Figure 21: A model of the composition thus far. The figure height is a formal fiction for the exercise. Premised on a 4" square quadrant, the figures are 1.25" in height and penetrate the ground plane by 0.25". The ground plane shows both quadrant borders and boundary lines.
Figure 22: Diagram showing exaggerated boundary lines extended within each quadrant and overlying the previously observed courtyard scheme.
Figure 23: The same figure boundaries shown as graduated fields overlying the previous courtyard field.
Adding to the quadrants
Thus far in the project, we have defined rectangular figures on a ground and composed four quadrants chosen from the exercise. The composition offers several distinct advantages for further exploration. In particular, the dynamic of the group composition allows an exploration of figures whose sizes, shapes and placements resist easy formal resolution (–). To enhance the inter-play of the quadrant and groups, we proceed to develop each quadrant inde-pendently, adding to their individual complexity before moving on to further resolving the whole.
This pattern embodies an underlying classroom logic. In design, complex-ity arises from , the components of a real project. Those demands define and shape the elements that comprise any design. The descriptions of large and small components – their formal relationships, their differences and similarities, orientation, size and place, as well as their rough hierarchy – form the threads of any project. Weaving those threads into a coherent fabric is the central formal task facing the designer. That some parts resist easy inclusion comes with the territory.
This project sequence reflects that weave as part of its makeup. It ‘chunks out’ a hierarchy of formal challenges to mimic a version of generalized com-plexity, reflecting the architectural task. Each step in the procedure adds components, creating demands that imitate the intricacies of the design pro-cess. This allows the project to conjure a sense of architecture while remaining appropriately abstract, as befits a first-semester assignment.
Two elements
Having determined the overall arrangement of figures and ground, we proceed to add two elements – a - and a – to each quadrant. The exer-cise continues in the mode of plan-based diagrams, with the deliberate inten-tion of altering the balance of each individual quadrant’s composiinten-tion.
We represent the half-wall as an outlined figure – it is half-height and, therefore, not shown in section. We use a transparent gray area to mark the field, remaining consistent with the formal language of the previous project group. The general intention that should guide these additions is two-fold.
Both additions should relate to the existing figure, as well as adjust its
Diagram 25·1a&b: An extending half-wall and a corresponding defined field create a clear negative space and simple overall composition.
Diagram 25·2a&b: A responding half-wall and a related extending implied field stagger the resulting configuration and space.
Diagram 25·3a&b: An alternate responding half-wall and a related extend-ing implied field add cross-grain gesture and negative space.
figure from quadrant one shown with construction lines and primary axis and boundary lines.
general condition in the quadrant. Other formal guidelines act as general rules of engagement for both elements. They are as follows:
· Both the half-wall and added field are orthogonal in form and placement.
· The half-wall does not touch the figure.
· The half-wall is thin (≈." in proportion to a " quadrant).
· The field may be larger, smaller or equal in size to the figure.
· Unlike the original figure, the field may touch one edge of the quadrant.
· The field may also overlap or pass under the figure.
Recalling that the initial figure – using the language of gestalt – acts for-mally as a field within a larger field that is the ground, the placement of the added elements should both enhance the original figure and amplify its rela-tionship to the ground. In the end, the composition should be clearer and more emphatic because of the additions.
Looking to the right, we observe three two-part adjustments in response to the first quadrant (·–). Each diagram pair shows a half-wall and then an added field to complete the response, although in practice they may develop concurrently or in the reverse order, depending on the idea behind their evolution.
In the first diagram pair, the two combined elements extend the presence of the figure vertically and horizontally (·ab). The overall result stabilizes the figure by creating a larger visual zone of occupation. The combined vertical boundaries, being longer and more numerous, counteract the extreme hori-zontality of the original figure, as does the negative space.
The lower edge of the half-wall in the second example occurs symmetrically, across the horizontal center from the upper edge of the figure (·a). It is half the figure’s width, aligns rightward and spans the vertical center. In response, the field occupies the area immediately below the centerline, aligns leftward with the half-wall and extends beyond the rightward shared edge (·b). The complexity of the resulting negative space also helps shift the focus to the ver-tical center shared by all three elements.
In the final variation, the half-wall establishes a new vertical boundary that the added field then uses for its own rightward edge (·ab). The ver-tical height of the field derives from the centerpoint of the ground. Its width reflects the negative space to its right, and together they construe a square center third of the entire composition. The entire grouping, inclusive of the negative space, defines an even larger square area that is a stable fit within the whole.
