My MArch1 work was created in the context of Keith Andrews’ Abstract Machine studio. This studio focused on a prototypical design process, with Grasshopper parametric software at its core. Physical prototyping was also emphasised, using analogue methods as well as ‘file-to-fabrication’ digital processes, leading to a great expansion of my virtual and physical architectural toolkit (fig.4-6).
Figs.4-6 – Examples of some of my MArch1 physical prototyping from the DS2 Theoria component
The Theoria project aimed to equip us with knowledge of the principles and behaviour of different material systems by having us engage with them directly and physically. The model on the left is exploring reciprocal structures the one on the left is looking at catenaries. The central model is the synthesis of investigations into catenaries and origami structures, and it used Grasshopper for form-finding and then laser cutting for the cut patterns before being laboriously folded and assembled by hand.
As a studio, there was also direct engagement with industry, visiting the Greatham Creek Seal Hide, first during fabrication at SH Structures’ factory (fig.7) and later when it was installed on site (fig.8).
Figs.7-8 – Greatham Creek Seal Hide during fabrication and completed on site
This project had grown out of the work of students and tutors within Abstract Machine the previous year. We visited it during fabrication SH Structures’ factory in Sherburn in Elmet and then later when it was installed on site. This helped with my understanding of how a full-size ‘file-to-fabrication’ methodology can be put into practice.
My MArch2 thesis project has been developed within Nick Tyson’s Field Works studio. This studio also focuses on prototypical approaches and places emphasis on direct engagement with materiality and fabrication techniques; a natural follow-on from Abstract Machines.
Physical modelling and testing within the workshop environment is seen as a vital and equal counterpart to drawing and computer work in studio. This approach is valued as a learning and working design process tool, rather than simply a means of representing already full resolved ideas; a prototypical approach. This tandem virtual and physical approach is also key to another facet of the studio; switching between the scales of urban infrastructure at one extreme and material detail and the human at the other.
Field Works uses these methods “to explore a contemporary material culture, taking particular interesting in circular yet open-ended material flows.” Projects are firmly set in the context of the ever-depleting set of primary resources available to us, which we have a responsibility to use shrewdly and sparingly. As such, the studio position advocates the sustainable material flow strategies of reprocessing waste and found remnants, and also growing of construction materials on site.
Field Works sits in the context of a collection of architecture practices and studios which place emphasis on prototyping and engaging with materiality.
One notable example is Shin Egashira and his Architectural Association studio Into the Interior (figs.9-11). This studio takes a similar approach of oscillating between the realms and scales of ‘field research’ and ‘material study’, and even moves beyond full size to explore materiality at reversal scales of 20:1 and 100:1.
Fig.9 – flowchart diagram of Shin Egashira’s Into the Interior module at the AA
This demonstrates a similar approach to Field Works of jumping between the large urban and infrastructural scales of ‘field research’ and ‘contextual study’ to a focus on full-size and larger in ‘material study’.
Figs.10-11 – ‘Cat Machine’ model and associated drawing, by Shin Egashira
Shin Egashira’s own work is very focused on a hybrid methodology of physical making and detail drawing, as demonstrated in these images of ‘Cat Machine’, first exhibited at his Objects Viewed from the Erased City exhibition.
Another is Bob Sheil, director of the Bartlett School of Architecture and co-founder of the Fabricate conferences. Sheil’s research and teaching is underpinned by his approach of “[undertaking] experiments in the production of architecture where questions are developed through integrated acts of design, making and writing” and “physical and tactile engagement with the production of design.”
The infrastructural angle of the studio also relates to some and landscape architecture and urbanism approaches. James Corner’s position of focusing “on process rather than style” and “indeterminacy, open-endedness, inter-mixing, and cross-disciplinarity” is highly relevant. Another key reference is Stan Allen and his essay Infrastructural Urbanism, its six core propositions providing important contextualisation for Field Works’ infrastructural approach.
コメント