Performative Architecture Studio 2011: The Book

_PERFORMATIVE ARCHITECTURE STUDIO THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE, 2011

_CONTENTS

_contents 2_introduction 4_STUDIO AIM 51.0_INDIVIDUAL WORK_KIRILLY BARNETT 7-522.0_GROUP PROJECT 53 2.1_CONCEPT 54 2.2_Teams 553.0_GEOMETRY 57 3.1_Precedents 58 3.2_Initial Explorations 60 3.3_From Models to Patterns 61 3.4_3d Modelling in Maya 62 3.5_Complex Modelling 64 3.6_Low Polygon Modelling 66 3.7_Generative Design 68 3.7.1_GRASSHOPPER SCRIPT 68 3.7.2_MODEL FOR 1:8 SIZE PROTOTYPE 69 3.7_Generative Design 71 3.7.3_MODEL FOR 1:2 PROTOTYPE 71 3.8_The Lantern 73 3.9_FINAL DESIGN 74 3.9.1_1:1 SIZE MODEL 744.0_FABRICATION 77STUDIO THEME : DESIGN THROUGH MAKING 78 4.1_Research 79 4.2_Resources 80 4.3_Prototypes 82 4.4_HOW TO MAKE A 1:1 SCALE INFLATABLE 885.0_INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE 91STUDIO THEME: INTERACTIVITY 92 5.1_Documentation Guide 93 5.2_Descriptive Working Process 94 5.3_Interactive Systems 96

5.3.1_Software 965.3.2_Hardware 97

5.4_Base Patches 98 5.4.1_Lanbox Driver Patch 98 5.4.2_Base Lighting Patch 98 5.4.3_Base Camera Patch 99 5.4.4_Base Sensor Patch 100 5.4.5_Base Speaker Patch 100 5.5_Prototype 1.0 102 5.6_Prototype 2.0 104 5.7_Prototype 3.0 106 5.8_Prototype 4.0 108 5.9_INTERACTIVE SYSTEM FOR THE PERFORMANCE 1106.0_COMPLEX BEHAVIOURS 113STUDIO THEME : GENERATIVE CAPABILITIES OF COMPUTERS 114 6.1_Parameterisation and Initial Investigations 118 6.2_Projection and Sketch Wrapping 120 6.3_Final Composition 124 6.4_Localised Interaction 1307.0_DOCUMENTATION 133STUDIO THEME : DOCUMENTATION AND REPRESENTATION 134 7.1 _Links 135 7.2_Performance Rehearsals 1378.0 _THE PERFORMANCE 139TREATMENT DOCUMENT ‘THE FOREST’ 140

NOTES 157IMAGES 157

4 INTRODUCTION

_INTRODUCTION

Performative Architecture Studio was a studio run at the University of Melbourne in 2011.

Studio Leaders:Stanislav RoudavskiRoger Alsop &Gwyllim Jahn

Masters of Architecture Course Participants:Suleiman AlhadidiKirilly BarnettCanhui ChenEva ChenMeng HoViet Nam HoangMuhamad IsmailHamza Ameer KhanChin Siong LimNi MaDaniel RyanArturo Steinberg AcunaYin Lih ThamLok TsangAndrew Walsh

INTRODUCTION 5

_STUDIO AIMBy exploring the generative capabilities of comput-ing, the studio aimed to demonstrate that outcomes of architectural design can be usefully understood as dynamic and responsive performances rather than static and passive objects. Successful integrations of complex geometry and interactivity at the architec-tural scale are rare and innovation in this area has been constrained by a lack of relevant knowledge in the architectural profession. Performative Architec-ture Studio sought to address this gap by educating its participants in an interdisciplinary and innovation oriented environment that integrates learning of concepts into the process of making.

STANISLAV ROUDAVSKI

Performative Architecture Studio 2011The University of Melbourne1.0_INDIVIDUAL WORK KIRILLY BARNETT 243364

8 KIRILLY BARNETT

Contents

1.1 Expectations 9 1.1.1 Studio Tasks 9 1.1.2 Programs 10 1.1.3 Resources 121.2 Precedents 141.3 Processing 16 TASK 1.3.1 Attracxtor Point Sketches 16 TASK 1.3.2 Agent Sketches 18 1.3.3 Emergence 191.4 Cycling 74 Max MSP 26 TASK 1.4.1 DELAY 26 TASK 1.4.2 FOLLOW ME 261.5 Average Location of Motion 321.6 Optical Flow 331.7 Optical Flow Tests on Inflatable Model 341.8 Inflatable Prototypes 351.9 Sketch Design 36 1.9.1 Optical Flow Projection Tests 381.10 Group Project Roles 44 1.10.1 Teams 441.11 Learning Outcomes 50 1.11.1 INDIVIDUALLY 50 1.11.2 GROUP WORK 50 1.11.3 THE OUTCOME 51

KIRILLY BARNETT 9

1.1 Expectations

I chose Performative Architecture Studio because I wanted to learn new skills and undertake research and design approaches in an entirely new area. The studio brief described a full scale installation com-bining an inflatable structure with interactive media, developed and staged as a performance at the Open Stage Theatre. To me this presented a fantastic opportunity on a number of levels. One, for being in-volved in a studio where the outcome was a full scale installation; two where I would learn new technical skills in interactive media; and three to continue extending my knowledge and interest in installation, curatorship and architecture staged as events.

1.1.1 Studio Tasks

The set of introductory tasks required me to quickly learn new skills, explore new areas of research and develop creative strategies, in order to design a series of individual proposals for installations. These installation proposals had a strong focus on narra-tive, for each proposal we were asked to write 100 word descriptions summarising the installations; 50 words describing the experience, and 50 words ex-plaining and supporting the meaning. This approach forced me to think about my designs in terms of an individual or collective experience, and instead of thinking about what your installation is, your per-spective shifted to consider what is does and how.

Because I didn’t have previous experience in the programs required for the initial introductory tasks it might have been easy for them to be viewed as a technical test only. However the studio leaders did reiterate the importance of using this new approach as a creative strategy, and not just a technical test. However in the initial tasks I struggled to push past the basics, perhaps it was simply too hard to push beyond the technical requirements within the time frame or it wasn’t clear enough where the tasks were leading and what relevance they had in a wider architectural context from the beginning.

10 KIRILLY BARNETT

1.1.2 Programs

KIRILLY BARNETT 11

ProcessingMax MSP3Ds MaxMayaAdobe After EffectsAdobe Premiere

This studio required the use of a number of programs that I was not familiar with in-cluding:

12 KIRILLY BARNETT

Page Title Goes Here1.1.3 Resources:

KIRILLY BARNETT 13

EmailLMS Discussion BoardLMS WikiFacebook GroupProcessing ProfileVimeo ProfileVimeo Group PageCRIDA WebsiteGenware TutorialsMax 5 tutorialsRoger Alsop Max SiteAdobe After Effects/ Premiere Tutorials3Ds Max tutorialsMaya tutorialsProcessing ForumSkypeTumblr

Various online studio resources were also used throughout the semester.

14 KIRILLY BARNETT

1. 2 Precedents

Precedents re-searched through-out the semester.

1

The precedents I researched varied from inflatable art and architecture to interactive media to film. Through this research I came to understand Perfor-mative Architecture as architecture that deals with social interaction, social engagement and events involving dynamic performance rather than static objects.

I read about theories of movement and it’s represen-tation in architecture, covering topics of how you see and experience a building, to temporal and spatial qualities of time, to the relationship of cinema in architecture. This I related to inflatable architecture, through research into its history and development in the 1960’s and 1970’s and the temporal nature of inflation.

Movement led to ideas of Performative Architecture allowing you to see something you wouldn’t normally see. I related examples of Olafur Eliasson and his ideas of making space tangible through the conse-quence on a person’s body in the space. His work also focuses on activity causing people being togeth-er and being social.

‘It takes much greater courage to create things to be gone than things that will remain.’Christo and Jeane Claude

1. 42, 390 Cubic Feet Package, Christo and Jeanne-Claude, 19662. It’s all over, Sibling, 20103. Jumping Castle4. Suitaloon, Archigram, 19675. Serpentine Pavilion, OMA and Cecil Balmond, 20066. Silver Clouds, Andy Warhol, 19667. Mortal Engine, Chunky Move, 2008-20108. The KNOT, Raumlabor Berlin, 20109. Space Buster, Raumlabor Berlin, 2008 & 201110. Aeromads, Alexis Rochas, 200611.360 degree room for all colours, Olafur Eliasson, 200212. Waterball, Theo Botschuiver, 197013. Archigram14. Beauty, Olafur Eliasson, 199315. Breathing PIllow, Lang and Baumann, 199516. Access, Marie Sester, 2002

2 3

4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15

16

16 KIRILLY BARNETT

1.3 Processing

Processing is an open source programming language built for the electronic arts and visual design communi-ties with the purpose of teaching the basics of computer programming in a visual context, and to serve as the foun-dation for electronic sketchbooks. The lan-guage builds on the Java programming language, but uses a simplified syntax and graphics.

A Processing file is called a ‘Sketch’.

A series of introductory exercises were set in order to introduce the Processing. Like learning a new language these simple tasks seemed difficult at first, but with the help of online tutorials, open processing forums and tips in class my first processing sketches were completed. The Processing sketches shown on this page were simple variations on Task 1: Attractor Point Sketches whereby the mouse position translat-ed the size, colour or position of a grid of 2D shapes.

TASK 1.3.1 Attractor Point Sketches

KIRILLY BARNETT 17

Three different Attractor Point Sketches. Basic Grid Translation (top)Basic Grid Translation with colour invert (middle)Inverted Grid Translation (botton)

18 KIRILLY BARNETT

In these Processing sketches we created object classes called ‘Agents’. We used them to simulate basic flocking and swarming behaviors by looping a population of object classes through a list of simple rules and behaviors. Variations I worked on included Agents following the mouse, and following one ob-ject.

