Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Design theory and discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cliffrod
    replied
    When developing a 3D composition, especially from 2D methods, it's important to understand the difference between drawing a line and creating an edge. Many people don't actively consider this fact preemptively. When the actual 3D form is made, it can be difficult to justify it with the 2D renderings. Drawing several views of the same object can help, but only if these drawings represent a shape with edges that can properly transition between the various representations.

    i have worked with many drawings of sculpture projects that lack complete information. Usually there will be areas that are just shaded. Big fail. I can't carve a shadow. I have to create shape that creates shadow while also carving something in that shadowed area. Drawing a curved or complex shape to be made from metal presents the same challenges. Adding a few scribbles isn't enough and Miscommunication is a very real risk. Sometimes a fanciful shape will be shown from one perspective that is completely impractical or impossible to justify with surrounding detail.

    make sure to consider how the proposed shape will create the edge that the line in a drawing describes. Make sure to properly address how shape can cause a line to change, as well as top vs bottom or inside vs outside of the shape. It's not hard to overlook little things, especially if you are working alone. If you're fielding drawing done by someone else, be prepared to address them in a professional manner. Most regular customers don't "see" in shapes- they can only comprehend a finished shape, not the means to achieve that shape. many 2D artists never have to produce or transition their concepts into 3D and will assume the 3D expert will automatically know what they mean, That's why I strive to do as much of not all of my own artwork in 2D and 3D. Compared to others I see as talented artists, I'm not a very good 2D artist or draftsman. But, if I draw it, I can address all the pitfalls I can recognize as soon as possible. I get better at every job. Practice is always good.

    Leave a comment:


  • cliffrod
    replied
    Originally posted by memphisrain View Post
    Thanks fellas, happy to be here.

    I used a lot of what you're talking about (although I was unaware of any of the technical terms) for a back half I did for a guy on a CB350. First, the rear swing arm has been stretched 2" to lengthen the wheelbase a bit, and give it a more "racey" feel and allow room for the monoshock. Second, you'll see the monoshock and upper swing arm brace are perpendicular to the angled tube supporting the seat hoop, which is also parallel to the vertical braces on the swing arm. The seat hoop maintains the same horizon line as the bottom of the tank, although slightly elevated (a seat pan will match the bottom tank line (I hope, I'm not making it). In addition, that horizon line is slightly inclined to the rear to give the bike an aggressive look., although it's a bit difficult to see in this picture as it's on uneven ground. Finally, the rear hoop ends in front of the rear axle centerline, and vertex of the tire, again to aid in the aggressive look.



    Click image for larger version Name:	Raleigh Motor Bike.jpg Views:	0 Size:	229.6 KB ID:	1984

    Stock bike for comparison's sake:

    {"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\tStock CB350.jpg Views:\t0 Size:\t98.6 KB ID:\t1987","data-align":"none","data-":"1987","data-size":"full"}
    It's great to see what you're working on, Jake. I had to learn about most of this design theory & application along the way and after the fact. Being able to articulate the specifics has helped a lot when discussing projects with patrons. When I can easily explain the "why", it builds confidence in relationships and ultimately in your portfolio. That's the end goal. Hopefully discussing it here might help others do the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • memphisrain
    replied
    Thanks fellas, happy to be here.

    I used a lot of what you're talking about (although I was unaware of any of the technical terms) for a back half I did for a guy on a CB350. First, the rear swing arm has been stretched 2" to lengthen the wheelbase a bit, and give it a more "racey" feel and allow room for the monoshock. Second, you'll see the monoshock and upper swing arm brace are perpendicular to the angled tube supporting the seat hoop, which is also parallel to the vertical braces on the swing arm. The seat hoop maintains the same horizon line as the bottom of the tank, although slightly elevated (a seat pan will match the bottom tank line (I hope, I'm not making it). In addition, that horizon line is slightly inclined to the rear to give the bike an aggressive look., although it's a bit difficult to see in this picture as it's on uneven ground. Finally, the rear hoop ends in front of the rear axle centerline, and vertex of the tire, again to aid in the aggressive look.



