Comeau_Hunter_222_exercise-1.1
From Object To Field: The idea of object to field is based around the idea of expanding from just one singular “object” to an enlargement to a field, or multiple objects that make op an expansive area. Personally when reading this i thought of a single stock of grain that from a farm that could then be planted multiple times over to create large fields of wheat, all sprouted from a base plant.
Geometric VS Algebraic: Within this section we learn that [embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/222s20/files/2020/04/IMG_2320-1.jpg” download=”all” viewer=”google” ]algebraic buildings are ones with mathematical and quantifiable compositions which contrasts the idea of the geometrical we have in our own culture. items that if we were to expand we would have to destroy sections or even the whole to create compared to the algebraic which if one wants it expanded there is minimal to no efforts when wanting something extended.
Walking out from Cubism: Within this section we see a shift through cubism to minimalists taking full control of art throughout the 60’s and 70’s and later expanded on by Americans on which further bodies can be created by using specific and concise rules.
Thick 2D: Moires, Mats: When we thing of objects we cannot think of them being singular solo bodies but we have to look at it as it response to the site as a whole, “as moments of intensity, as peaks or valleys within a continuous field” We have to create objects that we can see a concise Cause and effect within every single object that we create.=
Flocks, Schools, Swarms, Crowds: Within our own field we must create interactions that can concisely form a “flock” Having items that disrupts the natural flow of everything can cause the site as a whole to crash and burn. we have to take into account every single object much like the Thick 2D but with this we have to look at the harmonies created by every single object. Strive for the most Natural and harmonious field that we can produce
1. good analogy and interesting drawing – could take it further, systematically – the soil and the condition of the soil is the rule of that field (e.g the nourishment patches of the soil control how tall of large each wheat plant will grow). The farmer and the knowledge of the farmer is the condition of that field (e.g spacing, location, the pattern of planting)… the wheat is the unit, but the soil and the farmer are the rules which generate the way the wheat field will look. — think in unit and condition that generates the field of the unit.
2. again the idea of the system (algebra) and composition. you can write a function and throw in any input but you can’t do the same if you write it in set numbers.
4. yes, and to think of the whole is to think of the relationship between the units. So the design is not the making of the unit, but more the study of the rule and conditions that relate the units.
5. not necessarily, thinking in terms of the object is dangerous because it stipulates the unchanging nature of the object. If you think about flock, swarm and crowd as object you are only looking at one single possibility of each, while the term themselves suggest the system that generate the object. The object (e.g. the shape of the swarm) is created by the rule of the swarm and its units. If you would like to think of object then a systematic way is to think more deeply about what make the object to become such a way.
I think you may missed the point of the drawing, but it’s ok 🙂
good discussion tho.