Craig Reynolds first complied the classic flocking algorithm in 1986 in a project simulating the way that birds and other flocking, herding and schooling animals behave. He called the computer-simulated agents Boids, a contraction of birds and droids. Flocking continues to be an evocative example of emergence, where complex global behavior can arise from the interaction of simple local rules. (1)

1. Arand & Lasch, Tooling, Pamphlet Architecture 27, (New York: Princeton: 2006), 65

TASK 1.3.2 Agent Sketches

17 18 19

KIRILLY BARNETT 19

class Agent {

//--------------------------------------------CLASS PROPERTIES

PVector location; PVector velocity; Float agentSize ; int col ; // Red and Purple tones selected fl oat r = 255; fl oat g = 255; fl oat b = 255;

//--------------------------------------------CLASS CONSTRUCTOR

Agent(PVector LOCATION, fl oat AGENTSIZE, int AGENTCOLOUR, PVector VELOCITY) { location = LOCATION; agentSize = AGENTSIZE; col = AGENTCOLOUR; velocity = VELOCITY; }

//--------------------------------------------CLASS METHODS

void run() {

fl ock(); updatePos(); render(); }

1.3.3 EmergenceIn studio I was directed to the contemporary discus-sion of movement in architecture, emergence. Emer-gence is the movement from low level rules to high levels of sophistication. The higher level complex patterns arise out of paralleled simple interactions between local agents. The systems are dynamic, self organizing and respond to the environment. These topics relate directly to the my understanding of what Performative Architecture is.

20-21 Flocking Birds and Schooling Fish

17-18 Agent Sketches

19

20 KIRILLY BARNETT

Page Title Goes Here

KIRILLY BARNETT 21

22 KIRILLY BARNETT


KIRILLY BARNETT 23

24 KIRILLY BARNETT


KIRILLY BARNETT 25

26 KIRILLY BARNETT

1.4 Cycling 74 Max MSP

TASK 1.4.1 DELAYOur initial Max MSP ex-ercise in studio required us to create a delayed video. I used a match patch that overlapped a real time recording and a delayed version of the recording. I decided to create a recording of myself on a train jour-ney, whereby the delay exaggerates the motion of the train.

TASK 1.4.2 FOLLOW MEIn the second exercise we were asked to create a video where we were following ourselves. I mixed two videos to exaggerate the act of spinning.

In both video experi-ments what interested me most was the idea of seeing something that you wouldn’t normally see in motion.

Max is a visual pro-gramming language for music and multimedia. It’s normally used by composers, perform-ers, software designers, researchers and artists for creating record-ings, performances and installations.

KIRILLY BARNETT 27

Scenes from ‘Train’

Scenes from ‘Train’ and ‘Spin’

KIRILLY BARNETT 29

30 KIRILLY BARNETT

Page Title Goes HereScenes from ‘Spin’

KIRILLY BARNETT 31

32 KIRILLY BARNETT

1.5 Average Location of Motion

During some research I came across an interesting video where a field of lines were being disturbed by a person’s hand movement. I then started investigating at replacing the mouse as the attractor in my simple sketches and instead using an average location of motion. I went back to some of my original sketches and adapted them. I also looked at replicating the video I had seen. The research then led me to dis-cover Optical Flow codes on Open Processing.

Translated Field Sketch

Video on You Tube, source unknown.

22-26

27-28

KIRILLY BARNETT 33

1.6 Optical Flow

I found two codes on Open Processing by Hi-detoshi Shimodaira and Patricio Gonzalez Vivo which use Optical Flow. I did some tests with the original codes and then began to extend and experiment with the effects.

Links to the original codes are: Hidetoshi Shimodaira http://www.openprocessing.org/visuals/?visualID=10435Patricio Gonzalez Vivo http://www.openprocessing.org/visuals/?visualID=10534

Replacing Mouse Location with average

location of motion.

Using Hidetoshi Shimodaira’s Optical Flow

Sketch

Hidetoshi Shimodaira’s Optical Flow Sketch

29-31

32-33

34-35

34 KIRILLY BARNETT

Page Title Goes Here1.7 Optical Flow Tests on Inflatable Model

These images were cap-tured whilst running the optical flow sketch and moving the inflatable in front of my laptop com-puter camera.

KIRILLY BARNETT 35

1.8 Inflatable Prototypes

I organized an Inflatable Prototype workshop session to have an initial attempt at experiment-ing with inflatable struc-tures. I also tested the optical flow sketches on the inflatable struc-tures.

36 KIRILLY BARNETT

1.9 Sketch Design

My installation propos-als were focussed on the theme of movement. Instead of moving through a building which is predicable, moving through an interactive inflatable would be un-expected and dynamic.

“A large inflatable pillow is full of more inflatable ‘balloons’. You can manipulate its form, by pushing, rolling and sitting on it. It is movable, interactive, temporal, and tangible. It is here for an event, and in doing so creates a place. As you manipulate the inflatable structure, a camera captures your movement. The fields of projected dots begin to flow and become longer in the direction of your move-ment. This is the motion, direction and velocity of your movement, something you wouldn’t normally see. A small spark appears in the projected field and begins to work its way through. If you stop, it gets stuck. So you begin moving again and the spark follows the direction of your motion. As more people enter the space more sparks begin to appear in the optical flow field. These sparks cause the inflatable structure to faintly glow”

36-39Sketch Design Images

KIRILLY BARNETT 37

INSTANT vs DELAYEDPERSONAL vs PUBLICUP FRONT vs DISCOVERED

Optical flow showing movement in a way that isn’t normally seen.

40Example of Optical Flow

38 KIRILLY BARNETT

1.9.1 Optical Flow Projection Tests

KIRILLY BARNETT 39

40 KIRILLY BARNETT


KIRILLY BARNETT 41

Page Title Goes HereOptical Flow on Agents Test

KIRILLY BARNETT 43

44 KIRILLY BARNETT

1.10 Group Project Roles

COORDINATION TEAM:- Conceptual Documents- Schedules , Deliverables and Budget- Successfully implementing a communication sys tem- Having a successfully completed installation- Records of conceptual development, versioning and case-specific innovation- People management within teams, and tutors.- Timetables of working spaces

DOCUMENTATION TEAM:- Photography and video of key artefacts- Photography and video of key events- 2D vector extractions from all relevant develop ment environments- Graphic design templates and implementations ready for the incorporations into the journals- Report on the learning outcomes reflecting the self reported progress for all participants. - Tumblr page of process- Publicity for The Performance.

For the group project we were split into Teams. I was allocated roles in the Coordination and Documentation Teams. My responsibilities were as follows:

1.10.1 Teams

The studio of 15 students was divided into 6 teams; Geometry, Fabrication, Complex Behaviours, Inter-active Narrative, Documentation and Coordination. From my point of view as a coordinator it seemed apparent that as the teams began to work indepen-dently, team tendencies emerged.

The Geometry Team tended to over complicate their designs, and it was a matter of trying to reduce complex design after complex design until a feasible outcome was developed. The Fabrication Team was very practical and systematic about finding suitable solutions for fabrication. Real collaboration between the Fabrication and Geometry teams happened quite late, this appeared to hinder the design outcome in terms of versioning and refinement for the final design. The Complex Behaviours team tended to work quite independently and more artistically than other teams. They of course had technical chal-lenges to deal with, such as 3D mesh wrapping, but again, these tested too late in the process to suc-cessfully implement them into the final installation. The Interactive Narrative Team had a number of technical challenges in trying to understand and gain control over their hardware and equipment, which was often temperamental. They worked methodi-cally and consistently but because of this tendency perhaps started to think about the narrative a bit late in the process. The Documentation Team, which includes myself, were available and present as much as possible to cover any key events or developments. We covered the process through a number of pho-tographs, videos and time lapses, however I felt that in doing this I tended to stand back from the project and observe it. It would be interesting to see how the project would have been different had the documen-tation team had a more influential role based of their overall knowledge of the project. Due to the sheer amount of work that needed to be done and the number of topics and skills needed to complete a successful project, dividing the stu-dio into groups was necessary. Generally this was a success, but due to the tendencies and priorities of the different teams there wasn’t always a clear and concise path to design outcomes and decisions. Greater communication and cooperation between teams would have greatly benefitted this studio out-come, with collaboration within groups often coming too late to allow for adequate time for testing and improvement.

KIRILLY BARNETT 45

2nd November 20111.00 pm to 7.00 pmThe Open Stage Theatre

757 Swanston Street

The University of Melbourne

Parkville

The corner of Swanston and Grattan Streets.

Enter via Swanston Street.

Performative Architecture Studio 2011: The

Performance is an installation exhibiting the

collective outcome of experimentation and

work completed by master-level students dur-

ing a semester at The University of Melbourne

in 2011.

Led by Stanislav Roudavski, Roger Alsop and

Gwyllim Jahn, Performative Architecture Studio

2011, explored interactive media, parametric

geometry, emergence and physical comput-

ing. By exploring the generative capabilities of

computing, the studio aimed to demonstrate

that outcomes of architectural design can be

usefully understood as dynamic and responsive

performances rather than static and passive

objects.

Performative Architecture Studio 2011 The Performance

Right: Poster for The PerformancePage 42-43: PAS TumblrPage 44: Vimeo PortfolioPage 45 Journal Templates in InDesign

Dividing into teams also affected the learning pro-cess, as we were forced to focus so heavily on one area. Whilst helping other teams was encouraged at the start, it was difficult to do so because of the time restrictions. There were some specific times when all groups came together such as, conceptual meetings, 1:2 and 1:1 fabrication days, and the performance day and these I found were the most enjoyable. In general terms everyone in the studio should understand what each group has achieved and how they could go about undertaking these roles themselves if they chose to do so, but in most situations I feel like I would not under-stand the specifics.