    Click image for larger version  Name:	Raleigh Motor Bike.jpg Views:	0 Size:	229.6 KB ID:	1984

    Stock bike for comparison's sake:

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Stock CB350.jpg Views:	0 Size:	98.6 KB ID:	1987
    Last edited by memphisrain; 10-25-2019, 03:31 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter Tommasini
    replied
    Hi Jake welcome to the forum
    Peter T.

    Leave a comment:


  • cliffrod
    commented on 's reply
    Very cool- great to see you here, Jake. Welcome to the forum.

  • memphisrain
    replied
    I found a free .pdf of "The Five Orders of Architecture"

    Great write-ups!

    http://www.chenarch.com/images/arch-...ive-Orders.pdf

    Jake

    Leave a comment:


  • cliffrod
    replied
    I mentioned this book earlier & just found it. No idea what the dust jacket might look like, but all info is in the attached pics. The actual hardcover of my book is blue fabric with gold lettering and artwork as shown on cover. I lucked up and found this copy for $.50 at a thrift store.

    "Anatomy for Interior Designers" by Julius Panero is all about designing spaces in relationship to the human body. The focus is about architectural spaces, but the same principles are applicable to designing areas such as a vehicle cockpit, passenger compartment or any area that interacts specifically with the human body. It covers range of motion, general space requirements related to body posture, vision & line of sight and more. . If I was developing an original vehicle, I would use this information to create space around driver & passengers just as I would reference The Five Orders by Vignola to develop something like a dashboard in a traditional-themed touring car.

    if you're offended by now-inappropriate sexual bias & predijudiced stuff that editors apparently approved in 1948, you can skip this book. Many cartoons and comments may have been ok back in the day, but I expect it would need a serious revisit with revisions if it were to go to print again and put on the shelf for sale in 2019. I just opened it to a couple of pages to show the kind of information it covers like reach radius, various typical seated & reclining dimensions and more. It makes it fast and easy to get an idea of what fits, what doesn't and how much space to consider. It's also good for sculptors creating an interactive space.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	image.jpeg Views:	2 Size:	106.6 KB ID:	1898Click image for larger version  Name:	image.jpeg Views:	2 Size:	87.0 KB ID:	1901

    Click image for larger version  Name:	image.jpeg Views:	2 Size:	162.1 KB ID:	1902Click image for larger version  Name:	image.jpeg Views:	1 Size:	148.0 KB ID:	1900P

    Click image for larger version  Name:	image.jpeg Views:	1 Size:	244.1 KB ID:	1899

    You can buy The Five Orders very cheaply. I've seen used copies of "Anatomy for Interior Designers" on Amazon but it was around $50.00. Maybe it's available from a library near you? If it fits the type of work you do, it's a good book to consider referencing.
    Last edited by cliffrod; 10-20-2019, 01:36 AM. Reason: typos..

    Leave a comment:


  • cliffrod
    replied
    Originally posted by OldnEK View Post
    Nice interesting write up, Cliff.
    The thing I admire about Stonemasons and Sculptors is the attention to detail and the accurate perspective you guys posses. To produce design in 3D from flat, is not easy to do.
    Accuracy is paramount to producing something with intricate detail, metal work is much more forgiving if you grind off too much you can weld material back.
    That's one thing you cannot do with stone work.
    Not sure that we possess anything other than diligence to keep going & get it right so that this job is less of a failure than the last one. I've carved all my life, literally since my 6th birthday. It's my happy place & doesn't necessarily impress my oldest friends because "that's just what he does." But most was far more disposable than the stone work I do now. Metal is so forgiving and different. It's easy to bump up a low spot on a panel. In stone, you raise the low spot by (permanently) lowering everything around that spot. That's exactly what I'm doing now in studio- lowering everything to bring all the measured points to the surface.

