John James Marshall thesis.pdf - OpenAIR @ RGU - Robert Gordon ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.0 Results ................................................................................................................................. 127 4.1 An engaged practitioner .............................................................................................. 127 4.1.1 Live discourse ..........................................................................................................128 4.2 A critical review of designed objects........................................................................ 129 4.2.1 Database categories ...............................................................................................129 4.2.2 Application of database categories. ..................................................................148 4.3 A survey of international practitioners................................................................... 155 4.4 Development of a curatorial framework ................................................................ 167 4.5 A public exhibition and symposium.........................................................................182 4.5.1 New work commissioned .....................................................................................185 4.5.2 Works selected from open call ............................................................................191 4.5.3 Symposium ............................................................................................................. 203 4.5.4 Practitioner interviews.........................................................................................207 4.5.5 Audience survey .....................................................................................................238 4.5.6 Partner interviews .................................................................................................243 4.5.7 Press citations .........................................................................................................265 4.5.8 Summary of public exhibition and symposium results.............................. 268 4.6 Development of analytical models .......................................................................... 268 4.6.1 Technology adoption models ............................................................................. 268 4.6.2 Klein group model .................................................................................................269 5.0 Discussion...........................................................................................................................278 5.1 An engaged practitioner...............................................................................................278 5.1.1 Live Discourse..........................................................................................................278 5.2 A critical review of designed objects ........................................................................279 5.3 A survey of international practitioners...................................................................281 5.4 Development of a curatorial framework ................................................................283 5.5 A public exhibition and symposium ........................................................................ 284 5.5.1 Symposium...............................................................................................................285 5.5.2 Practitioner interviews.........................................................................................287 5.5.3 Audience survey..................................................................................................... 289 5.5.4 Partner interviews ................................................................................................ 290 5.5.5 Press citations .........................................................................................................292 5.5.6 Summary of public exhibition and symposium discussion ........................293 5.6 Development of analytical models............................................................................295 5.6.1 Technology adoption models...............................................................................295 5.6.2 Klein group model .................................................................................................296 6.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 298 6.1 Context............................................................................................................................. 298 6.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................................299 6.3 Questions........................................................................................................................ 300 6.4 Critical review of methods......................................................................................... 304 6.5 Outcomes........................................................................................................................ 306 6.6 Concluding remarks and future research ............................................................. 306 7.0 Glossary .............................................................................................................................. 309 8.0 References ..........................................................................................................................312 9.0 Appendix I: Transcript of symposium ........................................................................332 9.1 Paul Rodgers ...................................................................................................................332 9.2 Tavs Jørgensen ............................................................................................................. 340 9.3 Aoife Ludlow...................................................................................................................345 9.4 Justin Marshall..............................................................................................................352 9.5 Lionel T. Dean ................................................................................................................357 9.6 Human Beans.................................................................................................................364 9.7 Discussion .......................................................................................................................369 10.0 Appendix II: Practitioner 1 interview........................................................................384 11.0 Appendix III: Practitioner 2 interview ......................................................................393 12.0 Appendix IV: Practitioner 3 interview ..................................................................... 402 13.0 Appendix V: Practitioner 4 interview....................................................................... 408 14.0 Appendix VI: Practitioner 5 interview ......................................................................419 15.0 Appendix VII: Practitioner 6 interview (response by email)..............................432 16.0 Appendix VIII: Creative Director interview ............................................................438 17.0 Appendix IX: Programme Manager interview ........................................................ 451 - 3 -
