Notes from previous conversation
- I am are using the piss painting as a bases through which to look all the others or to work through the others.
- Calvino’s talks as a conceptual starting point
- The technic was the piss paintings wheather or not that leads you anywhere
- Here is one meats another equals a 3rd its not opposite is a collision it’s a chemical reaction.
- Output creates input. ( piss paintings )
- Pollok: the important part with his paintings they become a documentation of the technic with which he create the objects are the technic.
- You can not separate the way they where created with the object.
- The piss painting is something equal
- You can not separate the fact that he piss on them with the object its self you can not separate the one or another
- The objects are a manifestation of the technic. How could you create 5 objects that actually become the manifestation of the technic?
- Rather than thinking about the yin and the yang think about the conversions between the two.
- Debate of 2 materials.
- Fat design the event
- What do you take from each grain. ?
- how you make one object that shows the debate.
- The cultural Boolean.
- How does it become generative?
- The sampling machine that becomes the vehicle to look all 6 projects.
- The book that you keep identify oppositions
- Defining architecture through something that it is not.
- You don’t have the object , You have the foot print
- You have what the object is not.
- The architectural fossil s(apolithoma)
- Defining a thing with what it isn’t
- Processes of erasure etching boo leaning boo leaning, excavating
- What are the materal technics would be the fossil or the Boolean
Piss painting reenactment: it stays so surface based its not eroding into a material
3d models worked
The ball is good because it has no orientation
The continues drawing is fine it needs work
Its forced to have constantly a relationship with what it is next to each other