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.