Tag: Process
Curvilinear 02
Curvilinear 01
These are the first 3 models I created using recycled materials & foam. Most of the models have room for improvement, especially those that are made out of recycled materials, since I can’t adjust the sizes on the spot.
PINOCCHIO
The long cone reminds me of Pinocchio’s nose, hence the name. This composition is interesting because the weight of all the elements is balanced on the SD. It also does not really follow the rule of thirds, but still somehow complements one another.
SEE-SAW
This composition reminds me of a see-saw. In this piece, I imagine it to be an electronic see-saw, the cylinder to be the base, the cone is the plank and the sphere is the button for activating the see-saw when there is no one to sit with you. (quite sad but hey you still get to play the see-saw)
Unicorn
This composition resembles a unicorn because of the long cylinder on the “head” (sphere). Having the sphere as the dominant makes the composition less interesting as there is less dynamism. (PS I forgot to take a photo of the last view 🙁 )
After analysing all the models and consulting Cheryl, I feel that Pinocchio is the one that I am more likely to work on, as the composition is more unique and shows the elements more clearly as well.
D-SD-SO
I was scrolling through Instagram one day, with the D, SD & SO theory still fresh in my mind, when I chanced upon this photo of a very minimalist watch. I thought it represented quite clearly the visual hierarchy of D, SD & SO as it was really easy to identify each element at a glance. Maybe this could be inspiration for curvilinear forms?
Rectilinear 05
For my final model, I decided to try combining two joining methods. Initially, the D was wedged almost at the centre of the SD, but I felt that it looked too balanced, hence I decided to shift it. The D is now wedged off-centre, to create an asymmetrical effect so that it will look more interesting from different views. My original plan was to pierce the SO through both the D & SD. However, I thought that I would like to experiment with the position of the SO, and to challenge myself in terms of crafting. Now the SO is pierced through the D, but wedged to the SD. It is arranged to be slightly imbalanced so that it would look less like a symmetrical cross.
These are the comparisons of the composition, before and after modification. I feel that the composition has been given more character after the adjustments. Although the hierarchy in the views are not consistent, it pushes the limits of D, SD & SO.
FRONT VIEW
SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
MATERIAL APPLICATION
Rectilinear 04
I have improved the compositions of the previous two models, and am definitely a lot more satisfied with the compositions of the new ones. In this post I will be analysing the views of the final 3 models, and to select one as my final piece.
MODEL #1
FRONT – In this view the D, SD & SO are quite evident, although I realised that the SO is the same width as the D. It would be better if I reduced the width of the SO to about 2/3 the width of the D.
SIDE – Here, although the lengths of the SD & SO make it relatively easy to identify the hierarchy, they both appear to be of the same thickness. I would reduce the thickness of the SO so that it is 1/3 of the SD.
TOP – I realised that the D & SO are of similar lengths. In this case, I would decrease the size of the SO by 1/3 of the D so that the visual hierarchy is more obvious.
MODEL #2
FRONT – I noticed that the length of the SD is almost half the length of D, hence I decided to reduce the length of the SD to make it inbetween the 1/3 to 1/2 proportion of D. I also realised that the height of SO is similar to the width of D. I would reduce the height of the SO slightly so that it is 2/3 of D.
SIDE – I realised that after reducing the height of the SO, it is now almost the same length as the SD in this view. I would increase the size of the SD, such that the SO is 2/3 of the SD.
TOP – After making the changes in the front and side view, the visual hierarchy from the top view is quite obvious, hence no changes will be made here.
MODEL #3
SIDE – From this view, the SO is almost half the length of the D. I would reduce the length of the SO such that it is 1/3 of D.
TOP – Although the visual hierarchy is obvious because of the lengths, the SD & SO have the same thickness, which might make it confusing. To make it more evident, I would adjust the measurement here. Since the SD in this view is the SO in the front & side views, I would reduce the size of the SD to 1/3 the width of the SO.
In this view, the D & SO appear to be of the same height. I would reduce the size of the D to between 1/3 & 1/2 the height of the SO.
FRONT – After adjusting the measurements in the side & top views, I realised that the front view is now affected. Because I reduced the size of the SD (D in top view), it is now exactly half the width of the D. To solve this issue, I would reduce the size of the D such that the SD is 2/3 of D.