    Working alone, keeping perspective is tough. It's easy to end a day with a gorgeous stone. Then you'll walk in the next morning and see that the Jesus or Mary or the angel you were carving went out drinking all night & they don't look so good anymore... You can't see what you're doing. When you have someone working beside you, they'll say "you aren't going to leave it like that, are you?" or "that's looking pretty good-I wouldn't mess with it anymore." That's why I'm trying to let this Guzzi sit and wait, so I can see it better as I focus on something completely different. Some people have a great eye. Mine are kinda blurry..

    As a carver, it's easy for me to see what fits within a volume of mass. It isn't just one thing, like some like to quip. There's so many possibilities, from the biggest possible to many different small things. The hard part is deciding what is the best use of the material vs the the item(s) carved. Seeing a sheet of metal to shape, it's still a little confounding for me to comprehend it as a surface alone in whole or in part & easily added to other similar pieces of metal. It's so versatile and cheap that economy of material & use are much different by comparison.

    Hopefully discussing some of my methods will help other craftsmen see the benefits of a deliberate process in general. However a composition evolves, knowing how and why to do it efficiently, at will & upon demand is good method.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldnEK
    replied
    Nice interesting write up, Cliff.
    The thing I admire about Stonemasons and Sculptors is the attention to detail and the accurate perspective you guys posses. To produce design in 3D from flat, is not easy to do.
    Accuracy is paramount to producing something with intricate detail, metal work is much more forgiving if you grind off too much you can weld material back.
    That's one thing you cannot do with stone work.

    Leave a comment:


  • cliffrod
    replied
    Division of large into small-

    To be successful in satisfying people other than yourself, you need to be aware of their experience and perspective. When a composition is all or effectively one piece with no strong landmarks when viewed- only an outside edge surrounding an interior body- it becomes difficult for a viewer to view and evaluate the composition from a single perspective. Three dimensional shape may be impossible to determine. By dividing the overall composition in some manner, including beading, attached trim, obvious seams, lines of rivets or changes in paint or surface finish, a viewer can more easily discern shape and dimension.

    Examples of this include a mid 1950's MV Augusta CSS 175 gas tank. These are affectionately nicknamed Disco Volante or Flying Saucer. They have a dramatic bulge on the front bottom corners. But they were generally painted monochromatic or two tone with no significant trim or detail. If two tone, the division was simply horizontal. That makes them deceptively plain, especially when viewed from the side in pictures. When viewed from the front, rear, top or bottom, the dramatic shape is easier to see.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	20 Size:	625.2 KB ID:	1887
    Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	20 Size:	651.4 KB ID:	1888

    in contrast, the late 50's and very early 60's Ducati 175 and 200 SS & Elite models has a very similar dynamically bulbous gas tank, nicknamed the Jelly Mold tank by Ducati fans. However, these tanks were finished in chrome or two tone paint with a distinctive paint scheme, pad mounting loops on top and attached badges (at least the early ones). The tank is still challenging to comprehend in pictures vs in person when viewed from the side, but the division of the larger composition into smaller sections benefit the viewer towards understanding what is happening with the shape.


    Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	19 Size:	1,007.3 KB ID:	1889
    Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	19 Size:	1.02 MB ID:	1890

    The contrast when chrome is used with paint helps a lot, because the reflections are more diverse. Simple reflection in nice paint alone is not strongly indicative of shape. If tank is all polished, the information provided by the reflection is dependent upon what there is to be reflected. A busy surrounding might be good. Clear skies or a mon ochromatic studio setting isn't. ..

    Neither approach is right or wrong. However, it's very important to see what you create and produce through the eyes of your audience. Maintaining a viable perspective of your work while producing it is very difficult. You can easily become blind to what it in front of you because you are seeing it in your mind based upon your intent, not with unbiased eyes as a simple tangible shape or surface. In my stone world, that's how a "beautiful" carving of an angel can turn out to look like (in my favorite words from my cousin) a pickle headed monkey....

