Mitchell Curtiss - Arch 333 Blog

[j-muney-blog1]

A group consisting of Emily Delius, Mitchell Curtiss, Kyle Rossetti, and myself. 

When choosing the line work to foam cut, I really wanted to experiment with the possibilities of achieving smoothness with curvature and transition. Though the curves are not the same, they are of a similar language and mesh quite cohesively. One is made up of more radical curves, while the other is not as sloped. 

When wire cutting, we decided to cut into both sides to create a sort of wave wall. Unfortunately, it was not as smooth it was originally intended, however it still captures the essence of a “wave wall”. Increasing the speed might make the foam cutting more smooth, however the foam was too dense to do that, therefore they are a little rocky. 

We were able to play with manual controls, as shown in the last photo of the foam, where we manually moved the kuka to interact with our programmed curved. The results were quite beautiful and the intersection of the rotational linear with our curvature provided for thin intersection points and powerful overlap. This exercise went very smoothly and was very enjoyable to experiment with both in the programming and designing stage with being able to anticipate results, and the mesh with manual controls. 

Casting was a good experience, as we got to experience both the form as a lightweight foam object and as a solid concrete form. Now we have both, of contrasting materiality. 

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Response to Haraway’s “Situated Knowledges”

This essay - more loosely related to the subject matter of the course than other readings - makes some abstract but applicable observations on the concentration of knowledge in systems of production. For almost all of human history, the producer and inventor of an object were intrinsically linked. When a person created a tool, they both designed and physically crafted it. Even when making a building, most of the time the pre-architect was also the builder. However, since the advent of more complex societies - especially with the industrial and information revolutions - this link has been abstracted, if not broken entirely. Haraway examines this in a somewhat more sociological, feminist view, but it also applicable to the information in this course. When machines do the making, what effect does that have on the design process? Is it opened up to new options, or hindered to mechanical limits? And even more interesting, when machines do the designing, this opens up an entirely new field of questions. If this producer-inventor link is restored with machines on both ends, architecture - and any other field - will have some new ideas to contend with.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Response to Crawford’s “The Jig” and “Agency”

Matthew Crawford, while never specifically drawing parallels to architecture, provides a highly applicable rumination on the ideas of automation and craft in productive aesthetic disciplines. In “The Jig,” he details the value that can be gained by personalized spatial orders in repetitive - but not identical - tasks. Examples of the carpenter and chef demonstrate how master craftspeople can expedite their tasks in order to not only increase production, but also improve the quality of their product. However, the argument in “Agency” seems to be misaligned with this somewhat. In arguing that automation may be removing something from the human experience, Crawford doesn’t mention craft once. Instead, he focuses on menial tasks  - tasks that will not be improved aesthetically if performed by a master. Therein lies the rub; automation certainly can be negative if it removes craft, but there is nothing wrong with removing tedium.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Response to Keramas’”Robot Technology Fundamentals”

As sort of a summary of the history of robotics - and now, a somewhat out of date one at that - Robot Technology Fundamentals stands as comprehensive fact-based catalog of robotics and automation over time. His economic analysis of the ever-growing prevalence of robots is especially interesting; even though it is presented in a highly factual, quantitative way, it elucidates some significant social phenomena. For instance, the idea of losing jobs to robots is a constantly looming fear for blue-collar America. And certainly, this fear is not unfounded. If the economics make sense for manufacturers to use robots instead of people - as Keramas demonstrates they do - robots will inevitably replace humans. Not to get too “life, the universe, and everything,” but what is important to look at when making a value judgement here is who benefits and who is harmed. Culture has made this out to be a man-vs-machine battle, but in reality, the machine gains nothing - it is not paid, it does not feel. Instead, the loss of wages for low-level workers is - as usual - to the benefit of the rich, high-ranking business owners. If our cultural fear of robotic supremacy is to be maintained, we should at least make sure we’re afraid of the right thing - which, for the time being, is still people.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Response to Carr’s “The Glass Cage” and Smith’s “Metals”

