draft: digital foundations: viewing design and construction through the materiality of digital...

7/29/2019 DRAFT: Digital Foundations: Viewing design and construction through the materiality of digital representation.

1/10

Digital Foundations: Viewing design and construction through the

materiality of digital representation.

Dr Dermott McMeel

The University of Auckland, School of Architecture and PlanningLevel 626 Symonds StAucklandNew Zealand

Tel: +64 9 373 7599 ext 81926

Email: [email protected]


2/10

Digital Foundations: Viewing design and construction through the

materiality of digital representation.

Abstract

A recent proliferation of accessible fabrication technologies have brought some questions

surrounding digitally sponsored design and making into sharp relief. Laser cutters, 3D printer kitsand DIY KUKA robot templates can put established processes within design and construction into astate of uncertainty; the body of work on the subject is already substantial and continues to grow.There are many different strains, stakeholders and conceptions of digital design and it is valuable todistinguish between the various politics of the role of technology within these processes, which iswhat this paper attempts to do. It has the following objectives, firstly, through three examples Iexplore three different but related ways to conceptualise the use of technology, with the purpose ofcreating a typology for streams of research. Secondly, it aims to shed light on some of our existing

prejudices regarding technology and how design and construction practices are being affected bythese different conceptualisations of technology.1 A Tale

I will begin with a story, some time ago I designed a table, to explore the capability of a newcomputer numerical controlled (CNC) router my department had acquired; inspired by SalvadorDal it would be a 'soft' table (Fig 1).

Fig 1: The soft table model and finished product by Dermott McMeel.

The table went through several iterations as the fabrication specialist, a cabinet maker from ourtraditional workshop and I figured out what could be achieved by both manual and CNC router

techniques. We also needed to ilicit how the table might be divide into manageable blocks for therouter. The result we all agreed upon was two individual blocks, one for the top table surface andone for the leg. The routed blocks would then be assembled by traditional glue and biscuittechniques. The plywood was purchased, prepared in the workshop and transferred to the digitalworkshop. Routing is preceded by a time consuming and laborious positioning and calibration ritualsome of which can be seen here C https://vimeo.com/35361578. The top surface of the table wasrouted, then the block of wood was flipped it over to route a rebate in the underside. This flipping

process is a set feature of the CNC software, which is invoked when more that one surface of anobject needs to be treated with the router. When it was repositioned and recalibrated the fabricationspecialist gave an audible gasp of despair and looked at me as the colour drained from her face.The leg, it is not in the middle! She was of course correct, it was slightly offset, a fact of which I

have no doubt Dal would approve. Nevertheless, the specialist was not aware of this fact, it onlybecame obvious when the block was turned over and the first cuts we made were now obviouslymoved approximately 100mm. Yet, when we ran the cutting simulation within the software, theCNC router was going to cut in the correct, 100mm offset, location. What I find interesting, withinthe context of what we are discussing in this paper, is that because of the techniques we employedfor design and fabrication of this table it was not necessary for the specialist to know the accurate

position of the leg. Those measurements were encoded into the design description (Fig 1 left image)and fabricated correctly (Fig 1 right image) without the need for the knowledge to be transferred

between us through the design description.2 Introduction

In this paper I will build on recent work by computer scientist Paul Dourish [1]` on the materialityof data. Dourish posits the means by which we describe data affects our understanding of, and the


3/10

practices that surround it. By way of an example he uses the historic evolution from non-literate toliterate civilisations. The notion of verisimilitude and accuracy only comes into focus when cultures

became literate and knowledge was materialised and stored as script. When knowledge was storedin memory and communicated in stories, the concept of experience was more central to itsmateriality. I will periodically draw on Dourish in this document to help scrutinise three examplesof technological intervention in a design or making process. These examples have emerged from

various courses within the School of Architecture and Planning at The University of Aucklandduring 2012. The examples reveal three separate but related issues regarding the impact oftechnology on designing and making, although there are many more we do not attempt to coverthem all here. I aim to provide some historical context for the relationship we have with technology,then by evaluating the examples I establish some categorisations for thematic research around theimpact of technology within design and making.

