I originally showed the 4 models to the teacher last week, so the first two (which were “approved”) aren’t the same as the ones I originally made bc they’ve been adjusted based on the comments given. The last two “rejected” models are as they were when I presented them.

MODEL #1

This model underwent the most changes out of the 4 (mainly just the SO), because I was still deciding between this between this and model #2.

this model is similar to the one the teacher made by altering anna’s “piercing” model. the axes for the dominant and sub-dominant are the same, yet the alignment doesn’t look so boring (according to the teacher). the length of the SD is about 1/3rd of the length of the D. the SO is also between 1/2 and 1/3rd the width of the D.

from the side, too, i feel that there is a clear distinction between what is the D/SD/SO.

(out of focus because of the camera but i tried to make it as clear as possible)

originally, the SD was a slightly wider and much thinner slice of foam (which i will be including in the main documentation post) and so from this angle, it wasn’t clear which was the SD and which was the SO. after replacing it with a thicker piece, it’s now much clearer which is which.

In the first edition, the front and side views posed no issues. However, from the front, it was obvious that the SO was as wide as the D and so it needed to be trimmed down to prevent confusion.

Unlike the first one, this second edition no longer has the problem of having the SO’s width be the same as the D. The length of the SO is also 1/3 of the SD’s. But now, the thickness of the SO is almost identical to the SD. So, it had to be even further edited.

While #3 was the most aesthetically pleasing and the discrepancies were the least obvious, it still wasn’t satisfactory, which is why I decided to use the 2nd model instead.

–

MODEL #2

SD and SO are at the 1/3 markers (based on length of D). SO is placed on the horizontal 1/3 marker also (based on width of the D). Roughly 1/3 of the SD is wedged into the D.

doesn’t seem like it, but SO is only about 2/3 the width of the SD, they’re not the same size.

1/3 of the width of the SD was cut off because the original made it unclear which was the D and SD.

 

–

MODEL #3

The original plan was to make the SO significantly smaller than the other parts so as to avoid distraction from the SD while maintaining the overall shape and placements – but it would be made noticeable by the material used (for the material application part). I also wanted to make use of “piercing” for a change from the other two that made use of wedging.

However this model was scrapped as piercing proved impossible with an SO of that size. I tried making the SO bigger but that ended up distorting all the ratios (1:3 proportions) as well as mixing up which was the SD and SO.

–

Overall, I’ve learnt how difficult it actually is to create an object that maintains both a consistent D/SD/SO while concurrently adhering to the thirds rule + 1/3 < x < 1/2 equation. I have also discovered the reasoning behind using differing axes for the different elements of the object. Plus, the difference it makes when the D, SD and SO follow the ratio as compared to it being measured anyhow really does make a huge difference in the orderliness. And the SO, while comparatively the most “insignificant”, can still be the most eye-catching. However, I still have yet to understand why symmetry should be avoided (because in my opinion symmetry can also be aesthetically pleasing) but this activity has opened my mind to considering and using more asymmetrical designs.