Digital Foundations: Viewing design and construction through the materiality of digital representation.

Dr Dermott McMeel The University of Auckland, School of Architecture and Planning Level 6 26 Symonds St Auckland New Zealand Tel: +64 9 373 7599 ext 81926

Email: d.mcmeel@auckland.ac.nz

Digital Foundations: Viewing design and construction through the materiality of digital representation. Abstract
A recent proliferation of accessible fabrication technologies have brought some questions surrounding digitally sponsored design and making into sharp relief. Laser cutters, 3D printer kits and DIY KUKA robot templates can put established processes within design and construction into a state of uncertainty; the body of work on the subject is already substantial and continues to grow. There are many different strains, stakeholders and conceptions of digital design and it is valuable to distinguish between the various politics of the role of technology within these processes, which is what this paper attempts to do. It has the following objectives, firstly, through three examples I explore three different but related ways to conceptualise the use of technology, with the purpose of creating a typology for streams of research. Secondly, it aims to shed light on some of our existing prejudices regarding technology and how design and construction practices are being affected by these different conceptualisations of technology.

1 A Tale
I will begin with a story, some time ago I designed a table, to explore the capability of a new computer numerical controlled (CNC) router my department had acquired; inspired by Salvador Dal it would be a 'soft' table (Fig 1). Fig 1: The soft table model and finished product by Dermott McMeel. The table went through several iterations as the fabrication specialist, a cabinet maker from our traditional workshop and I figured out what could be achieved by both manual and CNC router techniques. We also needed to ilicit how the table might be divide into manageable blocks for the router. The result we all agreed upon was two individual blocks, one for the top table surface and one for the leg. The routed blocks would then be assembled by traditional glue and biscuit techniques. The plywood was purchased, prepared in the workshop and transferred to the digital workshop. Routing is preceded by a time consuming and laborious positioning and calibration ritual some of which can be seen here C https://vimeo.com/35361578. The top surface of the table was routed, then the block of wood was flipped it over to route a rebate in the underside. This flipping process is a set feature of the CNC software, which is invoked when more that one surface of an object needs to be treated with the router. When it was repositioned and recalibrated the fabrication specialist gave an audible gasp of despair and looked at me as the colour drained from her face. The leg, it is not in the middle! She was of course correct, it was slightly offset, a fact of which I have no doubt Dal would approve. Nevertheless, the specialist was not aware of this fact, it only became obvious when the block was turned over and the first cuts we made were now obviously moved approximately 100mm. Yet, when we ran the cutting simulation within the software, the CNC router was going to cut in the correct, 100mm offset, location. What I find interesting, within the context of what we are discussing in this paper, is that because of the techniques we employed for design and fabrication of this table it was not necessary for the specialist to know the accurate position of the leg. Those measurements were encoded into the design description (Fig 1 left image) and fabricated correctly (Fig 1 right image) without the need for the knowledge to be transferred between us through the design description.

2 Introduction
In this paper I will build on recent work by computer scientist Paul Dourish [1]` on the materiality of data. Dourish posits the means by which we describe data affects our understanding of, and the

practices that surround it. By way of an example he uses the historic evolution from non-literate to literate civilisations. The notion of verisimilitude and accuracy only comes into focus when cultures became literate and knowledge was materialised and stored as script. When knowledge was stored in memory and communicated in stories, the concept of experience was more central to its materiality. I will periodically draw on Dourish in this document to help scrutinise three examples of technological intervention in a design or making process. These examples have emerged from various courses within the School of Architecture and Planning at The University of Auckland during 2012. The examples reveal three separate but related issues regarding the impact of technology on designing and making, although there are many more we do not attempt to cover them all here. I aim to provide some historical context for the relationship we have with technology, then by evaluating the examples I establish some categorisations for thematic research around the impact of technology within design and making. The first categorisation I have called material representation of digital descriptions, it has been informed by observation of processes involved in the design and making of a rocking chair. It considers the material difference of describing a chair within a parametric environmentin this case Grasshopperrather than a static one such as Revit or SketchUp. It provides insight into historical prejudices regarding prefabrication and demonstrates where and how they are currently breaking down. The second category I have arrived at is culture of design virtuosity, which was brought to light by a student's attempts to build and control a do-it-yourself KUKA robot. It reveals key drivers that lie behind a designers appropriation of, and intention while using, robotics. The third and final categorisation that will be discussed here is digital savagery in construction. In which the utilisation of a laser cutter and 3D printer for the design and build of a do-it-yourself Delta robot uncovers nuances within, and challenges, the Engineer and Bricoleur binary opposition that Strauss establishes within The Savage Mind [2]`. These categorisations are by no means definitive, they are a few within a large field of research, however we will restrict our scope of work to these, so we might gain some insight through their exploration.

