Even before digesting the concept of social interaction, I was inspired by a picture I encountered on twitter featuring one of my favorite musicians standing inside of a sculpture composed of flourescent tubes mounted on a spherical metal frame. One of the most interesting aspects of the sculpture was the use of the light tubes as both a directional device and an ambient light source. From this picture I began studying the works of Dan Flavin who's use of flourescent tubes is mostly sculptural. Exploring further I discovered the works of James Turell and Dough Wheeler who's use of light is more of an architectural device, something that manipulates our perception of space. Robert Irwin is another artist who's work bridged the gap between Turell/Wheeler's work and Flavin's focusing on both sculptural and ambient use of light. From my studies I constructed a small lighting model in which two electronic glow sticks light a face through two slits on either side of the face. In constructing and studying this model I discovered that light, when the source is not obvious, becomes more associated with space itself rather than an element within the space. This small process in light study led me to include ambient lighting in my construction. 

With the design aspects nearing finalization, I had to explore construction methods. Initially I wanted a very sleek final product, and looked towards plastic paneling. After consulting a few studio members, someone suggested I use the process of vacuforming, in which sheets of plastic are heated until pliable, placed over a mold, and then the air between the form mold and sheet is vacuumed out, sucking the plastic to the mold. I set out to vacuform scaled polystyrene sheets I scaveneged. In a few nights I had created the vacuform bed, frame, and CNC routed a mold out of MDF. Unfortunately, the process of heating the plastic to it's pliable state proved to be a greater challenge than I was equipped for, and my final product (as shown in the pictures) was unacceptable.

Next I explored the possibility of casting the wall in plaster. Using the same form, I made a cast and poured plaster into it. Unfortunately, the displacement of the form required more plaster to be poured than could dry within a reasonable timeframe. Although not a failure in terms of end product, logistically plaster was unsuitable.

In my race to create the scale model in time, I decided to use paper mache as a model material. The success of the paper mache, and working properties discovered during construction led me to consider it as a large scale material. The more research I did, the more paper mache appealed to me. Further light, finish, aperture, and technique studies led me to decide upon paper mache for the final construction. 

Before embarking on the paper mache, I installed the lighting system. The frame was painted white to grant optical neutrality, and three flourescent tubes were installed, two 48" T8 lamps vertically, and one 24" T8 horizontally across the top member. The top lamp was wired directly to the main power switch so it would remain on so long as power was on. The side lamps were wired to a motion sensor switch placed at the bottom of the frame. This meant that whenever someone approached the frame, the sensor switch would power the side lamps, changing the color of the lighting coming through the paper mache. This is the method by which I allowed the user to manipulate space as an expansion on the manipulation of data in a phone. All that was left was to make the paper mache face.

Paper mache however, required a structural frame for support. I finalized my face geometry, and cut out MDF studs which matched the geometry in profile. These studs were then braced horizontally with strips of flexible fiber reinforce panel (FRP). The decision to use FRP came from several factors, including ease of access, flexibility, white color, and impact resistence. Once the framework was finished, I began the paper mache process. 

The paper used was acid-free archival quality tissue paper. The use of this paper was to help prevent yellowing over time, and to allow greater control over opacity and light transfer through the paper. Adhesive used was wall paper paste, which was economical, and included fungicide to prevent mold growth over time. Multiple layers built over time softened the curves of the geometry, and controlled both lighting and structural properties. I was amazed at how little paper it took to create a strong surface!

Now that my wall was granted direction, I had to design. Reflecting the wall's intention was an extension of a phone's social implications, I considered the wall's construction as an extension of the phone's physical/tactile experience. Initially I pictured the wall as a sheer surface, in which cavities would be occupied while using a cell phone. Expanding on the concept of reversed privacy, I developed the idea of using parabolic shapes within the cavities as a way to project sound, while still denying visual observation from outsiders. Drawing from my light studies, I saw an opportunity to reflect the way a cellphone allows us to effortlessly manipulate information. When a human occupies the wall, it would change internal lighting, in a way manipulating space the same way we manipulate data. A theme of minimalism was followed in an effort to reflect the minimal design/construction so often used in modern phones. Through the projection of sound, the manipulation of light (and therefore space), and a simplistic construction, the wall intended to expand on the experience of a cellphone. 

From my ideas I set out to construct a study model. While following my intentions of parabolic shapes affecting sound, I realized what would be my greatest obstacle: intuitive form. Making acoustic shapes in a wall was fairly straitforward, and forming them to fit human proportion was none-too-large a challenge either. The problem lied in the making the use of the shapes obvious to a passerby, someone without insight into my design intentions. My initial study model featured forms that certainly were ergonomic and parabolic, but i quickly realized it granted little intimition for intended use. 

Using a product called InstaMorph, I studied possible forms that would hopefully grant obvious clues to use. I found great difficulty in producing forms with obvious intention, while maintaining the informed subtlety I found in cell-phone design. My breakthrough came when I stopped the use of additive and subtractive methods, and instead explored worked shapes. The flowing shapes allowed me to create ergonomic faces, while hiding their intention in the abstract geometry. Furthermore, the complex sculptural shapes would encourage people to explore the shapes, and discover all the ways in which the form could be used. These InstaMorph studies allowed me to give the wall a much more sophisticated form.

An overarching theme to section 2's walls was the exposure, expansion, or critique of some social interaction in an effort to explore the wall as a social device. Not knowing what to study or where to explore, I brought my camera with me when I went out one night. A recurring challenge I observed was getting pictures of people interacting without them being distracted by their cellphones... More on that later.

After reviewing the photos, one in particular stood out. I intended to take a picture of my friend, but the camera's autofocus instead captured a couple in the background engaged in what was a fairly intimate (but innapropriately boisterous) conversation. After rumination I realized that the couple's disregard for personal privacy was in many ways reflective of the cell phone dilemna I faced earlier.

While initially the telephone was meant to be a private auditory experience, the conversational privacy has been reversed over time; people today are not worried about putting their conversations into public space, whereas looking at or watching someones phone is now a much more intimate invasion of privacy. In a way, the classic phonebooth has been made obsolette by the cell phone, not just in terms of technological innovation, but the social advancement that came along with it. Phone booths are intended to block sound, but not vision (as evidenced by their open/glass construction), essentially the opposite of what would be valued in a phonebooth today. From this discovery, my project was given direction: I set out to make a wall that acted as a twenty-first-century phone booth, providing visual privacy, but not necessarily audible privacy. 

Finally, the wall is finished! While happy to be done, there is plenty of room to improve.

Firstly, I found the frame within the construction too prominent in the end product, I intended it to be a bit more subtle. I feel that it detracts from the surface, although it does help grant easier understanding of the depth of the wall's geometry. The lighting, while visible, is not nearly as prominent as I wished. Part of the problem was my use of spraypaint over light protectors, rather than use dedicated lighting products like a lighting gel or translucent vinyl. Another improvement would have been more intense lights in general, as the wall takes the identity of an illuminated facade rather than a glowing face itself. Finally, I intended to use a clearcoat of some kind to create a smooth surface over the paper mache. However, costs, time restraints, and difficulty finding a suitable product all prevented me from producing the surface I intended. 

Should I choose to pursue the construction further, I would first refinish the face and give it a homogeneous clear coat layer. Next would be an improved lighting system. The frame, while I would like to replace, is far too integrated at this point so i would have to seek an alternative method of hiding it, perhaps more layers of paper or better distributed lighting. 

Ultimately I consider the project a success, and feel that the process was the most educational of any rotation yet.