Objectifying Greg Lynn

Its ironic that for all Greg Lynn has proposed regarding forms being animate, or more explicitly "intensive" and "differentiated," he is often judged as though his proposals are for static, "extensive" projects. It is only that his work is taken out of context. Its that his work directly and literally proposes a different context. Peter Cook and Greg Lynn are really quite different actually. Cook's blobular built projects are actually physical manifestations of the blob as geometry. They are static, stylistic, and almost completely about the aesthetic. Which is why it is fair for someone to say they are ugly. They are ugly. Because Greg Lynn's concepts can best be described in the language of form and space he is often associated with a translation of those ideas into the built environment. Greg Lynn's Presbyterian church is instead the realization (or application maybe) of these concepts applied to the process of designing and constructing architecture.

I have realized that many of the analyses of movement so far has been, rather successfully, about the static resultant space generated from some process of abstraction. The spaces we have made/discovered are hard design from scratch. I've tried. However, these exercises, if not intellectually kept in check, can provide pseudo-exigence for our form-loving and image-loving tendencies. The real test of rigor here does not lie in the accuracy of translation (very accurate contour tracing, for example) but rather the quality relationships we can now control (seeing is not good enough).

That was a very long way of my saying I wanted to do something more than represent the given the wealth of geometry I now have. The first procedure that came to mind was the extending of the nurbs surfaces given patterns and relationships that were discovered in the geometry. Here is quick image showing an extension of the hands space surface... The blue represents the complete motion originally captured and the green shows the extension (forward and backward).