[f48]
When studying different parameters to design without function driving decisions, a categorization on types of form was developed. Formal design was explored relative to some of these categories.
[f49]
Testing dynamic modeling using string through soft density foam.
Testing dynamic modeling using string through soft density foam.
[f50]
Combining clay and rigid extruded polystyrene foam as “firm and malleable” design object.
Combining clay and rigid extruded polystyrene foam as “firm and malleable” design object.
[f51]
Subtractive method of form finding through carving rigid extruded polystyrene foam.
[f52]
Soft density foam condensed creating a volume rather than a surface.
Soft density foam condensed creating a volume rather than a surface.
[f53]
“Solid Firm” object sketches.
“Solid Firm” object sketches.
[f54]
“Solid Malleable” object sketches.
“Solid Malleable” object sketches.
[f55]
“Frame Malleable” object sketches.
[f56-57]
Digital sketches exploring different materials and orientations for the same object.
Digital sketches exploring different materials and orientations for the same object.
As formal experimentation continued in analog two dimensionally, it took on a categorical approach. While taking into consideration the study models that had been explored until this point, and considering material relationships existing objects have, the following categories were distilled. First, a binary divide between solid and hollow, or framed, objects. Within these two categories were firm and malleable. The two by two matrix resulted in four categories: solid firm, solid malleable, frame firm, frame malleable. [f48] Mundane objects that would fit into each category respectively would be a rock, a plush toy, a storage container, and a tent. These categories acted as the design parameters for an exercise. The sketches focused mostly on objects that would fit into one category, however there were also moments of consideration for designing with the parameters combined. Working with physical study models provoked defining these categories. While each category still allows for endless opportunity, it was a first step at understanding how to place limits on the design strategy. The formal design parameter was provocative but not enough. There was a back and forth between drawing and modeling, which eventually led to modeling digitally.
Digitally modeling was not prioritized intentionally. Although the precision of digital work is typically favored for many good reasons, the precision digital geometries inherit is the reason it was not preferred in this process. There is a connection between hand and drawing utensils that does not exist the same between hand and mouse. When working digitally, there needs to be another layer of decision and intention that goes into the commands entered and lines drawn. Despite this challenge, the exercise of digital modeling was also a necessary step in the process of defining the relationship between designer and design process. The quick turnaround time of digital iterations is a tool to take advantage of when going through various design strategies.
The formal design process had various avenues within it, some more productive than others, however all contributing towards the final design strategy. Learning which methods were not imperative as parameters was crucial in making progress.