46 KIRILLY BARNETT


KIRILLY BARNETT 47

48 KIRILLY BARNETT


KIRILLY BARNETT 49

50 KIRILLY BARNETT

1.11 Learning Outcomes

1.11.1 INDIVIDUALLY:In the beginning I was happy with the challenge of working and learning new programs, because of my background I was constantly learning and that is why I had chosen the subject in the first place. However it was stressful due to time constraints and the frus-trations of learning new skills that didn’t come easily to me. Overall I don’t feel as though I ever really achieved completing the work up to a standard that I was happy with. Each week I felt like I was just mak-ing it, but never excelling.

1.11.2 GROUP WORK:Being in both the coordination and documentation team for this project was definitely a challenge. Hav-ing to understand everyone’s activities, achievements and making sure everyone worked successfully as a group took up a lot more time than expected. I was present at university almost every day, espe-cially towards the end of semester, and helping out as much as I could from team to team. However I felt as though my time was spread too thinly and I wasn’t able to focus on reading, research and writing as much as I should have. I enjoyed taking photos and videos of key events, and I feel as though I have learnt some ways of how to do this successfully on the spot. Acting as a curator for the journals was the biggest challenge. I don’t view writing critical reflec-tions as a personal strength, and in having to do this It highlighted to me the importance of being well read so as to form an well informed opinion. Due to timing I don’t feel as though I have completed this to the best of my ability, but it makes me admire the knowledge of the studio leaders.

Right: Photo by Stanislav RoudavskiKirilly Documenting at The Performance.

KIRILLY BARNETT 51

1.11.3 THE OUTCOME:Overall I believe our group outcome was a success. We had a number of people come through on The Performance Day, and I personally received a lot of personal feedback. Some people tended to be con-fused, or unsure of what was happening and I really liked seeing that the project was stimulating enough for people to question what was occurring, As The Performance was an experiment it was interesting to note down some of the reactions and behaviours that occurred in each scene or mood, My personal observations are as follows:

CALM:Inside people tended to sit or lie down, from outside people stood away from the structure and observed the beauty of it. The windows were a great opportu-nity for people to walk up and peer into the inside of the inflatable and then continue to the entry. REFLECTIVE:Being the first state you see as you enter the space, I think it was quite surprising for people as they entered. Especially after telling people at the door it’s dark inside, it builds the suspense. People again generally stopped and observed it for a while before approaching. When inside I’m not sure if the change between calm and reflective was enough to give the impression something was changing. However as it was a busy day I didn’t spend a great deal of time in the one spot. AGITATED:If the participant was told about the sensors, they are immediately aware of the reaction between the sensors and the lights. I believe this took away from the success of the reaction of the participant. I feel it was more successful when people weren’t told about the sensors, which could lead to a greater chance of personal experience.

In conclusion, despite the personal challenges; this semester has been a worthwhile part of my academic education and I hope to pursue some of the Studio themes and skills I have developed in the future.

2.0_GROUP PROJECT: ONE CONCEPT, SIX TEAMS

54 GROUP PROJECT

2.1_CONCEPT

The studio’s central task was the production of a full-scale installation combining an inflatable struc-ture with interactive media, developed and staged as a performance at the Open Stage Theatre, The University of Melbourne.

The group project’s conceptual development was guided by this initial illustrative description (right). This was developed from the outcomes of discus-sions we had as a group in the early stages of the group project, and used the Forest as a metphor for the design of a multi layered complex system. This description has since been edited to reflect the changes to the concept as they occurred throughout the process. As the process developed this broad conceptual description developed into a treatment document (See Chapter 8.0).

“ From outside the organic form is intriguing, so you touch it. You walk around, but you want to explore further, you want to go inside. To enter you have squeeze through an opening.As you squeeze in, some air escapes, the form de-flates. Slowly expanding again once you’re inside.Inside the temperature is immediately different, and the light dappled.There is a faint sound, it comes and goes. But you can’t pin point what it is. You notice a flow of movement across the skin of the form. They appear to be tiny particles of light, moving slowly and calmly.You can’t see around the corner and without knowing what is coming next, you choose to explore. There is a lantern sitting on the ground, which you pick it up and use. In exploring you may find a secret spot.The tunnel like path weaves around and you become slightly disorientated. The walls wrap up and around you and eventually curve towards an end that you can’t enter. At certain points light from the lantern appear to trig-ger changes in light, colour, sound and movement. You notice patterns arising out of the complex interac-tions- it’s as if the forest is becoming smarter, react-ing to you and your interactions in the environment. The forest is aware of your presence. The forest is dynamic. The forest is alive. “

GROUP PROJECT 55

2.2_TEAMS

The studio of 15 students was divided into 6 teams; Geometry, Fabrication, Complex Behaviours, Interactive Narrative, Documentation and Coordination. Prior to this division each student had been exploring a number of studio themes as outlined in the studio brief. While the entire studio collectively continued to explore the defini-tion and understanding of architecture as performances (events, narratives or play) (See Chapter 7.0), the responsibilities of the teams, related more specifically to one or more of the studio’s themes.

The Geometry Team explored parametric modelling, complex geometry and 3D modelling as a design environment. Software they used included Maya, 3Ds Max, Rhino and Grasshopper (See Chapter 3.0).

The Fabrication Team explored digital fabrication and construction and the idea of designing through functional prototypes. They experimented with inflatable textile systems, and used an industrial sewing machine and fans (See Chapter 4.0).

The Complex Behaviours Team looked at ideation by experimenting with genera-tive capabilities of computers including agent-based systems in Processing. These agent-based systems are also related to the theory of Emergence in design (See Chapter 5.0)

The Interactive Narrative Team was exposed to real-time digital sensing and com-puter vision and developed opinions on what makes an environment responsive or interactive. They worked mainly in Max MSP, and handled equipment such as computer controlled lights, computer vision systems, video cameras, light sensors, and projection systems (See Chapter 6.0).

The Documentation Team focussed on the importance and interest of design pro-cess, and attempted strategies for recording and presenting temporal events. They used cameras, video cameras and editing and compositing software such as Adobe Premiere and Adobe After Effects (See Chapter 7.0).

The Coordination Team followed the progress of all Teams, and coordinated working spaces, schedules, deliverables, finances and acted as liaison with studio leaders. They were responsible for the conceptual consistency across the group and therefore produced documents such as the conceptual statement and treat-ment document. Their main responsibility was the implementation of a successfully completed installation (See Chapter 8.0).

3.0_GEOMETRY: DESIGNING INFLATABLES

58 GEOMETRY

3.1_PRECEDENTS

The Geometry Team explored the history of in-flatables.1 Through this they found precedents to guide their process of discovering what inflatable structures can do, what was possible and how they could attempt something different. A very significant precedent was Anish Kapoor’s Leviathan, which was erected for Monumenta in 2011.

”PNEUMATICS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERY EVER MADE IN ARCHITECTURE, THAT THEY CAN FREE THE CON-STRAINTS WHICH HAVE BEEN BOUNDED IT SINCE HISTORY BEGAN AND THAT THEY CAN IN CONSEQUENCE PLAY AND IM-MEASURABLE PART IN THE DE-VELOPMENT OF OUR SOCIETY”

ARTHUR QUARMBY 2

1

2

3

1. SPRIAL OASIS, 19972.LEVIATHAN, ANISH KAPOOR, 20113. SILVER CLOUDS, ANDY WARHOL, 19664. UNKNOWN5. OASE NO. 7, HAUS-RUCKER-CO, DOCUMENTA 5, KASSEL 19726. 42, 390 CUBIC FEET PACKAGE, CHRISTO AND JEANNE-CLAUDE, 19667. IMAGE FROM ARCHIGRAM ARCHIVAL PROJECT8. IMAGE FROM ARCHIGRAM ARCHIVAL PROJECT9. AEROMADS, ALEXIS ROCHAS, 200610. SPACE BUSTER, RAUMLABOR BERLIN, 2008 & 201111. IT’S ALL OVER, SIBLING, 201012. SERPENTINE PAVILION, OMA AND CECIL BALMOND, 2006

GEOMETRY 59

4 5 6

7 8 9

10 11 12

60 GEOMETRY

3.2_INITIAL EXPLORATIONS

The first stage involved some basic approaches in designing an inflatable structure. The conceptual statement was explored in four versions, from these explorations and direction it was decided a skill de-velopment phase was necessary. In this phase stead of approaching the design in a complex way, which simple topologies were explored to transform into more interesting outcomes.

“ THE PROCESS OF DESIGN-ING AN INFLATABLE INVOLVES THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE; BUT MOST OF ALL A CLEAR SENSE OF THE EXPECTED OUTCOME. ”

THE GEOMETRY TEAM

OPTION 1Tight spaces envelope the participants as they navigate the twisting and turning tunnels. Gaps between the trunks in the central space offer participants a glimpse of the other side – and of their des-tination.

OPTION 2Recreates the experi-ence associated with a typical natural for-est. It also uses blobs to evoke the feel of organic growth, random in shape, yet organized along a path

OPTION 3Replicate the tight enveloping sensation of the forest and of the house. Also encourages the occupants to ex-plore, when they realise that the direct route is impossible.

OPTION 4The geometry mimics the organic shape of a tree. An open area behind the forest, hid-den with a curved wall suspended from the floor partially reveal the space and to hint the presence of other visi-tors behind

GEOMETRY 61

3.3_FROM MODELS TO PATTERNS

WANTEDExploration

Multi layered Interaction

Tactile Fluctuating Digetic sounds

Organic Variety

Cool Curiosity driven

Subtle Movement

UNWANTEDPhysical displacementChaos Rigidity Trees (literality)Extreme simplicity

A second outcome of this session was a basic geometry to be used as a test for the communication between the Geometry and Fabrication teams.

