Constructing the architectural moving drawing: transdisciplinary practices between architecture and artists’ film

Constructing the architectural moving drawingTitle Cons t r u c ting t h e a r c hi t ec t u r al m oving d r a win g: t r a n s disciplin a ry p r a c tice s b e t w e e n a r c hi t ec t u r e a n d a r t is t s’ film
Type The sis
URL h t t p s://ual r e s e a r c ho nline. a r t s . ac.uk/id/e p rin t/160 6 3/
Dat e 2 0 2 0
Cit a tion S u e s s, Ele a no r (202 0) Cons t r uc ting t h e a r c hi t e c t u r al m oving d r a win g: t r a n s disciplin a ry p r a c tice s b e t w e e n a r c hi t ec t u r e a n d a r ti s t s’ film. P hD t h esis , U nive r si ty of t h e Art s London.
C r e a to r s S u e s s, Ele a no r
U s a g e Gui d e l i n e s
Ple a s e r ef e r to u s a g e g uid elines a t h t t p://u al r e s e a r c ho nline. a r t s . ac.uk/policies.h t ml o r al t e r n a tively con t a c t u al r e s e a r c honline@ a r t s. ac.uk .
Lice ns e: Cr e a tive Co m m o ns Att rib u tion N o n-co m m e rcial No De riva tives
U nless o t h e r wise s t a t e d, copyrig h t ow n e d by t h e a u t ho r
transdisciplinary practices between architecture and artists’ film
Eleanor Suess
Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
University of the Arts London
Central Saint Martins
This thesis establishes original forms of reading and making architecturally focussed time-
based artefacts through the construction of practices which I term “architectural moving
drawing”. The subject of this thesis emerges out of my dual-disciplinary grounding in fine
art and architecture and explores the resonances I have identified between the tectonic
practices of structural film and architectural representation, relating to ideas of an active,
engaged viewer who constructs meaning. While there is substantial research covering
many aspects of the relationship between cinema and architecture, there is a paucity of
work exploring the relationship of artists’ film – in particular with practices emerging from
structural filmmaking – to architecture and architectural representation. It is in this gap that
I draw together aspects of disciplinary practice, of both making and writing, testing
“architectural moving drawing” as a sui generis form, and one which opens up new
territory for artists’ film and architectural representation through new transdisciplinary
methodologies operating outside the constraints of a home discipline, without becoming
bound by those of other disciplines whose techniques are employed.
By tracing the journey that I draw out through the thesis the reader will also begin to
construct the architectural moving drawing through their own perceptual agency. The
route will include a mapping of the trajectory of my practice, and a drafting out of the
theoretical foundation for the construction of architectural moving drawing. As I tell the
story of my previous practice, I will show how a nascent form of architectural moving
drawing already exists in this historical work. The thesis will go on to present the
processes and artefacts that have been produced during the undertaking of the PhD. This
new work is a continuation of my practice-based research working on the principles of a
critical, iterative and reflective practice, that translates and anchors the speculative act
into a tangible, materially manifest entity.
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Professor Graham Ellard and Steven Ball for the thoroughly
enjoyable supervisory conversations and introducing me to references and ideas that
have helped shape the thesis and the practice that is at its heart. I very much appreciate
their encouragement to place myself and my work at the core of this thesis, and to write
with my own voice. They also continually challenged me to explain exactly what I meant,
to draw out presumed understanding and nuance, and in doing so revealed to me just
how disciplinary and complex the relationship architects have with their drawings really is.
I am indebted to Peter Mudie for the original introduction to artists’ film, and specifically
showing us Snow’s Wavelength – this was instrumental in the development of my critical
practice and recognition of the link between such art practices and architecture. I also very
much appreciate the passion and humour that he brought to teaching, and his
commitment to fostering a new generation of artists. I would also like to thank the late
Ranulph Glanville for the introduction to cybernetics and radical constructivism, including
providing a very broad range of references that led me on the path to research how
architecture relates to its mediating artefacts.
