From the follie-making process in relation to my design research I configured a hierarchy in the closure and reformation design proposals: Process - Formation - Program - Aesthetic.
The task set was to determine what happens to closure scenarios when:
1. Design how and where Overburden is going to be moved based on its end formation
2. Design how and where Overburden is going to be moved based on set closure programs
Will current mining processes be affected if closure scenarios are designed rather then continuing with the current practise.
I propose that they would, however how is not known.
It was difficult to propose form on a site that is so vast and has many different programs operating in it already. Processes, whether ecological or operational to the power plants, occur from the macro to the micro.
At which scale do I investigate in order to reach beyond the current programs?
I found that I was not designing but investigating constraints. Some of these design inhibitors included:
- The overlapping of different programs at one time
- Scale! View vs program vs human scale
- Looking at the whole landscape rather than segmenting into Open Cut, or Over-Burden, or Power Plant, or water bodies
- Volume of material being moved. How do I measure this?
- Closure scenarios are vague and propositions could include an extension to the open cut rather than closure
Also I had thoughts on what it was that I was trying to design?
Based on the hierarchy that I have set out: Process - Formation - Program - Aesthetic; the latter is the only one I was not directly trying to test. Through drawing, I felt that I was trying to achieve a particular aesthetic essence.
Is the aesthetic a product of the program/process or can it be designed as a key objective?
The project is very open right now. In order to start designing I need to determine ‘what is my site?’ and ‘what programs will closure enable?’. This should then allow scalable scenarios to be worked on.
The task set was to determine what happens to closure scenarios when:
1. Design how and where Overburden is going to be moved based on its end formation
2. Design how and where Overburden is going to be moved based on set closure programs
Will current mining processes be affected if closure scenarios are designed rather then continuing with the current practise.
I propose that they would, however how is not known.
It was difficult to propose form on a site that is so vast and has many different programs operating in it already. Processes, whether ecological or operational to the power plants, occur from the macro to the micro.
At which scale do I investigate in order to reach beyond the current programs?
I found that I was not designing but investigating constraints. Some of these design inhibitors included:
- The overlapping of different programs at one time
- Scale! View vs program vs human scale
- Looking at the whole landscape rather than segmenting into Open Cut, or Over-Burden, or Power Plant, or water bodies
- Volume of material being moved. How do I measure this?
- Closure scenarios are vague and propositions could include an extension to the open cut rather than closure
Also I had thoughts on what it was that I was trying to design?
Based on the hierarchy that I have set out: Process - Formation - Program - Aesthetic; the latter is the only one I was not directly trying to test. Through drawing, I felt that I was trying to achieve a particular aesthetic essence.
Is the aesthetic a product of the program/process or can it be designed as a key objective?
The project is very open right now. In order to start designing I need to determine ‘what is my site?’ and ‘what programs will closure enable?’. This should then allow scalable scenarios to be worked on.
1 comment:
http://earthworksnearyou.blogspot.com/2009/05/28-days-to-go-michael-heizers-double.html
came across this and thought it had relevance to our conversation about land art...
Also look at land art by James Turrell!
Post a Comment