LLILAS Benson “Digital Scholarship in the Americas” Speaker Series

LLILAS Benson “Digital Scholarship in the Americas” Speaker Series


I suspect we’ll have a few more people
show up in the next few minutes, but this is a real treat to be here today. It’s my great honor to present to
you the recipient of our 2019 Benson Digital Scholarship
Fellowship, Andrea Alvarez, who will be presenting on
the research that she’s conducting during her residency here at
the Benson over this summer. Andrea is pursuing a Master’s of
Architecture at UT Austin’s School of Architecture, where her
work focused on– I’m sorry to read, but it’s most accurate this way. Where her work focuses on
historic preservation design and conservation techniques. She holds a Bachelor
of Architecture from the Universidad Central de Venezuela,
from which she graduated with honors last year in 2018.
During her studies, Alvarez worked on researching and
cataloging various Venezuelan and Latin American modern buildings
as part of her thesis. Introducing our digital scholarship
fellow’s work is Professor Benjamin Ibarra-Sevilla. Ibarra-Sevilla is an associate professor
of architecture and historic preservation here at UT. He is also program director
of Masters and Advanced Studies and the program coordinator of the
Masters of Science and Historic Preservation, which is why
he’s busy all the time. That’s a lot. He’s an architect.
He graduated from UNAM in Mexico City and holds a degree in Conservation
and Restoration of Built Heritage from the excellence program
of the Carolina Foundation and the Universidad de Alcala
de Henares, Spain. So, welcome to you both. I turn it over to you, Benjamin.>>Good afternoon. Firstly, I would like to thank Albert,
and LLILAS, of course, for giving this opportunity to Andrea, who is a
really good student at the School of Architecture.
I’m really honored to be here and to have the opportunity to introduce
the work that Andrea has been doing during the summer. And also, actually,
a little bit beyond the summer. Just to give you a context of what
Andrea is going to be presenting, I’m going to be showing some slides
of buildings that have the type of structures that are included in the
manuscript that Andrea studied. She will be much more detailed
on the research and what she has done but I wanted
to give you a context of how this is applied in the real world. So, Carpinteria de lo Blanco is a term
used in architecture and carpentry to refer to the construction of
wooden roofs and ceilings. These structures use Mudéjar art
embedded in the surface and most of them were built in
the Medieval and Renaissance times. The craftsmen and artists that built
these type of structures were from Muslim origin
and used these construction methods for Islamic and Christian
temples and buildings. This carpentry work was widely used
in sovereign Spain and, later, brought to the Americas.
The master builders that came to this continent in the 16th
and 17th centuries brought their knowledge with them and applied
their techniques, when required, for religious and civil constructions. Carpinteria de lo Blanco
is recognized for the intricate patterns that form these structures. What is fascinating is that
the patterns follow rigorous geometric principles that are also
tied to construction principles. The constructive could not be
understood without the geometric and the geometric without
the constructive. The results are not only
beautiful ceilings, but also stable
structures that are integral to the rest of the constructions. Within the study of
Carpinteria de lo Blanco and these type of structures
in Latin America, no-one can miss the name of
Fray Andrés de San Miguel. His real name was Andrés de Segura de
la Alcuña and he was born in 1577 from a poor family in Medina-Sidonia
in Andalucia. He sailed to the Americas in 1593,
at the age of 15, returned to Spain, and reemerged in the early 1600s as a
Carmelita Friar in Mexico City, where he took the name of
Fray Andrés de San Miguel. Fray Andrés has been identified as a
curious man with interests in different disciplines.
A sailor, an architect, a hydraulic engineer, a mathematician
and, because of his writing, also an author of treatises. He is known for his passion for
architecture and it has been noted that he rejected a promotion
with the Carmelitas order because his inferior position
afforded him time for reading and allowed him to be involved
in the physical maintenance and construction of buildings. For example, historians link Fray Andrés
with the design and construction of Convento del Desierto de Santa Fe in 1606
and the Monasterio de Queretaro in 1618. His involvement in the development of the
Convento de San Ángel in Mexico City, built in 1615, seems
to be so relevant that historians have considered this building
his masterwork. His legacy did not end there.