This PhD was a long time starting, and I thank Alex for continually encouraging me to
commence, and then eventually finish it. I am also indebted to him for the introduction to
analogy, which from that point on became a significant part of my understanding of how
architectural representation operates. And in sharing his references to Peirce’s abduction,
he introduced me to a form of logic that so beautifully identifies the creativity in the act of
making new knowledge.
Finally, the AHRC TECHNE scholarship provided me with the time needed to undertake
this work, as did the sabbatical provided by Kingston University.
iv
Contents
1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Contexts ............................................................................................................. 8
1.5 A transdisciplinary practice............................................................................ 17
1.5.2 Memory – reflecting on past practice .......................................................... 19
1.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 31
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 34
architectural representation ...................................................................................... 36
2.3 Reading Wavelength ....................................................................................... 50
2.5 Factory Wall Timescales ................................................................................. 59
2.5.1 Factory Wall Timescales [1] ....................................................................... 60
2.5.2 Factory Wall Timescales [2] and [3] ............................................................ 67
2.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 70
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 74
v
3.3.1 Leading Light .............................................................................................. 78
3.3.3 Distraction, dwelling, and analogy .............................................................. 84
3.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 91
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 96
4.2 Constructing re-construction ....................................................................... 100
4.2.2 Wunderlich remade .................................................................................. 106
4.3 Making Space ................................................................................................. 111
4.3.1 Light Modulator ......................................................................................... 111
4.4.1 Conical yarn spool interiors....................................................................... 116
4.4.3 Moulded card packaging ........................................................................... 118
4.4.4 Honeycomb packing architecture .............................................................. 120
4.4.5 Polystyrene blocks .................................................................................... 122
4.5.1 Astley Castle model .................................................................................. 124
4.5.2 The Albany, Deptford, models .................................................................. 125
4.6 Shadow drawings .......................................................................................... 128
4.6.3 Acrylic cubes and blocks .......................................................................... 134
4.7 Space in space ............................................................................................... 155
4.7.2 Studio 310 model ...................................................................................... 158
4.7.3 Phoenix Gallery Timeframes ..................................................................... 162
4.7.4 Studio F23 model ..................................................................................... 165
4.8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 172
Figure 1-2: “Arlene” (1994) .............................................................................................. 20
Figure 1-3: “Transparency 7” (1994) ................................................................................ 22
Figure 1-4: “Map 2b” (1996) ............................................................................................. 23
Figure 1-5: “Standard 3.35” (1999-2000) ......................................................................... 25
Figure 1-6: “60+62 [SunFrostWindRainSnow]” (2010) ..................................................... 26
Figure 1-7: “12 Frames” (2012) ....................................................................................... 27
Figure 1-8: “Approach” (2012) ......................................................................................... 28
Figure 1-9: “East Croydon Ramp” (2011a) ....................................................................... 29
Figure 1-10: “San Cataldo Cemetery 1” (2011c) .............................................................. 30
Figure 1-11: “Venice Wall” (2015b) .................................................................................. 30
Figure 1-12: “Dunwich Fishing” (2014b)........................................................................... 30
Figure 2-1: Analogical processes linking versions of the referent .................................... 44
Figure 2-2: “The Art Nexus” (Gell, 1998: 29) .................................................................... 45
Figure 2-3: “Wavelength” – the zoom, start to finish ........................................................ 51