The first categorisation I have called material representation of digital descriptions, it has beeninformed by observation of processes involved in the design and making of a rocking chair. Itconsiders the material difference of describing a chair within a parametric environmentin thiscase Grasshopperrather than a static one such as Revit or SketchUp. It provides insight into

historical prejudices regarding prefabrication and demonstrates where and how they are currentlybreaking down. The second category I have arrived at is culture of design virtuosity, which wasbrought to light by a student's attempts to build and control a do-it-yourself KUKA robot. It revealskey drivers that lie behind a designers appropriation of, and intention while using, robotics. Thethird and final categorisation that will be discussed here is digital savagery in construction. Inwhich the utilisation of a laser cutter and 3D printer for the design and build of a do-it-yourselfDelta robot uncovers nuances within, and challenges, theEngineerandBricoleurbinary oppositionthat Strauss establishes within The Savage Mind [2]`. These categorisations are by no meansdefinitive, they are a few within a large field of research, however we will restrict our scope of workto these, so we might gain some insight through their exploration.3 Material representations of digital descriptions

In this section I will look at shifting conceptions of prefabrication. As designs are being describedincreasingly in parametric softwares like the Grasshoppera parametric plug-in for RhinoIargue this is materially quite different, even from Rhino's default static description. Paul Dourishhas written specifically on how the materiality of data has considerable bearing on practices andknowledge that surrounds it [1]`.

Prefabrication has been exposed to considerable scrutiny within the domain of design andconstruction and has some notable advocates such as Konrad Wachsmann [3]`, although itismore often than notassociated with questionable quality. Tower blocks once hailed ascities in the sky, are now being demolished throughout the United Kingdom as they have becomesynonymous with social decay and urban degeneration. The reasons for this are too complex to fullyuntangle here, although quality control and assembly problems are often cited as problems. Thesewere factors that played a large part in the collapse of a tower block at Ronan Point in the UK [4]`.Although societal problems cannot be solely attributed to prefabrication techniques, it could beargued that tower blocks altering the spatial dynamics was the main cause. The public/privatedynamics of the postwar terraced house was considerably different within tower blocks, andarguably contributed more to social degeneration than the construction technique or aesthetic. The

precise reasons notwithstanding, by the 1980s prefabrication or machine assembly of buildings wasconsidered a failed experiment. Hoever, let us look at this within a lineage of representations of the

problem of technology. Societal dystopians have been romanticised in Fritz Langs Metropolis,lampooned in Chaplins Modern Times and even bannedin the UKin Stanley Kubricks AClockwork Orange. These representations in some way or another play to the Marxist ideology that


4/10

applications of automation and technology dehumanise the individual.

Prefabrication experienced something of a resurgence at the turn of the twenty-first century, forexample in 2003 DWELL magazine challenged thirteen architects to design a prefabricated housefor US$200,000, the result was well designed, quality and affordable quality homes [5]`. Thecompetition, although modest in scale, pointed to a shift in the conceptions surrounding

prefabrication of buildings; spaces and not components were being prefabricated. Sections of spaceswere assembled carefully under factory conditions, they were also being assembled to conform tothe dimensions of shipping containers as there already existed machinery and vehicles for handlingthis modular system. The results challenged the dominant association between prefabrication andcheap or poor construction and instead revealed the possibility that prefabrication could deliveraffordable and good quality products.3.1 CNC Rocking Chair

Emerging technologies offer distinct possibilities for fabrication and manufacturing. As theymigrate into disciplines and into the hands of individuals who previously were not afforded access,

new and unexpected potentials emerge.

Fig 2: Parametrically described chair by Lynda Ea.