Between 1629 and 1632, he was involved in the construction
of monasteries in Celaya, Morelia, Salvatierra,
and other parts of Mexico and also a bridge over the Lerma River. The manuscript by Fray Andrés de San
Miguel has attracted numerous scholars who are interested in this content and
the (inaudible) which it was created. For architects and historians,
this is a very particular book because it’s one of the very few
that addresses the exercise of the discipline of architecture
in colonial Mexico. The document comprises technical
and architectural drawings of buildings and bridges, mathematical
tables and illustrations, and schematics of equipment,
such as pumps and pendulums, and other drawings.
This manuscript, like many other of the time, does
not seem to be an organized written work but, rather, a compilation of
various subject matters. The work projects his interest in
the study and application of geometry and arithmetic
on building construction as an overwhelming motivation for his work. Many other manuscripts were created
in Spain around that time. Those include the manuscripts
of Alonso [Perdandida], Hernán Ruiz, and the Catalan [Giuseppe Gelovertius],
to mention some of them. But those manuscripts focused
on stone cutting techniques, and masonry construction. Andrés de San Miguel’s manuscript
distinguishes itself because a good part of it focuses on
Carpinteria de lo Blanco, which, as I stated before,
finds its roots in Islamic Spain and deals with woodwork. Because of the content of this manuscript,
it is that it’s usually compared with a document created by
Diego López de Arenas, the Breve Compendio de la Carpinteria
de lo Blanco y Tratado de Alarifes, written in Spain in 1633. Both books addressed
similar topics and were meant for a public that is within the discipline
of architecture or construction. In addition, both books were
written to describe how wood building components were built. Enrique Nuere, a Spanish scholar
who has numerous studies on Carpinteria de lo Blanco,
has studied both manuscripts. The one by Diego López de Arenas,
and the manuscript written by Fray Andrés de San Miguel. After his study, Nuere published
a book named La Carpinteria de Lazo,
Lectura Dibujada del Manuscrito de Fray Andrés de San Miguel. In this work, Nuere points out that,
even though both manuscripts were written almost simultaneously, on opposite
shores of the Atlantic Ocean, each author provides a different
approach in their writings. On the one hand, López de Arenas was
a specialist who devoted most of his time to solving the problems that the carpenter
faces when making this type of work. Therefore, his manuscript is the result
of his experience as carpenter. On the other hand, Nuere deduces from
Fray Andrés’ manuscript that the friar had limited knowledge about
carpentry when he arrived in America. Nuere proposes that his knowledge
was acquired from other texts preserved in the Carmelitas,
or from teaching recieved directly from carpenters doing the
construction works in Mexico. Furthermore, Nuere even disputes certain
methods used by Fray Andrés de San Miguel in the development and execution
of certain structures. He argues that Fray AndrŽs de San Miguel’s
manuscript is more a research work than a summary of his
professional practice as a carpenter. However, Nuere claims that
Andrés de San Miguel’s manuscripts became a valuable
element to contrast and allow him to reevaluate what he learned
from López de Arenas’ writings. The manuscript of Fray Andrés de
San Miguel is a Latin American jewel in which many of its secrets
are still to be revealed. In this context, the work by Andrea
Alvarez that is going to be presented, aims to open a new chapter
in these investigations. Her groundbreaking research is
an initiation to the explorations of the use of digital technologies
of the 21st century that help to unfold selective aspects
of the 17th century manuscript, especially those that pertain to the
relationships between construction, geometry, and architecture. Her seminal work is an initial effort
to open new paths for the contemporary visualization of this valuable document, exploring implications,
challenges, and opportunities that digital technologies offer us
so we can understand better the contend of the manuscript,
and the legacy found in this way of making wooden roofs. We are very, very fortunate, I have to say,
that we have Andrea in the School of Architecture. She is, of course, as you will notice,
an excellent student, who has excelled with the work developed
for her fellowship with LLILAS. The evidence is here.