After analysing all the models & having an open consultation session with Cheryl & my classmates in class, I have decided to go with Model #3 as my final model. I feel that #3 has the potential to be modified to be an interesting composition. It is the most unique out of all the models because it has an area where all of the elements are able to intersect together, providing an opportunity for me to try out a combination of joining methods. I will further improve on #3 so that the visual hierarchy is obvious at a glance.
Rectilinear 03
These are my 3 improved/completely modified foam compositions from previously.
FRONT – While identifying the D, SD & SO from the photos, I realised that in the front view, the SD and SO was quite difficult to differentiate. The presence of both objects are too balanced in terms of length & width. The SD has some presence because of its length, but the SO has presence because of its thickness. In this case, I feel that the SD would need to be much shorter & thinner to make the difference more apparent.
SIDE – In this view, the D and SD appear to be of the same length as well as thickness. The size of the SD would need to be reduced to about 2/3 or less of the D.
TOP – Here I realised that the width of the SD and SO are quite similar as well. I would reduce the SO and make it thinner so that it it is 1/3 of the width of the SD. Also, the SD appears to be completely obscured if I were to look at the composition from the back view because it is placed nicely within the face of the D.
CONCLUSION – Overall, I felt that the composition of this model was not that interesting. The elements are all on one plane of the D and makes it look very heavy when the composition is placed upright. There are many areas that need to be improved on in terms of proportion, and the composition is also not as consistent in terms of hierarchy.
FRONT – At a glance, the D & SD appear to be of similar lengths, and the SO seems to be about more than 1/2 the width of the SD. I would choose to lengthen the D, such that the SD becomes 2/3 of its length, and to reduce the width of the SO to 1/3 of the SD so the hierarchy is more prominent.
SIDE – If I were to make the changes as mentioned in the front view, this side view would show the hierarchy quite clearly. Hence no changes would be made here.
TOP – The length of the SD appears to be of the same width as the D in this view. I would choose to lengthen the D such that the width of the SD is 1/3 or 2/3 in relation to the width of the D.
CONCLUSION – Overall, I felt that the composition of this model was quite boring, in terms of it being very easy to identify the elements because it is very obvious in the difference in size.
FRONT – In this view the D, SD & SO are quite evident, although I realised that the SO is the same width as the D. It would be better if I reduced the width of the SO to about 2/3 the width of the D.
SIDE – Here, although the lengths of the SD & SO make it relatively easy to identify the hierarchy, they both appear to be of the same thickness. I would reduce the thickness of the SO so that it is 1/3 of the SD.
TOP – I realised that the D & SO are of similar lengths. In this case, I would decrease the size of the SO by 1/3 of the D so that the visual hierarchy is more obvious.
CONCLUSION – Overall, I felt that the composition of this model was the best out of the three. It displays more dynamism & looks more unique as compared to the others. Also, I feel that this composition is very balanced, in terms of the positioning of the elements. I would definitely shortlist this as one of the final three pieces, but not too sure if I would want to submit this as my final model as the joining techniques that I can use is limited to wedging only.
After analysing all three models, I feel that the composition of the first two could have been improved significantly. As more of a challenge to myself and to push the limits of playing with the visual hierarchy, I would like to create two new compositions to replace the two that I am unsatisfied with.
Rectilinear 02
These are some poorly documented compositions of models that were slightly improved from before, particularly the one on the bottom right. I strongly felt that the previous composition was too blockish & boring, so I decided to replace the SD & SO pieces with new ones.
However, overall, I feel that there is definitely more to be improved on. Some lengths & widths are still similar & do not comply with the thirds rule. I also feel that the compositions can be re-looked and rearranged to be more interesting since as of now, most of the compositions have the similarity of stacking – with the D being at the base, followed by the SD & SO on top.
Rectilinear 01
These are my first three compositions done in class today. The pieces were done without measuring the size of the foam prior to cutting. The D, SD & SO are still not very apparent in the overall composition due to similar lengths & widths of pieces in the same model.
As of now, I feel that the pieces all have a similarity as there are similar elements seen across all three compositions. I have yet to explore with varying the thickness & thinness of the material to create more contrast in size among the pieces. I feel that following closely with this format:
D – largest, SD – medium & SO – small, restricts the potential point of interest of the composition. In the next lesson, I hope to try experimenting with pushing the limits & constraints of the D, SD & SO, and somehow balancing it out. For example, making up for the lack of thickness with length.