Critical Analysis Final

‘MuscleBody’ by Kas Oosterhuis, implements real time computing through applications, which operate to an input-output latency of seconds, enabling response to stimuli within milli- or microseconds. The project also utilises programmable interactive architecture engaging in future-oriented research to interact between players and object. It responds to specific requests, reconfiguring itself in real-time based on the premise that, interaction can take place only between two active parts, where one active part is the user and the other one is the building. With this technology, MuscleBody is able to alter its shape, degrees of transparency and the sound that it emits in real time via a computer programs calculations which sends corresponding instructions to the structure. Ultimately, MuscleBody is a dynamic hypersurface.

For the project to be dynamic, it must rely on responsive technologies and programming. For the project to exhibit real time behaviour, various motion and sound sensors must be implemented, code programmed and human interactivity required to create the dynamics of this hypersurface. The project itself is literally a hypersurface; Oosterhuis was so heavily involved with hypersurfaces and real time behaviours he created and directs a research group called ‘Hyperbody’, who introduce interactivity in the process of design as well as during the use and maintenance of buildings. A similar project of Oosterhuis’ is the Saltwater Pavilion; it too has real time behaviours, responding to peoples movements via audio, lighting effects and dynamic movement. Not only does the project respond to people within the structure, it responds to outside weather conditions, with its colour and dimming sequences being controlled by data from a maritime board unit.

Real time behaviour implies an additional computational concept; motion kinematics and dynamics, which are motion-based modelling technqieus, such as forward and inverse kinematics and dynamics. Generating design in such environments offers the possibility to simulate the movement of people in order to develop architectural devices responding to this movement.

WK 11 Readings

The “Editorial – Open Source Architecture” in Domus 948 discusses the emerging procedures for design, construction and operations of buildings through open source architecture. This new procedure is made possible through a collaboration of amateurs and experts working together. “…producing recipes for everyday buildings – is another form of early lo-fi open-source culture, optimising technologies for building.”¹

This way of working eliminates the hierarchy of client architect occupant, giving everyone an equal share. This method is praised in the editorial, however, it seems illogical to allow an expert in the field so be ‘de-ranked’ and placed with those who know little to nothing about the project in the long run. However, open source architecture allows for mass customisation as well as personalisation, replacing the standardisation of housing and other structures in architecture. Buildings are able to be modified accordingly to each individual’s needs, creating different and unique buildings from the same base plan. Essentially, enabling sharing and collaboration in designing kinetic or smart environments that tightly integrate software, hardware and mechanisms.

New economic models open up new modes of project initiation and development via programs such as “Kickstarter” and “Sponsume”, “destabilising the traditionally feudal hierarchy of client/architect/occupant.”² Although open source allows people to work together, standards are vital to a smooth operation and collaboration. This addresses issues of hardware compatibility between the interface and those designing across the network.

These standards can become a negative factor, restricting designers and others from participating due to lack on inadequate software and/or hardware. By working in such a dense group, design creativity can be diluted when such numbers are involved which is why I don’t see open source being successful in large projects.

1.       “Editorial – Open Source Architecutre” in Domus 948, June 2011, p.3

2.       “Editorial – Open Source Architecutre” in Domus 948, June 2011, p.3

WK 10 Readings

Patrik Schumachers article “Parametric Patterns” discusses the use of the ornament, decoration and spatial distribution to create an atmosphere. “The human body was perhaps the first surface to receive designed patterns. Architectural patterns thus have a broad and deep lineage, and one should not expect them to have any well-defined, unitary function.”¹ He relates the use of ornament and decoration to purposefulness of any building, considered from three key principals: purposefulness of spatial distribution, purposefulness of construction & purposefulness of ornament or decoration.

With what has been said so far, he is distinguishing buildings and structures by their decoration and ornament use, defying how the purpose of the building should relate to the ornament and decoration used. E.g. Grand decorations and structures would be used in a theatrical hall but would not be found on a war memorial; instead decoration would create an atmosphere.

Parametric patterns need to go beyond merely visual effects, they are to create atmospheres through artistic expression, reflect not only the nature of the building but become a functional part of the building itself.