You can see it there on the table and you will be able to appreciate
it in her presentation. So without further ado,
I’ll let Andrea take over and ask you to pay attention
to her excellent presentation.>>Thank you. Thanks, Professor
Benjamin, for your words for your introduction, and for
all the support you gave me for completing this work, and this research. And thank you all for being here today,
and thanks to LLILAS for making this all possible.
Like Professor said, I started this research the past summer
when I was selected as the LLILAS Digital Fellow.
And over the course of a month, and a little more, I developed this
project, which main objective was to take the manuscript,
this most valuable 17th century document, and try to reinterpret it using
current architecture tools, that nowadays architects use
to project their work. And that means taking it,
and taking the representations in that manuscript, and actually produce
models using software of architecture. So my presentation is going to
be divided in what I think were the three parts that I can say that
my research went through in order to produce the 3D models. The first one is research, which
I’m mainly going to talk about. Some sources that the professor mentioned,
the manuscripts, what I took from each, and how it all came together
from that point to the 3D models. The digital construction part is
about actually taking the manuscript information and putting
it in the computer. And actually, I want to emphasize that
what I did was build the structures in a digital environment, but I tried
to replicate the process of building the structures like it is
in the real world. And finally the production is
the 3D printing process itself, as well as the manual assembly
of all the elements. So the first part was research. I spent more or less a week,
analyzing and just finding what each source can provide for this project. The first one, and most important,
was of course the Fray Andrés de San Miguel manuscript. Like Professor
said, this one was about– This one is rigorous, mathematical,
very descriptive, and focused on the theory of it. This was a very common practice in
carpentry and this manuscript took that and described it to the fullest extent,
with all its proportional systems, and all the math behind it. The second one was the manuscript by
Diego López de Arenas. This one is the Spanish manuscript
and this one was different because it was intended
for a different audience. This one wasn’t about the theory.
This one was about building the actual structures in wood and working with wood.
This one was a little more hands on. And for me, I had to use
both and between these two, had complimentary nature because,
yes, I was using a digital environment and I needed the precision,
but I was putting something that was just lines into an object.
A digital object, but an object. So I had to build it and this
information was crucial for that. And lastly, Enrique Nuere’s book,
Carpinteria de Lazo. He was my precedent of someone
who studied these two manuscripts, put them in a comparative state.
He took what Fray Andrés described in words, and put it step by step
in drawings that, then, I could take and expand on them, in order
to create the models. The second part was the actual building,
after letting all the information sync. Now, I felt prepared to build in the
computer. And I want to emphasize that I call it digital construction because
in the computer you can model as if it was a structure and having
pieces run into each other, and overlap. But the challenge was to replicate
the actual construction process. So that could not happen and I had
to go in and actually treat each piece in the computer as if it was solid and try
to make them fit with each other. That was the closest I could get
to the builder’s experience and trying to find their challenges, and trying
to imagine just what it would mean to do that without the precision of
a digital environment, and with wood. That was a revealing process. The manuscript, I just want to talk in
general of what it talks about. Like Professor Benjamin said,
it’s about the patterns that come from Mudéjar architecture,
but the unit from which everything is created is called rueda,
which means wheel. From these wheels, that are subdivided,
the system just grows. So for each panel, or each unit
of the system, just comes from the extension of the lines of
something that’s bigger. So, in this example, we have
a wheel of 20. It’s a wheel that’s divided in 20 parts
and, just by extending the lines, it creates two smaller wheels of ten. So the beauty of it is that you can
create several patterns, several subdivisions, but they’re all
going to have the same angles and that’s how the system works to grow. And the second drawing is–
(microphone cuts out) Sorry. (inaudible).