The Digital Workshopa research unit within the School of Architecture and Planning at theUniversity of Aucklandis one such place where design students are challenged to explore therelationship between design and technology. Prefabrication was brought to centre stage during thedesign and fabrication of Rocking Revival, a re-imagining of the traditional rocking chair (Fig 2).The student designed a parametric model of a rocking chair using the Rhinoceros 3D software andits free Grasshopper parametric plug-in. The model could be sliced, producing vector descriptions

that were arranged in a vector file and contained within an area of 1200mm x 2400mm. This filewas passed to a computer controlling a computer numerical controlled (CNC) router and cut from asimilarly sized sheet of plywood.

It was the designers intention to create a system whereby the chair could be personalised. Withinthe parametric model certain parameters or dimensions were not fixed, they were programmed withupper and lower limits but could be changed to any value within those limits. So the seat could be

personalised, its height and depth changed dynamically then sliced and sent for manufacture andfabrication. Although each chair wasto some extenta personalised solution, the process alsohas parallels to mass production. The design of the first chair, or in this case the parametric system

for the chair, was time consuming. Although subsequent chairs can be reproduced in a very shortspace of time, even if they have been personalised and are different to the preceding chair. Suchcontemporary developments challenge established clichs, such as automation producing cheapgeneric mass production versus handcraft creating expensive tailored bespoke objet dart.3.2 Marx, Kling and technological liberation

For the socialist Karl Marx automation did not favour the individual, it reshaped their work intorepetitive tasks and eventually replaced them [6]`. Rob Klings work on social informatics also

points to the potential of technology and computing to reshape activities [7C9]`. In such situationsKling reveals the introduction of technologies can devalue the individual. Perhaps devaluing is anapt phrase to describe the generic and repetitive effect of prefabrication. Yet these preconceptions

are being increasingly challenged and eroded. Cognitive scientist Andrew Clark argues thattechnological scaffolding impact cognition [10], [11]` and Coyne has furthered this position tohypothesise this affect can be extended to the virtual environments such as Second Life that we


5/10

work and play in [12]`. I have built on these scholarly foundations to suggest elsewhere the toolsused in design also has an impact on developing particular cognitive skills [13]`. The relationship

between technology and human agency is perhaps best summed up by Marshall McLuhan, whoclaims first we make the tools, then they make us [14]`; so what can we learn from this project?

Let us return to the etymological origins of parametric to begin to unpick its implications as a

material description of a digital description. Para - 'contrary to' and metric C 'that means bywhich anything is measured.' It is then ideologically opposed to the dogma of cartesianmeasurement that underpins design and making practices. This dogma is, however, based on the

presumption that measurement and metrics are how artifacts are documented for construction orreproduction; yet our opening tale attests this is not always necessary or even desirable. In thefabrication of the rocking chair, it is relatively unimportant if one segment is 1000mm or 998mm,as the CNC router will fabricate the relational segments at the appropriate size. As we draw thissection to a close we suggest this parametric materiality and digitally sponsored fabrication processis altering the perception of cartesian measurement, drawing and documentation within designingand making processes. Material representations of digital descriptions is thus concerned with theeffects of changing modalities of representation. This example suggests we should not confine this

to matters of visual representation. Our observations point to parametric materiality havingconsequences for understanding and knowledge practices surrounding measurement, drawings anddocumentation, which are foundational practices within design and making.4 Culture of design virtuosity

Toolkits of designers and builders are always changing; appropriating new devices, objects andtechnology. Burry and Kolervic have explored these relationships in contemporary design andconstruction. Burrys collaboration on design through to manufacture [15]` and Kolervic'santhologies on manufacturing [16], [17]` reveal very particular pathways are required in instancesof successful translation from design to construction. These pathways comprise various people and

increasingly we find computer programmers and mathematicians; people not traditionallysedemented within the processes of designing and constructing buildings. The introduction of thesenew disciplines is usually to assist with translation and description of the design for transfer

between required trades and skills. We operate in a domain with increasingly fragmentedspecialisations, complex architecture and specialised organisation, the traditional working drawingis increasingly found wanting and inadequate to communicate the artistry or nuance of the designintent. In such an environment it is the communication that is vital and the translation betweenthought and form that is of increasing importance.4.1 Chainsaws are tools descriptions are thoughts