Table of tables Table 1: Bruce Sterling’s evolution of objects (after Sterling, 2005).............................................56 Table 2: Three types of research beyond standard disciplinarity (after Gibbons et al, 1994) ......70 Table 3: Fundamental differences in the ways that knowledge is produced (after Gibbons et al, 1994) ............................................................................................................................................... 71 Table 4: The ACOT Model (after Dwyer, Ringstaff, and Sandholtz, 1990) ..................................121 Table 5: The ACOT phases presented as 3 general stages (after Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1990) ............................................................................................................................................. 122 Table 6: A model of the phases that practitioners go through when integrating computer-based tools into their practice................................................................................................................. 123 Table 7: A coded indication of the object's source .......................................................................130 Table 8: The stage in the production cycle within which the use of digital design and fabrication tools are integrated into the process ............................................................................................ 133 Table 9: The phases of technological integration ........................................................................ 135 Table 10: Three types of user-object relationship........................................................................ 139 Table 11: Six broad categories of designed object ........................................................................ 142 Table 12: A sample of the information stored in the object database ......................................... 146 Table 13: Practitioners selected for commissions........................................................................ 176 Table 14: Curatorial panel process results ................................................................................... 179 Table 15: List of key milestones in curatorial process .................................................................184 Table 16: List of press citations ....................................................................................................267 Table 17: An indication of the relative categories applied to objects from the ‘Perimeters, Boundaries and Borders’ exhibition ............................................................................................276 Table 18: Which works were most cited and by which discourse communities .........................292 Table 19: Observed trends from conventional models of practice towards characteristics of a ‘technology-led practice’.............................................................................................................. 302 Table of figures Figure 1: A simple model of the complex of histories ‘through’ and ‘against’ which objects in the field of enquiry emerge (after Lister, Dovey, Giddings, Grant and Kelly (2003) with the new contribution marked in gray) .........................................................................................................20 Figure 2: ‘Splines’ are long, flexible battens used in conjunction with spline weights to draw fair curves while drawing a boat’s lines and during the lofting process .............................................. 21 Figure 3: ‘NURBS’ (non-uniform, rational Bézier-splines) are mathematical models commonly used in computer graphics for generating and representing curves and surfaces........................22 Figure 4: ‘Ridges Over Time’, 1968. Charles Csuri ........................................................................26 Figure 5: ‘SCUMAK’ (Auto Sculpture Maker), 1998. Roxy Paine..................................................30 Figure 6: ‘Gordon Tapper 1:10, 3D body scan of the living person’, 1999. Karin Sander ............. 31 Figure 7: ‘Corridor’, 1997 (left) and ‘HVAC’, 1999 (right). Craig Kalpakjian ................................32 Figure 8: ‘Skull’ (Distortion#2 of 4), 2000. Robert Lazzarini.......................................................32 Figure 9: ‘Ajna Series’ (detail), 1998-2000. Michael Rees ............................................................33 Figure 10: ‘Camera Obscura’, 2005. SHoP ....................................................................................45 Figure 11: ‘Amazing Whale Jaw’, 2003. NIO Architecten..............................................................46 Figure 12: ‘Sinterchair®’, 2002. Vogt + Weizenegger...................................................................46 Figure 13: ‘Tuber’, 2003. FutureFactories .....................................................................................47 Figure 14: ‘SLS® Dress’, 2005. Freedom of Creation ...................................................................48 Figure 15: ‘Kagoshima Temple’, 2005. Thomas Heatherwick.......................................................48 Figure 16: ‘Alessi Tea and Coffee Piazza’, 2000. Greg Lynn..........................................................49 Figure 17: ‘FluxSpace 1.0’, 2000. Asymptote.................................................................................49 Figure 18: ‘Tessagon Bowl’, 2006. Drummond Masterton............................................................ 51 Figure 19: ‘Airborne Snotty Vase’, 2001. Marcel Wanders............................................................ 51 Figure 20: ‘Bicycle Wheel’, 1913 (left) and ‘Fountain’, 1917 (right). Marcel Duchamp................. 81 Figure 21: 'This Is a Lamp', 2001. Tobi Wong ...............................................................................83 Figure 22: ‘The Treason of Images’, 1928. René Magritte.............................................................84 Figure 23: ‘Pushed Washtub’, 1996. Hella Jongerius ....................................................................87 Figure 24: ‘Guggenheim Museum Bilbao’, 1997. Frank Gehry....................................................108 Figure 25: ‘Garbo’ polypropylene trash can for Umbra, 1996. Karim Rashid.............................109 Figure 26: Rogers technology adoption model............................................................................120 Figure 27: ‘Klein group’ model from ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’ (Krauss, 1979) ............ 124 Figure 28: ‘Blur Building’, 2002. Diller + Scofidio.......................................................................131 - 4 -
Page 1 and 2: OpenAIR@RGU The Open Access Institu
Page 3: Table of contents Table of contents
Page 7 and 8: Image credits Figure 4: ‘Ridges O
Page 9 and 10: Keywords ART, DESIGN, DIGITAL, HYBR
Page 11 and 12: 1.0 Introduction This research is c
Page 13 and 14: Since 2002, the researcher has also
Page 15 and 16: The specific research questions to
Page 17 and 18: helping practitioners from many are
Page 19 and 20: synthetic or pluralist perspective
Page 21 and 22: Figure 1: A simple model of the com
Page 23 and 24: General Motors to begin developing
Page 25 and 26: introduction of feature-based param
Page 27 and 28: In 2005 the exhibition ‘Blobjects
Page 29 and 30: art. The theme of the exhibition wa
Page 31 and 32: technologies and not necessarily th
Page 33 and 34: executed by various technologies an
Page 35 and 36: purposely exploit computer-based te
Page 37 and 38: “…so much for automating tasks
Page 39 and 40: embodied in traditional craft pract
Page 41 and 42: Obviously it is necessary to look b
Page 43 and 44: The computer is being used as a too
Page 45 and 46: the proliferation of ‘responsive
Page 47 and 48: Figure 11: ‘Amazing Whale Jaw’,
Page 49 and 50: Figure 14: ‘SLS® Dress’, 2005.
