Final Jury : Part 1

For our Arch101 Final We didn’t make a Jury, instead we made a Peers Evaluation. We explained the constructs that we produced for 3 minutes and listened to our friends explaining their constructs. We took notes and asked questions for other 3 minutes. Then we graded each other based on how well we could explain our constructs and our design ideas. It was very fun!

Final Poster (yaay!)

For Arch111 Final We designed a poster of our constructs that we produced for Arch101 final. It was very fun to explore photoshop because I didn’t know much about it before starting this poster. I’m sure I’ll get better as we are assigned to use photoshop more. I had to stay up all night to finish this but it still didn’t turn out the way I’d like but I enjoyed doing this 🙂

Axonometric Drawing of Final Construct

Orthographic Drawings Of Final Construct

Here is my drawings of the model I produced for the Arch101 Final Jury. We also used these drawings on the Final Poster that we desined for Arch111 Class.

 

Throwback : Arch101 First Jury

Here is the First Jury that we had back in October 31st. Firstly I never posted this because we made a huge mistake and I didn’t want to have a mistake on my blog but that shouldn’t be my behavior. I learned from the mistake that we did and I’ll share it with y’all now.

We worked in pair of groups and I was very happy with the group members and we had a close friendship during the making of this project. What we overlooked was that We worked with the last idea that came to our minds because It was very difficult to find an idea that everyone supported and wasn’t flawed. And we couldn’t see how much of a mistake our idea was until We were in front of the Jury members. That last idea burned us and while We were agreeing to go with that plan We couldn’t see what the outcome would be.

Now let’s talk about our strategy. We were working with the keywords RELATIONSHIP VARIATIONS DEFINITIONS and OPERATIONS and we were asked to produce 4 variations within a 3D construct. Every group member bringed the element that they used in the previous assignment. My element was square and our group also had octagon, rectangle and parallelogram.

To explain our strategy; we decided on 4 units that would be variations of each other. In  our plan;2 constant rectangles, 2 squares, 2 parallelograms and 1 octagon created one unit. Only squares and parallelograms changed within our units because we thought that keeping some elements relations and changing some elements relations would make variations. So they changed in every unit while rectangles stayed the same and constant. And we placed the octagons in the middle of the construct to use the element’s potential. Yet their only role was to connect the units and they didn’t had much relations with other elements. Now I see what we went wrong. We created rules like octagon can only connect with other octagon and a square only. But rules like those doesn’t define the relations and it was what’s missing in our strategy.

I think we learned a lot during the jury . Wish we would thought harder about our decisions but this experience thought us how to question our every action. I’m sure I’ll never forget this experience .

Polyrhythmic Grid

Here is one of the grids that I produced for our assignment. It’s a polirhtymic grid that has angular lines that repeats every 3 centimeters and parpendicular lines that repeats every 7 centimeters. I used this grid to produce the assignment 3.2.1.5. It was one of my complex grids and I used it to re-create our  first assignment.

Intervening Someone Else’s Construct?

In this assignment we were asked to work with one of our friend’s model. It was a new experience for us. We were assigned to change the model according to the keywords that were given to us. My keyword was Diverse and I decided to work with this model:

I decided to use D-extrude and Strech to make the construct more diverse. Using different proportions of the elements could create diversity and D-extrution is used to change the way the elements relate to each other. Here is my final construct

We had limited time to work on this and I now see some problems with this construct. For example some of the D-extruded elements create a frame which makes them act like planer elements. I knew that we couln’t just add elements that didn’t exist in the main construct but we could split some elements and then scale them to create more elements. The amount of elements that I used was very limited and I sould’ve create more variations in the part that I intervened so I am not happy with that. But as time goes on I can see my mistakes and how I could make my work better so that is a good thing.

Arch101: Prejury

We had our prejury fot the Arch101 class last week. We were suppose to create a model which had the consepts of the keywords and we were supposed to use the operations that they gave us such as ;

Intersect , Addition, Tear and Fold , D-extrude , Stretch, Scale and Split.

And our key consepts were ;

INTEGRATED / FRAGMENTED
HOMOGENOUS / HETEROGENOUS
CENTRALIZED / DECENTRALIZED
CONTINUOUS / DISCRETE
CONDENSED/ DISPERSED
UNIFORM / DIVERSE
PERMEATED / ISOLATED
DENSE / SPARSE

I decided to show dense/sparse key concepts while making my model diverse/uniform at some part. I decided to create a gap and use this gap to create secondary relationships between distanced elements. I was told that my secondary relations were strong but that i should work on primary relations. I can now see that i had a chain relation between primary elements which i still cannot break since the loop assignment. I will be working on that.

Other than that i decided to use more linear elements (the sticks) for the final jury model that i will make. I had linear elements on only one part of the construct and i used them to make that part of the construct more sparse. I think i achieved that so there will still be linear elements on my sparse part , maybe i can add planer elements to sparse part and linear elements on the rest of my construct to make it more homogenous.

Our final jury is very soon and I hope I can achieve what I have in mind for this construct successfully.

Loop.3

 

Here is the last revision of the loop assignment. In this assignment they asked from us to use a pattern and to create a flowchart with the models. I did create the flowcharts and tried to create a pattern. I think i did create a pattern but it wasn’t very satisfactory to me. I am not very happy with this construct. They asked us to create patterns and use variations of that patterns in the construct.

Here is the last revision of the loop assignment. In this assignment they asked from us to use a pattern and to create a flowchart with the models. I did create the flowcharts and tried to create a pattern. I think i did create a pattern but it wasn’t very satisfactory to me. I am not very happy with this construct. They asked us to create patterns and use variations of that patterns in the construct.

Loop.2

Here is the first revise of the first construct that we created. I was very satishfied with the first model that i made but i am even more happy with this one. I tried to change the directions a bit. I tried to create a more strict ruley pattern and it was better than the first one. We are going to revise this also, so I am thinking of maybe adding another direction also.

 

PS: after a while I realise that the chain function is very much followed me with this revision also. I tried to keep some characteristics because i was happy with my first model. Now i see that there aren’t many things to be happy about 🙂 But again, I am now more aware of how to break the chain. I think this revision was better than the first construct that we created but worse than the one we submitted which we made 3 days later than this one. Primary relations could be stronger and there could be more secondary relations.