface seen on the screenshot below), so that the entire piece could rotate 90°….and the Judd fragment turns to the New Museum, obviously.
Also thinking of the camera arm – which should go up and down and zoom in and out. Will post a sketch of it later. In the spirit of making things too complicated, maybe the camera track could look like an additional highway?
I tried to decide on specific references for the landscapes of each fragment (from left and clockwise) –
*Barragan’s towers – The greenhouses of Almeria (good for the scale change)
*House VI – California highway number 1
*Judd – field (their original context)
*Jeff Wall – Mexico City residential area
*Kubrick corridor – NASA facility / room
Maybe I can try to make it look like this –
Trying to figure out a future physical model – currently it’s based along an arc (a highway), where the camera travels around the fragments, as well as rotating inside the arc to simulate a lateral movement.
This GIF shows a possible end to the highway, where the scale shifts to the scale of the room. The highway becomes a table, and the the 2001: A Space Odyssey becomes a scaled down model.
In the instance below the camera completes a flip above a residential building – the ground becomes the ceiling of Jeff Wall’s tableau, the voids between the pillars become the two large windows in the photograph A View from an Apartment (with the apartment-fragment as a removable piece).
Trying to show Barragan’s tower as a 800-meter Burj Khalifa style monument
The tower above a highway and also smaller than before as it appears next to a generic building on the highway –
“Film is a search of a good composition”
“Cameras can fly”
More on the development of a set of views from the previous post. Trying to sketch out a sequence which will move back and forth between an aerial view of a model to ground views with different scales and places.
House VI in 1:1 scale with the tower of Barragan matching in the scene as a street lamp post –
Jonas Dahlberg like rotation (image in previous post) along the highway, revealing the 2001: A Space Odyssey fragment -Back to aerial – Highway pillars become legs of a table, and the Kubrick fragment turns into a small model
The installation of Jonas Dahlberg works great because it has a clear translation of rotation to linear movement. Basically I’m looking for my simple magical movement between the camera and the model –
While I’m still trying to figure out what is the landscape and how we view it, here is some procrastination with the more technical part of how it could be filmed.
Conceptual wipe-out of parts of the landscape not seen in film –
Or as the films of Mark Lewis (below), which are shot with a crane going up and down, am I to operate a baby crane…?
Mark Lewis’s film on The Minhocão, an elevated highway in Sao Paulo which has been partly closed to vehicles (48:50). The other videos in the lecture are also quite cool.
Spectre (James Bond) continuous opening shot
Jonas Dahlberg, Untitled (Horizontal Sliding), 2001
I’m trying to develop the landscape which appears once the desert sand is washed away. As the sand disappears, the scaleless and placeless project is injected with many contradicting scales and places. The fragments (Barragan etc. which are all in this drawing) are placed on plateaus and they become anonymous inside this super heterogeneous landscape. Trying to make it read as a one continuous thing.
Thinking about the three mediums of the project –
Film – connects visually (with tools such as the named view, the wipe, and the motion cut). Place = vision / view
Book – connects through narrative. Place = what you say about it.
Model – locates the fragments. Place =
Working on a model of Everyplace, in which my fragments are on ‘peaks’, and will be seen if the model will potentially be covered with sand.
-in this landscape the fragments have location and scale (as opposed to being scaleless and location-less in the rest of the project).
-the landscape should have some ambiguity to it – read as either landscape or manmade, either inhabited or uninhabited – maybe like the fragments themselves which are between object and architecture.
-the fragments are quite literally inseparable now – they form together a space.
-it is a continuous and endless (concrete?) junkspace / landscape where potentially all monuments can be discovered (echoing the obsession of Borges with the notion of infinity from the seminar today, as evident in the short story Aleph).
Thinking it will require different methods (hopefully could be sprayed in the same colour to seem continuous?)
-Kubrick (on the right of print screen) – stacks from laser cut mdf?
-Barragan – maybe blue foam
-House VI – TBD
-will need to add the white cube (the elongated element) and Aldo Rossi (the round element)
Giant’s causeway, Northern Ireland
The Greenhouses of Almeria
Can the fragments be casted together so they float in resin? quick illustration of what it might look like, trying to think what does it mean to have them bound together in a model, while they are connected more ‘cleverly’ in the film and in the book… maybe it could help make a point about the divide between how space exists as a visual thing or as a verbal thing.
resin inspiration –
Damien Hirst –
Also interesting reference from the jury – HyperNormalisation by Adam Curtis, which makes a narrative that spans 40 years which makes a continuous thread between existing footage to form a very very very very biased continuum about our ‘fake’ reality.