3 Material representations of digital descriptions

In this section I will look at shifting conceptions of prefabrication. As designs are being described increasingly in parametric softwares like the Grasshoppera parametric plug-in for RhinoI argue this is materially quite different, even from Rhino's default static description. Paul Dourish has written specifically on how the materiality of data has considerable bearing on practices and knowledge that surrounds it [1]`. Prefabrication has been exposed to considerable scrutiny within the domain of design and construction and has some notable advocates such as Konrad Wachsmann [3]`, although it ismore often than notassociated with questionable quality. Tower blocks once hailed as cities in the sky, are now being demolished throughout the United Kingdom as they have become synonymous with social decay and urban degeneration. The reasons for this are too complex to fully untangle here, although quality control and assembly problems are often cited as problems. These were factors that played a large part in the collapse of a tower block at Ronan Point in the UK [4]`. Although societal problems cannot be solely attributed to prefabrication techniques, it could be argued that tower blocks altering the spatial dynamics was the main cause. The public/private dynamics of the postwar terraced house was considerably different within tower blocks, and arguably contributed more to social degeneration than the construction technique or aesthetic. The precise reasons notwithstanding, by the 1980s prefabrication or machine assembly of buildings was considered a failed experiment. Hoever, let us look at this within a lineage of representations of the problem of technology. Societal dystopians have been romanticised in Fritz Langs Metropolis, lampooned in Chaplins Modern Times and even bannedin the UKin Stanley Kubricks A Clockwork Orange. These representations in some way or another play to the Marxist ideology that

applications of automation and technology dehumanise the individual. Prefabrication experienced something of a resurgence at the turn of the twenty-first century, for example in 2003 DWELL magazine challenged thirteen architects to design a prefabricated house for US$200,000, the result was well designed, quality and affordable quality homes [5]`. The competition, although modest in scale, pointed to a shift in the conceptions surrounding prefabrication of buildings; spaces and not components were being prefabricated. Sections of spaces were assembled carefully under factory conditions, they were also being assembled to conform to the dimensions of shipping containers as there already existed machinery and vehicles for handling this modular system. The results challenged the dominant association between prefabrication and cheap or poor construction and instead revealed the possibility that prefabrication could deliver affordable and good quality products.

3.1 CNC Rocking Chair

Emerging technologies offer distinct possibilities for fabrication and manufacturing. As they migrate into disciplines and into the hands of individuals who previously were not afforded access, new and unexpected potentials emerge. Fig 2: Parametrically described chair by Lynda Ea. The Digital Workshopa research unit within the School of Architecture and Planning at the University of Aucklandis one such place where design students are challenged to explore the relationship between design and technology. Prefabrication was brought to centre stage during the design and fabrication of Rocking Revival, a re-imagining of the traditional rocking chair (Fig 2). The student designed a parametric model of a rocking chair using the Rhinoceros 3D software and its free Grasshopper parametric plug-in. The model could be sliced, producing vector descriptions that were arranged in a vector file and contained within an area of 1200mm x 2400mm. This file was passed to a computer controlling a computer numerical controlled (CNC) router and cut from a similarly sized sheet of plywood. It was the designers intention to create a system whereby the chair could be personalised. Within the parametric model certain parameters or dimensions were not fixed, they were programmed with upper and lower limits but could be changed to any value within those limits. So the seat could be personalised, its height and depth changed dynamically then sliced and sent for manufacture and fabrication. Although each chair wasto some extenta personalised solution, the process also has parallels to mass production. The design of the first chair, or in this case the parametric system for the chair, was time consuming. Although subsequent chairs can be reproduced in a very short space of time, even if they have been personalised and are different to the preceding chair. Such contemporary developments challenge established clichs, such as automation producing cheap generic mass production versus handcraft creating expensive tailored bespoke objet dart.