We could couch this within a continued evolution of design and construction processes. Beginingwith the romanticised individual Masterbuilders such as Brunelleschi, which gave-way to theideology of the design studiosuch as Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin Studiothat employeddozens of drafting men and women. Now we find the computer programmer and hardware hacker

becoming increasingly central to design descriptions and innovation in architecture andconstruction. However, the anxiety around the work championed by Burry and Kolervic is not onlythe increasing distance between the designer and the designed object, but also appears to be theincreasing presence of machinery within that process. It is the Marxist supposition, again, that suchautomation will not favor the designer; it undermines the virtuosity we associate with Brunelleschiand Wright. Which is perhaps not without grounding, Shoal Fly Bya collaboration dMark Burrydiscusses in some depthwas in part a success because of a highly prescribed path of particular

translations as components are passed from artist to modeller to mathematician to fabricator andfinally to the builder [15]`. Even with such success, there remains unresolved tensions within theideology of creating under a set of constraints that have been restricted by a predetermined


6/10

technological manufacturing process.

We might argue this current anxiety is grounded in the industrys troubled history of prefabrication,which I have discussed earlier in this paper. Yet we do not question the virtuosity of with theorchestra, its musicians or the conductor because there is sheet music guiding them. Contemporarycomposer and sound artist Martin Parker [18]` explores the relationships between technology,

programming, automation and performance. He is considered no less of a composer because of it. Itis within this context we look at the problematic of virtuosity within technologically sophisticateddesign and construction.

4.2 iRobot

We observed a student project that appropriates a 6 axis robot as a design tool, the project exploresMcLuhans suppostion that first we make the tools and then they make us [14]`, attempting tochallenge the predominant conception that virtuosity is surrendered as technological presence andsophistication increases. The popular KUKA brand automotive armature robot was the obvious

point of departure for this project. In the absence of having access to one, the student decided to

build a DIY 6 axis armature robot from perspex (Fig 3 left image). A DIY template of a modelbased on kuka physiology was available online, although redesign was necessary to suit availablemotors and the particular end actuator the designer desired.

Fig 3: DIY KUKA robot and Touch OSC iPod control interface by Adrian Kumar.

Key framing software, which provides a means to control the robot was also available online. Thissoftware would allow set positions of the robot to be saved to a list of key frames on computer. Byselecting any individual key frame the robot would immediately move to that particular position.This is very similar to how they are used on assembly lines in the automotive industry. As an

assembly line moves an object into position, the robot then moves to a predetermined configurationto position a component before moving back to its original position allowing the assembly line tomove, only to repeat the action when the line has moved another object into position. While this hasintriguing potential it does not necessarily resonate with notions of virtuosity and artistry. Insteadthe student appropriated an iPod application Touch OSC used for Djing (Fig 3 right image) andcombined it with the Rhinoceros 3D software. The deliberate attempt here to combine unexpectedand unusually components was largely informed by Deleuze. Who claims fantastic consequencescan occur when communication between heterogeneous systems is established [19]`. TheGrasshopper parametric plugin was used again, this time to establish a set of relationships betweeninputs from the Touch OSC iPod application and outputs to the Robot. An arduino micro-controllerwas used to mediate the connection between the iPod and robot through a WiFi network. We couldconceive of this as an instrument that allows direct manipulation of the robotand the opportunityfor virtuosity.4.3 Beyond the cartesian

The desire for more corporeal and physical relationship between artist and object in light of thisincreased digitalism is not unique to design. It can be seen in a variety of practices wheretechnology appears to undermine the immediacy of feedback between the artist and artifact. Therecent popular v-motion project is one such example where a musician used a Microsoft Kinectcontroller to register his body position and thus control the music composition by his movement[20]`. Recent collaborations between Dance Studies and The School of Architecture at the National

Institute for Creative Arts and Industries in New Zealand [21]` uses sensors and micro-controllersshow how a performance can change the space it occupies and vice versa. All of these examples insome way explore different aspects of how technological intervention affects the relationship


7/10

between artist and artifact.

