BENV2423 REAL-TIME INTERACTIVE ENVIRONMENTS a porosity studio

SESSION TWO 2009

COURSE CONVENER

STUDIO TUTORS

TIME

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

BENV2423 Real-Time Interactive Environments is a Porosity studio. This means that the conceptual basis of the studio has grown out of work by Sydney based artist, and Professor of Fine Art at COFA, Richard Goodwin. Richard defines Porosity as the revision of public space in the city using public art to test the functional boundaries of built form. It this studio students will be using contemporary computer gaming technology to test Porosity in a number of ways.

TEACHING STRATEGIES AND ATTITUDE TO REPRESENTATION:

Students will be asked to develop an individual architectural position that articulates a relationship between 'Porosity', computational methods and an architectural challenge. Through a systematic build up of architectural challenges the students will be introduced to ways to productively structure research and acquire technique so that they can confidently approach projects of their own in the future.

LEARNING OUTCOMES TO BE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE STUDIO

At the end of this course students will have:

Developed skills in critical thinking and problem solving using digital representation and simulation. Students will engage with a range of important software, including SketchUp, Solidworks, 3dsMax, Crysis, Premier, or a Vegas trial, and Blogger.
Developed research skills especially as they relate to formulating research questions.
Developed breathtaking and significant objects, spaces, environments including interactions between the three.

DESIGN STUDIO EXPERIMENTS

Included below are abstracts for the three EXPERIMENTS. They are included here to give you an overall impression of the course and to bring your attention to the concepts, techniques and software we will be working with. Each abstract will be expanded into a full brief at the introduction of each EXPERIMENT.

EXPERIMENT 1: The Physical Effects of Explosions on Porosity.

TIMETABLE: Weeks 2 - 7, 35% of final grade.
ARCHITECTURAL COMPUTING CHALLENGE: To test and document the physical effect/s of an explosion on the 'built' environment.
REFERENCE TEXTS: Documentaphobia and Mixed Modes: Michael Moore's Roger and Me, by Matthew Bernstein in Documenting the Documentary: Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video, Barry Grant and Jeanette Sloniowski Ed's. pg's 397-415
SOFTWARE: Blogger, SketchUp, Crysis Wars, Fraps, Premier, Vegas (trial).
TECHNIQUES: Blogging, Repurposing Computer Games, Machinima, Video Editing, Documentary.
OUTPUTS: 1 x 60 second video clip, 1 x SketchUp model, 1 x Blog, 1 x Crysis Wars Level, 1 x Crysis Wars Objects File.
PREMISE: The combination of the physics engines in contemporary computer games with video capture devices provides an opportunity to capture and critically reflect on complex interrelationships between objects, catalysts and space.

EXPERIMENT 2: The Porosity of Subterranian Sydney.

TIMETABLE: Weeks 8 - 13, 45% of final grade.
ARCHITECTURAL COMPUTING CHALLENGE: To test and document the spaces comprising the Sydney Town Hall Subway Station.
REFERENCE TEXTS: Porosity: The revision of public space in the city using public art to test the functional boundaries of built form, by Richard Goodwin in Architectural Design Research: Project-Based Design Research and Discourse on Design, Volume 2, Number 1, 2008 pg's 37-96
SOFTWARE: Photoshop, Blogger, SolidWorks, 3dsMax, Crysis Wars, Premier, Vegas (trial).
TECHNIQUES: Extrudes, Lofts, Cut Extrude, Cut Loft, Multi-SubObject Materials.
OUTPUTS: 1 x Solidworks Model, 1 x 3dsMax Model, 1 x 60 second animation, 1 x Blog, 1 x Crysis Wars Level, 1 x Crysis Wars Objects File.
PREMISE: That the contribution of contemporary computer games to the field of Architecture is the ability to test proposals in addition to representing them.

RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT: Comparing Workflows.

TIMETABLE: Weeks 2 - 13, 20% of final grade.
ARCHITECTURAL COMPUTING CHALLENGE: To be perceptive to and document the strengths, weaknessess, opportunities and differences in the two workflows engaged with in EXP1 and EXP2.
REFERENCE TEXT: Simulation vs Narrative: Introduction to Ludology, by Gonzalo Frasca in The Video Game Theory Reader, M. Wolf and B. Perron Ed's, pg's 221 - 235
SOFTWARE: Photoshop, Blogger, SketchUp, SolidWorks, 3dsMax, Crysis, Fraps, Premier, Vegas (trial).
TECHNIQUES: Modeling, Crysis Wars Level Editing, Video Editing, Documentary.
OUTPUTS: 1 x 3-4 minute video clip, 9 x Real Time Image Captures.
PREMISE: That critically evaluating different workflows elevates ones understanding of the media beyond that of a typical user and presents an opportunity for leadership.