Yeah, I’m– Thank you. And the second drawing–
Oh, yeah. Sorry. The second drawing,
it’s found in Nuere’s book. It’s about all the different kinds
of wheels that exist and that Fray Andrés, in his mind,
described in words, but he didn’t draw all of them. He drew one, and that’s the one
that I’m going to be focusing on because it’s the most basic
and the most common one found in the structures in Mexico. But all the way from the seven
division all the way to 20, each with its angle to be built with. And again, Fray Andrés described all
of this in word, but the value in Nuere’s book is that it’s a visual aid
for me to actually build upon. And this picture reflects
just how precise, even if it’s in words, Fray Andrés got to describe
each division and each angle that create the different structures. So for me, it was vital to have
such precision because, in a digital environment, I need that
in order for things to fit. And just thinking about how
he managed to find all of this, very precisely, in the 17th century,
for me, it was vital and it was also impressive. That’s the general aspects of the system,
so I’m going to talk about the unit. The wheel of eight,
or rueda de lazo de ocho. It’s called that because
it has eight subdivisions. Ocho is eight. But also, the
word lazo alludes to how the wood is treated as a ribbon that goes
through a weaving process, like a fabric, so wood going through that process,
in order to gain a structural stability. The more woven it is,
the more structurally stable. That is exactly what forms the patterns.
So again, he only drew this, which is the wheel of eight, and that
is the first drawing that he shows. Then the second one is about what
I was saying earlier, how the wood the pieces of– I’m just
going to show it in the laptop. The pieces of wood extend and create
other shapes to continue the structure. And the third drawing is
about what happens when we’re not talking about one, but we actually
have four of these coming together. There is an intersection, and how do
you solve that intersection? It’s another piece called, quadrilejo,
which means four wheels. The first page is just–
At this point in the investigation, I’m just realizing how many parts
there are, how the intersections are solved, and how it grows. But so far I’m dealing with lines
in the computer. And that’s what this slide is about, all the faces
of drawing, just that very first model because once you have that,
it’s very easy to grow based on that. The manuscript has its challenges
and that’s when I had to go to the second manuscript
because, for example the manuscript doesn’t talk
about dimensions. It only talks about relationships
between elements. I had to go and find, with other
sources, the width of the wood that, at this point, are just lines
but I knew that at some point I would have to create
a solid piece out of that. I just want to say that this
anatomy of a wheel of eight, I wanted to point out that Fray Andrés
is very rigorous about naming each component of the wheel
and generating each piece out of the center out or of another piece
and that was one of the challenges, because in a written work,
when they are talking to you about terms and relating them
to the other terms, these words aren’t necessarily modern Spanish.
The terms were actually the first challenge for me but once
I got a hand of the terminology I could actually begin to
understand the relationships, and they’re actually fascinating,
but straightforward. So the most important terms,
out of the center, is called sino. The almond shapes that name the wheel,
depending on how many of these are, wheel of eight, wheel of nine,
wheel of ten, it’s called, almendría, which refers to
these almond shapes in the center, surrounding the star polygon
in the center. The [costarias], which are number three,
refer to the empty spaces that the ribs, or the wood, leave. So this slide was about, okay,
“I have the module, “I have to turn the module
into panels to build with.” Fray Andrés gives this drawing,
the drawing on the side, which is divided
into three parts, three panels. Two are squared, and one is a trapezoid and they’re all created using the
wheel of eight. (to offscreen) It’s not working. Okay, I generated four wheels that
intersect with each other and found that just by extending
the vertical and horizontal lines, I generated the intersection. That happens in the lower
two panels but, if you see, the top one is a little different. It’s about leaving an empty space,
an octagon, and that is for the roof. And we’ll see how this 2D drawing
then folds and creates the structure. Like I just said, I knew that
this drawing was supposed to fold, to generate the armadura,
or the wooden structure, but I wasn’t sure what angles,
or I wasn’t really sure how it would look like, so I just
printed it, and began imagining how it would look in 3D by making
a quick paper model. I just wanted to show it, and also,
I decided at this point, after I generated the unit,
that the way I was going to assemble the panels was going to be aimed for
creating a five panel structure. There are also three panel structures.
This one is about, in a cross section, it has five panels in these
very specific angles in order to cover that span of a church. Then another drawing–
So, I have that line drawing that I know is going to fold and,
again, I’m still with lines but not in a 2D environment.
I lift them, and begin to work with it in 3D. The manuscript gave me some
idea on how to do that, and what angles I should use.