The DIY KUKA robot suffered from some material weakness, where the perspex was inclined toflex and wobble causing inaccurate positioning. It did, however, establish a complete ecosystem fordirect control of the robot. The addition of a hot wire at the end of the armature enabled the user,with some practice, to cut shapes from foam by manipulating dials and sliders on the iPod

application. Culture of design virtuosity is thus concerned with how technology supports orundermines the relationship and intention that exsits between a creator and the created. In thisrespect the KUKA build has more in common with a prosthesis than a prototyping tool. From theetymology of prosthesis it was an extension enabling direct connection, manipulation and thus the

potential for virtuosity. It enables the esoteric relationship between designer and object that is notalways best served through translation into rationalised geometry, instructions and cartesiancoordinates.5 Digital savagery and construction

In this penultimate section we interrogate design as bricolage and engineering through the

construction of a delta robot (Fig 4). These are two methodologies for problem-solving establishedby Lvi-Strauss in his seminal text The Savage Mind[2]`. The engineer is someone who designs aunique solution to a specific problem. They have mastery of their domain and materials to conceiveof and deploy tailored solutions to individual problems. The bricoleur by contrast has no suchmastery, they are in possession of a kit-of-parts, so to speak, that have been appropriated fromspecific contexts. They have been appropriated for their propensity for reuse and recombination sothe bricoleur might address problems. The difference is not in the complexity or sophistication of

problem that either can address, but rather in the methodology of problem-solving. If we are to saythe engineer designs their solution then the bricoleur divines his through bricolage, critique anditeration; finding the way to an acceptable solution.

In this section our observations lead us to believe a hybrid is emerging from the binary oppositionof engineer/bricoleur or that perhaps Levi-Strauss arrived at false categorisations. Observationssuggest that engineering and bricolage might be better represented as a scale on which all problem-solving sits. With engineering at one end and bricolage at the other, somewhere on this continuumall problem-solving techniques are found; some closer to engineering and some closer to bricolage,

but always presentto some extentare both methodologies.5.1 The delta build

Fig 4: Delta robot with 3D printer armature and ball joints (highlighted) by Adrian Kumar.

Construction of the delta robot (Fig 4) was similar to the KUKA robot in the previous section. Atemplate was sources online and constructed for the first iteration, then parts were modified andadditional softwares and controlling mechanisms were tested to illicit its applicability to the design

problem. In this case the intention was to have the delta robot control the movement of a nozzle thatwould be ejecting a viscous fluid, which could function as part of a 3D printing device. Howeverwhat we wish to focus on here is the design and fabrication of 'ball joints' as highlighted in Fig 4.

The ball joints as highlighted in Fig 4 allow freedom of movement in all three axis (x,y,z) and are akey part of the design. The standard commercial brass joints cost approximately twenty New

Zealand dollars. Although they are reliable, the design required twelve which was costly, also theircombined weight might put the servo-motors under stress and potentially adversely affect momentof the robot. The student suspected he could print them on a high quality nylon 3D printer, the


8/10

resultant component highlighted in Fig 4 was strong enough to be fit for purpose, light and had arelatively low friction coefficient resulting in smooth movement. Eventually a large percentage ofthe delta robot armatures were being designed and printed because it was cost effective, themateriality was adequate to function structurally on a project of this scale, it made modificationsquite easy as now all parts were under a state of contingency and could be changed if required.5.2 Bricol / eeringIn the burgeoning field of digital innovation it is the bricoleur who is now centre stage; something Ihave explored previously in regard to design and making [22]`. The technologies, services anddevices appear to be changing too fast for the engineer to gain the mastery Lvi-Strauss claims a

prerequisite for the role. It has been the savage mind of the digital designer that has contributed tothe inception of emerging phenomenon such as facebook and dropbox; where a problem is solvedthrough hacking systems and mashing together functionalities and preexisting services.

