Rewind < 1
This is a book of two parts. The previous section articulated the scope and intent of the inquiry, scanning precedent in architecture and kinetic art to locate relevant theory and practice. For Part II, the inquiry shifts to a more active mode. In the follow- ing chapters, aspects of the scan through precedent are used to propose a general model for design. An instance of this model is then developed to explore kinetic range through a series of design experiments. The penultimate chapter attempts a classifi cation of the outcomes, as a fi rst pass at refl ecting on the possible extent of this new design space, the aim being to locate the general bounds of form, and articulate a useful set of terms – a nomenclature for designers and critics. To this end, a provisional taxonomy is developed from kinetic art, based on the surface patterning of the sea. As will be revealed, this approach to locating difference is found to be problematic. In the fi nal chapter, a more open set of terms is proposed, through the concept of state change. This fi nal nomenclature embraces the capacity for continuous and qualitative multiplicity – that kinetic pattern can slide from differ- ence by degree to difference in kind.
Given this shift to research through design experimentation, it may be useful to briefl y restate the scope of this book and summarize the previous dis- cussion. The focus is on actual physical movement of a kinetic facade. Facade is loosely defi ned as a zone between the outside and inside of architecture, generally oriented towards the vertical. The interest here is not in the enabling technology, nor the design of the kinetic components – the focus is on the kinetic form, that is, ‘movement itself’. The motivation is to map out the edges of this new design space and to this end three questions were articulated: What are the design variables that determine kinetic form? What is the potential range? And what nomenclature can usefully communicate design intent? These queries are pursued through the abstraction of morphology. This enables experimentation with the underlying design parameters, which, when manipulated, produce shifting intensities of kinetic pattern.
Part I located relevant precedent in contemporary architecture, the wider traditions of facade composition and insight from kinetic art. Discussion of contemporary theory and practice revealed a number of built examples and innova- tive prototypes. The emphasis of current architectural activity is on the ways and means – the techniques and technology of kinetics – with minimal discussion of the formal possibilities. In Chapter 3 the survey of kinetics was extended to consider approaches to the static composition of architectural facades. Strategically chosen
Part II
78
sources on traditional and contemporary approaches to facades were examined. Kaufmann’s analysis of part-to-whole composition as three generic systems pro- vided an example of a generic, rather than stylistic interpretation of form. This was extended by including the fi eld composition enabled by the modernist curtain wall, with the idea of the fi eld examined further, from its roots in Italian Futurism to con- temporary designers. From this, the use of cybernetics in architecture was discussed as a potential model for conceiving kinetic control systems.
The discussion extended beyond architecture in Chapter 4, to consider the kinetic arts, starting with the standard reference text by Frank Popper. His ency- clopaedic approach and proliferation of categories were challenging, but two points that recur were insightful: the use of elements of unpredictability in kinetic art; and the importance of temporal scale, as explored through the agogic. Two signifi cant artists, who also have contributed to theory, were subsequently examined. Len Lye conceived kinetic form as ‘fi gures of movement’. The fi gures he explored were par- ticular to his practice, but demonstrated a mode of working that encapsulated ideas through drawing and physical miniatures. A subsequent analysis of George Rickey proved very useful, in particular his Morphology of Movement, where he identifi ed a minimal kinetic vocabulary. From a discussion of these ideas it was proposed that for architectural facades, kinetic form is best conceived in terms of pattern. A work- ing defi nition was proposed: kinetic pattern is the relative movement of individual parts, which produce differentiated clusters of similar movement, or propagation of similar kinetic resonance across a facade. The discussion of the kinetic arts concluded with contemporary use of Burnham’s ‘systems aesthetic’. In particular the work of Alan Dorin, who has proposed taxonomy of kinetic process for what he terms virtual-kinetic art.
Part II builds on these ideas from architecture and the kinetic arts to develop a framework, or model for conceiving design. Kinetics shift architectural focus from the design of objects and spaces to the articulation of a process. The outcome of kinetics is not the design of the component parts, nor is it the enabling technology. The ‘thing’ that is designed is the process that determines a multiplicity of kinetic pattern. There are strong parallels with the systems aesthetic of contem- porary art practice; the subtle specifi cation of systems to produce environments in fl ux, as opposed to discrete art objects. The current generation of architectural designers will see a relationship to parametric design techniques. For kinetics the approach is similar, but the ends radically different. Rather than manipulating param- eters to locate an optimal (singular) design, for kinetics, the parametric system is the outcome.
The aim of this chapter is to build on the ideas developed in Part 1 to locate the variables that determine kinetic pattern. To this end, a conceptual model for design is developed. This does not represent a theory for design or an argument for a particular kinetic outcome. The modest goal is to articulate the interrelation- ships between sets of design variables, in terms of potential infl uence on kinetics. By bringing together disparate sources from architecture and kinetic art, a general model is developed. Through argument and example, this is populated by what are considered to be the most infl uential design variables. Kinetics requires a shift in
focus, from the optimization of a singular design solution to the specifi cation of the ‘variable space’, from which multiple designs will emerge. As a way to visualize this design space, the idea of decision planes is developed. Design is conceived in sec- tion, as three planes of activity. Linking these in the vertical axis are the omnipresent parameters of temporal scale and periodic structure.