And of course the man who tried to walk to the end of Minecraft –
Some prints from the book – tried some different types of paper according to the content.
Glossy magazine –
New sequence to connect from the desert to the physical room via the Rhino space. The Wipe feature might be out of control at the moment.. or, if it is used often, maybe it should be introduced earlier on in the film.
Thinking about the film itself as the ‘real’ landscape in this project, I’m looking at different types of cuts beyond motion cut, in order to smooth/enrich the continuum. In this version I tried to use the Wipe Cut, the Pass-by Cut and the Flash White Cut (examples below).
Does it work? I don’t know, but it’s better
Wipe Cut in Sin City between drawing to render (2:22)
Pass-by Transition (this video is in slow-motion for some reason but imagine it playing faster..)
frantic-zoom style cut
Really funny spatial cut
The Wipe cut (5:57) and the Invisible Cut right after it (using darkness), and the hybrid Match-Dissolve Cut (10:32)
Cut through time (Warning, scene might be disturbing for children )
And, for the shift from the desert back to the rhino space room (when we rotate 180) I want to make the shift look more like these cool Whip Pan Cuts
I’m trying to change around some things in the second part of the film (and with the first part of the sequence up to the highway scene I’m mostly focusing on smoothing the transitions).
Highway –> move from city to desert which turns the towers to a landscape monument –> erasing the scene, making the page/desert blank again —> need to connect back to the rhino space room
Personal style matters a lot when it comes to accessories. That being said, when it comes to a protective laptop case, style shouldn’t come at the cost of protection!
Found this great 2001: A Space Odyssey merchandise at www.fabgearusa.com/2001-a-space-odyssey/
Interesting video about Jeff Wall’s exhibition in the Stedelijk with many closed interior tableaux (A View from an Apartment at 3:00 min)
The book from the exhibition -Poster from the 2013 Eisenman exhibition at MoMA about his post-functional work which includes House VI!Bernard Tschumi, Mark Wigley, and Peter Eisenman at Deconstructive Retrospective event. Photo: John Hill/World-Architects
In the below updated spreads on one of the fragments – House VI – I tried to think of it as a section in a monograph, which partly due to its length, presents a very limited idea of the house which turns into fabricated material about it. This leads to the question – what information is included and how. In this case, the focus is on the physical context of the house, its scale and the transformations it goes through.
The concept of a monograph is interesting to explore further, as a format which on the one hand enables architects to situate projects within a personal worldview, at a time when the role of architects is being increasingly marginalised, and on the other hand it is a traditional format which invites redefinition / reformatting.
It also enables to draw connections between projects. The fragments are arranged and presented in the book while also being arranged in the desert.
So at this point, the concept of the so-called ‘named view’ has a dual meaning:
1. physical named view = is what creates the thresholds in the film and it is the aerial view
2. conceptual named view = curated oeuvre
And one last thing about the monograph – if all goes wrong, I can find comfort in the fact that even the worst of architectural monographs do gain interest over the decades (at least according to this article – http://www.iconeye.com/opinion/comment/item/11999-why-a-monograph)
So, is the white book a monograph of Sandpit?
Hello and happy happy new year!
I’ve been trying to think over the break on how to develop the connection between the room and the screen/film and how could a sequence go back and forth between the two more than it did previously. I did some small concrete casts in the sand to try and create the same composition of the site model I had in term I (with Barragan and all the rest), and then take some footage of it which could play somehow together with what’s going on in the room. Unfortunately it’s not scaleless dunes like Christo’s (below), but maybe it could still work.
The landscape table is almost done with two pieces of Heizer. It’s hard to believe, but that’s 15 kg of sand (together with the yellow bucket). Had to take most of it out to move it. waiting for a jury in 33 to finish to start to set up.
What a relief being back in reality!
