The Attack of Pixilation

During my Detail Research, I stated my interest in the role of surveillance in our Digital Library. While we have both transparent and opaque barriers within our planar language, I wanted to explore an in-between; an alternative to straightforward transparency. When considering a thematically relevant method to execute this, I encountered Pixilation as an allusion to the library’s Digital functions. However, further analysis led me to understand the experiential possibilities of pixels, and how they may supplement our planar language. In this post, I will be outlining my explorations; guiding through its developments up to its final pitch.

Pixilated Mona Lisa by Marco Sodano

Marriam-Webster defines ‘Pixel’ as “any of the small discrete elements that together constitute an image (as on a television or digital screen)”. This definition outlines the technological origins of pixels. More importantly however, it reveals pixilation as an act of abstraction. To create an easily processable image, pixels reduce the clarity of objects; abstracting an image into its essential elements.

Space Invaders 8 Bit – The original game on the Atari was limited to an 8-Bit resolution; reducing whatever image it needed to produce down to a simple icon.

What fascinates me about pixelated images are their surface-level identities. Despite their simplicity, they express a near polyvalent character; masking the finer details that may impact one’s opinion on the image.

Artist’s Interpretation of Space Invaders – The original 8-bit image reinterpreted as both a mechanical and organic image. Having a more defined aesthetic would divide the audience more than the original image.

Recontextualising these observations to our library design, the abstracted image creates healthier visual relationships between visitor and user. By abstracting complex functions like the Makerspace, they become more approachable for visitors. By teasing the main functions of specific spaces, the visitor may feel less anxious in exploring what they are interested in. Furthermore, users are made less anxious being watched by visitors, knowing they are represented as an abstracted image. Thus, they are more willing to engage in these spaces; constructing a strong passive learning environment within the library.

Early Exploration

My early attempts at applying pixilation into our design were very literal. Specifically, I used pixilation as both an application of the aforementioned principles, and to add ‘texture’ to the plane. I executed this by dividing the plane into a grid of 0.5 x 0.5m blocks and extruding them at random up to 0.1m from the plane. I envisioned this gesture to have two effects:

- Applying refracted light. The varying depths of the two layers would cause light to refract and thus, distort any image seen through the pixels.

- Creates depth; physical bumps that may contribute to the library’s experiential facets.

Exhibition Space Component – Initially mistaking the classroom component with an exhibition space, I enclosed the space with the pixilated planes; representing the exhibition as distorted fragments that are reconstructed once entered.

Critical Feedback

My group and I then reunited with our tutor, Dr. Anthony Brand, to discuss our progress during the Mid-Semester Break. From this process, we concluded my explorations on pixilation was not to the taste of my group members. Furthermore, the way it had been applied was denounced as “facile” by Brand; being unrepresentative of technology in its current state. In retrospect, I do agree with this comment. Technology now seeks to become closer to reality itself; not to merely blur into large pixels. Moving forward, Brand suggested I investigate Mark Foster Gage’s Manhattan Skyscraper proposal; focussing on his control of details, and their ‘resolution’. Despite it being an awesome design, I felt it did not align with the direction I wanted to take pixilation.

Revisions and Final Pitch

At this stage, I still believed pixilation could supplement our planar language; however not in the form I initially proposed. The following night, I underwent an extensive re-evaluation of pixilation; consolidating the strong facets of this language, and forsaking the irrelevant aspects.

Pixilation Self-debate – To start off this process, I re-read Ethan’s draft abstract to consolidate my understanding of our design; isolating key points and evaluating how pixilation may supplement them.

Pixilation Self-debate 2 (Left) – At this stage my thoughts diverged away from pixilation temporarily; criticising the use of planes/barriers in the planar fields. These thoughts would converge back into a debate between pixels and planes; debating the strengths and weaknesses of each language; Pixilation Self-Debate 3 – Viewing the added depth as a dispensable element, I flattened the pixilated plane; focussing on the qualities of semi-transparency, and their overlaps with pixilation. Furthermore, I started to favour the semi-transparent barriers seen in OMA’s Timmerhuis; treating it as a form of pixilation.

In the end, the pixilated plane had been reduced to a tinted, semi-transparent façade. By doing so, I have translated the abstracting qualities of pixilation into a more modest design; creating a comprehensive discourse regarding the ‘hardness’ of planar barriers. While the design was scrapped along with the three fields + courtyard scheme, the social dialogue-building created by pixilation was – in my opinion – a strong theme that emerged from this process.