Figure 2-4: “Wavelength” – “4 human events”.................................................................. 52
Figure 2-5: “Parallel” (2015a) ........................................................................................... 56
Figure 2-6: “Carriage” process work - extracted windows ................................................ 56
Figure 2-7: “Carriage” (2017a) ......................................................................................... 57
Figure 2-8: “Parallel Carriage” (2017b) ............................................................................ 58
Figure 2-9: Submission for the 40° Celsius exhibition ...................................................... 60
Figure 2-10: “Factory Wall Timescales” – installation view............................................... 62
Figure 2-11: “Factory Wall Timescales” – real-time clip projected onto wall ..................... 64
Figure 2-12: “Factory Wall Timescales” – children playing with projection ....................... 64
Figure 2-13: “Factory Wall Timescales” – time-lapse clips with studio action ................... 65
Figure 2-14: “Factory Wall Timescales” – time-lapse clips shot from window................... 65
Figure 2-15: “Factory Wall Timescales” – installation view............................................... 66
Figure 2-16: “Factory Wall Timescales [2]” (2019) ........................................................... 68
Figure 2-17: “Factory Wall Timescales [3]” (2019) ........................................................... 69
Chapter 3
Figure 3-2: “Sunhouse Elevation/Sunhouse Azimuth” stills .............................................. 83
vii
Chapter 4
Figure 4-1: Bruce Nauman’s “Double Doors – Projection and Displacement (1973)” ..... 101
Figure 4-2: Accompanying text from Bruce Nauman’s “Double Doors” installation ......... 101
Figure 4-3: Development of CAD 3d model of Nauman’s Double Doors installation ....... 101
Figure 4-4: Constructing the model of Nauman’s Double Doors installation ................... 102
Figure 4-5: “Displaced” (2019) ....................................................................................... 103
Figure 4-6: Nauman’s “Double Doors” model with Yi action camera .............................. 105
Figure 4-7: Still from Displaced Days (2017) .................................................................. 106
Figure 4-8: “Projective Views” installation in the Wunderlich Galley, Melbourne ............ 107
Figure 4-9: CAD perspective collages produced for “Projective Views” proposal ........... 107
Figure 4-10: 1:33 “Projective Views” reconstruction model process ............................... 108
Figure 4-11: “Projective Views” reconstruction model with digital projection ................... 109
Figure 4-12: Wunderlich model sun sequence. .............................................................. 111
Figure 4-13: “Light Modulator” – dawn to dusk – 3 days, 3 scales .................................. 111
Figure 4-14: Design sketches for the Three Yi Model, and model construction .............. 112
Figure 4-15: Filming the Three Yi model in London and Perth ....................................... 113
Figure 4-16: Three Yi filming found object room assembly 1 .......................................... 114
Figure 4-17: Silk cone filming arrangement; pentiptych of silk cone camera obscuras ... 116
Figure 4-18: Found object room assembly 2 - triptych ................................................... 117
Figure 4-19: Long amazon box ...................................................................................... 117
Figure 4-20: Shoebox with perforated packing material roof .......................................... 117
Figure 4-21: Cardboard box and bubble wrap floor ........................................................ 118
Figure 4-22: Shoebox and polypropylene dividers ......................................................... 118
Figure 4-23: Fruit carton packing edit using zooms of a single piece of footage ............. 119
Figure 4-24: Assembly of moulded box packing ............................................................. 119
Figure 4-25: Moulded box packing zoom edits ............................................................... 120
Figure 4-26: IKEA carpet packing moulded card filming and footage ............................. 120
Figure 4-27: Honeycomb packing footage, Grezzo, Italy and London ............................ 121
Figure 4-29: Filming polystyrene blocks ......................................................................... 122
Figure 4-30: “Performing” the design process of Astley Castle in the model .................. 125
Figure 4-31: Time-lapse footage of The Albany model using action cameras ................ 126
Figure 4-32: Slow-motion footage of The Albany model using iPhone camera ............... 127
Figure 4-33: 1:400 model of The Albany with “performance” of design development ..... 127
Figure 4-34: Model camera/rooms for cyanotypes ......................................................... 129
Figure 4-35: Cyanotype exposures inside model camera/rooms .................................... 129
Figure 4-36: Filming the cyanotype prints inside model camera/rooms .......................... 130
Figure 4-37: Preliminary silk cone shadow filming test (London, May 2017) .................. 131
viii
Figure 4-38: Shadows filmed in plan from above (Austinmer, April 2018) ...................... 131
Figure 4-39: Shadows filmed in plan from above (Perth, April 2018) ............................. 131
Figure 4-40: Shadows and reflections of silk cones in fish tank vitrine ........................... 132