Need to work a lot on refining the sequence and figure out how to move from the vertical table to a ‘sand box’ which will be on another table (and make a few actions on that model which will show on the screen hopefully)
I’ve been working on this short sequence which changes the view to through a screen and then goes back to ‘regular’ view. Not sure yet where it’ll fit with the other scenes
Tried to write the current intent of the film –
The project destabilises our reliance on images, as the contemporary construct through which we consume culture. It embraces the ‘photoshop instability’ of the image, making it an operative artefact for the production of architecture. From being the medium that flattens an event and make the final representation of it, the image becomes a starting point.
In a sequence of moments, the image is striped from its original narrative, making it referential only to what preceded it and what will follow it. In itself, it is a raw material to project onto new narratives. The subject of the image is questioned as there is a sense of uncertainty regarding which aspect of it will connect to a new scene: Jeff Wall’s inhabited apartment appears through its clutter, and disappears through a window’s view; a room appears through an aerial flythrough, and disappears as we step inside a model. The medium, the frame, the subject(s) and the orientation – together compositing the image – become tools to redefine it, and eventually depart from it. From a stable construct, the image turns to an unstable tableau.
Freeing the subjects from their context, they become scaleless sculptural geometry that can be re-read and decoded. Together with a fixed view, they make a connection between scenes. With context, scale, medium and orientation constantly being redefined, the film itself is the only possible site for the project.
MATCH CUT could be a great cinematic technique to further explore.
It is a cut within a scene that makes sense spatially. This can be between two different objects, two different spaces, or two different compositions in which an object in two shots graphically match.
Kubrick has done it best –
Compilation of match cuts (Kubrick at 2:05)
Thinking how to incorporate the idea of the caption, since naming the view is important. I think I once read a text written by Brett about the evolution of the caption but still didn’t find it.
Below is an updated sequence of the film, which connects scenes that are ‘inflated’ from a centrepiece – a site model. Gradually loaded with fragments, the landscape of the Nazca Lines should go from Tabula Rasa to Tabula Plena. The objects featured are pieces of recognisable architecture with scaleless and sculptural qualities.
Disclaimer: I need to fix the shadow of the tower in the beginning so it stays on the picture on the wall, and also make a new render with less objects.
The book of House VI could be further manipulated in the spreads that are seen.
The following map of the current iteration of the film shows:
-orientation shift (thick frame)
-objects which connect the scenes
-transformation of the subject: red monolith –> site model –> Zaha style flythrough in rendered space –> photograph which is emblematic of a place (house VI) –> model –> theory (book) –> merchandise (totebag) –> art (Jeff Wall) –> architecture/sculpture (Barragan) –> landscape (desert) –> site model
Using the image as an artefact I’m working on a video that attempts to move seamlessly between orientations, scales and media (and time?). How can I create a smooth transition between worlds? I’m looking for clever transitions beyond zooming in and out so if anyone has an idea please let me know
Also, I’d like to find a way to use multiple views simultaneously + develop a clearer articulation of the different ‘named views’ –
-the aerial / flythrough
-the fragment shot
-the postcard / souvenir shot? (when it’s 2D)
Lastly, there is this niiiice video I saw on Wired – smashing our expectations
Working on more detailed views of a tabula plena room (still with Eisenman, Barragan and Kubrick):
1. Set up view
2. Eisenman’s view
3. Close up in which House VI becomes the wall of the actual room (on the right side of image), and the models of Barragan merge with a picture in the back.
4. view of the model on the wall looking to the side
references discovered with Manolis –
Paul Smith’s working table:
***The table as artefact is a piece of furniture that keeps things off the floor. It makes a connection between people sitting around it. It gathers a series of artefacts or unrelated artefacts. Like in a field, there is no hierarchy between the objects.
Eisenman, Kubrick and Barragan sitting around a table, while Eisenman cuts a map of the Nazca Lines together with the bedroom of House VI:
***The table as narrative is a frame/container that draws connection between selected artefacts. It can be rearranged. It can go back and forth from Tabula Rasa to Tabula Plena. It can change scale from being a miniature to being a territory. It is viewed from an aerial view, but it can change orientation – floor/wall/ceiling.
***The image as artefact is a stable record of reality, which projects a clear idea (not so much open to interpretation). It reduces the changing, the evolving, the monumental, and the three-dimensional into the fixed two dimensional representation. It turns culture to commodity (as artefact it can be reproduced). It’s uninhabited space.