Page 51 and 52: with sensors which were activated b
Page 53 and 54: These designer-makers are exploring
Page 55 and 56:
ackground, providing just another p
Page 57 and 58:
Type of object Description Requirem
Page 59 and 60:
2.7 Ontologies of production: 21 st
Page 61 and 62:
design and fabrication facilities,
Page 63 and 64:
“Unfortunately, the ability to ma
Page 65 and 66:
information about these on their we
Page 67 and 68:
have now are the needs other users
Page 69 and 70:
As the use of computer-based design
Page 71 and 72:
cross-disciplinary problem solving
Page 73 and 74:
hybridization of cultural categorie
Page 75 and 76:
“Boundary objects are both plasti
Page 77 and 78:
association with function (Fairs, 2
Page 79 and 80:
“…excludes the mind (the exclus
Page 81 and 82:
causing a loss of this ‘aura’.
Page 83 and 84:
“…the creative act is not perfo
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 22: ‘The Treason of Images
Page 87 and 88:
these have often served the covert
Page 89 and 90:
highly developed collaborative skil
Page 91 and 92:
plastic arts. However, media theori
Page 93 and 94:
explores the work of artists 39 act
Page 95 and 96:
elationships for hybrid art and des
Page 97 and 98:
to reimagine the cultural role of d
Page 99 and 100:
knobs, materials and mechanisms - i
Page 101 and 102:
From the contextual review we can s
Page 103 and 104:
used by architects (and others) as
Page 105 and 106:
3.0 Methodology This study fits wit
Page 107 and 108:
the data: survey results, interview
Page 109 and 110:
used for objects of differing scale
Page 111 and 112:
These practitioners represent a spe
Page 113 and 114:
team each selected their top six 50
Page 115 and 116:
to survey existing works, explore f
Page 117 and 118:
their experience and perceptions re
Page 119 and 120:
digital voice recorder. Each partne
Page 121 and 122:
There are many existing technology
Page 123 and 124:
Survival Mastery Impact The introdu
Page 125 and 126:
negative terms to their positives (
Page 127 and 128:
work. The review indicated a need f
Page 129 and 130:
service Preview Trend Direction 56
Page 131 and 132:
(Image Source 58 ). An indication o
Page 133 and 134:
The instance of Rashid’s ‘Garbo
Page 135 and 136:
Figure 30: ‘D-tower’, 2004. Lar
Page 137 and 138:
software to interpolate a curve thr
Page 139 and 140:
industrial context. Most of the obj
Page 141 and 142:
Figure 36: ‘Geo’, 2005. Keith B
Page 143 and 144:
distinctions based on the means by
Page 145 and 146:
Figure 41: ‘Sketch Furniture’,
Page 147 and 148:
Category Image Result Title Holy Gh
Page 149 and 150:
elationship is indicated and given
Page 151 and 152:
Figure 44: Database categories in t
Page 153 and 154:
Manglano-Ovalle’s ‘Cloud Protot
Page 155 and 156:
Figure 46: Increasing ‘complexity
Page 157 and 158:
21. Janne Kyttanen & Jiri Evenhuis
Page 159 and 160:
Q3. When you see the term ‘3D com
Page 161 and 162:
Q5. When did you first make use of
Page 163 and 164:
Impact References New formal possib
Page 165 and 166:
Relationship Response Percent Respo
Page 167 and 168:
Figure 47: A map of exemplary pract
Page 169 and 170:
The researcher continued developing
Page 171 and 172:
were informed the Manchester Digita
Page 173 and 174:
links to the community, educational
Page 175 and 176:
Figure 50: A rendering of the glaze
Page 177 and 178:
This exhibition will bring emerging
Page 179 and 180:
able to participate and Driessens &
Page 181 and 182:
We received forty-six submissions b
Page 183 and 184:
4.5 A public exhibition and symposi
Page 185 and 186:
27/06/2006 Additional practitioners
Page 187 and 188:
Figure 52: ‘Holy Ghost’, 2006.
