Читать книгу Rethinking Prototyping - Группа авторов - Страница 78

In respect to the location in the park and with the conceptual orientation towards a modular structure we started our course with the analysis of the formation and structure of elements and joints from biological examples (Fig. 5). Each student had to work on sketches and physical models to document personal observations and speculations (Fig. 6). The students investigated in several directions: Is an example promising from the structural point of view? Does it reveal geometrical principles that qualify it for a module? Could it be an inspiration for materialization in a larger scale?

Fig. 5 Some found objects serving as examples at the beginning of Bridging the Gap.

The reflection on biological artefacts has numerous famous precursors like Karl Blossfeldt and Ernst Haeckel (Sachsse 1996, Haeckel 1998). We especially emphasized the morphological perspective that D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson unfolded (Thompson 1917). Though, the focus was not to generate engineering solutions like in bionics, but to start a voyage of discovery as for example artist Amely Spötzl undertakes in disassembling and cutting parts of plants (Hupasch; Lordick 2008, pp. 24/25, 70/71). During this first step, each student unveiled a pattern and principle to refer to during the following tasks. Then groups of two students each were formed to combine related motives. In cooperation the students formulated a spectrum of forms that transcended the biological example, and they tested and extracted options of parameterization for the digital model (Fig. 7). Next the concepts were transferred into code and the resulting digital models were refined. In a phase of exploration and inspection the students created variants gauging the design space of their concepts (Fig. 8).

Fig. 6 Selection of students’ sketches and models inspired by biological examples.

Fig. 7 Formal explorations to extract relevant parameters.

Fig. 8 Variations derived from a parametric model.

Obviously, we established a procedure where we did not start with the instruction „Design a footbridge!”, but in a bottom-up strategy tried to develop and agglomerate building parts, which eventually are able to span a stream. This is a generative method, which among other aspects helped to prevent unfounded copy and paste tactics during the scripting phase: Any new inspiration appearing on the screens had to be related to previous steps of the evolution.

Generative design is not an invention of the digital era. It is a highly process-based approach that opens the space of possible solutions for the unexpected. In a systematic sequence of actions that are partly carried out by technical means. Step by step the design emerges. The idea is not to draw from a source of predefined forms but to get involved into an algorithm for form-finding (Kraft; Taraz-Breinholt 2002, p. 20). As an early predecessor for generative strategies may apply Sonia Landy Sheridan, who in the field of fine arts experimented with photocopiers and fax machines during the 1970s (Kirkpatrick et al. 2009). The digital tools we use today are certainly much more sophisticated. As far as parametric modelling is concerned, the most remarkable feature is that at any time the whole process from the initial assumptions to the ultimate fabrication data can be reviewed and controlled interactively.

Bridging the Gap had the aim to create a pedestrian bridge. This is a task typically carried out by civil engineers alone. We wanted to question and overcome this by linking radical structural and formal thinking. During the first semester we had two invited talks contributing to this topic. The first was by Lorenz Lachauer, who introduced his form-finding tool for curved bridges (Lachauer; Kotnik 2011). The second talk was by Prof. Mike Schlaich, who reported about his essentials and about exemplary projects from his long practice in designing footbridges (Baus; Schlaich 2013).

Fig. 9 Three selected projects from the first semester of Bridging the Gap.

At the beginning of the second semester we selected three objects that had to be developed further by three groups of students (Fig. 9). The aim was to explore the bridges in terms of their potential for actually getting manufactured and to inspect their inherent structural behaviour (Fig. 10). Finally, one design was rated to be most promising and selected for in-depth examination. Now the students collaboratively edited the details and created parts with the milling machine. Three significant units of larger joints were assembled. The units were then stress tested in collaboration with the department of Prof. Mike Schlaich (Fig. 11.).

Fig. 10 Studies accompanying the selection process.

Fig. 11 Component, stress test of a standard unit, assembled elements.

The communication about the progress during the course was a main issue. However, the traditional repertoire of floor plans, elevations and sections once claimed by Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472) did only partly apply to the rather complex shapes and the dynamically changing designs. For this reason we supported additional methods of visual representations to broaden the graphical repertoire. The students explored flow charts, screen shots of the visual programming software on the fly, sequences, and design space diagrams (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12 Flow chart documenting the process of a student’s project.