    More later.
    Last edited by cliffrod; 10-20-2019, 01:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • cliffrod
    replied
    It's hard to deliberately produce a great 100% original design on purpose. Some do, whether by natural talent, luck or decades of skilled practice. Others refine an existing design. Many times, while refinements are made, the good look comes and goes. Understanding these things are a big deal in my work. In stone, when it looks good you need to seriously consider further changes because there is no turning back. Making that perfect result happen in the perfect location or time or market on demand every time is a bugger. vehicle designs are no different.

    The 32 Ford was a refinement that developed (at least) from modifications to the spindly Model T into the fuller bodied 28-29 Model A (still concave & skinny cowl) to 30-31 Model A (fuller cowl but still square chrome radiator shell) to 32 Ford (rounded radiator shell painted body color) to 33 (sloped radiator shell & grill) and more. This is not a complete list of changes. I think the 32 Ford was more incidental than deliberate, just a point along a continuum of design. Enduring fame came later for numerous reasons. RockHillWill is a serious Model A expert. He can probably add to this specific example, as well as about some of the design theory I've mentioned.

    to me, many Corvettes look great when a new model is introduced. The more the design is tweaked, the more it suffers. Then they release a new design that's usually pared down and tight. But subsequent models have stuff added & changed until they get wonky again.

    By contrast, Harley Davidson maintained an almost boring lack of design changes for decades. It was before specific nostalgia models were released. A big Harley or Sportster was just that. They looked one way and only began changing when markets wanted the convenience of popular custom modifications already in place on a showroom-new bike. That was the basis for the SuperGlide in 1971, the Low Rider a few years later and the endless variations we have now.

    I'm not a design expert or academically trained artist. During my apprenticeship, I was exposed to some of these things but I was a 40hr/wk employee following instruction. I couldn't stop & study- I just did. On my own, I need every tool I can use to do better work. These theories are just tools I'm trying to learn to use better, to make every job better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Murphy
    replied
    Interesting discussion. I have thought about some designs like say a 32 Ford and it’s pretty hard to fault the design it was so good. I don’t think it was just luck or was it.

    Leave a comment:


  • cliffrod
    replied
    These are formalized approaches to design that are standards. I've included a Wikipedia link to each one. Entire books are written about these, so read more if you like-

    The Golden Ratio. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio briefly, this is a factor describing the relationship of between two ideal compared values that is a non-terminating, non-repeating decimal. Abbreviated to three decimal points, the Golden ratio is 1.618. A height to width ratio equal to the Golden Ratio is an consider to be an ideal form. Given a single value, multiplying or dividing it by the Golden Ratio to find a complementary partner value is a quick way to develop an idealized element.

    the Finbonacci Number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number. Briefly, this describes a sequence of numbers where a subsequent value is determined by adding the two prior values. This is a sequence often found in nature, such as the increasing number of petals on a flower, and. Is strongly related to the Golden Ratio.

    the Five Orders of Architecture by Vignola- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...f_Architecture. This is a much more complicated treatise about overall architectural theory, but can provide significant benefit to anyone serious about design and composition. It's a lot to digest, but there's a lot there to broaden your perspective and understanding about what things mean and why they work in design. There are aspects that relate to the demonstration of mass and weight that can help a design communicate such things. Entasis, in regards to the Orders, describes the slight swell or expansion of a vertical column or element (that would otherwise have straight edges) to convey the mass of the weight above it. Some vehicle details benefit from entasis to help provide more logical value to a form than the simple form alone.

    At previous Redneck Roundups, there has been discussion and presentations about the Golden Ratio, the Fibonacci Number and more. Good stuff to know.

    I've got a book on design that is about 60 yrs old iirc that focuses upon functional interior layout and workspace design. Forget the author and name, but will look for it to post. It has information about how to design a space around the human body, reaches, clearances etc. if I were designing a vehicle cockpit, this book would seem to provide relevant information.

