Digital Joinery
Alex Rasla’s Response
In this paper, the authors explored the idea of using 3D printing to create joints for objects. They focused their study on designing interesting stools by creating joints that could be lofted between any two attachment points. The tool they proposed allows carpenters to unleash the limitations set by traditional woodworking techniques by enabling them to maintain precision and robust structural support of the joints. Although robust supports are very important to creating joints, I believe digital joinery makes the strongest impact on the aesthetic of the stools (and other objects that can be created with these printed joints).
In the case of stools, they are most often created from four legs connected by horizontal joints between each leg to prevent them from collapsing and keeping them steady. The stools can be changed slightly in trivial ways while being able to maintain their support, but usually, they follow this basic structure. The Digital Joinery tools were able to take these simple and utilitarian objects and create these extremely aesthetically pleasing objects while maintaining their practicality. Their legs were able to have extremely unique connections between them and be positioned at very obscure angles because of the ability to print joints of any shape and size between two intersecting parts. This was shown in the many examples in the paper that contained complex connections and architectures. Without the use of the Generative Joinery Design Tool, I don’t believe carpenters could successfully create the same types of beautiful stool designs. From my own perspective, I think the types of objects and geometries that I have been able to create using the CAD tools from this class could only be created using these CAD tools. I am not a skilled craftsman by any means, but using tools like Rhino and Grasshopper, I have been able to create some very interesting and pleasing designs. If I did not have access to these tools and was tasked with creating a lampshade by hand, my design wouldn’t be nearly as complex or aesthetic.
Connell Trainor Response
This paper has focused on the integration of digital fabrication of more complex and design intensive components into crafting processes such as carpentry, in order to advance the practice and overcome ‘traditional limitations’. Specifically, the uses of digital designed and manufactured ‘connecting elements’, harnessing the precision and power of computing to create bold and stand-put aesthetics and gain a structural advantage in locations and situations where unconventional and challenging angles and points of contact are concerned.
I was immediately drawn to the aesthetics of these digital generated components as evidence of their effectiveness in carpentry for example. This craft is a good example as it relies so heavily on aesthetics as a criterion for success. Within carpentry, for example, creating a structurally sound object is the bare minimum. In this sense, the digital joints unlock the potential for aesthetic designs which achieve this minimum structural integrity, that could have previously been out of reach with traditional craft methods. In the case of this idea of hybrid design, I am a big fan. I believe the aesthetic potential is increased. It seems that the professional carpenters as experts in the field, for the most part, also have a welcoming disposition. I think the critical aspect of effective use of this potential, is to optimise those steps to integrate the software and give those professionals (and amateurs) the hands-on experience required to understand how it can have a positive impact on their work. Once this has occurred, beyond the extent of a presentation, this would be the right time for those wood-workers to decide if their mindset remains fixed, considering tools for the use of labour-saving.
I particularly like the potential the software and mindset promoted in this paper has for the use of up-cycling and repairing broken items and transforming them into something new and re-designed based upon the original foundations. I would even go as far to say that some crafted products could be taken, and re-designed with the inclusion of digital fabrication to form an improved or ‘upgraded’ result. This novelty of taking old or traditional pieces and transforming the using technology seems to be a modern art form in itself, some find these pieces more striking and appealing.
Digital Joinery For Hybrid Carpentry
Lara Floegel-Shetty
In the paper, the authors set out to liberate makers from the confines of traditional wood making through a generative design software Digital Joinery. Not only does the software offer the creation of complex structures, it offers a captivating juxtaposition of design from the smoothness of the wood contrasting from the complexity of the generative voronoi skeleton. They introduce this stylization as part of an emerging field of hybrid design projects that intertwine the practices of traditional craft with its more digitized counterpart.
When introducing this concept of incorporating generative design in the traditional wood making process, the authors were met with a welcoming disposition from the traditional wood makers and designers. This comes with the caveat that the participants were unable to have hands on experience with the software and could only remark on the biased presentation of the software by the authors. I found the contrast between the mindsets of the wood makers versus the designers to be quite interesting. While the woodmakers had a more fixed view of the tools as being labor saving technologies, the designers saw the tools as offering new design affordances they couldn’t have previously achieved.
Beyond the ability to create more complex structures, Digital Joinery can reshape our understanding of how everyday materials can be used. Broken parts of furniture that tends to be disregarded can be repurposed Digital Joinery that can replace their broken parts and integrate them into new designs. The paper already mentioned this practice in fixing broken ceramics, so it would be interesting to see the success of Digital Joinery in this practice. I am of the positive mindset for the exciting possibilities hybrid design had to offer and the changes it will bring in our way of living and perspectives on everyday material.
Ana Cárdenas Gasca
I valued that the authors explored all three fronts (the structural robustness, the automated workflow and the aesthetic explorations) simultaneously. To me it’s hard to say one has an advantage over the others because they all seem to have very different implications for the design practice and also in combination. I think there are many ways to achieve an interesting aesthetic exploration even without structural robustness but the fact that the two are combined makes it interesting to think how our aesthetics are dominated by the technologies we use and I think it is important to reflect and bring that to the foreground. It is also important to acknowledge how workflows change aesthetics and how the desire for more or less productive/practical/economic optimizations (like a voronoi structure) make ripples into the world of our aesthetic life and in the identities we build when we buy these objects.
I think the aesthetics has a component that more immediately interacts with our identity and wellbeing, as well as the accessibility, sustainability and economic access that the products have so any project that looks into changing the way we live by changing the objects that surrounds us should answer to questions in these many fronts.