Page 189 and 190:
Figure 54: ‘What’s Cooking Gran
Page 191 and 192:
The architects initially proposed t
Page 193 and 194:
and in newsletters and on blogs. Th
Page 195 and 196:
Figure 60: ‘Light Sensitive Disk
Page 197 and 198:
Some visitors to the exhibition see
Page 199 and 200:
Figure 65: ‘Penrose Strapping 1
Page 201 and 202:
The texts have titles such as ‘A
Page 203 and 204:
Open Call 9. ‘Warp’ by London-b
Page 205 and 206:
These were decided based on the con
Page 207 and 208:
How would you rate the quality of i
Page 209 and 210:
1. Where did you see the call for P
Page 211 and 212:
4. What did you expect to get out o
Page 213 and 214:
6. Was there someone you expected t
Page 215 and 216:
9. Were you happy with the way your
Page 217 and 218:
These practitioners considered that
Page 219 and 220:
15. How would you sum up the core t
Page 221 and 222:
The inverse of the previous questio
Page 223 and 224:
20. Have you received any new oppor
Page 225 and 226:
23. Has being in the exhibition had
Page 227 and 228:
27. What formal training have you h
Page 229 and 230:
30. What (for you) is the key benef
Page 231 and 232:
32. What is most important to you t
Page 233 and 234:
34. What does the term ‘3D comput
Page 235 and 236:
practice was contingent on the cont
Page 237 and 238:
39. Do you think there is a trend t
Page 239 and 240:
hybrid disciplines. Also 1 (17%) pr
Page 241 and 242:
(4%) strongly disagreed with this s
Page 243 and 244:
the exhibition ‘felt a bit steril
Page 245 and 246:
The Exhibition (expectations) The r
Page 247 and 248:
Programme Manager I am pleased that
Page 249 and 250:
The partners were asked what kind o
Page 251 and 252:
Programme Manager We weren’t tryi
Page 253 and 254:
13. What would you do differently i
Page 255 and 256:
15. In your opinion, what was the w
Page 257 and 258:
18. How would you sum up the core t
Page 259 and 260:
The Exhibition (aftermath) The rese
Page 261 and 262:
23. What feedback from funders did
Page 263 and 264:
Programme Manager I’m not really
Page 265 and 266:
Programme Manager I know that we ha
Page 267 and 268:
Date What Where Who Communities 28/
Page 269 and 270:
4.5.8 Summary of public exhibition
Page 271 and 272:
etween them. Professor Krauss respo
Page 273 and 274:
The conjunction of ‘product desig
Page 275 and 276:
art is a form of media art that int
Page 277 and 278:
Practitioner Title Category Type of
Page 279 and 280:
5.0 Discussion This thesis has exam
Page 281 and 282:
much part of the discourse of ‘di
Page 283 and 284:
From the responses received slightl
Page 285 and 286:
5.5 A public exhibition and symposi
Page 287 and 288:
now faced in the design-related fie
Page 289 and 290:
the exhibition primarily as a means
Page 291 and 292:
Four visitors indicated the diversi
Page 293 and 294:
model rather than the service provi
Page 295 and 296:
interest around the field of enquir
Page 297 and 298:
technologies into their practice an
Page 299 and 300:
6.0 Conclusions This study came abo
Page 301 and 302:
the form of surveys and interviews
Page 303 and 304:
From To Reference Expensive Technol
Page 305 and 306:
increased capacity for a transdisci
Page 307 and 308:
6.5 Outcomes This research project
Page 309 and 310:
underpin computer-based or hybrid p
Page 311 and 312:
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS®) 1
Page 313 and 314:
8.0 References 3D SYSTEMS, 2007. 3D
Page 315 and 316:
BEAMAN, J., 1997. The early roots o
Page 317 and 318:
COLES, A., 2005a. DesignArt. London
Page 319 and 320:
EVIL MAD SCIENTIST LABORATORIES, 20
Page 321 and 322:
GRAHAM, B., 2005. Taxonomies of new
Page 323 and 324:
JENKINS, I., 2003. Art for art's sa
Page 325 and 326:
LUPTON, E., 1998. Design and produc
Page 327 and 328:
MILLER, D., ed. 1998. Material cult
Page 329 and 330:
RENDELL, J. 2006. Art and Architect
Page 331 and 332:
STORKERSON, P., 1997. Defining desi
Page 333 and 334:
9.0 Appendix I: Transcript of sympo
Page 335 and 336:
interdisciplinary design practice.
