Continuing with the packaging project, I wanted to remain as faithful to my original concept of mapping, as following the general design of my building. ( I am attaching another pick). So her e is the direction I will like to go with this.
Now is just mater to see if is really possible and the consequences of trying to for such a thing: construction wise and shipping wise….=)….
Gus
6 comments:
Its great that you relate your package concept to your original mapping, I remember your mapping in the intensive, the interaction in it was so strong. simplicity would be good in the package project,
The folding of the site, is totally practical, also you are gathering the different components to one body of package. seems its all about gathering, which is very integral with the project.
I am looking forward to meet and enjoy your package in Boston on Saturday! at 12 pm. and say hello -).
The perspective looking great. may be just need more people, and you may like to distribute people in a way that could convey your idea of gathering.(not necessarily on the circular floor pattern) so it serves you better. unless you have a point.
Gus,
I just want to let you know that Ted informed me that we don't need to send the drawings through the mail. I don't know if this will help or hurt your package. I will comment more this afternoon on the packaging idea.
Jaclyn and Gus,
I remember well that Ted said that the drawings only need to be posted.(not printed).
but if Gus thinks it is necessary in his package form, then I hope that this is no problem,
In my point of view, I see the tube, roll of the blue prints in Gus's package sketch is very necessary and gives the package dimensions hardly to be accomplishes without this tube of drawings.
I think Ideas should fly without any constrains.
Gus,
The drawings are optional. If the idea has to do with gathering and sending the drawings reinforces this idea, all the better.
As Jaclyn said, the package can go inside another shipping box.
If you are sending the site, make sure we have directions for assembly.
It seems to me the package you are preparing is a literal interpretation of the building form. Is it possible that this can be the actual model and all other elements fold into it? Why make the building form twice?
If it is about your original idea of mapping and this is one node among many, what gesture implicates all the others and makes us realize this is only one possible solution?
Gus,
Is your package a replication of your building? I think that you might want to stretch a little further if it is supposed to be a replica. What can you do to show the bridging/connecting idea without an exact replica?
Gus,
I just read Ted's comment and saw he mentioned the same thing I did and that he also mentioned the mapping. Is the idea about mapping? If it is I didn't get that right away so you may want to express it more directly or in a more simple manner that is clear to the eye on first glance.
Post a Comment