last night i taped this drawing back to my desk. i did not want to. not because i am not passionate about its goals, but because i feel that it cannot be shared. i would like to discuss with the groupe some ways that our work can recapture the open spirit that it had in the early days. the capacity for pollution must exist! i do not aim to peel the drawing up, and it is 2006 for fuck’s sake, must we fedex had drawings back and forth. what sort of representational methods, file sharing, scabbing, and transplanting might occur to help multiple parties divert the trajectory of a first mark made hundreds of miles away. is there some way that the drawings could continue real time in multiple locations? there are digital design platforms that allow such actions by establishing permissions for parties to work in particular sections of a file but not others. is there a potential to get on a cycle of scanning whereby the electronic document of the manual piece is useful for others. perhaps fragments of a drawing could be scanned and then printed remotely scabbed into the piece that a groupie is working on manually or digitally. there would be multiple parallel yet different versions of similar investigations occuring. i am looking for ways that we can acheive the cross pollination of the early work without sacrificing the craft of fine hand-worked pieces. of course this is all contingent on whether you would be interested in continuing this piece of work. i am still interested in bringing it to a realised state (building). this drawing was always a spatial choose-your-own-adventure recipe that established the beach heads for programmatic and formal moments in the terrain. a couple of things i would like to do to it next are to begin to root it in the altered landscape that you developed, and to find relationships to the archaeological issues that you dusted off. also, you had proposed some interesting things earlier about ambiguous objects or icons in the building, like a glowing hot ingot that when the waters from the river flowed in was able to cool and become an altar of some sort (maybe that is what you said?). i think a parallel overlay of these disparate projects could prove fruitful. thoughts?
have you any experience with programs that allow for collaborative ‘drawing’? i have not! apart from simultaneous digging in the same digital file, we could perhaps develop some tools for organizing changes to your manual work in front of the other gruppies:
drawings have a coordinate system: ‘overlay the attached jpg’ at e4 (you sunk my battleship!!’)
merely denote where pollution occurs. ‘the bottom for inches of your dwg have sustained water damage please activate the attached flotation devices.’
timely ‘intrusions’ are made: it’s midnight, mounted knights have overrun your pickets. displace the last hour of work 40 feet to the rear’
As far as the subject material goes, i would be interested in pursuing either a new project or channeling ruins (-roosevelt) towards the goal of building. Are you interested in pursuing the ruins towards the intent of roosevelt organizers – museum, community center or wtf?
also, even though the work is thin and vacuous, i had ‘fun’ with the serialized aspects of the ‘history of america’. i guess the repetition of items on the wall made me think i had accomplished something, since i could count them; two legs good – four legs better. Stating this reminds me a bit of the conducting bodies and floaters. maybe a similar consistency could be re-introduced?
link
i think the idea of continuing on with the roosevelt work pleases me. we have a good body of work behind it that actually heads toward a building. it was actually toward a specific building whose program i found banal and uninspired. i like the idea that progress is made on top of that specific framework whose job, in part, is to redefine and corrupt it (individual painting studio? that is an harpoon turret!).
I have not used the program described above. I believe it is called Revit. However, and im sure your students can brief you on this, the idea of x-refs might be an interesting taking off point for parallel work. The concerns would be (in the hand drawing and scaled representation (pixel based) world) that we are working on scales that we can find each other in. I dont know if we necessarily need to start from the same drawing. For instance, im not sure you need a scaled copy of the drawing i have on my table. but it would help to jump off and have some tethers between the offices like the underlays of the e2 vignettes.
i like the instructional nature of the above suggestions.
it’s midnight, mounted knights have overrun your pickets. displace last hour of work 40 feet to the rear.
it is more open and not so bossy. although i think a healthy dose of demanded underlays and overlays would be beneficial and provide some company for the lonely working stiff.
we certainly had some repetitive items in the first half of the work and the ‘plan’ drawing i produced is evidence that they remain repetitive and incremental. it would seem that we need to find representational methods to flesh out what those increments are in more detail and in more fertile ways (materials designations, obscure use values, and relational aprons (how they relate to other increments by extending their field of influence (through color, material, sound, vistas, etc.). also we need to understand what the goals of this fabric of moments are at large. there are two big bodies of work underlying the totality at the moment. one is your archaeohydrological future history, and the other is the elemental narrative of the objects (conducting bodies) as vehicles for ownership and navigation. how do these things shape a whole, or do they need to? can a building or a place be just those moments? is the acropolis or karnak one place or many moments buffered by potential.
when the chuds emerge in the ossuary through the grate that was left unlatched by smautf, assistant to the seascape painter, bartlebooth, long before the sea traded places with the island, will they awaken the knights templar from the ruins of the hospital, or will they make their home among the linga.
link
would you find it valuable to, based on the representational materials we have thus far: the conducting bodies, the sections, the prepositional threads, and the master drawings (latent cognitive map, prepositional tapestry), develop a new program of use? you could base it on visual associations with the materials or on narrative underlays, or on the background substance of the archaeological context. these programs could be found, latent, or imposed. they could be disparate, useless, or orchestrated. they need not be assigned square footages or typical prescriptions but should be identified either by textual descriptions or graphic keys to the representations that currently house them or bore them. what say you to this prospect for the phoenix of roosevelt?