The angles that I found with the paper model, actually,
the manuscript described them. With this drawing, which was
a little confusing because it’s actually two drawings in one.
The one that’s called “front view” is how the structure that holds
the panels would look if you stand directly
in front of the structure. The other half of the drawing,
it’s how the structure would look if you stand in a corner,
if that makes sense. So those are two different
profiles, depending on the position that you have to look at it. I didn’t know that, and it’s not
described in the manuscript, but Nuere’s book was the resource
that I had to understand that. And actually, there were some
mistakes in the manuscript. Not mistakes, but just this one
that I found that, in the corners, the panels actually go inward. Fray Andrés described them as
pointing out and Nuere theorizes that it could have been because
of the lack of paper. And this, after I have my regular panels,
the ones that repeat themselves, I have the corner condition,
which is a bit special because it’s about extending the lines
that are already in the panels. It doesn’t have the wheel in it. So, the drawings that I did, and my
result, are a little different than Fray Andrés’ drawings because,
as you can see there in the dashed rectangle,
Fray Andrés drew the piece as a unit but when I had to put it
with the rest of the structure, I realized that some
angles just didn’t fit but, using the same logic as he did,
I just extended the lines, and created the triangular panels. So I generated the pattern for
the whole structure. I have all the panels, all the pieces,
now it’s time to make them solid. I began adding thickness,
as the image shows in the corner. I began adding thickness
to these lines using, again, the proportions described
in the manuscript. As I did that, I began separating
each piece as panels. So, at this point I have all the panels
that generate the patterns of the armadura, but how is that,
in real life, put together and how does it relate to the structure? Fray Andrés also has a drawing
about that, a detail drawing in which he explains that the beams
found in the structure, have incisions that perfectly fit
the panels that I created. So I just wanted to say,
think about these wooden pieces, or these wooden beams,
as solid pieces that– The craftsmanship that takes,
just precisely replicating those angles and actually make these panels fit. With technology and nowadays,
that would be really simple, but in context, it just required
a lot of accurateness and, for me, that was striking, because even I,
trying to replicate it in a digital environment,
I still ran into some imprecision. So, it still amazes me. This drawing has the two
main beams that are in the model that I had at this point
in the investigation. So this is just a detailed view
of my beams, or my structure. The yellowish part is the panel that
would fit and go up and actually feed in the incisions that the beams have. So you can imagine it.
You can see how the actual beams look without the panel on it. What the panel does, is that it creates
this very clean, very straight look but what’s behind that is
a structure that is carved for that to be exactly flush. So, after generating that structure
and all those incisions that my panels would generate,
I start to catalog and differentiate the types of panels that exist. Even though they could have
the same pattern and they were built using the wheel of eight,
their position within that armadura, or that structure,
changes the angles at the ends. How they meet with
the neighboring panel, it changes the woodwork that
would have to be done. Of course, if I’m 3D printing, I need
those angles to match perfectly. So this, for example, number one, it’s
a lower panel that has the same pattern as number two but the fact that
one is in the lower level and the second one, it’s a little bit on
the top with different neighbors, different angles, that all means
that it’s a different kind of panel, even thought it looks the same. Then the ceiling one,
it has a different pattern all on its own, the quadrilejo that I talked about. That’s in the middle in the of structure
and then the end condition has, again, its particular set of rules
and different neighbors. This one has, for example,
the top one, has the relationship to the roof, and then a relationship
to a triangle, and then, on the lower side, to a trapezoid.
That all changes the angles that unite them.