John Frazers article “The Architectural Relevance of Cyberspace” highlights the effect of cyberspace rising in architecture. He sees the computer as a ‘evolutionary accelerant’ that is pushing architecture into a new realm where architects are able to explores theories and ideas with the ability to model environmental scenarios. He suggest that “the symbolic function of the new architecture is to make the invisible visible, not by monumentalisation and formation expression… but as an essential part of their function.”³

1.       R & R Oxman, ‘Parametric Patterns‘ in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, 2009, p.30

2.       R & R Oxman, ‘Parametric Patterns‘ in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, 2009, p.32

3.       M Carpo, ‘The Architectural Relevance of Cyberspace’ in The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2010, Wiley, New York, 2012, p.52

WK 9 Readings

Mario Carpos “The Digital Turn in Architecture” defines the term versioning, its effect on the upcoming architectural world as well as how we are proceeding with digital fabrication. The contributing authors state ‘versioning’ in diverse ways (with the “architectural definition of the term is to this day unclear”¹). It is a term, used to describe the way architects are using digital technologies across disciplines to broaden its effect. It may also be used to describe the shift in the way architects and designers are using technology to expand.

“As technology collapses traditional hierarchies, and promotes the transgression of disciplines, the barriers between architect and builder are being eroded.”² ‘Eroding the Barriers’ communicates digital fabrication machines and techniques, such as CNC milling, laser cutting and 3D printing, that are evolving the traditional perspective and thoughts, allowing for creative experimentation.

These technologies implement a developer-contractor knowledge base as well as inputs of trades in the design process. This early involvement of all parties thus allows for experimental design at a collaborative level, allowing for a “higher level of design to exist without increasing the cost of construction.”³

Frederic Migayrous, ‘The Order of the Non-Standard’ communicates a sense of ‘evolution’ or “mutation” within the architectural conception and production, which has been established by computational design methods and tools. His idea is essentially a method to challenge ‘standard’ architecture, in order to call for a ‘new normal or standard’ of non-standard architecture. 

1.       M Carpo, ‘Versioning’ in The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2010, Wiley, New York, 2012, p.131

2.       M Carpo, ‘Eroding the Barriers’ in The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2010, Wiley, New York, 2012, p.136

3.       M Carpo, ‘Eroding the Barriers’ in The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2010, Wiley, New York, 2012, p.145

Draft - Critical Analysis 300 Words

The chosen project is ‘MuscleBody’ by Kas Oosterhuis. The MuscleBody project implements real time computing through applications, which operate to an input-output latency of seconds, enabling response to stimuli within milli- or microseconds. The project also utilises programmable interactive architecture engaging in future-oriented research to interact between players and object. It responds to specific requests, reconfiguring itself in real-time based on the premise that interaction can take place only between two active parts, where one active part is the user and the other one is the building. With this technology, MuscleBody is able to alter its shape, degrees of transparency and the sound that it emits in real time via a computer programs calculations which sends corresponding instructions to the structure. Ultimately, MuscleBody is a dynamic hypersurface.

For the project to be dynamic, it must rely on technologies and programming. This can not only prove to be expensive but difficult in regards to implementation and aesthetics. Each component needs to be placed precisely for the movement in the project, for example, MuscleBody uses 26 festo muscles to contract and expand which are then concealed in the spiralling structure. The skin is composed of Lycra, allowing for a stretchable surface, meaning material choices are limited. Methods of concealing these technologies so that they don’t become eye sores may be challenging as they not only have to be accessible if something were to be replaced but must be aesthetically pleasing. For the project to exhibit real time behaviour, various motion and sound sensors must be implemented, code programmed and human interactivity to create the dynamics of this hypersurface. Lights and speakers add to the real time behaviour of MuscleBody, playing corresponding samples and displaying different colours in response to the behaviour of the ‘players’ within the project. 

WK 8 Readings

Antoine Picons “The Surface as Architecture” highlights key points relating to the changing identity of surfaces, their evolution and what they are becoming. “The most tangible part of any object, surface is also associated to visual and tactile sensations of pleasure and pain”¹ The growing importance of sensation is related how we perceive the surface, which has now become an aesthetic to the structure thanks to our digital technologies. We are able to perceive what was once impossible and not only understand but recreate the ornamental within the structure itself.

Surfaces have begun to challenge the traditional mode of presence in architecture, as well as some of the fundamental structures that have characterized the discipline. Hypersurface has done just this, it has introduced new elements and aspects into the surface, choosing to interact and involve the outside world to morph itself and alter into a new structure. The distinction between exterior and interior has been altered as surfaces do not define space by closing it, rather, they generate it as layers, allowing for infinite possibilities.

Stephen Perrellas “Topological Architecture and the Ambiguous Sign” discusses the work of Object (Cache, Beauce and Hammoudi) and how they utilise and develop techniques and software to aid the evolution of architecture through computer programming, reworking “the fundamental geometry of architecture: substituting the square, circle and triangle, with the frame, vector and inflection…”² With script generated models, production and complex geometries have become readily accessible offering vast flexibility in design. Essentially, it is ‘exact-modelling’ software that not only allows fluid forms but radical image-forms such as hypersurfaces.