What we observed from the design of the delta robot was a more nuanced process than eitherengineering or bricolage. Bricolage gave way to intricate engineering of components andassemblages before it again returned to bricolage and the cycle started again. The student when

questioned on the possibilities afforded by laser cutting and 3D printing found it difficult toelucidate the limitations now imposed. As almost all parts of the object and his creative processcould at any point in the design and fabrication process come under a state of contingency; any andall parts could be repositioned, redesigned or resized. In fact the investigation into the KUKA robotfrom the previous section and delta robot in this section gave way to the rilafab (Fig 5), a bricolageand reengineering of what had been learned from the previous projects.

Fig 5: Rilafab by Adrian Kumar a bricolage and reengineering of his KUKA and delta projects.

Richard Coyne argues all design is hacking or bricolage [23]`, he goes on to posit the wedge is the

primary architectural form as it addresses the all important gaps between components andameliorates the brittleness in their assemblage. We could conceive of the 3D printer beingappropriated in this example to create wedges. In which case if we are to divine anything from thedelta build it is that, if all design is hacking then the hacker engineers wedges. Which causes us toquestion the binary categories established by Lvi-Strauss. However, as fabrication tools continueto proliferate, the distinctions between design and construction are increasingly blurred. This projectsuggests there is a need to reevaluate professions and trades. Where we conceive of them not as

belonging to either design or construction but as potentially a hybrid of both and comprisingtosome extentelements of bricolage or engineering.6 Summary

Much of the rhetoric around technology in design and construction focuses on representation andform. What I have tried to do here is delve deeper into the consequences of digital representationson design and construction practices though developing a series of categoprisations. Materialrepresentations of digital descriptions impacts skills and knowledge frameworks, in both ouropening tale and the rocking chair example cartesian measurement at times was irrelevant withinthe design description and fabrication; it was not required that it be known. Traditional paperdocumentation in the AEC (architectural, engineering and construction) industries is important as atender and legal component. However our observations cause us to ask where are they needed? Asthe examples embraced new methods and technologies to achieve particular goalswithout the

pressure to produce traditional documents or return to traditional techniquescontrary to Marx's

position, they appeared quite liberating and effective, and still employed people.Of central concern to notions of virtuosity is the relationship between the artist/designer andartifact, a subject not unique to design and construction. Where technology is concerned it is


9/10

perhaps useful to conceive of this through the metaphor of prothesis; as we currently seeing thesedevices gravitate away from approximating the physical. The lower legs of Oscar Pistorous are anexample par excellance of this rejection of cartesian representation. Thus within culture of designvirtuosity we observe the effects of this movement away from cartesian representation. In the DIYKUKA build there is a concerted effort to retain the possibility of the esoteric and the personality ofthe artist/designer; the culture of design virtuosity investigates how digital processing affects these

characteristics reaching the artifact.The digital savagery in construction we are given cause to rethink our conception of traditionalroles and skills. We can see why the digital bricoleur is dominating the contemporary businesslandscape. It is a way of thinking no longer associated solely with the gifted amateur or the garagetinkerer. It is precisely the affordance of the bricoleurs iterative way of thinking and hacking thatestablishes advantage in this fluid environment. An environment in which the engineer will struggleto gain mastery of materials that quickly change. Nevertheless the engineering of the gaps andinterfaces of the bricolage was critical with the construction of the delta robot.Digital savagery inconstruction is a theme that asks us to rethink our conception of practices and roles. Theobservational evidence presented here suggests it could be useful to reframe professions in terms of

bricolage and engineering. Wherein any job or problemis there opportunity for bricolage andwhere are the gaps that require an engineered wedge?