In real life wood construction, what would happen is that,
“We have to make these two panels fit, let’s just sand the wood,”
but since I’m using a 3D printer, I need those angles to be accurate
to the millimeter, just from start. Maybe in real construction work, it wasn’t necessary to have that,
at least those details, figured out, because it could be sanded, even
though, it was very precise. But now, with this technique,
I had to go in, and actually find the angle to the millimeter. I describe all of that
in the function section. These are the triangular panels
that I said don’t follow the wheel of eight pattern
because they are an extension of the lines of the neighbors,
which are trapezoids, and two squares. I just want to point out, I call
them triangles because I use these imaginary lines to make them fit a
space in the structure but if you see the 3D printed it looks like a
triangle but, in real life, those invisible lines that I use to build is what Fray Andrés described and found
in the beginning. Without that, I wouldn’t be able
to know where these weird looking shapes even came from,
so that’s interesting to me. Then the bigger pieces, the end of the
armadura pieces, which are basically the same as the squared ones,
just had to grow in a 45 degree angle in order to meet the corner. Finally, I’m ready to produce
these models. So, in order to do that I sent
them out to print. This is a 3D printer;
it’s called Fortus800. This was all made in the technology lab
at the architecture school. This is an actual picture, and an
actual video, of one of the trays of panels being 3D printed. I just want to say, what it’s printing
right now is really flat. With 3D printing there’s the option,
or I could have decided, to print the whole structure
as a solid piece. We decided to print each panel,
just as a building exercise, because I felt like it would
deduct value to just print the final outcome and that’s it. Actually going through the process
of assembling it by hand, I felt like that would
add to the research. So, I print each piece and this
is how it came out of the 3D printer. On the one hand, we have what’s
called white (inaudible) plastic and the parts that are a little bit
grayish, in the middle, it’s called support material. What it does is that it holds the plastic,
or the solid part, together while it’s in high temperature, or it’s
printing, so it won’t move but once it cools down, it’s disposable.
I just want to make you aware of how much it accumulated in those
little tiny incisions that I tried to replicate in the beams
and in the structure. Because they were so small, it was a struggle for the printer
to hold them together. But that was okay, it printed perfectly. Now, it’s time to– The second part
is about getting rid of that support material because it’s not necessary
and it’s not part of the model. It’s just part of the process;
it goes into this eco-wash. It’s a soapy solution that is supposed
to melt down that support material. This is a process that takes
about four hours. It took maybe 12 trays like this one
with all my different pieces that you’re going to see in the model. Maybe 12 trays, and each four hours, so you can see it was a process
that took weeks. So, finally, I had all the pieces.
Fortunately, I had that catalog that I did so I wouldn’t get lost because
they are pretty similar. With all the pieces at hand,
I just proceeded to assemble them. In theory it was supposed to be
a very easy process and very precise because, if the incisions are
correct, the panels should just snap. But it wasn’t quite like that. Because, still, 3D printing, and at
this scale, presented its challenges. I’m going to explain that in a second. I have a video. I’m sorry about this. I’m so sorry. Okay. There we go. This is me
assembling just a portion of the model. Four beams, three panels. Basically, in repetition,
this is what creates the armadura. We can see the little incisions
I was talking about in this model. The first panel was really easy,
it just snapped. You saw me there using
super glue just to make a durable model to give to LLILAS
but I could have just snapped it and it would have stayed in place.
That’s how perfect the structure is. The second panel was a little bit more of a challenge because the
smaller incisions of the top had accumulated support material. I had to go in with an X-Acto knife
and remove all the extra support material to actually make the panel fit.
You see. Just a little bit. So that just puts in perspective
how precise it needs to be. Even with 3D printing
and the work in the computer, it always will require
some level of craftsmanship. So these are some process pictures.
This is the bigger picture, on this side. It’s that four beam, three panel part that
I was assembling in that video. Then I just repeated the process with a
trapezoids and with the ceiling part You see that little square piece?
That’s the top part– to create the final model. This just a picture of the final outcomes. The most important one is the armadura,
or the full armadura, model. I can go there and explain it better but it’s basically, half of it is fully done,
how it is in real life construction. The frontal part has only the structure,
so you would be able to see the incisions that
I’ve been talking about. And it has a mirror so you would
be able to see the structure all the way to the ceiling. This model, this smaller
piece on this side, has two panels and the beams, with all the names. Remember how I said the terms
were a challenge? I think it’s a vital part of the
woodworking, and the Carpinteria de Lazo in general, to know these terms. It’s a representation of a part
of the process, of this research, that was just super important for
me to know. I actually had this drawing in an informal version in my
notebook, where I keep constantly looking into the terms, until I
finally memorized them. So, it’s also a testimony
of the work process. And last model, it’s a detail
model of the rueda, of the wheel of eight; it’s just half of it. You can see the pattern (inaudible),
we’ll see it in a second, how the star polygon in the center generates
the rest of the subdivisions. It’s actually an interactive model.