Jiarui (Jack) Zhu’s response
In this paper, the authors present Digital Joinery, which is a woodworking design paradigm aiming to liberate carpentry from traditional construction limitations. Joints are the elements that bring pieces together and are considered as the most technologically advanced elements in woodworking. Joint designs also suffer from design limitations to flat or right angles between pieces of wood. On the other hand, the Digital Joinery supports different types of connectors, enables unconventional connecting angles, and allows more design flexibility and freedom.
Personally I have very limited experience with carpentry so I have zero knowledge of how the joints are typically made and the level of difficulty and expertise involved. However, I really love the self-automated workflow of creating modern good-looking joints described in the paper. It is almost mind-blowing to see the collection of different joints designed and printed out in this paper. I think Digital Joinery definitely provides more degree of freedom in the designing process as it allows pieces to be connected at almost any angle and greatly improves the overall aesthetic.
I am also interested in the different perspectives people have towards Digital Joinery. It seems like the traditional wood making industry does not fully appreciate the potential of it as they view it as “a tool for efficiency for labor-saving” rather than something that demonstrates creativity. This mindset derives from their unfamility with the CAD design and a digression from their normal workflow. I agree with the authors that while Digital Joinery are not necessarily for traditional makers, it would be perfect for hybrid makers who have a wide spectrum of experience in both tradition and tech.
Tina Shi’s Response
I think out of robustness, semi-automated workflow, and aesthetics, the semi-automated workflow might be the most compelling incentive for professional carpenters to adopt the use of digital joinery. As the paper explains, joinery is a crucial part of carpentry, yet also requires a high level of expertise and craftsmanship to create. While from my experience, CAD/Rhino/Grasshopper definitely do have quite a bit of a learning curve and a lot of documentation reading, pre-existing parameterized generated models can definitely still be a convenient tool for carpenters who are building their works according to someone else's design. The parameterized model will need to be highly customizable and has detailed documentation in what each parameter affects in order for it to be accepted by carpenters who are novices to CAD.
However, when it comes to designers, I think the most attractive aspect of digital joinery will be its flexibility and potentials. The creation of digital joinery using Nylon-12 enables the existence of joints that were not previously possible in wood. This will open up more design potentials for designers who are likely already familiar with CAD and are more than happy to exercise their creativity in new types of designs.
Ziyu Zhang’s Response
This paper focuses on the creation of digital joinery which can be used to enhance the functionality, interaction and design of carpentry by incorporating special connection structure. It reminds me of the kind of universal tool box that has a variety of screw heads and an all-in-one tool handle. The convenience of this toolbox is that a variety of tools for different situations can be created by connecting the same handle to various screw heads. I think this is the same as digital joinery, which uses connectors to connect various things, which is artistic and convenient.
But the better thing about digital joinery is that it is more flexible and creative than traditional wood crafting, which also means that its production threshold is also very high. I am thinking that this application can make people's lives easier if it can be applied to life scenarios and make the production and design of digital joinery easier, such as with video-live measurement or easier modeling tools, in the aspects of not only in terms of connecting items and repairing items, but making daily craft creation that will also become simple and fast.
Nefeli Manoudaki’s Response
In this paper, the authors present a tool that combines generative design and traditional wood making. I appreciate their approach to the Hybrid model of making but also in the designing process. They were aiming to liberate carpentry from the traditional construction limitations, and they wanted to maximize the design freedom for the maker–designer. I believe this freedom will encourage makers to explore the potential of this hybrid medium. Based on their research, designers appreciated the interaction with this tool and the future applications in their designs, but traditional carpenters were seeing this tool as an opportunity for efficiency and labor-saving.
There are several ways to achieve an aesthetically pleasing structure, but sometimes they lack structural support. Nature has its mechanisms and patterns to support each type of structure and, extremely interesting methods for joints. By choosing the Voronoi structure, they were not adding just an aesthetic component, they were adding a hybrid nature-related structure that provides a new type of connector useful for unconventional angles.
Also, I keep having this idea of this type of technique and tool for broken pieces. Historical or not. Like the Kintsugi, the Japanese art of fixing broken pottery. [Kintsugi - Wikipedia]
-Could this technique be expressed with the fabrication tools we have today? -
Interesting Resources: The Indicator: Craft in the Digital Age | ArchDaily
Iason Paterakis Response
Hybrid making presents some very interesting contradictions between materiality, design, and engineering.
This paper presents an approach to combination of different techniques and opens up a discussion regarding hacking an existing feature.
In architecture this has been projected in several projects around the world. Comparing the examples presented in the link below to the examples of this publications, we can conclude that the enhanced accuracy and generativity of contemporary design tools presents not just an engineering challenge but also a discussion around novel design theories and examples.
Furthermore, the contradictory nature of hybrid applications presents a fascinating topic from micro to macro scale. Old, dilapidated structures that are surrounded by the feeling of nostalgia can be revived with accuracy to represent a collage between the origins of two, three or more civilizations. The same happens with artifacts that could re emerge in a hybrid forms that embeds the marks of radically different timelines.
We must preserve the historic and valuable traces but at the same time reform our structures in a way that could demonstrate co-existence between communities and cultures.
Ashley Del Valle
This paper brings an interesting merge between traditional crafts and digital fabrication. However, it also highlights the fact that some traditional craftsmen do not find the use or integration of these types of technology to their workflow appealing. I think that all technology has their own early adapters- people who are willing to try the technology, and is not always necessary the group of people the technology was designed for. I think that is hard and unlikely for a professional craft practitioner to add a new workflow to their process. particularly because time is money, and the time and risk integrating new technologies bring may affect their business and even their confidence.