    Leave a comment:


  • cliffrod
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpeg
Views:	72
Size:	143.6 KB
ID:	1860
    This is an excellent example of repetition within a design

    Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpeg
Views:	79
Size:	91.1 KB
ID:	1859


    A little background- Moto Guzzi went through a complete receivership & restructuring process in 1967. During the revamp, renowned engineer and designer Lino Tonti was employed. One task involved development of the now famous World Record Bikes, which were essentially stripped and specifically modified standard MG Ambassador touring bikes. The effort was successful, but clarified the need for a more rigid frame and overall sporting package. Under Tonti, the V7 Sport was the result.

    Beyond the obvious things like two wheels, examples of repetion in this design include:

    triangulation on of frame incorporates several triangular elements- triangle frame around toolbox. Triangle formed by rear shock, vertical frame member & muffler. Triangular tool box is framed by one opening. The lid of the toolbox is further separated into three triangular sections by beading detail.

    paralell elements include upper and lower frame rails, two parallel elements in one vertical frame members and front forks, three parallel members in two vertical frame members and rear shock.

    there are also less obvious repeated parallelogram elements including the engine bay in frame plus the parallelograms created with both vertical frame sections and the respective vertical frame members & front fork tube or rear shiocks. These are not all "hard" or tangible forms but can clearly be traced or recognized in the composition.

    Having both hard and soft but clear repetion is a excellent way to suggest an intended message instead of forcing it. Regular people understand triangles and see straight lines as strong. Engineers know the benefits of triangulation. Good stuff.

    these Vtwin Guzzi engine & transmission assemblies are also very close to,symmetrical from one side of the bike to the other. Most bikes have a primary and secondary side & one is usually more attractive than the other. A Guzzi Vtwin like this is basically the same, no matter which side is viewed.

    For the viewer, the effect of this repetion is a quick overall analysis of these repetitive elements- even to the point of not noticing them but also not being distracted by them. Instead, active analysis is focused upon the Imola-style fuel tank and other non-repetion focal points. It's interesting me that Tonti retained a low exhaust similar to the touring Ambassador models. The V7 Sport was intended to be a bridge between dedicated sport and dedicated touring. When the 850 LeMans replaced the V7 Sport, it was not marketed as a touring machine. It came with upswept exhaust, directly echoing the upswept exhaust of the dedicated World Record bikes.

    the Ambassadors and subsequent purpose built World Record bikes have very little repetion beyond the power plant and exhaust. To me, that's what makes the V7 Sport even more relevant as a purposeful design. It didn't happen by accident.

    Leave a comment:


  • cliffrod
    replied
    Protocol

    Protocol plays a role in visual noise equivalent to the parameters it helps define within an area of design. above I referenced how Bill would likely recognize appropriate or inappropriate aviation-related details. I regularly field memorial concepts including sketches of figures in flowing drapery that is not "correct" in terms of accepted memorial design protocol. Executing such designs would produce a result that would not fit within the genre.

    A friend recently posted pics of his ongoing Jag project, with front fender vents. One reply mentioned how they reminded him of similar vents found upon Aston Martins. He commented those Aston vents were inspirational in composing his vents. This helped the viewer comprehend the vents as genre appropriate and, since they were already familiar, did not create visual noise. If the fender vent looked more like a vent found on farm equipment (totally inappropriate for a sports car) or louvers (more likely car appropriate but probably more likely to be found on a different era or style of car), they would have been more likely to create visual noise. The viewer would stumble while trying to qualify & comprehend that detail.

    To achieve creative artistic success, there's often a fine line between being a slave to protocol (no creativity or originality) and being completely unconventional & new. The statement "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand" works here, but not in an arrogant sense. Making a element or composition with aspects that are so familiar that a viewer "gets it" frees up the viewer to indulge in other aspects with greater interest and enthusiasm. Long explanations (like this one....) aren't always good. So I'll shut up now and go cut stone..

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X