This process of addition and analysis continues to include all four quadrants, each generating multiple examples (–). After observing their individual visual demeanor, we select one for each quadrant and re-assemble them as a single composition. The goal at this point in the project is to select a combi-nation that presents the clearest prospect for further development. This may seem an obvious step – simply choosing examples that result in simpler
for-Figure 25: Below, three pairs of adjustments to the quadrant show added half-wall and related field. Each diagram demonstrates an alternate compositional tactic. The half-wall diagrams (a) include regulating lines for the quadrant; the adjacent diagrams (b) feature the resulting boundary and axis lines.
Diagram 26·1a: An added extending half-wall.
Diagram 27·1a: An added res-ponding, extending half-wall.
Diagram 28·1a: An added res-ponding half-wall.
Diagram 26·2a: An added responding half-wall.
Diagram 27·2a: An added responding half-wall.
Diagram 28·2a: An added spanning half-wall.
Diagram 26·3a: An added spanning half-wall.
Diagram 27·3a: An added spanning half-wall.
Diagram 28·3a: An added responding half-wall.
Diagram 26·1b: Extending implied field added.
Diagram 27·1b: Extending implied field added.
Diagram 28·1b: Extending implied field added.
Diagram 26·2b: Extending implied field added.
Diagram 27·2b: Corresponding defined field added.
Diagram 28·2b: Extending implied field added.
Diagram 26·3b: Corresponding defined field added.
Diagram 27·3b: Corresponding implied field added.
Diagram 28·3b: Corresponding implied field added.
Figure 26: The figure from quadrant two shown with construction geom-etry as well as boundary and axis lines.
Figure 27: The figure from quadrant three shown with construction geom-etry as well as boundary and axis lines.
Figure 28: The figure from quadrant four shown with construction geom-etry as well as boundary and axis lines.
Diagram 29·1: Top-left figure, added field and wall.
Diagram 29·3: Lower-left figure, added field and wall.
Diagram 29·4: Lower-right figure, added field and wall.
Diagram 29·2: Top-right figure, added field and wall.
Figure 29: The chosen varia-tions of each quadrant with fields and half-walls shown with boundary and axis lines.
Figure 30: The composition with fields and half-walls added to the fields.
Figure 31: The complete composition shown with boundary and axis lines for all elements.
Figure 32: A model of the compo-sition including figures, fields and half-walls. The figure height is as before. The half-walls are mid-height. Shallow relief elements represent the fields superimposed on quadrant borders and figure boundary lines.
Single-ply museum board is the usual material, being white as well as easy to cut as befits a first model exercise.
mal harmony. However, that choice may not always prove the richest gambit.
To illustrate this point, the four variations of the quadrants that we use for our composition result in just such a visual conundrum.
The four quadrants shown above all feature elongated fields – thee horizon-tal and one vertical (·–). Seen together, they reveal some shared character-istics despite comprising a scattered collective form (). Further observation of the resulting edges, centers and alignments reveals an orderly underpin-ning to the composition. The combined directionality of the figures, fields and half-walls begins to suggest a richer formal environment (). The nexus of alignments – the solid lines – and unanswered boundaries and axes – the dashed lines – represent the density of spatial structure that begins to charac-terize the directionality emerging within the composition.
We can also observe that vertical and horizontal lines – referring to the orientation relative to the page – traverse the area we noted earlier as a prob-able center. Similarly, the left portion of the ensemble now exhibits a more structured sense of movement along its vertical axis. What was formerly an
Figure 33: Plan and two sections demonstrating construction of the new figures.
Figure 34: Isometric view of new constructed figure.
indeterminate or residual space within the composition appears less static or empty. It implies direction.
The term that best describes dominant visual direction in a field is .
Borrowed from woodworking, where grain identifies the longitudinal pat-tern of fiber in wood – its apparent direction – it is a common term in formal design discourse. In general, grain runs parallel to the dominant direction a figure. Thus, absent any other visual input, we attribute horizontal grain to a horizontal rectangle and vertical grain to a vertical rectangle. A square will seem ambiguous as to direction, while a linear array of squares will likely affect the sense of grain. We perceive circular forms either as absent of direc-tion or as embodying concentric grain – again context will affect us.
Conversely, - identifies movement across the surface, or coun-ter to the general direction exhibited by a field or figure. If we perceive a circle as having concentric grain, then any radial motion will seem as moving across that grain. In any instance of multiple figures, part of the task of a designer is to orchestrate the visual sense of direction within a diagram.