Responding mostly to the more discursive and theoretical of the readings, Carr’s “The Glass Cage” provides an interesting lens into automation and its role in our lives. In general, most everything Carr presents rings true, as he highlights both the positive and negative outcomes of automation. However, there is somewhat of a missed opportunity in his proposals for “fixing” these problems. He presents ways of making sure people still pay attention and maintain control at a base level - “fixing” the humans. But never once does he mention a response which would be much simpler, and often more effective: fixing the computers. In nearly every example of over-automation catastrophized, a simple solution for guaranteeing that the specific computing problem never occurred again came to mind instantly (and likely, some of these solutions were probably implemented after the incident). Some people may criticize this as fighting fire with fire - fixing over-automation with more automation - but it’s not about more automation, but better automation. There must be allowed some room for trial and error in creating systems of automation - failures will occur - but as long as each individual error is addressed and remedied, automation will be (and is) far more reliable than even the best humans.

[jordan333blog]

The CNC router has one interesting difference from the Zund cutter - while the Zund guides the blade along the x, y, and z axes, the CNC router guides the drill bit only along a rail and up and down, while the table moves back and forth along the remaining axis.  I wonder if the scale ad weight of the equipment is the reason for this.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Group members include Jordan Turkomani, Emily Delius, Kyle Rosetti, and myself

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Response to Branko Kolarevic’s “The (Risky) Craft of Digital Making”

This reading expresses ideas which I have been interested in and have been attempting to convey for a long time. Whenever ideas of “craft” are discussed in architecture - particularly in architecture schooling - there seems to be a built-in bias towards the handmade. There is an intense reluctance to allow craft to be applied to digital drawings or models - both physicalized and not. To deny that those who work digitally have active control over every step of the process is deeply unfair and old-fashioned. It reminds me of a quote from Bach about the keyboard instruments: “There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.”  This quote is of course, satirical, as the true craft comes in the “unremarkable” step of playing the right keys. The instrument did not make any of the decisions, did not practice, did not “do the work for you.” Likewise, it is deeply unjust to imply that computers can do these things for architects. No matter the medium, the craft lies in playing the right keys.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Response to Lisa Iwamoto's "Digital Fabrications"

This reading was a catalog of sorts, documenting various techniques, materials, and technologies within the history of digital fabrication. There was not truly a direct argument made, which can make it difficult to respond to, but there is one point I found particularly engaging. Her ideas about the way digital fabrications interact with the orthogonal projection cuts of plan and section were somewhat unusual for digifab. Complex, computer-designed forms are often described as being the only things which are unrepresentable by these traditional architectural depictions. Instead, Iwamoto shows how so many of the great digitally fabricated forms are so highly dependent on section and plan, and are - in some cases, like the cardboard stack acoustic room - are nothing more than continually stacked orthogonal cuts. Where projects cannot be expressed with a couple sections and plans, they may instead be entirely created (and constructed) by a series of these projections. While traditional methods of thinking about architecture may no longer tell the whole story, they remain integral tools for architectural design, even if they are simply used in different ways.

[cassrota333]

Our vase, along with its snow angels.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Team members include Cassandra Rota, Haley Craft, Jacob Sanders, and Mitchell Curtiss.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Response to DeLanda’s “Deleuze and the Use of Genetic Algorithm in Architecture” and Carpo’s “The Alphabet and the Algorithm”

Algorithmic design is a topic of high contention. The video game industry just witnessed the greatest failure in procedural generation in “No Man’s Sky,” and members of the field of architecture fear a similar fate. Handing control over to machines is inherently frightening, as is shown by these articles unwaveringly arguing that there will (or should) always be a role for humans to play in architecture. Even if the design is given fully to an algorithm, the architect is placed on the pedestal of “judge,” making the final aesthetic decisions. Perhaps what is truly at play here is an ingrained refusal of architects to acknowledge that they may be at some point unnecessary to the production of the built environment. If it’s true that in order to not be replaced by a computer, one mustn't act like one, it naturally follows that architects would have such a desire to distinguish themselves from the machines they consider their servants. However, history have a way of being unkind to those who make “always” or “never” statements with regards to technology, and one must remain open to every possibility.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Response to Evans’ “The Projective Cast”

