Nelson_Talina_222S20_1.1a

0.1 From Object to Field

The individuals in a field work to create an ensemble.  Therefore, the field should not be viewed in parts, but as a connected whole.  However, it is important to note that the field created is defined by local symmetries, how each part relates to and interacts with one another.  When one object is linked with another, it creates both a form and, perhaps more importantly, an in-between space.  Often, it is much easier to focus on the forms themselves, however, it is more critical to analyze the space created by such forms and the impact of those spaces on the whole.

0.2 Geometric vs Algebraic Combination

Geometries, in a sense, have an algebraic relationship.  While geometrically one may be working with figures, one is simultaneously working algebraically with numerical units.  When working with geometries within a field, such figures can be expanded upon (often algebraically – through addition or subtraction of elements).  While initially this may appear to be detrimental to the field as a whole, the alterations only have a slight impact on the configuration (assuming the geometries are performing regularly and in response to the field).  Therefore, the combination of geometric and algebraic proportions allows architects to expand upon a field in a way that promotes growth.

0.3 Walking Out of Cubism

The idea behind minimalism is that a field is stripped down to the essentials.  In other words, it is the rejection of composition for consolidation, the removal of anything unnecessary.  Minimalism is often demonstrated in modern architecture, buildings that show no more than basic architectural elements (which largely contrasts the “figurative” and “decorative” approach in past generations).  Postminimalism draws on the idea of relying on the basic elements, however, it allows “sequence of events.”  The idea can direct the flow of said events, but simultaneously allows them to run their course within the grander scheme of the field.

0.4 Thick 2D: Moirés, Mats

Figure and ground have a direct relationship to one another and to the field.  A figure within a field/defined area, in effect, is related to that field through its emergence from it.  Figure and field can easily be viewed separately but most be viewed cohesively to understand how they coexist with one another.  Figures are sorts of peaks and growths within a field, growing from and creating areas of “intensity” within the field.  Just as a grid can be a field, a figure can do the same by being woven into the fabric of its field.

0.5 Flocks, Schools, Swarms, Crowds

Flocks and crowds, though different, are defined by local connections.  Flocks are fluid and adjustable because they are formed from the “bottom up.”  This ability to easily adjust to obstacles derives from the fact that each individual is responding locally.  Though this these separate connections distinguish the flock into parts, it allows for the flock to work effectively as a whole.  Fluid adjustments suggests dynamic behavior.  Similarly, crowds respond locally, though much “less predictable.”  However, these local connections allow the group to perform efficiently, as opposed to creating a chain of catastrophe.