20 Rectangle Design Project
The Project:
The objective of this project was to design an object using 20 individual rectangles. The object also had to fit within a 6"x 6"x 6" area, be able to stand on all six sides by itself, incorporate two colors, be aesthetically pleasing and address one of the four areas of design (object design, information design, environmental design or experience design).
The Design:
The original idea was to design a unique set of stairs. The first design fit spatial requirements, but exceeded the 20 rectangle limit and was visually uninspiring. The second design was aesthetically compelling, but was spatially inefficient and did not meet the 20 rectangle limit. Afterwards, the idea for a set of stairs was changed for the idea for a piece of outdoor, public artwork. The first artwork idea was similar in appearance to the second design of stairs, and also was an improved design in terms of spatial efficiency. However, the first artwork design did not meet the materials requirement of 20 rectangles. The second public artwork design was inspired by a Parisian outdoor sculpture. It met the 20 rectangle requirement, as well as spatial requirements, and was cube shaped, so that it had the ability to stand on all six sides.
The final design was an iteration of the second artwork. Two modifications were made; the first to discard useless internal support in favor of breaking the contrast in the exposed cutout. The second modification was to the joints holding the sides of the box together. The angle at which the joints connected caused them to push outward, warping the sides of the box and making the structure weaker. The solution appeared when one of the joints seemed to fit perfectly, due to a mistake made during the assembly of a prototype (above left). A joint had been cut at a wrong angle, causing the matching joint to align perfectly, displaying the correct angle for use (25 degrees instead of 45). The change was made to the final design and construction started.
The final product was a cube structure with two sides removed to expose an 'inner' cube. The artwork was colored green on the outside, with contrasting black pieces on the inside. The structure was made of twenty rectangular pieces of mat-board, was stable on all six sides and is exactly 6" wide, 6" long and 6" tall. The artwork had a modern appearance and could be assembled easily at any size or material to complement anything from public parks to art museums.
The Results:
There were several errors with the design. A major problem was with the joints, the grooves cut to slide the pieces together were too small, this caused them to push away from each other, warping the dimensions of the cube. This caused a 10 point deduction, the dimensions of the cube were over 6" cubed. Another deduction happened because house paint was used to decorate the project instead of spray paint. There was also a minor miscalculation in the number of rectangles used to make the design, the number was eighteen instead of twenty, although this problem could have easily been solved in hindsight, the problem was not realized until after submission. This mistake resulted in a 20 point deduction.
The grading procedure for the aesthetic appearance was centered on a vote from students outside of the class. The other students voted for the design that they thought looked the best. This design received 25 out of a possible 40 points for the aesthetic grading, it received no votes.
Coinciding with the design was a written report, submitted simultaneously. Points were deducted from the report because of a grammatical error and because the report did not meet the required page length.
A total grade of 137 points out of 200 was earned.
Experience, what was learned:
One of the multiple lessons learned was to follow directions exactly, many of the points taken off were because of a slight deviation from the exact requirement. Another valuable experience was to pay attention to detail, an amount of points were taken off for this also. The most important lesson, however, was to plan ahead. The best example of this was in the error caused by the joints not fitting together. Had planning been emphasized more, this would have been foreseen and avoided, and the grade deficit would have not have been as severe. Also, the design would not have been as ugly in appearance if an adhesive other than tape was used. Using another adhesive (such as hot glue) could also have gotten the structure to hold together more tightly, which could have prevented it from expanding because of the poorly designed joints.
The objective of this project was to design an object using 20 individual rectangles. The object also had to fit within a 6"x 6"x 6" area, be able to stand on all six sides by itself, incorporate two colors, be aesthetically pleasing and address one of the four areas of design (object design, information design, environmental design or experience design).
The Design:
The original idea was to design a unique set of stairs. The first design fit spatial requirements, but exceeded the 20 rectangle limit and was visually uninspiring. The second design was aesthetically compelling, but was spatially inefficient and did not meet the 20 rectangle limit. Afterwards, the idea for a set of stairs was changed for the idea for a piece of outdoor, public artwork. The first artwork idea was similar in appearance to the second design of stairs, and also was an improved design in terms of spatial efficiency. However, the first artwork design did not meet the materials requirement of 20 rectangles. The second public artwork design was inspired by a Parisian outdoor sculpture. It met the 20 rectangle requirement, as well as spatial requirements, and was cube shaped, so that it had the ability to stand on all six sides.
The final design was an iteration of the second artwork. Two modifications were made; the first to discard useless internal support in favor of breaking the contrast in the exposed cutout. The second modification was to the joints holding the sides of the box together. The angle at which the joints connected caused them to push outward, warping the sides of the box and making the structure weaker. The solution appeared when one of the joints seemed to fit perfectly, due to a mistake made during the assembly of a prototype (above left). A joint had been cut at a wrong angle, causing the matching joint to align perfectly, displaying the correct angle for use (25 degrees instead of 45). The change was made to the final design and construction started.
The final product was a cube structure with two sides removed to expose an 'inner' cube. The artwork was colored green on the outside, with contrasting black pieces on the inside. The structure was made of twenty rectangular pieces of mat-board, was stable on all six sides and is exactly 6" wide, 6" long and 6" tall. The artwork had a modern appearance and could be assembled easily at any size or material to complement anything from public parks to art museums.
The Results:
There were several errors with the design. A major problem was with the joints, the grooves cut to slide the pieces together were too small, this caused them to push away from each other, warping the dimensions of the cube. This caused a 10 point deduction, the dimensions of the cube were over 6" cubed. Another deduction happened because house paint was used to decorate the project instead of spray paint. There was also a minor miscalculation in the number of rectangles used to make the design, the number was eighteen instead of twenty, although this problem could have easily been solved in hindsight, the problem was not realized until after submission. This mistake resulted in a 20 point deduction.
The grading procedure for the aesthetic appearance was centered on a vote from students outside of the class. The other students voted for the design that they thought looked the best. This design received 25 out of a possible 40 points for the aesthetic grading, it received no votes.
Coinciding with the design was a written report, submitted simultaneously. Points were deducted from the report because of a grammatical error and because the report did not meet the required page length.
A total grade of 137 points out of 200 was earned.
Experience, what was learned:
One of the multiple lessons learned was to follow directions exactly, many of the points taken off were because of a slight deviation from the exact requirement. Another valuable experience was to pay attention to detail, an amount of points were taken off for this also. The most important lesson, however, was to plan ahead. The best example of this was in the error caused by the joints not fitting together. Had planning been emphasized more, this would have been foreseen and avoided, and the grade deficit would have not have been as severe. Also, the design would not have been as ugly in appearance if an adhesive other than tape was used. Using another adhesive (such as hot glue) could also have gotten the structure to hold together more tightly, which could have prevented it from expanding because of the poorly designed joints.