# 3D Rectilinear Volumes Process

Hello everyone!

Great job we finished our first 3D project! I honestly struggled a lot during this project, trying to understand the aspect of the Dominant, Subdominant and Subordinate – especially when we had to do a 2D sketch analysis on it. I was so confused with regards what should be halved or cut into threes, and how I could make my model look interesting. But in the end, we all managed to get through it, and so allow me to share my process of how I got my final model!

This is the initial planning I did on our first lesson after we learnt the basic understanding of the Dominant, Subdominant and Subordinate in class. I was trying to visualise how I wanted my sketch models to look like, which would affect how I cut initial foam block.

After cutting the necessary parts out using the foam cutter, I assembled them according to my diagrams (I forgot to take photos to document it!!!). However, I soon realised that the widths or lengths of most of my Ds and SDs were the same or similar, which made it difficult to differentiate which was the D and SD. Many of my models also involved stacking, which negated the idea of counter balancing within the model.

Miss Cheryl then went through with us how we had to have the 3 axes (x, y ,z axis) in our volumes, of which the volumes of the SD had to be more than 1/3 but less than 1/2 of the model’s D. This was the same for the SO in related to the SD. I was most confused about this aspect, as I found myself examining each width and length and height of my volumes to try to follow the “1/3 < x < 1/2” formula.

I also found it very hard to visualise the models in my sketch analysis, as the halving and cutting the model into three parts from all perspectives (top and sides) confused me greatly. The page below is my attempt at correcting my initial models using 2D sketch analysis.

It was also during this time that we had to include one of the 3 techniques – wedging, piercing and cradling. I had difficulty attempting to cradle my D and SD and SO, but found it easier to wedge and pierce. The inclusion of these techniques allowed me to gain a better understanding of how I could make my D, SD and SO distinctive from one another, and helped me explore the various positions I could place my SD and SO to create an aesthetically pleasing (and balanced) model. After much difficulty, I finally managed to assemble my secondary models:

(2D sketches of secondary models after correction)

Model #1

(Side A)                              (Side B)                              (Side C)                                (Side D)

Model #2

(Side A)                                          (Side B)                                           (Side C)

Model #3

(Side A)                                          (Side B)                                           (Side C)

Model #4

(Side A)                                          (Side B)                                           (Side C)

From these 4 models, we had a short critique in class to determine which model was the most interesting, as well as successful in showing a clear distinction between the D, SD and SO. For my case, I chose models #2 and #4, as I felt these two had the most potential to be developed.

Thereafter, we had consultations with Miss Cheryl to see how we could improve our models. I found out that I still had the problem of my SD and D’s widths being too similar, or the widths of my SO and SD. It was during this time that I gained a better understanding of how I could change the various volumes, such as whether it was the width or length that needed to be shortened or lengthened, or which volume required a greater thickness. It really pushed me to think of the volumes from all perspectives, as well as the positioning of the D, SD and SOs in order to counter balance the weight of the models.

Hence, I further developed my two models – Model #4 and #2.

MODEL 4

(Secondary model of Model #4)

(Final Model of #4)

(Side A)                                      (Top View)                                        (Side B)

Sketch of Model #4

MODEL 2

(Secondary model of Model #2)

(Final Model of #2)

(Side A)                                      (Top View)                                        (Side B)

Sketch of Model #2

After some thought, I felt that Model #4 was the best model as it was not only more interesting from all angles, but was successful in terms of the differentiation between the D, SD and SO. I also found the positions of the D, SD and SO to be well-placed to produce a satisfactory, balanced model. You can read more about my final model and its material applications in the pdf in our class Google Drive!

~Veda