Evolution of Complex Construct

This post is about my the latest two models of CoMoRo(copy-move-rotate) operations. Firstly, after prejury I worked on assignment 2.5 which were including two new operations which are scale and strech. Actually, new operations were very useful for my issues because I had a layering system and grid references problems in prejury model. That’s why I did focus on break the grid system and I wanted to create new reference system but I couldn’t be succesful as I expected and exactly did not create new reference system and get rid of grid. However, I was took risk and I got progress some of my ideological problems. In my model 2.5 had certain and clear issue which was base condition. Personally I evaluated my model as a step of final. These are pictures of my model 2.5 and I will upload it isometric projection drawing as soon as possible.

After this work, the new assignment was much more difficult and hard to control because there were CoMoRo, scale, strech and tear+fold operations defined by instructors. That’s why I was very nervous how can control all operations with certain logical system and also there should be idea to govering all process. Firstly, I decided how I will build this construct and I was very radical for this and changed all my systems before used in prejury and assignment 2.5. And, I decided on create different variable groups and those groups included comoro, scale and strech operations. Another decision was using tear+fold operations for the finishing process which was not perceft idea actually. Anyway, groups had certain logic which was base on one single big element. The groups has 3 units which were completely different from each others in terms of dimensions because I do not want to create grid system and I did care in the first place. And also I evoluted my units and did get rid of the down part which was one single element. This change was very succesful for me because I had much more control in combining units. Finally, I created 6 different groups which was totally 18 units and those 6 groups has a certain logic to coming together which was base on the big element. Actually, I took risk for the this decision because combining two different scale big element was hard to control and I had to define very well. In this process, I did care about the rotation because final work should not be linear or 2D construct. That’s why groups combination was hardest for me. Lastly, I had tear+fold operation which I was not good at this. I decided couples of elements which used for the tear+fold operation and my critic desion was using operations to define some parts of in the model which were far away for middle part or somehow separate units each others. The final work was very big because elements scale’s were varitaions of each other because it’s decided on should be distinctive. And it was very difficult to took good photos. In my opinion, I criticise my model as a complex construct in terms of relations. Finally, this is my design:

I will upload the orthographic and axnometric projection of this model.

Before I start the model 2.6, I analysed model 2.3 and model 2.4 and, I created some ideas to generate a whole model. These are the my critics and ideas about my models, this is evolution of complex construct:

Assignment 2.3 (CoMoRo operations)

issues:

1) only physical relations between units

2)only condisered types of relations (edge-edge, point-to,etc.)

3)too many variations (actually different units), hard to read

4)some relationships too far away (separeted units)

5)random decisions (putting two units without a certain logic)

Assignment 2.4 (CoMoRo, tear+fold) (prejury model)

issues:

1)layering system (grid) (using always mid point) (taking references each points) (no shifted units)

2)relations between units

3)not using potential of tear+fold operation

pros:

1)stragery: take references(using mid point)

2) no base condition

Assignment 2.6 (CoMoro, tear+fold, scale, strech)

ideas:

1)break the grid system(using scale and strech operations)

2)use different variations in terms of dimensions

3)use potential of tear+fold operation

4)use shifted units

5)be consistent about relations between units

6)pay attention to not using only physical relations