I’ve decided to sourcemap the House for New Orleans exhibited at the Home Delivery exhibition at MoMA this summer (). I had worked on the house as a part of a class on digital fabrication taught by Prof. Larry Sass. This house is an example of a digitally fabricated, mass-customizable, friction fit, plywood construction system for post-disaster reconstruction. I wanted to compare this house to a vernacular dwelling of the Bharia tribals of Madhya Pradesh in central India based on earlier research work I had done on their architecture. Below is the 3D model of a typical Bharia house that was used for the source map calculations:
This house is made of locally available unprocessed timber, adobe and thatch. The reason for the sourcemap comparison between these two houses is that I want to find a way to integrate material sensing with digital fabrication to allow digital fabrication techniques to better cope with irregular and unprocessed materials.
An example of a non-destructive testing device that is used everyday (in the US, at least) is a stud finder. According to the HowStuffWorks entry on stud finders there are two types – one works using a capacitor that detects changes in the dielectric constant of the wall due to studs and the other uses radar.
In relation to my idea for a sensitive CNC machine that is able to evaluate unique and non-uniform properties of materials and respond to them rather than just follow instructions derived from a computer model, I read up on the idea of non-destructive testing. The wikipedia entry on this describes how the origins of this now hi-tech field including lasers, magnetic fields, acoustics etc. can be traced to potters and blacksmiths testing terracotta and metal objects for internal defects based on their ‘ring’.
This reminded me of the classical Carnatic percussion instrument, the ghatam, that is essentially a terracotta pot. I was especially happy with this realisation as I always wanted to learn the instrument but never got a chance. Here is a video of a rare “ghatam only” performance: low-tech, non-destructive material testing taken to artistic extremes!
Based on my findings here is my de-technologized design for an online library search:
A spreadsheet with library books ordered according to call numbers which can be accessed, searched and customized by users online through something like Google Docs. Below is a sample I made using some books and articles on a reading list for another course I’m doing. The gray books are the ones I didn’t like, and the red are the ones I liked. The thickness of the books are based on how relevant I think they are at the moment for what I think is going to be my thesis topic (this is likely to change as I formulate my ideas better).
Let’s say I want to read up on religious architecture in North India, what will I do? I’d search for just that in the online search. When I did this I got the following message -
Do I assume that the library has no books on this topic? Now the real reason I picked a topic like this is that there are many religions in North India, each with it’s own type of architecture. I wanted to test how much of this diversity would be captured by the search. But according to the search results India must be a communist state!
Luckily a visit to the library showed that things were much better. There were around three shelves of books on the topic, each covering a different aspect of the broad topic. Here is a picture of an actual shelf.
The online library is not a consumer electronics device but I feel strongly enough about it to want to de-technologize it anyway. If any of you have actually tried to use the MIT library website (libraries.mit.edu/) you’ll know what I mean. What I mean is that it is really difficult to find a book that is actually useful and relevant to the information you need. I also find online searches to have the same problem.
I didn’t actually have a computer at home until I was around 20-21 years old and till then I had a good old fashioned shelf of books and magazines. I remember being able to find something on my shelf that I had read 10-12 years ago without too much trouble. Now I have trouble looking for a website I browsed half an hour ago. I feel that there are two basic reasons for this – one, that I was free to arrange the books on my shelf as I want, and two, that each book had a different size, colour, texture, weigh…a different feel to it.
What triggered off this idea in my head was a workshop for TAs at the Rotch library yesterday afternoon. A common theme that came up during later informal discussions over free pizza (the reason most of us were there) was that it was much easier to find relevant books related to another book on nearby shelves in the library than through any kind of “advanced” search on the website. MIT libraries use the Library of Congress classification (www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/) that follows a pre-defined heirarchical structure of topics and sub-topics. My guess is that it is the librarian’s decision on where to place a book – and that they are good at it.
My idea of de-technologizing the online catalog of the MIT libraries is to simply have the choice of viewing books with consecutive call numbers based on a book that you know is relevant to you. So what you have is a virtual bookshelf where you can arrange books as you like (in a 2D shelf while specifying book colours and sizes). All that the library then has to do is to have “default” virtual book shelves with books arranged by call number and allow anyone with an account to re-configure their personal library as they search for, and read, different books….more details to follow.
This house is made of locally available unprocessed timber, adobe and thatch. The reason for the sourcemap comparison between these two houses is that I want to find a way to integrate material sensing with digital fabrication to allow digital fabrication techniques to better cope with irregular and unprocessed materials.
Your search did not find any matching documents.