Figure 4-41: Back-filming silk cone shadows in fish tank vitrine ..................................... 133
Figure 4-42: Silk cones shadows on bespoke back-filming apparatus, September 2019 133
Figure 4-43: Chair cyanotype - non-perspectival axonometric (plan oblique) projection . 134
Figure 4-44: Isometric and perspectival projections ....................................................... 135
Figure 4-45: Oblique parallel projections ....................................................................... 135
Figure 4-46: Axonometric projection imagery from photogram of acrylic cube ............... 136
Figure 4-47: Sciagraphic projections of shadows onto plans and elevations .................. 137
Figure 4-48: Back filming the shadows of the 100mm acrylic cube ................................ 138
Figure 4-49: Max Fleischer’s patent application for the rotoscope (Fleischer, 1917) ...... 139
Figure 4-50: Rotated image of the cube’s shadows demonstrating ambiguity of reading140
Figure 4-51: Early acrylic cube and block back-filming setup, June 2019 ...................... 141
Figure 4-52: Cube and block arrangement 2 – setup & misaligned overlaid time-lapse . 142
Figure 4-53: Cube and block arrangement 4 –setup and time-lapse footage ................. 142
Figure 4-54: New acrylic blocks – unwrapping & setup; takedown; time-lapse .............. 142
Figure 4-55: Acrylic cube cyanotype and filming ............................................................ 143
Figure 4-56: Time-lapse footage and matching cyanotype ............................................ 143
Figure 4-57: Stills from acrylic cube time-lapse showing ambiguity of reading ............... 144
Figure 4-58: Small box experiments .............................................................................. 145
Figure 4-59: Cubes on new frosted acrylic sheet ........................................................... 145
Figure 4-60: Cubes on frosted acrylic – setup, takedown, three days overlaid ............... 146
Figure 4-61: Cyanotype exposure and print made from filmed arrangement .................. 146
Figure 4-62: Rice paper screen for back-filming ............................................................ 147
Figure 4-63: Arrangement on rice paper screen & cyanotype ........................................ 147
Figure 4-64: Axonometric Portrait 1 – setup, day time-lapse, takedown......................... 148
Figure 4-65: Axonometric Portrait 1 – cyanotypes made on cloudy day and full sun ...... 149
Figure 4-66: Axonometric Portrait 3 – setup and edited with focus on hands ................. 149
Figure 4-67: Axonometric Portrait 3 – day and night time-lapse footage ........................ 150
Figure 4-68: Axonometric Portrait 3 – triptych video edit ................................................ 150
Figure 4-69: Axonometric Portrait 4 –setup, two days’ time-lapse overlaid, cyanotype .. 151
Figure 4-70: Axonometric Portrait 5 – setup, takedown, cyanotype ............................... 151
Figure 4-71: Axonometric Portrait 6 – setup, two days’ time-lapse overlaid, cyanotype . 152
Figure 4-72: Nine cubes, Axonometric Portrait 6 cyanotype .......................................... 152
Figure 4-73: Small boxes 1 – setup, two days’ time-lapse overlaid, cyanotype film ....... 153
Figure 4-74: Small boxes – ordered to disordered, removing for cyanotype .................. 153
Figure 4-75: Small boxes 2 – setup, time-lapse ............................................................. 154
Figure 4-76: Small boxes cyanotypes ............................................................................ 154
ix
Figure 4-77: Drawings and photograph of the final back-filming apparatus .................... 155
Figure 4-78: First multi-camera model with cameras positioned in the back wall............ 156
Figure 4-79: Filming the process of model-making and filming the model ...................... 157
Figure 4-80: Making the model, setting up filming, dismantling. ..................................... 158
Figure 4-81: Studio day and night while model films, final multi-camera edit .................. 158
Figure 4-82: Studio 310 – room, camera and model construction .................................. 159
Figure 4-83: Action cameras filming in the back wall of the studio 310 model ................ 160
Figure 4-84 : “[1:25] Studio 3:10” ................................................................................... 160
Figure 4-85: Phoenix gallery model process .................................................................. 162
Figure 4-86: “Making Representations” opening, live model view .................................. 163
Figure 4-88: Phoenix gallery model footage and installation .......................................... 164
Figure 4-89: Making and filming the 1:15 Studio F23 model .......................................... 165
Figure 4-90: model-making, soffit M&E fittings, empty studio model view ...................... 166
Figure 4-91: Model plan chest, acrylic cubes, and cyanotype reconstructions ............... 167
Figure 4-92: F23 studio model, model of the model, model of the model of the model ... 168
Figure 4-93: Studio F23 model – cameras on cardboard plinth bodies ........................... 169
Figure 4-94: Studio F23 model and room, 4 views ......................................................... 170
Figure 4-95: F23 1:15 model floor cyanotypes ............................................................... 171
Figure 4-96: F23 1:15 model back-projection light on studio floor .................................. 172
1
2
1.1 Introduction
This thesis constitutes a working process, a story being written though the act of its telling.
