Module 2: Digital Fabrication and Generating Volumes
Conceptual Intent
Inspired by the ideas inculcated the TAO Pavilion by Kengo Kuma and Associates, as gathered in Module 1, I wanted to focus my attention of the “framing of views” such that my fragment would give a very clear definition of the presence and absence of geometry within it at all scales. This was achieved through a series of controlled iterations, each aiming towards some sort of frame giving access into and out from the fragment.
I arranged geometries in various ways, exploring the different effects generated point attractors, curve attractors, boolean difference and intersection, and strategically placed my cube within the grid at specific spots to get a varied range of designs, each generated it’s own version of a framed view and unique thresholds [some circular, some rigid, some more open than the others] and then picked the ones that best replicated my preference for the quality of space generated.
Task A: Subtractive and Additive Processes
Iteration 1
Success Criteria
Does the fragment represent a strong sense of geometry?
Does the fragment provide viewports within it due to the presence/ absence of geometry?
Does the fragment work on more than one scale?
Does the fragment have the consistency of spatial quality across all scales?
Does the fragment have unique characters across different scales?
Iteration 2
Success Criteria
Does the fragment represent a strong sense of geometry?
Does the fragment provide viewports within it due to the presence/ absence of geometry?
Does the fragment work on more than one scale?
Does the fragment have the consistency of spatial quality across all scales?
Does the fragment have unique characters across different scales?
Iteration 2
Success Criteria
Does the fragment represent a strong sense of geometry?
Does the fragment provide viewports within it due to the presence/ absence of geometry?
Does the fragment work on more than one scale?
Does the fragment have the consistency of spatial quality across all scales?
Does the fragment have unique characters across different scales?
Iteration 3
Success Criteria
Does the fragment represent a strong sense of geometry?
Does the fragment provide viewports within it due to the presence/ absence of geometry?
Does the fragment work on more than one scale?
Does the fragment have the consistency of spatial quality across all scales?
Does the fragment have unique characters across different scales?
Task B: Section and Waffle Structures
Iteration 1
Success Criteria
Does the fragment represent a strong sense of geometry?
Does the fragment provide viewports within it due to the presence/ absence of geometry?
Does the fragment work on more than one scale?
Does the fragment have the consistency of spatial quality across all scales?
Does the fragment have unique characters across different scales?
 |  |  |
|---|
Iteration 2
Success Criteria
Does the fragment represent a strong sense of geometry?
Does the fragment provide viewports within it due to the presence/ absence of geometry?
Does the fragment work on more than one scale?
Does the fragment have the consistency of spatial quality across all scales?
Does the fragment have unique characters across different scales?
 |  |  |
|---|
Lazer Cutting File for Task B
3D Printing Approval for Task A
 |  |
|---|---|
 |  |
 |
Reflection
In the second module, I looked into the world of fabrication and how it may be accomplished using Digital Design. There has been a lot of research on the mechanisms that can develop ideas through digital media with physical outcomes.
My three fragments from Task A would have been fun to 3D print because they all have unique characteristics that would change depending on the printing process. The maker bot claims that if there are enough supports, it will print. As we move forwards with the fabrication, I'd like to see how the shapes' precise intricacies turn out. For Task B, I used my XY and Radial waffle to make sure that all of the right pieces had the edging or cutting layer turned on, and then I separated all of the pieces onto the platform, which I set out in a nesting arrangement to save material. This was intriguing to me because it effectively lowered the amount of space required. There were a few pieces that were exported that didn't function because the notches were too close to the edge and wouldn't cut, and there were a few pieces that didn't have notches but were still sent, so they've been removed from both the laser cut and the design.
Overall, Module 2 taught me how to reimagine the scale of everything around me and to understand the relationship between solids and void. It also taught me the advantages and limitations of Parametric design. Moving forwards into Module 3, I'd like to continue creatively and iteratively exploring the link between form and function. I want to be able to experiment with as many different ways as possible to express this relationship in a design and figure out which ones work best.