From the basic shape’s model a pattern was extract-ed and sent to print. From this template the Fabrica-tion Team was able to build the first real prototype (See Chapter 4.3).

The whole studio got together to discuss the principles of what were wanted and unwanted characteristics of the Geometry for the final installation. The Geom-etry Team used this to help guide their next design decision.

BASIC GEOMETRY

PATTERN SENT TO FABRICATION TEAM

62 GEOMETRY

The development of basic software modeling skills in Maya was achieved through a series of exercises that started with basic typologies which were distorted through polygon editing. Using this method, new knowledge was acquired for further development and iterations.

RIGHT: RESULTS FROM 3D MODELLING IN MAYA

3.4_3D MODELLING IN MAYA

GEOMETRY 63

64 GEOMETRY

3.5_COMPLEX MODELLING

Using the acquired modelling skills, to Geometry Team set out to achieve a new level of complexity for the inflatable design, the team again used basic geometries as starting points in the form finding process. The outcomes were a set of interesting geometries but most options lacked feasibility for fabrication.

RIGHT: MORE COMPLEX MODELLING OPTIONS IN MAYA

GEOMETRY 65

66 CHAPTER TITLE

3.6_LOW POLYGON MODELLING

A basic geometry was developed to lead to a more clear and coherent understanding of the spatial qualities of the expected outcome.

RIGHT: LOW POLYGON OPTIONS

“ First we had to learn to un-derstand the materiality of both fabric and air before attempt-ing any design for geometry “

THE GEOMETRY TEAM

CHAPTER TITLE 67GEOMETRY 67

68 GEOMETRY

3.7_GENERATIVE DESIGN

3.7.1_GRASSHOPPER SCRIPT1. Choose a polyline as the axis2. Chose another polyline to define the perimeter3. Choose a number of sides to produce the contour polygon4. Distribute unevenly the contours along the axis5. Generate a skin6. Discern transparent and opaque using an image pattern

1 2 3 4 5

GRASSHOPPER SCRIPT USED TO GENERATE FORM

THE GEOMETRY TEAM WITHGWYLLIM JAHN

GRASSHOPPER SCRIPT USED TO GENERATE FORM

68 GEOMETRY

THE GEOMETRY TEAM WITHGWYLLIM JAHN 3.7.2_MODEL FOR 1:8 SIZE PROTOTYPE

The 1:8 size model was made out of a simple low polygon generative script as the first experiment in a series of pure generative form finding. The main objective in the quarter size model was to test the clarity of information being transferred to the Fabri-cation Team. The skin was split into transparent and opaque pieces using an image pattern while the base structure was made out of ribbed like spans. The unrolling process revealed the need of a complete communication method to the Fabrication Team.

GEOMETRY 69

PATTERN TEMPLATES FOR 1:8 MODEL

GEOMETRY 71

3.7.3_MODEL FOR 1:2 PROTOTYPEWhile the Geometry Team continued to improve the generative form finding skills, they worked on refin-ing the 1:4 version for the 1:2 size prototype. Taking advantage of the size increase, the model increased the complexity of the patterning. The fabrication of the 1:2 size model was an key event in the studio’s development. For the first time studio participants were able to really interact with the inflatable and comprehend the scale of the final installation (See Chapter 4.3).

“ THE DESIGN, FABRICATION AND INFLATION OF THE 1:2 SIZE MODEL WAS A HIGHLIGHT- THE WHOLE GROUP WAS SO EXCITED AND WE ALL RUSHED INSIDE TO SEE WHAT THE SPACE WAS LIKE. ”

THE DOCUMENTATION TEAM

3.7_GENERATIVE DESIGN

NESTING THE PATTERNS

FIRST INFLATION OF THE 1:2 PROTOTYPE

STRIPS AND LOOPS BEFORE NESTING

STANISLAV ROUDAVSKI AND GWYLLIM JAHN INSIDE 1:2 SIZE PROTOTYPE

72 GEOMETRY

3.8_THE LANTERN

A luminous object to activate the light sensors became a design opportunity for members of the Geometry, Fabrication and Interactive Narrative Teams. The main requirements were lightness, por-tability, stability and a relationship to the inflatable geometry. It was proposed that light be emmited by series of white LEDs energised by a composite bat-tery that should be in the centre of the lantern. The need to refract light all around the lantern lead the skewed rib pattern wrapping the centre of the lan-tern. Translucent Perspex was used as it produces a better light distribution effect. The design became a generative exercise where the complete geometry of the lantern was produced by parametrically defined components. It was originally intended to have a rod attached to the lantern allowing the user to extend the lantern to different points within the inflatable. However after fabrication the weight of the lantern made it to heavy and difficult and uncomfortable to hold in this way. Instead a rope was attached as a handle device. The final outcome is easy to hold whether by the handle or by just holding it in both hands.

STANISLAV ROUDAVSKI AND GWYLLIM JAHN INSIDE 1:2 SIZE PROTOTYPE

GEOMETRY 73

CLOSE UPS OF THE LANTERN

3.9.1_1:1 SIZE MODELThe final design process included a series of iterations, testing several pattern mapping, subdivision and geometry options. The process can be divided into three sections. First; to make the geometry, second; to map the pattern and third to adjust the pattern to become the skin of the defined geometry.

The geometry was made in a polygonal modelling software, using low polygon and soft modelling tools. Coding what was required to map the image and to set the subdivision, materiality and labelling and tabbing required for fabrication. At this stage requirements necessary for the Interactive Narrative Team’s sensors were also considered.

BELOW AND RIGHT: VECTOR RENDERINGS OF THE 1:1 SIZE MODEL

3.9_FINAL DESIGN

74 GEOMETRY

GEOMETRY 75

# Page Title

CHAPTER TITLE 77

4.0_FABRICATION: DESIGN THROUGH MAKING

STUDIO THEME : DESIGN THROUGH MAKING

“ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DOES NOT END AS THE TOOLS OF FABRICATION ARE PUT INTO ACTION. ON THE CONTRARY, MAKING IS A DISCIPLINE THAT CAN INVESTIGATE RATHER THAN MERELY SOLVE IDEAS – IN OTHER WORDS A DESIGN PROCESS”

B. SHEIL 3

Design through making is an architectural concept that challenges the notion that building production is preceded by design, and where in the process of making no further design ideas are explored. Instead design through making promotes ideation with the tactile, physical nature of architecture and building processes. 4

This theme was important to our studio, as we were learning the technical and tactic skills required through making simultaneously as were we designing. A lot of the technical and tactic skills we learnt informed the design, and the final outcomes was as much about the process as it was the final result.

Due to a delay from the Geometry Team in producing patterns for fabrication, the Fabrication Team set a series of their own tasks and designs to explore and gain experience in making an inflatable. With each prototype they were able to assess the success and failures of their models and this information in turn influenced their next prototype. These experiments were also able to inform the Geometry Team about what was possible and feasible for their designs. In a similar way the Interactive Narrative Team developed and designed in this way. With each test of equipment, they recorded and documented achievements and this informed the possibilities for the final installation (See Chapter 5.0).

FABRICATION 79

4.1_RESEARCH

The Fabrication Team researched various prece-dents that informed and guided the series of proto-type testing they undertook. A major resource was the Inflatocookbook by Ant Farm. 5 Published in the 1970s, it contains a number of sketches and dia-grams suitable for testing.

1

2 3 4

5 61. OMA AND CECIL BALMOND, SERPENTINE PAVILION, 20062. SLIT SPACE, FOAM LAB 20063. AEROMADS, ALEXIS ROCHAS, 20064. INFLATO COOKBOOK, ANT FARM, 19715. KÜCHENMONUMENT, RAUMLABOR , 2006-86. CUSHICLE, ARCHIGRAM, 1966

4.2_RESOURCES

80 FABRICATION

The University pur-chased a heavy duty sewing machine. And purchased material and fans from Giants Inflatables.

THREADING THE SEWING MACHINE

NYLITE RIPSTOP NYLON

THE FABRICATION TEAM ALSO ATTENDED SITE VISITS TO INFLATABLE STRUCTURESAROUND MELBOURNE.

FAN

“ MAKING IS AN IMMENSE RESOURCE FOR IDEAS, EXPERI-MENTATION AND RESEARCH. “

B. SHEIL 6

FABRICATION 81

THE FABRICATION TEAM RE-CEIVING FEEDBACK ON THE 1:2 MODEL FROM DAVID, GIANTS INFLATABLES.

Another resource was David, from Giant Inflatables.7 He gave a introductory lecture on basic issues rang-ing from materials, basic inflatable types, control systems, seals, and types of entry. He also helped with a feedback session after the 1/2 size model was completed.

BASIC TYPESFrame/ Air Beam StructureDouble Wall- Cell StructureSingle Skin

CONTROL SYSTEMS:Constant airInflate and SealAir on Demand

SEAL OPTIONSSeam TapeWeldingGluingSewing (tape then sew)

ENTRY OPTIONSSlit opening /Reinforced Slit openingAirlockZip EntryPressured FlapHula Hoop

4.3_PROTOTYPES

82 FABRICATION

The Fabrication Team completed a number of prototypes. With each prototype different method and approaches were tested.

OVERHEAD PROJECTOR FOR PATTERN

GLUING SEAMS

Prototype 1:Type: Single SkinAir: Constant Seam: Stitched Pattern: clay model, overhead projector.

Prototype 2: Type: Double Skin, Pin BafflingAir: Constant via fan con-nector snootSeam: GluedPattern: manual calcula-tion

Prototype 3:Type: Double Skin, Ir-regular Pin BafflingAir: Constant via fan con-nector tubeSeam: StitchedPattern: Manual calcula-tion, experimental

http://vimeo.com/groups/pas/videos/29655579

FABRICATION 83

SEWING STRIPS

MATERIAL LAID OVER PATTERN

PAPER MODEL TEST

PATTERN STRIPS

Prototype 4: Type: Double Skin, Regu-lar Pin BafflingAir: Constant via fan con-nector tubeSeam: Stitched and GluedPattern: Unrolled geom-etry from 3D computer model.