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the students who created the works in this paper, Lynda Ea andAdrian Kumar. I would also like to thank Franca Bertani and Dave Macallum who are largelyresponsible for the success of my 'soft table' adventure. I would also like to thank Mary Galvin who

pointed me towards key works by Paul Dourish that served as important inspiration for this paper.References

[1] P. Dourish and M. Mazmanian, Media as Material: Information Representations as MaterialFoundations of Organizational Practice, inPerspectives on Process Organization StudiesVol 3: How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts and Materiality in Organization Studies, P.Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley, and H. Tsoukas, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2012.

[2] C. Lvi-Strauss, The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966, p. xii, 290 p.

[3] K. Wachsmann and T. E. Burton, The Turning Point of Building. New York: Van NostrandReinhold, 1961.

[4] Three die as tower block collapses. [Online]. Available:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/ stories/may/16/newsid_2514000/2514277.stm.[5] Dwell Home Design Competition, 2008. [Online]. Available:

http://www.archicentral.com/dwell-home-design-competition-1684/.

[6] K. Marx, Grundrisse, inKarl Marx: Selected Writings, D. McClellan, Ed. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1977.

[7] R. Kling and S. Iacono, The Control of Information Systems Developments AfterImplementation, Communications of the ACM, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1218C1266, 1984.

[8] R. Kling, Computerisation and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, 2nd ed. SanDiego: Academic Press, 1996.

[9] R. Kling, Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent EmpiricalResearch, Computing Surveys, vol. 12, no. 1, 1980.

[10] A. Clark, Reasons, Robots and the Extended Mind,Mind and Language, vol. 16, no. 2, pp.


10/10

121C145, 2001.

[11] A. Clark,Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies and the Future of Human Intelligence.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

[12] R. Coyne, Thinking through Virtual Reality: Place, Non-Place and Situated Cognition,Techn: Research in Philosophy, vol. 10, no. 3, 2007.

[13] D. McMeel and J. Cockeram, Unstable Building: virtual environments and real relevance,Journal of IT in Construction, vol. 16, no. Use of virtual world technology in architecture,engineering and construction, pp. 231C242, 2010.

[14] M. McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: Universityof Toronto Press, 1962.

[15] M. Burry, Digitally Sponsored Convergence of Design Education, Research and Practice, inCAADFutures: learning from the past, 2005, pp. 3C22.

[16] B. Kolarevic and K. R. Klinger, Manufacturing material effects - Rethinking design andmaking in architecture. Routledge, New York, 2008.

[17] B. Kolarevic, Architecture in the digital age - design and manufacturing. Spon Press, NewYork, 2003.

[18] M. Parker, Joys of Travel: Introducing the Spectral Tourist,Leonardo Electronic Almanac,vol. 15, no. 11C12, 2007.

[19] G. Deleuze and P. Patton,Difference and Repetition. London and New York: Continiuum,2004.

[20] J. Nusz, V Motion Project C Part I: The Instrument, Custom Logic, 2012. [Online].Available: http://www.custom-logic.com/blog/v-motion-project-the-instrument/. [Accessed:06-Dec-2012].

[21] K. Chapman, Divergence - The making of, YouTube, 2012. [Online]. Available:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-5x95hjfLc&feature=plcp. [Accessed: 30-Nov-2012].

[22] D. McMeel, System mash-ups: emergent crafts and rule-based approaches to design andconstruction, V!rus, vol. 2010, no. 03/08, 2010.

[23] R. Coyne, The Tuning of Place: Sociable spaces and pervasive digital media. Cambridge,Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2010.

draft: digital foundations: viewing design and construction through the materiality of digital...

Documents