The first reading which truly intersects the study of geometry in this course with the field of architecture, “The Projective Cast” explores the use of geometry in tangible terms. Experience and perception and their complicated relationship (perhaps I should say “experience * perception”) manifest through both geometry an architecture. The idea that geometries are ideal in a way that architecture cannot - and perhaps should not - be is particularly engaging. The notion that good buildings “serve to bring the pure to mind” rather than try and fail to replicate ideal forms is incredibly relevant to this course. As one diverges from the traditional notions of geometry - and thus diverges from the ideal - the way to preserve good architecture is to continue to strive towards bringing the pure to mind, regardless of the geometry. Thus, when we create non-Euclidean geometries, it is okay to stray from these ancient ideal forms. However, this cannot be simply in service of form fetishism, but must remain in the quest for evoking the sublime.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Renderings and panel layouts of the two designs for the Developable Surface Unroll project. The wrap-around 10-sided form may or may not be possible to realize physically - only time will tell. In any case, it has been assigned a very basic tab curve to make interlocking easier. The other 4-sided rendering is less dramatic, but formally evocative, mixing curved and rectilinear languages. Excited to see where these projects lead.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Response to René Descartes’ “Geometry”

Similar to Euclid’s “Elements,” “Geometry” lays out a series of mathematical principles and applications. More proof than article, these works are without a true argument or thesis - although one might say there are many small and robust theses. However, there is a slight but important difference between the two mathematical treatises. Where Euclid posited definitions and outlines for the construction of basic geometries, Descartes builds off of these definitions to outline properties of and relationships between geometries. Descartes’ postulates are less inherent (all though just as applicable) and are much more easily seen as man-made or constructed, despite the fact that they are universally true. This is due to the fact that Descartes (and earlier, Euclid) outline the scenarios in which these rules apply. So while the rules come undeniably and logically from the scenarios, it is important to remember that the scenarios themselves are constructed.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Response to Jane Burry’s “The Construction of a Problem”

Burry’s argument is a sound one, if not an ambitious one. While it is not terribly groundbreaking or controversial to state that “in architecture there has been a more recent shift from a classical to a modern approach to mathematics, geometry and space.” Very few would disagree with this, but nonetheless Burry defends it well. Perhaps a more evocative thesis would be to state that such techniques have been beneficial or detrimental to architecture, but no such value judgement is placed. The observations made about the abilities of “modern geometries” to solve problems are unique and interesting, but for some reason the article does not quite celebrate them. Additionally, these solutions are interesting because they are just that: solutions. Contrary to the title, Burry highlights - rightly - the solving of problems rather than the creation via modern geometries. This is a good approach, as problems should never be created just so they can be solved. Instead, one should utilize the technology and techniques at hand to solve existing problems.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Exercise 3: Responsive Surface

In the first foray into manipulable generated geometries, curves were used to create dynamically scaled rectangles. This dynamic scaling in turn creates the image of the curve and fields of varying density and - ideally - transparency. This transparency wasn’t quite achieved, as the laser cutter failed to cut through the board and I’m not about to cut out five hundred individual squares. Nevertheless, the proof of concept is present and the generative process was quite valuable to learn.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Response to Malcolm McCullough’s “Medium”

The definitions and functions of the idea of medium as presented in this text are concrete, well phrased, and time tested. Where this chapter truly begins to evoke discussion is on the topic of computers and their relationship to medium. Is a computer a medium? Is it a medium of other mediums? Or is it simply just a tool? Over the intervening years since this was book was written, it has been clearly shown that the computer is far more than just a tool, but the idea of medium is still unclear. Perhaps when one looks at medium, an underlying definition is that a medium must create a product - arguably a unique product. This highlights why computers are so hard to categorize: it is not clear if the products of computers are unique to them or are just products of sub-mediums within computers. In this way, perhaps it is more helpful to think of computers like the abstract idea of “art;” as a way of expressing ideas through various contained media.

[mitchellcurtissarch333-blog]

Exercise 2 - Sol LeWitt Grasshopper Animation

In the first true introduction to Grasshopper, we were replicating the concentric arcs of Sol Lewitt’s Wall Drawings through procedural generation. Both aesthetically and technically rewarding, this exercise taught the basics of the program while working towards a beautifully simplistic final product.

(I apologize for the poor animation quality, Tumblr is terrible at handling gifs)