SCHEDULE:

ASSESSMENT BREAKDOWN

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Evidence of thought and rigor in concept development
Imagination and innovation in terms of the use of the representational instruments introduced in studio.
Precision and skill in each of the above areas of assessment

In addition to these criteria you will be assessed on the level and extent to which you engage with the learning outcomes for the course and the PREMISES listed in each EXPERIMENT abstract.

Students need to submit all three experiments to pass the course.

All of the student work is assessed via each students blog. Images and text are uploaded by the students directly. Video is uploaded to YouTube and a link provided from the students blog. Sketchup models are uploaded to Google 3dWarehouse and a link provided from the students blog. Solidworks and 3ds Max models are uploaded to FileFront and a link provided from the students blog. Crysis Wars real time environments are uploaded to FileFront and a link provided from the students blog. If there are technical issues with regard to uploading your work to these venues then you should upload your work to an equivilant service (with links back to your blog).

Late submissions will be penalized at a rate of 10% per day unless the student has made an arrangement with the course coordinator prior to the submission date.

Plagiarism is the presentation of the thoughts or work of another as one’s own.* Examples include:
• direct duplication of the thoughts or work of another, including by copying work, or knowingly permitting it to be copied. This includes copying material, ideas or concepts from a book, article, report or other written document (whether published or unpublished), composition, artwork, design, drawing, circuitry, computer program or software, web site, Internet, other electronic resource, or another person’s assignment without appropriate acknowledgement;
• paraphrasing another person’s work with very minor changes keeping the meaning, form and/or progression of ideas of the original;
• piecing together sections of the work of others into a new whole;
• presenting an assessment item as independent work when it has been produced in whole or part in collusion with other people, for example, another student or a tutor; and,
• claiming credit for a proportion a work contributed to a group assessment item that is greater than that actually contributed.†
Submitting an assessment item that has already been submitted for academic credit elsewhere may also be considered plagiarism.
The inclusion of the thoughts or work of another with attribution appropriate to the academic discipline does not amount to plagiarism.
Students are reminded of their Rights and Responsibilities in respect of plagiarism, as set out in the University Undergraduate and Postgraduate Handbooks, and are encouraged to seek advice from academic staff whenever necessary to ensure they avoid plagiarism in all its forms.
The Learning Centre website is the central University online resource for staff and student information on plagiarism and academic honesty. It can be located at:
www.lc.unsw.edu.au/plagiarism
The Learning Centre also provides substantial educational written materials, workshops, and tutorials to aid students, for example, in:
• correct referencing practices;
• paraphrasing, summarising, essay writing, and time management;
• appropriate use of, and attribution for, a range of materials including text, images, formulae and concepts.
Individual assistance is available on request from The Learning Centre.
Students are also reminded that careful time management is an important part of study and one of the identified causes of plagiarism is poor time management. Students should allow sufficient time for research, drafting, and the proper referencing of sources in preparing all assessment items.
* Based on that proposed to the University of Newcastle by the St James Ethics Centre. Used with kind permission from the University of Newcastle
† Adapted with kind permission from the University of Melbourne.

Students who have a disability that requires some adjustment in their learning and teaching environment are encouraged to discuss their study needs with me prior to, or at the commencement of the course, or with the Equity Officer (Disability) in the Equity and Diversity Unit (9385 4734). Information for students with disabilities is available at:
www.equity.unsw.edu.au/disabil.html

COURSE EVALUATION AND DEVELOPEMENT


Student feedback on the course is gathered both formally (through the Course and Teaching Evaluation and Improvement, CATEI, process) and informally via a group of student representatives. The course as described above has benefited positively through this process and the course coordinator encourages your participation to further strengthen it. While many of the components of the course are fixed at the outset of each session, there is some flexibility in terms of day to day tasks and scheduling, so if there are issues students can see arising that may be easily avoided through a simple adjustment please let the course coordinator, your tutor or student representative know.