link
hmmm…it feels like cheating if we devise our own program after peeping out built work; in addition to the taint of having seen the perfect spaces, i figure at least one of us will be asking for random programs such as ’star port’, robot lunchroom’, or ‘the lion ramble’. unless you have a responsible program in mind, i reckon it may be challenging enough to shoehorn the no-less-random roosevelt program into the images i have seen.
i am interested in the identification; perhaps we can set a deadline for adapting the work to meet the requirements.
link
so you want to keep the arts center program? that is fine. i thought it might excite you more to have a ‘naval combat swamp’ than a ’sculpture grotto.’
i am interested in the identification; perhaps we can set a deadline for adapting the work to meet the requirements.
identification of what? adapt work to meet what requirements?
link
well, the plan-like drawing was developed with square-footages in mind. what i think is missing is a sense of how those marks become physical. i guess there just isnt a sense of the whole. in terms of identifying ‘my’ requirements i would not put door swings at the top of the list currently. i think currently i would put definition of spatial relationships and extents at the top.
link
hmm, well how much further are you wanting to go with your indeterminate plans? the sections, and i believe some of the threads, had programs assigned already. do you want to arrange them into your plan? if so, what is the rug and collage of jesus de milo?
link
i thought you were going to work on some shit, maybe we were both fleshing out parallel trajectories of the same diagram? those images were both prompts and logos that would bind these distant pieces of work.
for instance, if you were developing a sectional archaelogy in plan and i was developing the iconography of the form (at the same scale) those images might give a graphic language to them that would relate thm (or not) but at the very least “date stamp” them as being of the same “project.”
i would like to know what YOU would ‘like’ to do.
link
i don’t understand most of the previous comment, but i guess i would like to work towards a conclusion consisting of vaguely familiar forms – a label/’identification’ that underscores work somewhat recognizable as useful. or, inhabitable.
i thought you were saying that had reached a limit with your mapping and wanted to relate those marks to a given or created program, as described here; what confused me, then, was the reintroduction of more abstract pieces, as i thought you were intent on ‘bringing it home’ – to scale.
perhaps i misunderstood?
link
it is to scale already. and i dont think i have finalised where everything is, what it is, and what its relationship to other things is. i am curious about finding a way to start to “work things out” in tandem. how do you thing we could physically do that? do we work on:
separate aspects of the same piece (you take the east i take the west)
parallel aspects of the same whole (you develop the ground plane and sectional layering i describe the envelope)
completely separate representations (you develop more complex descriptions and vignettes and i compose them)
all of these could be vice versa of course, i am just trying to think of ways we can both work that would be relatively fertile and prone to confusion while moving the beast forward.
i dont think we can just ‘identify’ things, although that is a start, but we have to decide how to develop the things that are identified. would it help you for me to show on my diagram where the specific programmatic elements are currently arrayed?
link
i think we could return to the original pollution if we work, in parallel in the same area – as i was most interested in your prepositional threads. if we work in disparate areas, then maybe there could be a point at which we force a stop and switch off, but i prefer otherwise.
maybe you resent my pushing for deadlines or lists, but i am concerned that i won’t be disciplined or motivated without them; perhaps we can set up markers when we exchange work or put up work for consideration/intervention.
worker.a would not be obligated to cease working on piece he/she just posted, nor would he/she be obligated to jump immediately to worker.b’s, but all workers could nod towards the new piece or intervention before moving on without using it.
link
the big drawing at the top of this sheet is in fact the prepositional threads arrayed onto the site, so that might help to pique your interest. my deadline over the next couple of days will be to digitally annotate that drawing to help you to access it.
i dont at all resent deadlines or lists. it would help me too.
ashley prescribed: worker.a would not be obligated to cease working on piece he/she just posted, nor would he/she be obligated to jump immediately to worker.b’s, but all workers could nod towards the new piece or intervention before moving on without using it.
sounds similar to my above: is there a potential to get on a cycle of scanning whereby the electronic document of the manual piece is useful for others. perhaps fragments of a drawing could be scanned and then printed remotely scabbed into the piece that a groupie is working on manually or digitally. there would be multiple parallel yet different versions of similar investigations occuring.
i think then, we need to decide what the investigations will be in service of. when i say parallel i dont mean both working on the casework for the painting studio at the same time and then trading back and forth. i mean one of us works on the casework and fenestration, the other works on the envelope and floor pattern. of course in the earlier stages of the committment i would say that the projects are more gross, as my references to ground planes, sectional relationships, and formal iconography pointed to. does that make sense? we would each choose a more gross task to begin that would help solidify the spatial relationships alluded to in the prepositional tapestry.
link
hmm, i think that makes sense, my sections were supposed to be derived from your sketches, here. i guess my next work could be to attempt to do the same/similar w/ the dwg at the top of this page? is the graphic language of my sections helpful?
i could wait until you add your notes to the dwg; i have already started tooling around w/ two (2) of your graphic antecedents, so i could stare at those in the meantime.
link
maybe you could stall until i do that. what are you doing to the antecedents? that work should be posted in the appropriate thread of course.
i would think you could either work on sections or on topographic or “hidden line” plans to continue with your sectional inquiries?
link
iban albertoplease, plans of the muller house in dwg, adolf loos.
mi adress is ibanco777hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhnb85@hotmail.com
link
you are probably going to get a shitload of brutal dildos spam from posting your email address here.
link
the layout of the megaliths appears the same. i will proceed with my drawing. might there be a detail of the texts available?
link
16h41m01
02.Nov.2006