Blizard_Zack_222S20_1.1a

The first concept focused on was the idea of “moving from the one towards the many, from individuals to collectives, from objects to fields.” Objects have a specific identity, and typically has shape or some definition, in which it’s specific individual form is the most important focus. In contrast to this, a field is a collective idea of objects, where the focus is how the object’s interact, rather than what each object’s shape is. Together the objects’ relationship with each other is what makes a field, which has a sort of life to it, a movement.

A second important idea is the differentiation between geometric and algebraic forms of compositions. While algebraic focuses on a numerical organization, where each individual part is important, geometric on the other hand is the specific way that the parts come together. Often an algebraic approach may lead to geometric relationships. A geometric composition can be added to, or taken away from (at a certain level), and still maintain the pattern and organization. In this way a geometric composition can be more dynamic.

Another concept highlighted was the idea of shifting away from cubism. Where cubism can lead to a focus on an individual object, more fluid compositions, that don’t follow such rigid, shape focused rules, can have much more life. Cubism was tectonic, but could be limited, and is what came out of a minimalist approach. Allen argues that “local relationships are more important than overall form.”

The next concept focused on the idea of figure and ground, and rather than looking at figure ground in which typically separate objects or forms are seen, another approach are to look at the relationships between fields working together. The resulting effect of 2 or more fields are called moires, which “are often used to measure hidden stresses in continuous fields, or to map complex figural forms.” The effect that seeing 2 interacting fields can reveal aspects of the whole system that may have not been seen by just looking at forms or simple figures.

The final idea to focus on is that of the movement patterns/relationships of different types of fields, and how they differ. Flocks, such as a flock of birds, typically follows simple fundamental rules, which allows the movement of each unit in the field to move in a way that keeps it together, rules such as moving towards the center mass, and each following the unit in front of them with the same speed. Crowds on the other hand are much more random, where each unit has it’s own specific intentions, going various different directions at different speeds. This does not mean that the crowd is uncontrollable however. “The crowd needs a direction.” With direction, there can be much less irregularity, even though the initial intent of each base unit may not change at all.