2013.08.17 13:08
from: tammuz x
Open ended stacking of close ended wholes + balanced symbiosis of differed imbalances = the annulling of integrated paradoxes (formal+structural)?
| |
2013.08.17 14:31
from: Quondam
I wish I could say, "Yes, that's exactly what the client asked for." ... because that would be funny and quite the client. Otherwise...
If I'm reading you correctly, you see the concept voided by the product(?). Can you explain what it is exactly that is doing the annulling?
To be honest, the product was not actually created with the above concept (image) directly in the fore of my mind. Seeing the presentationzen image this morning quickly reminded me of what I was doing a month ago, and then said to myself, "Aha, there's the connection!"
What impressed me about the stacked distorted 'cubes' (as tall as the quondam World Trade Center towers) was their distinct look of instability when seen from street level. An visual instability, even though the 'cubes' are stacked flattly atop each other, created by the various cantings of the various 'cube' sides.
It's all just (learning from) virtual (museum) play...
| |
2013.08.17 18:49
from: tammuz x
Quondam, i should have said ( as i nearly did the first time but then the connection got cut off and I rewrote/rewrought quite inaccurately):
First Paradox: Open ended stacking of close ended variegatedly-similar wholes + Second Paradox: balanced symbiosis of differed imbalances = No Paradox: the annulling of integrated paradoxes (formal+structural)?
the first paradox would be in the assembled form of the nearly-same units, varegations of an ideal/model (or captured instances of the ideal/model in its several stages of self making) assembled together ...therefore formal difference and distortion-derivation.
the second paradox would be in in the structural or dispositional displacements of units away from the ideal axis passing through the center of each. ...therefore structural/locational difference and displacement.
looking at the views of the stacked units, bringing those two paradoxes together in this case, i am now not really struck by the formal corruption nor by the structural one. they left quite a contained inertia in each other's (cocurrent) wake. maybe- another way of looking at it - the units become too similar (in the contex of second paradox) and the displacement of boxesbecomes insufficient (in the context of the first paradox).
it is an impression i had, thats why i ended it with a question mark maybe i'm looking at it in a different way. i can see that from below it might have an impact...but again, the opposite example...would it have been more effective if, for instance, the units are far closer to the ideal model and to each other - no, even , if they are exactly the same- with displacement in stacking position?
| |
2013.08.18 11:17
from: Quondam
tammuz x, who knows how this design might develop. Right now it's the product of about an hour's worth of design (play), and still the most unlikely of buildings, if not plain impossible. I might change the scale (x,y,z) completely and develop the design as a 10 or 15 storey building--a Pradada HQ or something (telling the client it's a stack of fancy hat boxes). Just keepin' it virtual.
Now I'm thinking of starting a whole new set of buildings with the distorted 'cubes' also rotated but stacked side-by-side.
| |
2013.08.18 16:28
from: tammuz x
best of luck Quondam. i don't know specifically why but i'm reminded of the Hejduk stacking in the Wall House 2 although he provides, against the stack of similar diferently displaced volumes a solid background reference (the long lateral wall).
|