Prototype 5: Type: Single SkinAir: Inflate and SealSeam: StitchedEntry: ZipPattern: clay model, over-head projector

1:8 Size PrototypeType: Single SkinAir: Constant AirSeam: StitchedPattern: Unrolled geom-etry from 3D computer model

SEWING A ZIP ONTO PROTO-TYPE 1

" PLAN, PLAN AND PLAN! IF YOU WANT THINGS TO BE MADE SUC-CESSFULLY AND EFFICIENTLY, YOU HAVE TO MANAGE THE RE-SOURCES AND PLAN TO MAKE SURE YOU EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED ”

THE FABRICATION TEAM

http://vimeo.com/groups/pas/videos/30122947

http://vimeo.com/groups/pas/videos/29768128http://vimeo.com/groups/pas/videos/29717362

4.3_PROTOTYPES

1:2 Size PrototypeType: Single SkinAir: Constant Seam: Flat SeamPattern: unrolled geom-etry from 3D computer model

" WE DEFINITELY ENJOYED THE GROUP WORK; AS A TEAM WE HAD GREAT WORKING DYNAMICS, AND WHEN WE HAD HELP FROM EXTRA HANDS, IT WAS LIKE A PARTY! "


84 FABRICATION

FABRICATION 85

EXTRA HANDS FOR CUTTING THE PATTERN OF 1:2 SIZE PROTOTYPE

PAPER MODEL PATTERN

PAPER MODEL 1:8 SIZE MISTAKES WERE DISCOVERED AND CORRECTED

1:2 PATTERNSCUTTING OUT THE PATTERN

SEWING REQUIRES MINIMUM TWO PEOPLE, ONE SEWING AND ONE HOLDING AND RO-TATING FABRIC

http://vimeo.com/groups/pas/videos/30852725http://vimeo.com/groups/pas/videos/30657968

86 fAbriCAtion

FABRICATION 87

" THE MOST FUN MOMENT WAS WHEN YOU FIRST INFLATED THE PROTOTYPES, YOU NEVER KNEW WHAT IT WAS REALLY GOING TO LOOK LIKE, AND IT NEVER CEASED TO AMAZE! "


THIS PAGE: FIRST INFLATION OF 1:1 SIZE INFLATABLEOPPOSITE PAGE: THE FABRI-CATION TEAM MAKING 1:2 SIZE PROTOTYPE

88 CHAPTER TITLE

4.4_HOW TO MAKE A 1:1 SCALE INFLATABLEMATERIALS1 x Sewing machine1 x Fan90 sq m of White Fabric (calculated by Geometry Team)25 sq m of Clear Fabric (calculated by Geometry Team)Nylon threadCutting tools; Scissors, fabric roller blade, blade and steel rulerMasking tapeClear tape + dispenserVelcroDress makers’ pinsClips2 x 1m diameter wooden rings, painted white.Bolts

PREPARATIONWith such a large fabrication, preparation procedures are essential for maximum efficiency in production.

Scale Reference Template:1:8 scale template printed on paperPVA glue

Full Scale Template:Templates printed on paper (138 A0 for white, 19 A0+27 A1 for clear)Double sided tape

a. Fabricate a 1:8 scale paper model to check pattern to ensure errors are correct ed. This model can also be used as a reference model when fabricating full scale. b. Ensure pattern labelling system is designed to easily distinguish all pieces, their interconnecting edges and associated strip section.c. For efficient work flow The Fabrication Team required 5-6 people for cutting, 2 people for taping and 2-3 people sewing and handling.

CHAPTER TITLE 89

PROCESSStep 1: Cut FabricRoll out fabric along a flat surface. Lay printed paper templates on the top of the fabrics. Carefully cut all the pieces out using either fabric roller blades, scissors or blade; cutting both paper and fabric at the same time. Clip the paper templates to the fabric pieces for later reference.

Step 2: Categorizing PiecesArrange the pieces in groups by matching the labelling system.Ensure no pieces are missing. Pieces have a width (short side, joined to make strips) and a length (long side, strips are looped and joined to make the geometry)

TapingTaping ensures the stitching process is more accurate and convenient. Using 5mm double sided tape, run tape along 10mm from the cutting edge. The middle distance of the seam allowance should now be 30mm.

Step 3: Taping part 1Tape the internal strip joint side of the clear PVC pieces.

Step 4: Stitching Pieces into StripsUse a double stitch flat seam with a stitch separation of 10-15mm. The first stitch is run to connect the pieces into strips before second stitch is run to make a double flat seam. After taping, sew pieces into strips by joining the widths of each piece.

Step 5: Taping part 2Apply double sided tape along the length of the strip.Avoid the Clear PVC sections, as you don’t want the tape to be visible.

Step 6: Joining Strips into GeometryJoin strips one after another, while closing off the loops. The geometry is formed gradually as more strips are stitched to the next. Due to the movement of fabric, patches might be required at the loop joint.As more strips are joined the inflatable becomes heavier, it is suggested at least one extra person is required to help feed the fabric through the sewing machine.

Step 7: Fan ConnectionMatch the fan diameter to the opening at the fan end (by Geometry Team). Use Velcro to attach the fabric to the fan, by sewing a strip of Velcro to the inside of fabric opening, and by gluing a strip of Velcro to the fan.

Step 8: EntranceUsing the two 1m diameter wooden rings (provided by The Timber Workshop) overlap the rings, secure the fabric in-between and bolt the rings together.

Step 9: Additional Cable SeamsExterior seam pockets for threading sensor cables through. Cut a 5mm wide white fabric strip to length of seam and hand sew over the existing seam.

90 INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION 91

5.0_INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE: HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, NARRATIVE

STUDIO THEME: INTERACTIVITY

Since the discussions of cybernetics in the 1960s by ones such as Gordan Pask, Cedric Price and Norbert Weiner, there has been a continual interest in an architecture of the non-static; user-influenced spatial conditions. Innovations and development in the built environment such as Coop Himmelblau’s Towers of Sound began to change the perception of “buildings” and what they can do. In the same vein, the interest in mediating interactive systems into architecture was the force driving the interactive design team in the 2011 Performative Architecture Studio.

The initial challenge for the team was to develop a critical understanding of “interactivity” within architectural discourse. This involved research of critical papers and previous works in the field including the ETH Ada project, Diller Scofido + Renfro’s Braincoat project and Mark Shepard’s Tactical Sound Garden. Reading Usman Hague’s ‘Distinguishing Concepts’ AD article our initial understanding of interactivity was challenged. 8 The article differentiates between reactive and interactive systems. Hague describes responsive systems as making direct reactions to input by persons, whereas; interactive systems have affects not only just on the outcomes but also on how these outcomes are computed i.e. the input/output is not predetermined. This new knowledge of interactivity enabled us to begin exploring how such systems could make space more productive, sustainable, social or meaningful. Mark Garcia in his AD article ‘Otherwise engaged’ takes the “interactivity” concept within architecture and explores the relative social costs, benefits and risks. 9 He references as a benchmark, the Braincoat project by Diller Scofidio + Renfro and the ETH Ada project and highlights their use of technology to generate interactive systems. These works and papers helped shape our understanding of architectural interactivity.

Generating a system that is interactive in this regard is a multi-dimensional task. The process incorporates numerous technologies that need to be seamlessly integrated to generate an interactive system. Our process began by familiarising ourselves with the equipment before we began experimenting. Once an understanding of the equipment was established and with the conceptual framework in mind we began to test systems with the potential to develop a level of sustained interactivity within the installation. By combining the possibilities of the hardware systems, interesting effects began to emerge. These effects were individually and collectively considered and designed to create meaningful interactive results.

INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE 93

prototype 1

prototype 2

FINALINTERACTIVE

SYSTEMprototype 3

prototype 4

multiple development

prototypes

base speaker patch

base camera patch

base lighting patch

base sensor patch

multiple

combinations

multiple

iterations

5.1_DOCUMENTATION GUIDE

THE DIAGRAM ABOVE DESCRIBES THE PROCESS IN DOCUMENTATION OF THE INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE CHAPTER.

5.2_DESCRIPTIVE WORKING PROCESS

WORKSHOP SESSIONS Learning software-hardware capabilities.(See Chapter 5.4)Unfamiliar with most of the equipment (speakers, projectors, lights or light sensors), the Interactive Narrative team began an intensive learning phase over the mid-semester non-teaching period. An in-depth review of all the equipment manuals and Internet beginners forums and supervision by Roger Alsop aided in early stages; for example, understanding DMX channels of the lighting equipment. The process yielded base patches (core codes) for each piece of equipment to begin prototyping using Max 5 program.

BASIC PROTOTYPINGExperimenting; making connections between different hardwares.(See Chapter 5. 5)From here, working prototypes were developed by combining multiple base patches. The intention was to understand how particular equipment could be coupled together with triggers and controls that would affect varying outputs. Early prototypes included using the ‘Eobody’ light sensors to control firstly the amplitude of a recording and secondly the rate of playback. Amplitude of sound affecting the brightness values of the lighting output was another. Web cameras were set up and manipulated in a Max 5 patch to act as motion detectors – this was achieved by detecting the average degree of change in RGB values of the pixels.

BASIC TEST SESSIONS Application of prototypes onto early fabricated models.By this stage, a few different sized prototypes were completed by the Fabrication team, which provided the opportunity to test the prototypes at different scales. Limitations of the early prototypes were uncovered through these tests that did not arise earlier due to previously controlled conditions and the interactive codes were improved accordingly.

COMPLEX SYSTEMS & TESTINGManipulating layers of data from and to multiple devices.(See Chapter 5.9) After extensive prototyping and discovering the capabilities of the hardware, the studio decided


FINAL TESTS Simulate interaction of final interactive narrative within a controlled environment.The final geometry was fabricated, enabling penultimate decisions regarding locations of the light sensors, projectors and LED lights. The positioning of this equipment was crucial as the light from the projectors and LED lights had the potential to set off the light sensors resulting in a continuous loop of the a triggered output. To address this, the system was altered in such that if a light sensor was triggered it was then switched off for a period allowing the installation to return to one of the two earlier states. To overcome simultaneous activation of the three states, the Max patch was designed so as one state was activated the other two would be switched off. The system required concise calibration in-situ to run effectively and smoothly; which took hours of revisions to refine.

on having three states (or “moods”) of which to organize and classify the reactive responses of the installation: “Calm”, “Reflective”, and “Agitated”. Within these three states, different degrees of interactive response were employed which used inter-linked prototypes with changing output variables. A “master” patch that contained all the elements required for the seamless integration of the states was slowly written through as many as 25 revised iterations before arriving at the final one. At this point tests between the Interactive Narrative team with the Geometry and Processing teams became largely overlapped. Teams collaborated to develop the ways in which the Processing graphic sketch would respond to the Max 5 outputs from the hardware. This required the use of Maxlink: a platform of external libraries that enable data flow to and from Processing (a Java-based graphic coding programme) and Max 5. Our experimentation began with a colour tracking web-camera system that translated the XY coordinates of the tracked object (from Max 5) into a corresponding location within the graphic code (to Processing). This parallel-coordinate system between the two programmes was the core link within all our corresponding future patches including the final setup.

Simultaneously, we started developing an audioscape for our installation: three sets of generative sound parameters, which could be called for each of the three states.

After tests done on the large half-size prototype, we had to made several technical execution decisions due to limitations we discovered. We decided narrowed down the input equipment to just the cameras and light sensors to reduce the software computing load. The audience of the installation would affect these input variables. These input variables would be used affect outputs: sound, lighting and Processing variables according to the three states/moods.

In order for the light sensors to respond effectively, a strong light source was required to overcome the output lighting conditions. Thus, the Interactive Narrative team commenced working side by side with the Geometry and Fabrication teams to design a lantern, which would become the trigger of the light sensors.

5.3_INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS 5.3.1_SOFTWARE

Cycling 74’s Max 5

Max5 is an application used to connect basic functional blocks together to generate unique systems. It allows for connections and manipulations of multiple inputs to create output streams. Codes written in Max 5 are known as ‘Patches’. These are made up of two main elements. ‘Objects’ and ‘Messages’. These connections are achieved through the joining of objects with patchchords. Objects essentially contain small programs written into them to do specific things. By combining objects, you create interactive and unique software without ever needing to write any code.

96 INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE


5.3.2_HARDWARE

Lighting 2 large LED spot lights 2 small LED spot lights 2 large LED zoom lights 1 DMX USB interface box

Camera 2 firewire webcameras

Speakers 5 external speakers 1 USB audio interface

Sensors 4 light sensors 2 laser cords multiple extension cords 1 sensor USB interface box

2 Projectors

Kinect Camera

1

2 31. TRIPTYCH, UNITED VISUAL ARTISTS, PARIS, 20072. LISTENING POST, MARK HANSEN AND BEN RUBIN, NYC, 20013. THE WOLFSBURG PROJECT, JAMES TURRELL, STUTTGART, 2009

“ PIECING TOGETHER COMPUTED REACTIONS REQUIRES: TWO PARTS KNOWING WHAT YOU WANT, ONE PART PATIENCE, AND ONE PART ACCEPTING WHAT THE COMPUTER CAN DO. ”

THE INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE TEAM

RGB Control_These sliders allow for direct control of the Red, Blue and Green channels of the lighting fixtures.

Initialise Lanbox_Set the port number of the Lanbox connection to initialise control.

5.4_BASE PATCHES

5.4.1_Lanbox Driver PatchThis patch was provided to us in the driver package of the Lanbox. It was used as a base patch to send DMX signals to the lights. Numerous sub-patches have been created to control the lights in different ways taking advantage of the various other hardware systems we explored.

5.4.2_Base Lighting PatchThe base lighting patch was used in a number of prototypes to test various lighting effects that could potentially shape the three moods we were trying to achieve. Using various external pieces of hardware we began to experiment with the ways in which motion/movement, lighting and sound could impact the lighting conditions.



5.4.3_Base Camera Patch

This patch was retrieved from an online resource; to enable the camera capture of 2 separate devices simultaneously.

To allow Max 5 to accept more than one camera input at a time, the first step was to install the dedicated driver by the camera manufacturers.

Without the dedicated driver, Max 5 will still only read one camera at a time, via the default operation system webcam driver.

After the installation, a patch was retrieved from the Max 5 forums; to accept multiple camera devices.

Multiple Devices_These objects allow the patch to retrieve other devices attached to the comput-er that are related to the basic “grab” object.

Display_Camera 2 feed

Basic Camera Grab_This section initializes the camera.

Display_Camera 1 feed

WECAMS


5.4.5_Base Speaker Patch

This basic patch allows the control of audio output within Max 5 to external speaker devices.

Manipulation of the patch will allow control over individual speaker volumes and speaker output rotation.

The speakers required an external program and one additional piece of hardware to connect to Max 5 on the computer.

The hardware: a high speed USB audio interface. Two programmes were provided by the hardware supplier; a driver and an external channel/volume control interface, named “Total Mix”.

5.4.4_Base Sensor Patch

This basic patch allows the use of multiple sensors including light and laser sensors to control other fixtures within the system.

Manipulation of the patch will allow control over individual speaker volume and rate of playback of an input track. When used in conjunction with Processing the sensors can send information to Processing to manipulate the sketch and in particular local variables.

The Eobody was one of the more simple pieces of hardware to use. It is connected to the computer via USB and is immediately recognised by Max 5. It provides an output range of numbers that varies according to the surrounding conditions.

5.4_BASE PATCHES

ABOVE: KINECT & LANBOX BELOW: SPEAKER PATCH TEST


Basic Sensor Activation_The ctlin object allows Max 5 to gain control of the connected sensors. Multiple sensors can be connected through numerous ctlin objects.

Controlling Output_This section scales the input variable numbers to a range that can be used by other hardware.

Volume Sliders_These number sliders allow input into a volume fader sub-patch below.

Speaker Output_Sends data to 4 speakers

Basic Audio Input_This object allows Max 5 to load an existing audio file to use.Can be replaced by a generative sound patch.


Lighting tests on early “egg” inflatable documented the effects of lighting from inside and outside the inflatable. Using multiple colours creates interesting effects in relation to the mood of the inflatable.

The first prototype explored the use of sound (amplitude specifically) as the control of the intensity of different colours of light. Peak amplitude was set to 125 and then scaled between 1 and 255 to correspond to a direct lighting intensity value of the respective RGB channels.

The base lighting patch is used in conjunction with an object called peak amplitude. The ambient noise around the microphone that registers causes changes in the amplitude values. These changes are then scaled and fed into the Lanbox as DMX signals and sent to the lights to vary the intensity.

See demonstration:http://vimeo.com/groups/pas/videos/29943468

COMPUTINGCOMPONENTS

base lighting patch

amplitude inputsub-patch

Max 5 translates an amplitude range of the ambient sounds into a range of num-bers, that becomes the input value for the lighting intensity.

5.5_PROTOTYPE 1.0

LIGHT TESTS


lights

built-in microphone

computer

ambient sounds

equipment

environment condition

increase/decrease in intensity based on values from computer

translates ambient sound amplitude into lighting intensity values

perceives ambient sounds

increase/decrease in intensity based on values from computer

HARDWARECOMPONENTS

5.6_PROTOTYPE 2.0

The second prototype utilized real time webcam capture set up as a motion tracking sensor to alter the RGB output of colours from the lights.

In order to convert the capture of the webcams into motion detection, we had to understand the way in which Max 5 received the input. Max uses matrices which are divided into four layers. Each of these matrix layers corresponds to the RGB channels respectively. This makes it easy to track the average change in colour values which can be used as a form of motion tracking.

base camera patch

base lighting patch

By connecting elements from the base sensor patch to the base speaker patch, values were sent from the former to control the latter.

COMPUTINGCOMPONENTS

LIGHT TESTS

lights increase/decrease in intensity based on values from computer

translates ambient sound amplitude into lighting intensity values

detects movement through variation in colourwebcamera

computer

movement increase/decrease in intensity based on values from computer

equipment


HARDWARECOMPONENTS


5.7_PROTOTYPE 3.0

DESCRIPTIONProximity to speakers affect audio volume/track rate. Person who is backlit walks toward speakers. He casts shadows towards speakers.

The closer the person gets to the speaker, the more defined/darker his shadow is on the speaker. The light/darkness intensity of his shadow affect values perceived by the sensors taped on top of the speaker.

These sensor values affect the audio volume & track rate.

OBJECTIVETo experiment with spatial mapping through the audioscape - akin to how bats “see” with echoes; our hearing can give us cues to the characteristics of a space.

See demonstration:http://vimeo.com/29944020

base sensor patch

base speaker patch

By connecting elements from the base sensor patch to the base speaker patch, values were sent from the former to control the latter.

COMPUTINGCOMPONENTS


SENSOR ON SPEAKER


computer

equipment

input number range from sensor cableoutput increase/decrease volume and track rate

translates sensor data into number range

taped above speakerperceives immediate lighting conditions

sensor cable

sensor box

lighting conditionsshadows cast by person walking towards the speaker affect ambient luminance perceived by sensor cable

speakers emits sound based on output values from computer


HARDWARECOMPONENTS

ROGER ALSOP WITH THE INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE TEAM


5.8_PROTOTYPE 4.0

DESCRIPTIONA red object is tracked by a camera. Its x- and y-coordinates from Max 5 are fed through a live link to Processing, which in turn draws a red ball in the same coordinates within the Processing window.

OBJECTIVETo establish the most basic connection between Processing and Max 5.

Processing is a graphical programming platform that is used in the final installation. A connection is necessary to provide the graphics with input from our perceptive hardware via Max 5.

See demonstration:http://vimeo.com/29944020


Preliminary agent sketchPROCESSING

Colour tracker patchMAX 5

The maxlink plug-in allowed for Processing and Max 5 to communicate. This made it possible to transfer data to and from the respective programs.

MAXLINK OBJECT MAXLINK LIBRARYMAXLINK

Using Maxlink, we were able to send real time location coordinates from a colour tracking patch in max to a preliminary processing sketch. A localised behaviour around this location was triggered to create a visual link with the position of the object being tracked. This is clearly displayed in the screen capture below.

110 INTRODUCTION

5.9_INTERACTIVE SYSTEM FOR THE PERFORMANCE

degree of activity(moving people)

[trigger a]people walking through the entrance will affect this

HARDWARECOMPONENTS

Max 5 patcher groups the reactive changes on the environment (lights, projections, sound) into 3 “moods”: calm, reflective and agitated.

Two triggers (a & b) will change the default “mood” - calm, into either reflective or agitated.

tracks movement

lightsensor 1

lightsensor 2

lightsensor 3

lightsensor 4

inside the inflatable

translates data from individual cables into number range

[trigger b]person walking with the lantern will affect this variable

degree of luminance, how bright/dark at a local radius around individual cables

perceives localised lighting changesfrom 4 different areas inside the inflatable

computer

camera

sensor box

localised changing lighting conditions(moving lantern)

INTRODUCTION 111

inside the inflatable

equipment


atmospheric mood 1CALM

(default)

atmospheric mood 2 REFLECTIVE

(trigger a)

atmospheric mood 3AGITATED(trigger b)

CALM(default - no triggers)

speaker output low pitch, low volume, hypnotic soundsprojector outputagent behaviour: still/no movement or low velocitylighting output no lighting/dark

REFLECTIVE(trigger a)

speaker output low pitch, medium volume, consistentprojector outputagent behaviour: flocking, medium velocitylighting output greens and blues, slow change

AGITATED(trigger b)

speaker output low/medium pitch, medium/high volume, fluctuatingprojector outputagent behaviour: noisy, erratic, high velocity, localised to particular triggered sensor cablelighting output reds, oranges, strobe lighting

speakers

projector

lighting equipment

112 CHAPTER TITLE

# Page Title

CHAPTER TITLE 113

6.0_COMPLEX BEHAVIOURS: AGENT BASED SYSTEMS

114 CHAPTER TITLE

# Page Title

PROGRAMMINGDesigning through digital technologies has become ubiquitous in contemporary architecture however computer programming illiteracy still prevails. If architects and designers defer the writing of code to software providers some creative autonomy is inevi-tably lost. Whilst this is true of all mediums of de-sign, programming allows us to exercise more fully our creative control. In The Alphabet and the Algo-rithm, Mario Carpo argues that those who choose to merely manipulate parameters within a system are “only secondary authors – end users and not designers”. 10 Ingeborg M. Rocker is another who has emphasised this distinction. For her “architec-ture emerges as a trace of algorithmic operations”.11 By experimenting with the algorithmic potential of code we have aimed to explore new digital aesthet-ics – both through planned design and the accidental discoveries of the neophyte.

PROCESSINGMost of the code-based images produced for this project and those displayed in the following pages used the programming language and development environment Processing. Processing is a Java based programming tool which allows designers to more easily produce graphic results than is the case with more sophisticated programming environments.

STUDIO THEME : GENERATIVE CAPABILITIES OF COMPUTERS

“ THEY ARE COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS THAT DISPLAY EMER-GENT BEHAVIOUR. IN THESES SYSTEMS, AGENTS RESIDING ON ONE SCALE START PRODUCING BEHAVIOUR THAT LIES ONE SCALE ABOVE THEM: ANTS CREATE COLONIES, URBANITES CREATE NEIGHBOURHOODS; SIMPLE PATTERN-RECOGNITION SOFTWARE LEARNS HOW TO RECOMMEND NEW BOOKS.”

S. JOHNSON 12

EMERGENCEEmergence describes the way that multiple, simple, local rules can lead to complex global behavioural patterns. It has been used to describe systems of organisation such as ant colonies, bird flocks and human consciousness. The processes used by computers show distinct theoretical parallels. In 1986 Craig Reynolds developed the Boids algo-rithm that produced flocking behaviour of agents in a digital space, simulating the organic behaviour of birds. For the Performative Architecture Studio exhibition students worked within the scope of digital emergence yet sought to avoid any obvious allu-sions to the organic. Instead, the flocking behaviour becomes a springboard for new formal and spatial conceptions. Reynolds states that “a significant property of life-like behaviour is unpredictability over moderate time scales”. 13 These aleatory outcomes, within a controlled system, lead to continually non-repeating compositions that can entrance the viewer. The design as such becomes less a single outcome than a multitude of potentialities.

INTERACTIVITYIt could be argued that all architectural spaces are interactive to some extent: Transforming themselves in response to atmospheric conditions while also echoing the movements of its inhabitants through sound and shadow. If this is true then the interactive qualities of Performative Architecture’s projected images aim only to extend such experiences. Main-taining the unpredictability of any response to move-ment yet exaggerating its effect. Through the use of motion and light sensors, visitors to the exhibition space prompt changes to the Processing generated moving image – although it is left inexplicit as to how such changes are specifically triggered. The images explode and retract, flock and disperse. These inter-active disruptions aim to not only provoke surprise in the viewer but also direct there attention to the poetic motions of the projected images.

CHAPTER TITLE 117

118 COMPLEX BEHAVIOURS

6.1_PARAMETERISATION AND INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS

The graphical compositions generated by the Pro-cessing ‘sketches’ evolved through a manipulation of variables within the programming script. Embedding parameters within the algorithms allowed the visual outcomes to be tailored to the required atmospheric value. 14 As there were no strictly functional impera-tives driving the parameter settings, the rationale for certain values was determined by a more intuitive response to the sketch’s emotive qualities. In other words, parametric adjustment sought to explore the evocative qualities of differing digital ornamenta-tion. Re-parameterisation also prompted new and unexpected forms that could continually redefine the direction of the project.

ALIGN AVOID FOLLOW DENSITY

COMPLEX BEHAVIOURS 119

SPEED NOISE ADJACENT CONNECT

AGENT PROJECTION TEST

AGENT PROJECTION TEST

6.2_PROJECTION AND SKETCH WRAPPING

The transition from computer screen display to projection upon a three-dimensional form gener-ates new and unforeseen results. At points of severe foreshortening the projection stretches across the fabric like a spectral iridescence. At other points the image arrives through patches of transparent mate-rial to blur against the inner wall of the inflatable. Under certain states the agents crawl across the inflatable like raindrops constrained to the curvature of the geometry. Some interaction becomes overt while some dissipates. The projection’s intersection with space, light and sound dislodges the logic of the computer code from its algorithmic certainties. It spills out into a disorderly reality.

OVER PAGE: 3D SKETCH WRAPPING ON 1:1 SCALE MODEL


3D SKETCH WRAPPING ON PROTOYPE 1.0

ComPleX behAviours 121


3D SKETCH WRAPPING PROJECTION TESTS ON 1:1 SCALE MODEL


6.3_FINAL COMPOSITION

Three moods or atmospheric values were defined to provide a framework upon which the digitised images could be developed. Nominally these were: Calm, Reflective, and Agitated. There is of course no guarantee that a participant’s reading of the image would align with the formal definition of each term. Also, despite the connotations inherent in such terms there was no desire was an overtly organic re-sult. The architecture can be considered as evolving, almost sentient yet it not the simulacrum of another living thing. The primary ambition was to define and redefine a space through the qualitative changes in the digital ornament.

The distinction between each state is achieved through the alterations in movement and flow, though also through spatial arrangement and the interactions between local agents. In effect the com-position is an exploration of the spatial concept of field. That is, a configuration of entities whereby the “overall shape and extent are highly fluid and less important than the internal relationships of parts, which determine the behaviour of the field.” 15


_CALMThe agents (individual moving objects), were set to a randomly low speed and a high avoidance parameter. They form an almost grid-like pattern of points, occasionally scattering into crooked paths that appear to flicker from a distance.


_REFLECTIVEInitially flocking in undulating movements across the inflatable, the agents slowly blanket the fabric in a more dispersed field. This state departs from the relative static of the Calm mode, yet its steady gradations demonstrate a passive visual display.


_AGITATEDStreams of agents race across the surface of the inflatable exploding in burst of energy at regular intervals. This state, to-gether with the accompanying sound and light, activates a rapid mood shift defined by a heightened intensity.


6.4_LOCALISED INTERACTION

While the projected images alternate between three global states, local zones of contrasting agent behaviour can also be triggered by partici-pants through the activation of light sensors. At these localised zones, attraction points are estab-lished that draw agents toward them and subse-quently alter the parameters of such agents. The endeavour here is provide an interactive capability based on the propinquity of the participant. The conflicting node of activity also provides points of contrast across the inflatable for the participant to explore and observe.