Page 337 and 338:
viewed as a bridge between technolo
Page 339 and 340:
John this morning through the show
Page 341 and 342:
the detriment of the latter. As tut
Page 343 and 344:
mainly used in the animation indust
Page 345 and 346:
uses the physical nature of the gla
Page 347 and 348:
avoiding using a pen and paper soun
Page 349 and 350:
they sit in a specific location alw
Page 351 and 352:
cut the day before that has been sc
Page 353 and 354:
Pass at the end of August for ten d
Page 355 and 356:
what functional use they might be t
Page 357 and 358:
of ornament and the fact that a lot
Page 359 and 360:
might be done with rapid prototypin
Page 361 and 362:
prototyping. Materialise started of
Page 363 and 364:
off with twenty two. I think that c
Page 365 and 366:
finished that was necessary because
Page 367 and 368:
go inside those kitchens and really
Page 369 and 370:
www.whatscookinggrandma.net MC: It
Page 371 and 372:
and it wasn’t quite the same thin
Page 373 and 374:
Paul Rodgers: Well, he wouldn’t.
Page 375 and 376:
sort of urban scape art projects. I
Page 377 and 378:
described - the tools that you are
Page 379 and 380:
about the make up of the cloth that
Page 381 and 382:
From the floor: I'm just wondering
Page 383 and 384:
well. So it’s not just changing t
Page 385 and 386:
10.0 Appendix II: Practitioner 1 in
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
looped animation and implying that
Page 391 and 392:
33. What do you consider constitute
Page 393 and 394:
digitally and have someone mould it
Page 395 and 396:
innovation within technology, not i
Page 397 and 398:
It had a nice feeling about it. I d
Page 399 and 400:
29. How have computer technologies
Page 401 and 402:
I’ve just started to define mysel
Page 403 and 404:
12.0 Appendix IV: Practitioner 3 in
Page 405 and 406:
14. Did you think the exhibition wa
Page 407 and 408:
26. When did you first make use of
Page 409 and 410:
13.0 Appendix V: Practitioner 4 int
Page 411 and 412:
smaller things like lamps as well a
Page 413 and 414:
I suppose diversity within each pra
Page 415 and 416:
24. Would you be interested in bein
Page 417 and 418:
nicer than seeing something at the
Page 419 and 420:
It’s a very central role and it
Page 421 and 422:
5. Who did you expect to be in the
Page 423 and 424:
Especially the windows as well. You
Page 425 and 426:
It’s pretty strong to my heart, b
Page 427 and 428:
28. How would you describe how you
Page 429 and 430:
how it’ll trace, leaving a trace
Page 431 and 432:
36. In terms of discipline where do
Page 433 and 434:
15.0 Appendix VII: Practitioner 6 i
Page 435 and 436:
18. Many visitors to the exhibition
Page 437 and 438:
It could mean a variety of things,
Page 439 and 440:
16.0 Appendix VIII: Creative Direct
Page 441 and 442:
I think it was an interesting role,
Page 443 and 444:
10. Did the exhibition live up to y
Page 445 and 446:
which was Ben’s work which for me
Page 447 and 448:
that should be in London. So there
Page 449 and 450:
Obviously all of the artists that w
Page 451 and 452:
Yes, actually one of the things tha
Page 453 and 454:
key element of that. It’s not jus
Page 455 and 456:
original proposal which felt like a
Page 457 and 458:
I think that we were very fortunate
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
things could have felt quite differ
Page 463 and 464:
potential energy that could be crea
Page 465 and 466:
28. Has being involved in PBB had a
Page 467:
Of course and we did extend an invi
show all

John James Marshall thesis.pdf - OpenAIR @ RGU - Robert Gordon ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?