You’re supposed to be able to touch the pieces, feel them, know the amount
of angles, and the amount of precision work it took in cutting these
pieces and treating them as wood. That’s my presentation.
These are the sources that I used. I just thank you again for being here
and if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer all of those and
to show you the models within my hand. So, I welcome you to go ahead and look. (applause)>>Before we head over, are there any
questions for Andrea or Professor Ibarra?>>Does the book talk about
the construction process?>>The manuscript, Fray Andrés
manuscript? Yes. It talks about the construction process but mostly
it’s more about the dimensioning so you can cut the pieces. You have to know the dimensions to
cut them but it actually also talks about how to assemble them. But more
the other manuscript, the Spanish one.>>I have a question. Can you give us a little bit more
information, in terms of– So this is all wood, right? (inaudible)
wood paneling? And I guess my question
is, how do they get it to weave? Did they interlock them and then
unite them, or was it all carved out into one really thin piece of wood?>>How do I say this?
They would generate very deep– Let’s go back to a piece that
I can show this better. This one is perfect. So what they would do is that, this
horizontal piece, the one that you see that’s obviously under it, they would
make the incision, a very deep incision, so that the other could
go on the top. That’s how they make them
stick to each other. Any other questions?
>>So they were strips of wood?>>Yeah, it’s not just–
I talked about this incision but imagine this as a solid member,
this one, that has several incisions for it to be woven.
>>And where they meet with other pieces here, so like this angle
here, how is that notched in here?>>A 45 degree cut, and this is one piece.
It would be one piece of wood in the–>>Oh. Okay.
>>And this one is cut beause it’s just showing the unit but that
would be another long piece, down here.>>I see. Thank you.
>>No problem, thank you.>>Were they glued or nailed ever
or is it just the wood’s structure itself and where it’s notched,
that’s what’s holding it together?>>I think the geometric pattern
is what’s holding it together mostly. They could have used other tools but
the preciseness of the structure, and the effort that goes into making
those cuts perfect, is what holds it together. And when you have
several intersections very close to each other, like in the wheel, but
imagine this as a whole. So each intersection makes the one next
to it stronger in a sense, structurally. Yeah, sure.
>>Could you ever see this type of intricate construction being,
and the renderings and all the work that you put into it, being useful
in contemporary construction today? Is there any crossover that you could
see this kind of–>>I would love to see this level–
I cannot think of an example of a contemporary similar project, but I
would love to see in contemporary architecture just this union between
design and structural stability. By doing one, you are making strong
into the other. I think that’s what’s valuable
about these kinds of structures. I would love to see this
effort of putting this detail, I mean the incisions, to generate
a complex, yet very– Because this very straightforward.
The math behind it, it’s just divisions of a module. I would love to see a paneling
system that maybe takes these principles, and actually– And maybe
that’s a step forward in the research. Very interesting. Thanks for that question.>>It would be amazing to see
something like this today but it’s also the beauty of it that,
at the time of its production, to manufacture that (inaudible).
>>Yeah.>>I have another question.
Is there any inkling in the manuscript, in regards to
who would be doing this physical work, or the actual construction of it?>>Sorry. Can you repeat that question?
>>During that time period, who would be doing the actual
construction of these type of>>I think the carpenters.
The carpenters, the woodworkers. Because in that period of time, the
carpenter had a way more important role in construction. Similar to what
we call today a project manager, or an architect. The carpenter work
was just so vital for the building to be, because this is a roof. Without this, wouldn’t be
a complete building. So the carpenter had to be
on top of that. And yeah, he was a carpenter, but it’s a different role
of carpenter than what we think today of that a carpenter could
do inside a building. Because we use different materials.
We use different techniques. That’s the main difference.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *