Been working on this one a while now (see my blog for details). I'm quite pleased with the design of the sculpture itself; I could use some feedback on the graphical representation posted here. I'm primarily attempting to develop an image for a client who's interested in spearheading a fundraising drive to place the piece in a new public park in Little Rock, AR. I need to provide him with something that illustrates the nature of the piece and conveys scale, while being amorphous enough as to environment to prevent potential investors from being distracted by it's surroundings. Have I already said too much with the trees and the bold colors?

if i was the budget steering committee i'd want to see the materials and landscaping so that they can get a good idea of budget... the image works well graphically but i'm not sure if it'l be painted gloss blue and have yellow landscaping around...

maybe a photoshop montage could help them visulaise it..

one melb arch firm place all of the people who would have bene the decisions makers at the time into the photoshop image maybe thats a bit sucky...

one melb arch firm place all of the people who would have bene the decisions makers at the time into the photoshop image maybe thats a bit sucky...
which firm is that?

My thoughts:

From a layout/graphic presentation, the colors are too bright and primary for my likeing unless......... the scupture and its surroundings are really going to be that color...if that is the case then I would want more context so we can understand the pure color play against the serenity the park setting.

Are the seating walls part of the sculpture? I assume the scuplture itself is coated metal or similar. If so then the walls read the same then I would assume they are made of the same material. right?

Your sketch gives a very idea the scale of the piece and its immediate loci for experiencing it up close. How about from a distance?

:wondering

Would an option be to have the top piece act as a sort of moebius strip - without intersecting itself?

Looks good :clap:

ps,
Great job on the modeling by the way. That shape looks like it would be tough to model.

Also, have you seen this work? http://www.bathsheba.com/

The sculpture itself will indeed be bright blue- powder coated steel.
Like this:

So the rationale behind the bright yellow/orange was to try to balance it out a little. I have very little actual reference from the proposed sight at his point- mostly trying to gauge the viability of raising enough funds for the inclusion of a sculpture in this setting at all. The seating walls are just plopped in to allow some interplay with other shapes. I think I'll try desaturating that yellow some so it doesn't yell so loud. Another viewpoint from a greater distance is a great idea, but that means I have to make what is there now make more sense from differing angles.
BruceWalker- I toyed with the "Mobius" idea a little, but I liked the Oroborus effect of the piece piercing itself- nice metaphorical possibilities, as well.

Thanks everyone for the input- I'm really psyched to have found some visually sophisticated people who are able to articulate their ideas, and who aren't afraid to speak their minds.
:cheers:

ps,
Great job on the modeling by the way. That shape looks like it would be tough to model.
Also, have you seen this work? http://www.bathsheba.com/
Thanks. I've really pushed my Sketch-Up limits on this one.

Yes, I have. I actually met Sheba (like how imply a more intimate connection than really exists?) at the Breckenridge Snow Sculpture hoedown a couple years ago.

International Snow Sculpture Championships (http://www.themoens.com/Photos/Events/snowSculpture/overview.htm)

I am curious as to the idea driving your sculpture? How and/or why is there this need for this sculpture? what does it say about the place it will go or is there any relation to the context... I read some of your blog and don't really see any depth to your description of this form/sculpture... you mention this "infinity" -esque form but why? of course I am asking questions that an architect would ask (my profession :)) in a design but I think these are important things... otherwise its just some arbiturary thing with no basis of meaning... sure you can look at it and someone can find sometype of meaning to it but what does that say? maybe this is to rigid of a process of what you are after in this sculpture but I am curious as to your thinking on this...

and also... something as simple as this could give a sense of a context to the sculpture... just super-imposing an image of a grass area with trees and then placing your sketchup image over it with a little playing around with effects and such in photoshop...

Hope you aren't affended but encoraged by this attempt on my part to show what was mentioned by ouesty and wilsonmetry...

Wizum- good question! I think it points out a fundamental difference between sculpture and architecture: how meaning is attached. Architecture must be driven to at least some degree by function, while sculpture can exist for no other purpose than the exploration of esthetic form. I may be being overly general, but I think this is true at least to some degree. That being said, I don't feel completely free from a need to justify my desire to make this piece, or to further justify the creation of any work of art. "Because I feel like it" just doesn't cut it for me, but is really often the actual justification used by many artists. I see my work as striving to distill multiple meanings and themes into a highly simplified, singular archetype. In this design, the underlying ideas are related to the life cycle, circadian rhythms, rebirth and renewal, and singularity of all things. (Like, wow, man, that's soooooo deep). It is also driven by the limitations of my own manufacturing abilities: I choose to employ singular materials (steel, hopefully recycled) and bold finishes (environmentally friendly inert thermosetting powder coat) as a way to express my environmental concerns, and to place strictures on myself that need to be overcome. The design is also mindful of economics; I make editions of these things in order to keep the unit price in a realm that smaller clients (towns, small corporations, individuals who aren't Bill Gates) can afford. since I have multiples of each design, genuine site-specificity isn't feasible.

Thanks for taking the time to work with the graphic. I see your point, but, well... I don't like it. Much of my motivation for using Sketch-Up stems from it's simplified renders- the pursuit of "photographic reality" always seems to fall short to my eye. Overlapping real images with SU output feels contrived and messy to me. Purely subjective, I know. Also, my experience with "the laity" has taught me that many people are confused by this kind of juxtaposition and start focusing on what is photographically "wrong" with the image rather than on the sculpture itself.

I see my work as striving to distill multiple meanings and themes into a highly simplified, singular archetype.

I think you've hit the main point even we as architects need to consider. While design is generated from some meaning and/or process, we need to consider all aspects of individuals that will experience our designs. From different walks of life, great architecture, IMO, doesn't have a singular meaning. It has just enough of an ambiguous meaning that allows the users to imbue their own meanings, making it their own. We need a diverse space for a diverse audience.

Contrastingly, if the sculpture is just for an amish community out in the middle of nowhere, your run the risk of losing attention if it is not focused enough for your audience. On the other hand, in a intensely diverse urban area, a too ambiguous object may run the risk of losing the individuals that do not wish to devote enough time to understand the project or pursue its meaning to them.

I think this particular sculpture may be towards the ambiguous end and not focused enough...but, the detail could be something that pulls this together nicely...

also, why did you choose the sculpture base that you did? perhaps a different one would help set off some aspect of the sculpture better?

hey kev when ARM produced the images for story hall they put some rmit directors, descison makers, jeff kennett and others walking in front of the building... it was sort of cruude but it got built... and says something of the cliamte it wa sbuilt in(the movers and shakers.)

also if you have been to eq, a very nice cafe/restaurant at the arts centre on the yarra, the archietcs took photos of all involved in the project, the architects client buildser etc and did some photoshop and had a digital wall print made, it sits behind the steel mesh crtain wall thing...

The owner of the restaurant also owned nudel bar in bourke st and she is friendly and loves talking about the design even when you are just there to take pics for uni assignments.. the design also won some awards for social contribution i think/....

Wizum- good question! I think it points out a fundamental difference between sculpture and architecture: how meaning is attached. Architecture must be driven to at least some degree by function, while sculpture can exist for no other purpose than the exploration of esthetic form. I may be being overly general, but I think this is true at least to some degree. That being said, I don't feel completely free from a need to justify my desire to make this piece, or to further justify the creation of any work of art. "Because I feel like it" just doesn't cut it for me, but is really often the actual justification used by many artists. I see my work as striving to distill multiple meanings and themes into a highly simplified, singular archetype. In this design, the underlying ideas are related to the life cycle, circadian rhythms, rebirth and renewal, and singularity of all things. (Like, wow, man, that's soooooo deep). It is also driven by the limitations of my own manufacturing abilities: I choose to employ singular materials (steel, hopefully recycled) and bold finishes (environmentally friendly inert thermosetting powder coat) as a way to express my environmental concerns, and to place strictures on myself that need to be overcome. The design is also mindful of economics; I make editions of these things in order to keep the unit price in a realm that smaller clients (towns, small corporations, individuals who aren't Bill Gates) can afford. since I have multiples of each design, genuine site-specificity isn't feasible.

Thanks for taking the time to work with the graphic. I see your point, but, well... I don't like it. Much of my motivation for using Sketch-Up stems from it's simplified renders- the pursuit of "photographic reality" always seems to fall short to my eye. Overlapping real images with SU output feels contrived and messy to me. Purely subjective, I know. Also, my experience with "the laity" has taught me that many people are confused by this kind of juxtaposition and start focusing on what is photographically "wrong" with the image rather than on the sculpture itself.

Thanks for the reply back emptyful...

as I was asking about your ideas driving the design of the scuplture I was curious as to the possibility that architects & scultpurers & even other types of designers may have some diferring methodoligies to the way they design... What you stated does make sense but I think I would have to agree with Trogers on his comments that the sculpture is still to ambiguous... but as a composition I like what you have put together...

but then also you are creating a space around your sculpture so I do feel that you are putting your work in the realm of architecture and I feel that it is a neccessary thing for you to have some approach that addresses your context (not specific neccessarily but in general)... for instance you have created a platform and forms for sitting that frame the space around the focal point of your design, the infinity-esque sculpture. I think Trogers was beginning to hint to this issue when he mentioned the platorm you have the sculpture on...

maybe you think this is all not neccessary but it is always important to consider things like this when you have people who will interact with something like an object in space... maybe it all comes down to a compositional thing and the space around your sculpture is just a part of a composition but they can feed off of each other in some ways... mainly I am just giving you "food for thought" and I again like what you have presented...(and also I do understand that there are thoughts and ideas you just haven't been able to present in this limited way of expressing your work in this forum... so maybe I am "preaching to the choir"?) :)

as for the photoshoped image I did with a "real" context of landscape... :) to each his own I guess... I understand what you are saying but I do sometimes like having the super-imposition of "real" imagery with a conceptual model, like outputted from SU, in an image together... it gives a sense of place but yet it is still conceptual and still leaves some room for imagination...

keep up the good work and keep posting it... it is always cool to see what other designers are doing in other fields besides the one I am in...

:cheers:

a little bit off topic but...

the image made me think of Max Bill

Max Bill, a member of the Swiss 'Zurich Concrete' group, was an architect, painter, sculptor, politician, educationalist, writer, in short, a 'universal creator'. He analysed the principles of Concrete Art and sharpened Theo van Doesberg's definition as follows:
" we call those works of art concrete that came into being on the basis of their inherent resources and rules - without external borrowing from natural phenomena, without transforming those phenomena, in other words: not by abstraction. concrete art is independent in its characteristic features. it is the expression of the human spirit, intended for the human spirit, and it should have the sharpness, the clarity and the perfection that must be expected from the human spirit. concrete painting and sculpture imply creating something that is open to visual perception. their creative resources are colours, space, light and movement … concrete art is ultimately the pure expression of harmonious measure and law. it orders systems and uses artistic resources to give life to these orders … it strives for universality and yet it cultivates uniqueness. it suppresses things individualistic in favour of the individual." Bill also requires that art should find a mathematical mode of thought to guarantee that the creative principles can be controlled. In the mean time he sees this as only one of the possible methods, "a useful aid, through which ideas can acquire visible form."

david p- not off topic at all. I'd seen some examples of Max Bill's work before, but hadn't heard this little manifesto. I really like it, especially that bit about not borrowing from external sources. Brancusi also said something similar: "What is real is not the external form, but the essence of things. Starting from this truth it is impossible for anyone to express anything essentially real by imitating it's exterior surface." Both these concepts resonate with me and I feel I'm striving to capture them to some extent in my work. My success at it is debatable, of course.

wizum- thanks for your continued input. I'm going to rethink this image and try to incorporate the ideas expressed about it here, probably simplify the surroundings and focus on depicting the sculptural form and it's scale without gettting too specific on site details.

I made a render in Cheetah3d to help illustrate how the piece is constructed:

Great job in the renders! and modeling!! :D

Wouldn't the curve be stronger without the "standard"?

like the image posted by david p.

certainly using 2 standards is way to much!! (so for my opinion) :rolleyes:

if you have the chance to design somthing so freeform i think it's a bit boring
the colour is the best bit the form is uninspiring
imho

Great job in the renders! and modeling!! :D

Wouldn't the curve be stronger without the "standard"?

like the image posted by david p.

certainly using 2 standards is way to much!! (so for my opinion) :rolleyes:
Thanks.
Standard? I think you mean the "base" part, the truncated box attached to the bottom? You're probably right, but incorporating a base directly into the piece cuts installation costs and associated headaches (like maintaining plumb). I agree that the raised "box" of concrete underneath was a bad choice- but I need to include something to raise the sculpture up so skateboarders don't use the thing for a coping. Back to the drawing board.

if you have the chance to design somthing so freeform i think it's a bit boring
the colour is the best bit the form is uninspiring
imho
I get the chance to design something freeform all the time. it's my job ;)
Many people find the simplicity of my designs a little boring. I try to spin it into "peaceful" or "calming" or some such. Part of the reason for this simplicity I stated before: I make these things myself, with somewhat limited tools (I don't have any slip rolls or other bending equipment), and I try to exploit these limitations rather than opt for flashier designs that would require a huge shop filled with expensive toys (and maybe greater expertise in their use than I possess). Sounds like a bunch of excuse making, doesn't it?

if you have the chance to design somthing so freeform i think it's a bit boring
the colour is the best bit the form is uninspiring
imho
should art be entertaining? :wondering

emptyful-
enjoyed reading your blog.
interesting process

david p- art should be everything!

Thanks for checking out my blog. Sorry for the belated response- been out of town.
:cheers:

Thanks.
Standard? I think you mean the "base" part, the truncated box attached to the bottom? You're probably right, but incorporating a base directly into the piece cuts installation costs and associated headaches (like maintaining plumb). I agree that the raised "box" of concrete underneath was a bad choice- but I need to include something to raise the sculpture up so skateboarders don't use the thing for a coping. Back to the drawing board.
Why? It is after all in a public park in an urban environment. Maybe you could embrace the inevitable somehow in the base design?

-a former shredder-

Bsherrard- not up to me, really. The liability would belong to the city, as it is a public space. I'm not sure the skaters would actually damage the piece, it's the skaters themselves that get damaged.

Your blog is great and there are some nice pieces there
I like what your doing with sketch up to finished product, just like some pieces more than others