It involves processes of prophecy and memory, of a simultaneous looking forward and
backward, while being situated in the transitory present. The thesis itself is a working
document, a place to draw together the strands of my practice, to articulate the
methodologies of both making and reading that commenced prior to, and further
developed during the PhD. This PhD started with an intention to establish a new form of
practice output, which I was terming the “architectural moving drawing”. In the later stages
of the PhD it became clear that I was developing processes or methodologies, rather than
artefacts (although completed and uncompleted artefacts result from these processes),
and that architectural moving drawing was a practice, rather than an object, a verb, rather
than a noun.
The concept of and the term architectural moving drawing threads through my evolving
practice over the last twenty-five years, deflecting and deforming in response to my own
transdisciplinary journey from artist, to architect, to my current hybrid critical creative
practice. What I term architectural moving drawing is a purely hypothetical construction –
this thesis intends to institute it as a theoretical proposition, to manifest it as forms of
practice of both making and reading, and to indicate how the new methodologies of these
practices may contribute to the disciplines from which they have evolved and between and
across which they are situated.
The thesis therefore emerges as a response to the following research questions:
• How can a transdisciplinary perspective, grounded in both artists’ film and
architecture, be used to develop new methodologies for analysing time-based
artefacts to undertake readings which focus on an architectural subject?
• How can disciplinary practices from artists’ film and architectural representation be
combined through a transdisciplinary practice to form new hybrid methodologies
for architecturally focussed moving image production?
The work presented in this thesis, and the various strands of making and reading1 that
constitute my practice, fundamentally originates from my own disciplinary background and
journey. I am an artist and architect – the research that I have undertaken before, through,
alongside, (and after2) this thesis is intrinsically linked to my disciplinary position and
biography. I studied fine art in an architecture school, going on to produce film and
1 I consider the “reading”, or interpretation and analysis of artefacts, such as films by other artists (or indeed my own), as a form of practice. 2 While undertaking the work of the PhD, both through writing and practice, new ideas and directions are continually thrown into future possibility. Some of this will find its way into the thesis, but the rest will continue beyond the completion of the PhD.
3
installation artwork as part of my subsequent architectural studies. I now teach within a
school of architecture and am undertaking a PhD in an art school. Working and being
grounded (Foster, 1998: 162) in the disciplines of art and architecture allows my work to
learn from, and in turn inform each discipline. My critical practice operates in what
Elizabeth Grosz terms a “third space […] a position or place outside of both [disciplines],
that they can be explored beside each other, as equivalent and interconnected discourses
and practices” (2001: xv-xvi). However, from within this transdisciplinary space (as both
artist and architect) I work in the subject of architecture.3
Through my practice I coined the term “architectural moving drawing”,4 initially to describe
my architecturally focussed artists’ film work, a practice which I am now developing further
through this thesis, which in turn consolidates the definition of the term. My practice has
long been a hybrid one, employing techniques, media, theory and contexts from both art
and architecture. Even as an undergraduate fine art student, I had access to architectural
processes and ideas, learnt through the architectural design studio which we undertook
alongside our fine art studio.5 I began (in 2000) using the term “moving drawing”6 in my
own postgraduate architecture studies to refer to my architectural time-based work, which
was itself informed by my own previous artists’ film practice. Since 2005 I have used this
term in my teaching, introducing architecture students to methods for producing time-
based representational artefacts. The word “architectural” was added to tie it more…