Collaboration Presentation

Evaluation Perameters

I am thinking that we should grade eachother on parameters such as:

Effort: Was the time and work put into the project?
Communication: Was their participation in communicating and relaying ideas and work?
Advancement: Did the individual help progress the group through their words, ideas, and production of work?

Anything else you guys can think of?

response to kcarey question

I am a little confused. Is there something specific you would like from us besides posting on the blog?

—-

YES

Firstly, please do post presentation material. I have also left the camera with photos on it from that day in Ron’s cubicle. Could someone assist with getting some of these photos on the blog. Let’s keep in mind, I do fully intend on having a professional public presentation for the final. Therefore, please select relevant material for the end and organize on server.

Secondly, please engage in dialogue on the blog in response to FRIDAY’S pREVIEW. Remarking on comments or whether you care for the research to continue down a path as suggested by reviewers comments. What do you find of most value in continuing–be it collaborative aspects, research agenda, your specific role, etc.

Next, please as a group…decide on the parameters that could begin to evaluate each other in a collaborative environment. Once these criteria have been noted…please begin to do such evaluations. These do not need to be posted, and can be submitted privately to LAN. However, the evaluative parameters should be posted.

As MOST have not, commented on strengths/weaknesses of others when asked previously… I asked that this still be done. This will aid us in moving forward.

I am here for any further questions.

Team [pro]duction presents:

Feedback from Steve Perce:

First, I want to thank all of you for the work that you put into the project, and I’m sorry that I did not get more of an opportunity to meet more of you. 

For the time that you spent on the project, the amount of production was impressive. The problem that Monika/LAN set up for you all to tackle is not an easy one. Not only do you have to learn new software/technology/production tools, they are asking you to explore  a new design process & way of problem solving based on what these new tools allow you to do. I feel this aspect of the studio  is the more valuable lesson, and I’m guessing was more difficult to grasp than learning the actual software.

Digital fabrication is the natural extension of technology and is going to become a very powerful aspect of production in the coming years in the same sense that the computer and CAD software is the natural extension of  the manual drafting boards of years past.  These new tools (3d modeling, cnc milling machines, etc.) allows us  to realize forms that have been out of reach up until now.  The danger of this is that it becomes all about the form/production and not about the actual design or design process (or…. to frame it in what LAN is investigating… how  these new tools allow us to rethink what the design process is).

 

In response to the first comment (from kecarey): there is never enough time to figure it all out before you have to produce something. The main advantage of digital fabrication is that fact that you can quickly move from design to production, not necessarily from design to finished product. To be able to quickly produce 1:1 scale mock-up allows you to very quickly test whether or not your design is fulfilling what you think it is doing, make the necessary changes, and produce another version of it.  

The yellow nylon/pink foam model had some obvious faults to it, but none of those mattered because we all knew that this was not intended to be a finished product. What that model did do was spark a conversation about the fundamental relationship between structure and skin.  Given more time, we certainly could have started looking at this model  with a more critical eye and measure it against what the design brief called for (making ourselves blind to the technology that created it). 

 

I certainly hope that all of you can appreciate the opportunity that this studio presents. There may not have been enough time to pull together a beautifully polished presentation and slick graphics, etc. that  easily fits in your portfolio, which is totally ok with me. For me it is more about the process than the product. 

 

In closing, here are some questions to think about:

1a-How  did the qualities of the chosen material (fabric) affect the design decisions?

1b-If you had chosen a different material (not fabric) would the design decisions/computer models/language have looked or been spoken about any differentially?

1PM MONDAY…IS EVERYONE IN STUDIO?

Let’s start with a follow up to the pREVIEW on FRI. 

Everyone please post their material from the presentation…and let’s discuss where things stood as of FRIDAY. Where you could see this going. Further, comments on the collaboration. 

As many of us have discussed, unfortunately a lot of the worthwhile feedback came after we broke to the CNC lab. I will try my best, to have the conversations that took place now documented for all to access.

As a group, I need you to consider the parameters of evaluating all the members of our team. We need to consider the degree to which this collaboration continues, and your input is vital. 

As to be understood with my previous PDF, please note studio time is still, studio time. Your virtual tutors will be directing your activities during this time for the next two weeks. I expect replies during this time. 

Let’s move forward with our momentum from FRI!