Overall, this was a very successful and well done project. I expected to have to redo everything. I think there's some revision and a few redos that can be taken care of but we're moving on. Following are example string models. They were scanned on a flatbed (regular) scanner. I've made comments for each.
 |
This is a drawing of the garden done in string. It is done very well but it isn't what we're looking for. What are the paths, movements, stops, starts, compressions, exchanges, switches and other systemic (rather than symbolic) conditions of flow in the garden? |
 |
| This one is well done and there's something interesting in the way the two colors of string relate only loosely to each other. Green is definitely reliant on white for support. What are the two things represented in relationship between the two colors? How do the details of the white string work? |
 |
| We talked about this one a lot in class. There were a lot of things talked about that are not evident in the model itself. The model has very little differentiation past the very clear and pronounced lattice of string. One of the only variables is distance between short strings. It is the clearest model in the room because it is limited in scope. I think it is just being too subtle. |
 |
| This one too is too simple. It may be too contrasty too. Visually you don't see the white as anywhere near as strong as the colored string. Can that be made into part of the systemic way of understanding the garden? Is the garden an almost invisible set of loops that hold four primary conditions that stretch across and along the subsidiary whiten stuff? What's the knot in the left? It is unique. Is that the entrance? |
 |
| We talked a lot about this too. There's a lot of great ways of doing things but it is hard to see how the the white part fits in. It is very tentative in the way it is set into the rest of the model. |
 |
| This one uses a material I've never seen before- sinew. It is unique in the way the material works. Maybe the material is hard to work? This one is similar to the lattice above and the "drawing" of the garden in some ways. It needs to say more. What is unique about the way the material goes together and how can we use that in the way the model works? |
 |
| You've got to zoom in on this one. There are markings on the string, something no one else did. The idea of marking the string is legit. Can you use it more and integrate it into the representation? |
 |
| Something about this one (balance?) is funky. Its like there are very different sized parts and nothing between those two extremes of scale, maybe? The Vila (The bump in the big strand) needs some more investigation or elaboration, maybe? It's almost really clear but there are questions in plausibility. |
 |
| Simple, systematic, clear, not crafty. |
 |
| Zoom in and notice all the levels of scaled detail in this one. The one above this lacks this craftiness and elaboration. There are three kinds of string. Make it very clear how they work together. |
 |
| The compactness and clarity of the overall figure are good translations of d'Este. It could use a little craftiness of the one above but it can't be both compact and too elaborate. |
 |
Somehow the wire piece doesn't integrate into the overall clearly. This seems undifferentiated, like the lattice. |
 |
Very nice in the way the strings work as path geometries rather than shape geometries. There's a lot of turning along paths, as in the garden. |
 |
Similar to the one above in qualities. Lots of differentiation and relationships between parts elaborated. What is the over all figure of the thing? Is that important or clear in the garden? Is it a thing or a bunch of things? |
 |
The string in this one reads purely as flow, movement, and elaborated systems along it. It doesn't even look like the garden but it works like it. |