7.0_DOCUMENTATION: RECORDING THE TEMPORAL

134 CHAPTER TITLE

# Page TitleSTUDIO THEME : DOCUMENTATION AND REPRESENTATION

“ PROCESSES ARE FAR MORE INTERESTING THAN IDEAS. IDEAS ARE LINKED TO EXISTING CODES, OPERATING CRITICALLY OR IN ALIGNMENT WITH PRE-EXISTING SYSTEMS OF IDEAS. A PROCESS IS THE GENERATION OF A MICRO-HISTORY OF A PROJECT, A KIND OF SPECIFIC NARRATIVE WHERE THE ENTITY OF THE PROJECT FORMS A SEQUENCE. IF GEOLOGICAL, BIOLOGICAL OR HUMAN HISTORY, FOR INSTANCE, HAVE SOMETHING TO TEACH US IS THAT THE PROCESSES OF TEMPORAL FORMATION PRO-DUCE ORGANISATIONS OF A FAR HIGHER COMPLEXITY AND SOPHISTICATION THAN INSTANTANEOUS IDEAS. THIS SEQUENTIAL, INTEGRATIVE ADDITION PRODUCES MORE AMBIGUOUS EFFECTS, MORE CAPABLE OF RESONATING ON DIFFERENT LEVELS THAN STRAIGHTFORWARD IDEOLOGICAL STATE-MENTS, METAPHORS, ALLEGORIES OR REPRODUCTIONS. ”

A. ZAERA-POLO 16

The idea of processes being more interesting than ideas is related to our studio in the relationship to narrative we studied throughout the semester, our design ap-proach through making and the importance that was placed on documenting our work. The documentation team was responsible for documenting key events and artefacts throughout the semester. In doing this each team was forced to reflect and respond to each key moment and think about what this meant in the larger context of the group outcome.

Throughout the semester processes generated a number of ideas that were not implemented in the final design, however by documenting the process it does not make them less significant than the final installation, it makes the project richer as an outcome of a series of experiments, research and tests.

DOCUMENTATION 135

The Documentation Team was a daily presence throughout the Group Work, capturing processes and any key moments.

A photographical record of the studio’s progress was documented through a Tumblr page. (See http://pas2011.tumblr.com/ )

Videos of key events and developments, as well as Timelapse videos, and Videos documenting The Performance can be found on out Vimeo page. (See http://vimeo.com/groups/pas )

An online version of The Documentation Team’s poster for The Performance can be found on ISSUU (See http://issuu.com/ertf345345/docs/poster )

The Documentation Team was also responsible for the editing and design of the group section of this publication. An online version can be found on IS-SUU.

7.1 _LINKS

136 CHAPTER TITLE

# Page Title

The Open Stage ScheduleDay : MondayDate : 31/10/11Start : 10:00Finish : 15:00Activity : technical rehearsalComment : bring in equipment, prepare electric connections, plan camera suspension

Day : TuesdayDate : 1/11/11Start : 10:00Finish : 17:00Activity : bump inComment : Install the structure, projectors, cameras, lights (our LED lights)

Day : WednesdayDate : 2/11/11Start : 10:00Finish : 19:00Activity : performance and bump outComment : tune the setup, open doors: 19.00-20.00, bump out

DOCUMENTATION 137

7.2_PERFORMANCE REHEARSALS

Two official rehearsal days were booked at The Open Stage The-atre. These were crucial for final calibrating.

REHEARSAL DAY INFLATION AND TESTS AT THE OPEN STAGE THEATRE

138 CHAPTER TITLE

# Page Title

CHAPTER TITLE 139

8.0 _THE PERFORMANCE: LIGHTS, CAMERA, AGENTS

140 THE PERFORMANCE

The group installation was developed to encompass the themes of the studio and exemplify the most interesting and intriguing outcomes we explored in the initial studio tasks. The outcome was aimed to be a well-presented experiment of this exploration, within a studio context and during the short time frame of 6 weeks. Using our col-lective understanding of Performative Architecture we developed an installation that questions the passive-ac-tive role of the user or viewer, varying levels of interaction and the experience of discovery. We wanted to explore the ability of a multi layered abstract system to trigger reflection, emotion and surprise.

The forest was used as a metaphorical starting point for a complex multi layered system. Due to the complexity of creating such a system, strategies describing three narratives or moods were devised to add structure to the illustrative conceptual description [See Chapter 3.0). Teams developed and defined these moods in a similar ap-proach as you would to setting a scene. The scenes were not intended to follow one after the other sequentially, instead they were aimed to be interchangeable and occur in response to varying interaction from the audience. By structuring the narrative into three moods, we could then identify and analyse how successful the audience interaction were for each of these three moods and then record these observations.

SCENES:Scene 1: Calm is the default state of the installation, no triggers, Sounds: low pitch, low volume, hypnotic sounds.Agents: still/ no movement or low velocity.Lighting: no lighting/ dark.

Scene 2:Reflective is triggered by the change in movement as people enter the Open Stage Theatre, captured by a web-cam.Sounds: low pitch, medium volume, consistent.Agent Behaviour: flocking, medium velocity.Lighting: greens and blues, slow change, Low interaction is required, and the participant may not be aware of the interaction.

Scene 3: Agitated is triggered by the lantern being placed in proximity to one of the four sensors by the participant. This state cannot be over-ridden for 30 seconds.Sounds: low/medium pitch, medium/high volume, fluctuates.Agent Behaviour: noisy, erratic, high velocity, localised to particular triggered sensor.Lighting: reds, oranges, strobe lighting.Direct interaction required, level of interactivity is dependent on instructions given.

Peformative Architecture Studio 2011: The PerformanceLocation: The Open Stage TheatreDate: 2nd NovemberTime: 1pm- 7pm

TREATMENT DOCUMENT ‘THE FOREST’

THE PERFORMANCE 141

CHARACTERS:Computer: Controls all systems of the installation. The computer is hidden behind a curtain.

Inflatable Geometry:A crescent shaped structure with a convex and concave side. With a patterned skin that varies the opacity of the inflatable from the entry to the fan connection. Orientated within the Open Stage to have its convex side to the entry, so as to reveal its concave form, the opening and air source as you walk around the space. As people enter it deflates, depending on your speed of entry quite significantly. It fully inflates within 5-10 minutes.

Fan:The constant flow of air from the fan inflates the geometry, giving the geometry its shape and volume. The fan was raised off the ground on boxes to allow the natural curve of the geometry to continue.

The Lantern:Fabricated from white Perspex, white LED lights, with concealed batteries, and plastic string handle.It is placed inside the inflatable. When placed close enough to the sensors the light from the lantern triggers the excited state.

Sensors:Threaded through a layer of material over 4 exterior seams of the inflatable, Positioned to look inwards by using a custom piece of clear Perspex that holds the sensor in place.The light sensors were calibrated to trigger the excited state after receiving the correct light values from the lantern.

Webcam:Placed at the entry in a low position, below eye level. The camera captures changes in movement and triggers the reflective state.

Cables:Cables were taped down for safety, thus covered with black gaffa tape. All cables run back to the computer hidden behind a curtain. Only the four sensor cables run up the exterior of the inflatable geometry. These were threaded through a layer of material, so as to not interrupt the projections.

Projectors:Orientated to cover most of the convex side of the inflatable. Positioned at the very perimeter of the space, for as much projection coverage as possible.The light beams from the projector are visible as you walk around the space; this is enhanced when smoke is expelled from the smoke machine. People can interrupt the projection and cast shadows when walking across the path of the projection. The projection is also broken up through the patterning of the geometry’s skin.

Agents:Projected onto the skin of the convex side of the inflatable geometry. Agents behaviour changes for each mood or scene.

Speakers:Placed at the perimeter of the space. A different audioscape is produced for each mood or scene.

Lights:Placed at the perimeter of the space.Directed towards the edges of the projections to blur and hide the edges. Vary according the mood or scene. The light is broken up through the patterning of the geometry’s skin.

154 THE PERFORMANCE

NOTES

3.0 GEOMETRY1. Topham, Sean, Blow-up: Inflatable Art, Architecture and Design (Munich; London: Prestel, 2002)2. Whiteley Nigel, Reyner Banham: Historian of the Immediate Future (Cambridge;London: The MIT Press, 2002), 219

4.0 FABRICATION3. Sheil, Bob, Introduction, Architectural Design Vol. 75: 7 (2005)4 Sheil, Bob, Introduction, Architectural Design, Vol, 75: 5±12 (2005)5. Ant Farm, Inflatocookbook (1973)6. Sheil, Bob, Introduction. Architectural Design, 75: 12 (2005)7. Giant Inflatables website, http://www.giantinflatables.com.au/

5.0 INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE8.Haque, Usman, Distinguishing Concepts: Lexicons of Interactive Art and Architecture, Architectural Design, Vol 77: 24±31(2007)9.Garcia, Mark , Otherwise Engaged: New Projects in Interactive Design, Architectural Design, Vol 77: 44±53 (2007)

6.0 COMPLEX BEHAVIOURS10. Mario Carpo, The Alphabet and the Algorithm, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011), 12611. Ingeborg M. Rocker, When Code Matters, Architectural Design, Vol. 76: 16 ± 25.12. Johnson, Steven, Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities and software, (New York; Touch-stone, 2001), 18 13. Boids website, http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/14. Schumacher, Patrik, Parametric Patterns, Architectural Design Vol 79: 6 (2009)15. Allen Stan, ‘Field Conditions’, Points and Lines: Diagrams and Projects for the City (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999)

7.0 DOCUMENTATION16 Zaera-Polo, Alejandro, ‘Rollercoaster Construction’ , Verb Processing Architecture Boogazine 2, (Barcelona: ACTAR, 2001), 15

IMAGES Cover Image by Stansislav Roudavski.Images on pages 102-107 & 112- 115 by Stanislav Roudavski.Image on pages 8-9 & 110-111 by Firadaus Khazis. All other images by Kirilly Barnett and Nam Viet Hoang of The Documentation Team.

Performative Architecture Studio 2011: The Book

Documents

Transcript of Performative Architecture Studio 2011: The Book