Field Conditions, Stan Allen

From Object to Field

The way that I understood this first section in the reading was that when may singular objects come together they create a field which is could be considered one singular unit. It is the move from many to one. There were many different ideas that were introduced in this section, one of those ideas being how we can model these objects in the field. One of the largest challenges we as designers face is how to model users or people in a space and their own movement throughout that space. This is so difficult because of the fact that humans are such complex beings. We are not simply motivated by a singular object or goal but rather by many all working with each other.

Geometric vs. Algebraic

This section of the reading went on to explain the difference between geometric and algebraic designs and modeling. What I understood the main difference to be is that geometric designs are like a mirror image. There are little to no “organic shapes” and everything is mirrored in a very geometric fashion. The reading gave the example of the Great Mosque of Cordoba in Spain as a classic geometric design. Most older and more classical architecture however will feature some geometric elements. Algebraic designs though, are less rigid in style and feature more repetition that geometric designs. Algebraic designs can be thought of a series of elements such as lines, planes and solids all being repeated throughout the structure. The reading gave the example of most classical western buildings being algebraic in design.

Flocks, Schools, Swarms and Crowds

The main point that this section was trying to make relates back to “From Object to Field” in that it talks more about mapping and diagramming certain movements by objects that make up a field. When programming the “boids” they had three fixed variables that were able to create a flock. The first being a constant minimum distance between all of the “boids”. The second fixed variable was that all of the “boids” were going to be flying at the same speed as one another. The last variable that all of the “boids” had to follow was that they would all move towards the center mass of each other at all times. Birds are fairly easy to diagram and map movements because while they are not simple creatures, they happen to not be over complex. Humans on the other hand are much more complicated than birds and one cannot realistically model human movement by just fixing three variables to them.

Walking Out of Cubism

Artistically speaking, cubism began in the early 1900’s. Looking at cubism from a design perspective however, it really only catches on around the 20’s. Cubism was the main factor however that gave way into the minimalist period of the 1960’s and 70’s. Minimalism in design mainly consisted of a reduction of formal language and as well as simple material choice and use. What I understood to be one of the largest outcomes of this period was the importance of local relationships between designs rather than the overall form of the design. I think that while maybe not as present today, local relationships between designs are still thought about in great detail.

Thick 2D

This section starts off by saying “All grids are fields but not all fields are grids”. This is important because what a field can be populated with is not a singular thing or object whereas every grid or plane could technically be considered a field of some sort. This was essentially the central idea that I took away from this section. There were multiple questions that I posed however after reading this section. One of the main questions though was that if everything in a plan view diagram is flat, would that make it a grid or plane or would it be considered a field? The only answer that I could come up with is that it could really be considered as both even not all fields are grids.