Читать книгу Rethinking Prototyping - Группа авторов - Страница 77

Before starting Bridging the Gap, we analysed the results of the previous courses and decided to gear the course strictly to the accessible and affordable means of production. Given the equipment of TU Berlin laser cutting for the scale models and three-axis CNC milling for components of the bridge seemed to be the suitable tools. Thus we envisioned the bridge to be constructed modular with custom parts and joints from plywood. Through the restriction to a certain technical outcome we ensured that the students were able to track the workflow from the early design stage to the file-to-fabrication phase by one coherent digital model.

The approach involves a culture of thinking that accentuates the definition of the geometrical structure instead of the actual form (cf. Valena et al. 2011, Nake et al. 2007, p. 220). A parametric model in essence is only meaningful, provided it is wisely structured, allows the creation of substantially different variations from a relatively small number of parameters, and at the same time can easily adapt to changing constraints. Thus we wanted to review not only the outcome of the Grasshopper definitions but particularly the way they were conceived.

Pedestrian bridges in the Großer Tiergarten stand for the integration of artefacts into a natural environment (Fig. 4). We wanted to refer to this topic by looking at nature at a micro scale instead of mimicking its phenomena. Conceptually, there is an interesting coherence between the growth of plants from genome information and the creation of parametric models from bits of code (cf. the term digital morphogenesis, e.g. Hensel, Menges 2008). Although a species as well as a parametric model is essentially described by its code (genotype), there is still a great variety of forms possible by slightly changing the variables and by inherent adaptability (phenotypes).

Fig. 4 Detail of a historic pedestrian bridge in the Tiergarten with a floral motif.

One pitfall of parametric modelling is that the students forget about their ability to design and instead clone code solutions found in the Internet – with the effect of a worldwide homogeneous menu of inchoate parametric compositions at any digital design lab (van Berkel 2013). One reason for this apparent defect may be that the students are simply not able to take advantage of the programming tools because of a lack of deeper understanding. Thus, the programming environment again – as any other CAAD software – acts as a black box with predefined tool sets and outcome. The second reason might be found in the software itself: Only design decisions that can easily be quantified find their way into the digital model. Last but not least the students are often overwhelmed by the efficiency of parametric models in handling large quantities, which may suggest complexity. It takes a little experience to realize that apparent complexity is not added value.

The challenge in conducting Bridging the Gap was to avoid these tendencies by two strategies. First, in order not to be narrowed by the software the students evolved the seedlings of the designs with analogue techniques. Second, the students had to build up Grasshopper definitions from scratch. In a set of consecutive tutorials, each starting from a plain canvas the students became familiar with the essential concepts of the software and the underlying geometric knowledge. Altogether the aim of the course was to unleash the students’ potential to handle complex design tasks skilfully and to make them create unique concepts within a short period of time.