***The image as narrative is an unstable tableau where reality can constantly be re-read and decoded. It alludes to what happened before it and what might happen next. It could easily capture a different moment in a certain sequence of events while remaining the same image.
Pairs of images as artefact / narrative:
The discussion in the jury focused on the different qualities of the image itself – single image/series of images, composition, time, allusion to what came before and after, small vs. large objects, the instability of the image… Above all, how to construct a narrative beyond the references I have?
The other part referred to the construct of the table (‘don’t let the table be the final thing’) but I wanted to do some sketches of the 3dimensionality that is created from this architecture of images, and to think of the table as a larger universe with smaller objects.
The image of the table from the jury –
Models to be inserted into the table installation. Problem for the installation – maybe – most of the models share similar perspective… that’s why for the Kubrick one I tried to do perspective from the side. I cut the pieces also for the interior of the white cube which I’ll do later.
Which images should I model next in paper? The criteria: clear geometry and/or recognizable space. No people. Options below, but please suggest your own. I need a total of 3-6 images that will look good as paper models!
I tried to focus on the notion of the named view and the change of thresholds from which a scene is viewed. These tests/images are meant to test how our understanding of space changes, in a world in which architecture is designed through a specific single perspective.
Here the 2d photo of the room which was translated to 3d is then photographed back as 2d – it is an image on a paper table. The light is needed to reduce details from the model which is punched in the table. Shame I couldn’t get the details of the surface of the table in the photo, it’s printed with scratches etc. Maybe need better camera and lighting.
This model (still WIP) is a column from Zaha’s Phaeno Science Centre (Wolfsburg, Germany, 2005) is constructed according to an image by Helene Binet. The image is transformed to an object which other than its so-called named view could perhaps be seen in comparison to the room – either very small (first image against the parquet) or large as seen from the window.
The inhabited room and my #workspace #bananatree #macbookpro :
From real to virtual to constructed to object:
Introducing paper model 2.0:
With its Physical Named View apparatus:
And an updated render in progress:
Through the three states of this Georgian room – the real, the virtual and physical – I can perhaps start to identify a few spaces:
The ubiquitous Pre-View / Waited Space – too clean and empty to actually be inhabited:
(North Sea Apartment by John Pawson)
The Stylised Space – realistically possible even though in this case requires $$$ for furnishing:
(interior by Foster and Partners)
The Super Inhabited Space:
(image from the TV show Hoarding: Buried Alive)
And….. the view once the named view is lost (out of named view?):
The notion of styling of space really comes through in this image from an article titled How I Became an Interior Stylist:
The named view in regard to space relates to the contemporary curated identity. A recent project by Thailand-based photographer Chompoo Baritone showed a series of social media images and their possible out-of-frame realistic clutter:
It reminds me also of this photo from the New York Fashion Week which has been circulating around the internet for a while. Fashion also requires good framing!
Looking at the frame as a threshold and surface, I took a photo of a standard Georgian room and created it in 3d and in paper. The real, the virtual and the physical are then used to compress time and space into a fixed frame. Past, present and future come together into this frame which determines what gets recorded and influences our understanding of the space.
Fact 1: Scale cannot be perceived beyond a certain size
Fact 2: Space could always be reprogrammed
Fact 3: Blowup creates ambiguity
Fact 4: Photographs can distort reality
Fact 5: The writer elicits significance from things that need to be seen, while the architect does so from those already seen
Looking at the notion of the single image, I tried to test the compression of space and time into a fixed frame. I’m looking at how could the image show a 360 view without creating a distortion. This could perhaps be the achieved through selective deletion or subtraction from the image, as opposed to superimposition/density/distortion.
What is the capacity of the image? How could it represent time? how could the image show traces of previous versions? do we need to ‘adjust the canvas size’? do we need to ‘crop’?
The b&w vs. colour in the video is inspired by Memento, where b&w represents another timeline, which then blurs with the ‘actual’ timeline and alters it.
The following two images and gif show an impossible space in which the four faces of a box are laid out in a perspective view, leaving the box open from one side.
Hello! Here are small clay models by Peter Fischli and David Weiss, who recreate moments from popular culture, as well as moments of groundbreaking inventions. They also have GREAT titles. The photos are from a cool retrospective they had at the Guggenheim last year.