Thesis Proposal

To frame PROJECTiONE’s [n. proj-ekt wuhn] position in the fields of digital design and fabrication we are examining our projects relative to current theories and the critical positions of digital designers and fabricators. We have followed trends in digital theory and executed a series of interviews in New York City to understand what current leaders consider to be relevant to their practice.

We find design potential in the areas of overlap and creative use of analog and digital design and fabrication methods. PROJECTiONE was created within this framework. New understandings of design and fabrication tools, through iterative use, reveal potential in materials and processes providing innovative solutions to design problems and expressions of craft. PROJECTiONE resides in the space between digital and analog.

Over the past two years we have collaborated on a variety of projects, from exhibition installations to reactive architecture. Our work has been displayed in various print, web, and built forms, all remaining within an academic setting. This collaborative history was based on a shared love for internal dialogue and critique parallel to making and experimentation, driving each of our projects. PROJECTiONE is our collective thesis. We have chosen to examine our similarities and past methods of collaboration in order to reposition ourselves within the design and fabrication communities this year and into practice.

“It is a collective which exhibits emergent behavioral patterns that are unpredictable by examining the behavioral patterns of its parts. Beyond simple collaboration, which is the result of an alignment of interests, an emergent network can create new and complex coherences out of divergent interests.” (Wiscombe 2006)

We do not intend to define specialists within our group. We are not a group of individuals that coexist to form a collaborative. While we have different backgrounds that affect our perspectives, we are not completely separate parts under the label of a whole. As Wiscombe explains, this has allowed for unpredictable and unforeseen results in the synthesis of our ideas and interests. However, unlike these clear definitions of collaboration and collective, our interests fluctuate between divergent and aligned. Our ideas, skills, and interests may differ, but they also overlap toward a common goal. We do not formulate individual ideas that the group supports, rather the group reformulates individual ideas to a point where the individual is indistinguishable from the group. This is our collective. This is PROJECTiONE.

Our opportunities to work together in the past have focused on using digital and analog design and fabrication tools. To frame our position in this field, we contrast that experience against current theories and the critical positions of digital designers and fabricators. We have followed trends in digital theory and executed a series of interviews in New York City to understand what current designers and fabricators consider to be relevant to their practice. Our questions highlighted their perspective on the relationship between digital and analog tools and processes.

Two significant theories that have informed digital practice are concepts of versioning (parametric design) and its implications in a new industrial or manufacturing approach, neither of which accurately describes our position. Sharples, Holden, and Pasquarelli’s (SHoP) Introduction to the series of essays in the Architectural Design (AD) issue titled Versioning (Sharples, Holden, Pasquarelli 2002, 7) set the framework for this parametric theory. They describe the shift away from representational design towards a form of design that embeds information through the use of parametric modeling and versioning which, “can be characterised by a set of conditions organised into a menu or nomenclature capable of being configured to address particular design criteria”. There was an emerging understanding of the model becoming rapidly adaptable and flexible based on contextual and formal criteria. This model could directly integrate with fabrication techniques, as defined in Manufacturing and Material Effects (Kolarevic and Klinger 2008, 28). Kolarevic and Klinger’s approach takes on industrial models as guidelines for a shift in practice. They claim that digital and computational technology has allowed architecture to move towards a systemized, accurately calculated method of assembly. While this can be true, it is most often not realized in products of architecture. The validity of this manufacturing mentality is in question, as this attitude is incongruent with practices of craftsmanship and the development of truly unique components, (not necessarily mass-customizable components) incorporating digital tools, hand craft, regional materials, and labor.

In our New York interviews, we sought individuals who are recognized for their contributions to digital design and architecture, yet many of their responses indicated sensitivity towards the human involvement in these practices. For example, Chris Lasch of Aranda/Lasch spoke of a Native American weaver suturing two scripted components together. However, when questioned about the weaver’s involvement in creating the suture hole spacing, a parameter of the script, Lasch said that he made the decision without thought of involving the weaver. While he was sharing information with the weaver in development of the scripted components, he missed, what we find, a critical step in the process that could have been explored with a specialist’s expertise. This is not a criticism of the idea or the outcome, but of the specific relationships and process of this collaboration. A direct connection between the digital parameters of the script and the analog methods of the weaver was missing; instead the design was “handed-off” to the maker, exhibiting two skill-sets within an idea, rather than a truly informed idea created through collaboration.

In an interview with John Nastasi of Nastasi Architects, he described a master plasterer who skim coated a CNC milled wall for one of his projects. What was important to Nastasi was the way in which the digital methods allowed for a streamlined process, and most importantly, a result that was “absolutely beautiful”. While this integration allowed for great results, the process remained linear. We are interested in how the plasterer’s expertise could feed back into the formal development of the model. How could the analog process change the way that the wall is developed digitally? How can this relationship and dialogue take on within a more integrated and cyclical model? Can the techniques of the artisan be implemented in conjunction with the CNC operations, not simply in preparation for finishing?

The existing relationship between digital and analog tools is linear and an extension of traditional processes. The designer defines the parameters (materials and methods) while the craftsman, contractor, or assembler is charged with working within the confines of those rules. Arguments have been made for integrated project delivery which involves these people in design decisions early on, but we are not focusing on that idea. What is critical to us is how those interactions take place, not whether they take place.

When asked, some of the [digital] fabricators described analog tools as finishing tools, mainly relying on digital tools for precise shaping and surfacing. Jefferey Taras of Associated Fabrication told us, “[E]verything gets sanded on some level. It’s perfect when it comes off the mill and then it’s never that way again.” This is an attitude towards fabrication and finishing which is commonly held within the digital design community. There is little appreciation for the abilities of analog tools, yet an unyielding reverence for digital tools. Taras went on to say, “The drill press rarely gets used. We use the chop saw, we use the table saw. They’re all used for select processes, maybe to make a jig but not really as a final piece. We might use it to make stock.” We are in opposition to this perspective, reducing analog tools to a diminished status. However, Associated Fabrication recognizes their specialization in CNC tools and will send out work which requires analog tooling to traditional fabricators (e.g. large panel saw cutting).

Analyzing and critiquing these firms’ view of their tools and processes has brought PROJECTiONE closer to an understanding of our own values and position on these issues. The differences have been highlighted in order to define ourselves through negation.

Some groups we interviewed, such as Tietz-Baccon, find value in the relationships of digital and analog, often using CNC machinery to create jigs for crafted analog fabrication. They exhibit their craft through the use of all tools, recognizing that creativity and precision can still occur within the analog. Others, like Gramazio and Kohler at the ETH in Zurich are exploring this relationship in a different way. Though they are experimenting with a seven-axis robot, they have no intent of eliminating the human, remaining largely integrated into the process. [West Fest Pavilion in Switzerland] In this process, the robot picks up a piece of wood and places it on a table, where a student cuts it to a CNC-specified length with a miter saw. After cutting, the robot positions that same piece of wood in a specific place, while another student secures it with a nail gun. It is a mutually constructive machine-human relationship and an integrated use of this technology.

Similar to these groups, we completed a quick design/fabrication project entitled Projection that we used to analyze our internal methodologies and help define our position. Critical relationships existed throughout the project between the analog design (measurement of Cartesian coordinates) and the digital model (insertion of coordinates in digital space). This was made possible by our understanding of the required digital inputs that informed how we modeled and measured using analog tools. During fabrication, our analog techniques (steel cutting, and welding) informed the shape and information embedded in templates (laser-cut cardboard). These templates were designed to wrap around steel angles so that they could easily be held in place while marking and cutting, but also carried with them information regarding the steel pieces’ length and orientation. An interrogation of analog and digital space in this project allowed a unique and continuous transfer of information between the two.

This example highlights the thinking that is intrinsic to our process, relying on an intimate understanding of a variety of tools, both analog and digital. This knowledge can then be applied in developing innovative relationships (coordinate mapping, and laser-cutting templates). Unlike some of the designers and fabricators interviewed, we remain open to new uses of both analog and digital tools. We don’t place any undue importance on either new technologies or traditional means, and we rethink the relationships that exist between them.

Software and hardware should not just make designing or fabricating easier, streamlining the design process. They should not exist separate from the human. They should provide opportunities to change the way designers think. They should allow us to design differently; more precisely, more creatively, and with greater intent. This can be done through an interrogation of the tool’s purpose. Every tool has a purpose or material associated with it, but that purpose should be continually challenged. PROJECTiONE was created within this framework. We find design potential in the areas of overlap and creative use of analog and digital design and fabrication methods. In every project we intend to innovate. We develop new techniques. We rethink traditional techniques. We creatively force tools to do what they weren’t intended to do. Our ideas and methodologies are based on an interrogation of relationships between the individuals of PROJECTiONE and the tools of our craft. This concept is not unique to us, but its execution and results highlight our position in digital practice. PROJECTiONE resides in the space between digital and analog.

Within the framework of our thesis, we are presenting our position at multiple scales and levels of complexity. This first semester has been research based, relying on a few small scale projects to convey our ideas. Our research has helped to iteratively define PROJECTiONE’s position within design and fabrication. We have looked back at previous projects and developed new projects ranging in scale from our own business cards, to a graphic representation of our trip to New York and a system that can receive projection of our work, each exhibiting our position in a different way.

The next stage for us will be examining the marketing and development possibilities of PROJECTiONE in the field of product design. This will introduce new parameters to influence our methods, specifically a program that is developed for several users and the physical production of multiple products that retain the processes we value. This product should embody the cooperative integration of analog and digital throughout its design and production. Our intention is that this methodology becomes transparent and easily understood to a market and specific users. Our secondary goal for this product is the development of supplemental income generating research funding for our work next semester.

PROJECTiONE is currently developing a “Call for Work” in order to begin networking with potential clients and partners. By expanding the scope of our thesis work to include a full scale client based design problem, we will provide a demonstration project within our critical position. We have presented the invitation to those interested in our work to contact us with their unique design problems and opportunities. This project will primarily take place next semester and is intended to explore the development of an external program-based architectural application that frames our thesis work. Previously, our project development has been internally driven, based on our own interests and generated programs, and we realize that for our position to be understood outside of an academic context we must connect with and design for others. Additionally, we are looking towards manufacturers and material suppliers that could benefit from our skill-set in rebranding themselves and rethinking their methods or purpose. Our processes are often influenced by the integration of materials and industry early on, creating the potential to drastically change the way established techniques or materials are used in design and construction. We look forward to engaging this scale of work and interacting with clients with an aligned interest.