3.2 Marx, Kling and technological liberation

For the socialist Karl Marx automation did not favour the individual, it reshaped their work into repetitive tasks and eventually replaced them [6]`. Rob Klings work on social informatics also points to the potential of technology and computing to reshape activities [7C9]`. In such situations Kling reveals the introduction of technologies can devalue the individual. Perhaps devaluing is an apt phrase to describe the generic and repetitive effect of prefabrication. Yet these preconceptions are being increasingly challenged and eroded. Cognitive scientist Andrew Clark argues that technological scaffolding impact cognition [10], [11]` and Coyne has furthered this position to hypothesise this affect can be extended to the virtual environments such as Second Life that we

work and play in [12]`. I have built on these scholarly foundations to suggest elsewhere the tools used in design also has an impact on developing particular cognitive skills [13]`. The relationship between technology and human agency is perhaps best summed up by Marshall McLuhan, who claims first we make the tools, then they make us [14]`; so what can we learn from this project? Let us return to the etymological origins of parametric to begin to unpick its implications as a material description of a digital description. Para - 'contrary to' and metric C 'that means by which anything is measured.' It is then ideologically opposed to the dogma of cartesian measurement that underpins design and making practices. This dogma is, however, based on the presumption that measurement and metrics are how artifacts are documented for construction or reproduction; yet our opening tale attests this is not always necessary or even desirable. In the fabrication of the rocking chair, it is relatively unimportant if one segment is 1000mm or 998mm, as the CNC router will fabricate the relational segments at the appropriate size. As we draw this section to a close we suggest this parametric materiality and digitally sponsored fabrication process is altering the perception of cartesian measurement, drawing and documentation within designing and making processes. Material representations of digital descriptions is thus concerned with the effects of changing modalities of representation. This example suggests we should not confine this to matters of visual representation. Our observations point to parametric materiality having consequences for understanding and knowledge practices surrounding measurement, drawings and documentation, which are foundational practices within design and making.

4 Culture of design virtuosity

Toolkits of designers and builders are always changing; appropriating new devices, objects and technology. Burry and Kolervic have explored these relationships in contemporary design and construction. Burrys collaboration on design through to manufacture [15]` and Kolervic's anthologies on manufacturing [16], [17]` reveal very particular pathways are required in instances of successful translation from design to construction. These pathways comprise various people and increasingly we find computer programmers and mathematicians; people not traditionally sedemented within the processes of designing and constructing buildings. The introduction of these new disciplines is usually to assist with translation and description of the design for transfer between required trades and skills. We operate in a domain with increasingly fragmented specialisations, complex architecture and specialised organisation, the traditional working drawing is increasingly found wanting and inadequate to communicate the artistry or nuance of the design intent. In such an environment it is the communication that is vital and the translation between thought and form that is of increasing importance.

4.1 Chainsaws are tools descriptions are thoughts

We could couch this within a continued evolution of design and construction processes. Begining with the romanticised individual Masterbuilders such as Brunelleschi, which gave-way to the ideology of the design studiosuch as Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin Studiothat employed dozens of drafting men and women. Now we find the computer programmer and hardware hacker becoming increasingly central to design descriptions and innovation in architecture and construction. However, the anxiety around the work championed by Burry and Kolervic is not only the increasing distance between the designer and the designed object, but also appears to be the increasing presence of machinery within that process. It is the Marxist supposition, again, that such automation will not favor the designer; it undermines the virtuosity we associate with Brunelleschi and Wright. Which is perhaps not without grounding, Shoal Fly Bya collaboration dMark Burry discusses in some depthwas in part a success because of a highly prescribed path of particular translations as components are passed from artist to modeller to mathematician to fabricator and finally to the builder [15]`. Even with such success, there remains unresolved tensions within the ideology of creating under a set of constraints that have been restricted by a predetermined

technological manufacturing process. We might argue this current anxiety is grounded in the industrys troubled history of prefabrication, which I have discussed earlier in this paper. Yet we do not question the virtuosity of with the orchestra, its musicians or the conductor because there is sheet music guiding them. Contemporary composer and sound artist Martin Parker [18]` explores the relationships between technology, programming, automation and performance. He is considered no less of a composer because of it. It is within this context we look at the problematic of virtuosity within technologically sophisticated design and construction.

4.2 iRobot
We observed a student project that appropriates a 6 axis robot as a design tool, the project explores McLuhans suppostion that first we make the tools and then they make us [14]`, attempting to challenge the predominant conception that virtuosity is surrendered as technological presence and sophistication increases. The popular KUKA brand automotive armature robot was the obvious point of departure for this project. In the absence of having access to one, the student decided to build a DIY 6 axis armature robot from perspex (Fig 3 left image). A DIY template of a model based on kuka physiology was available online, although redesign was necessary to suit available motors and the particular end actuator the designer desired. Fig 3: DIY KUKA robot and Touch OSC iPod control interface by Adrian Kumar. Key framing software, which provides a means to control the robot was also available online. This software would allow set positions of the robot to be saved to a list of key frames on computer. By selecting any individual key frame the robot would immediately move to that particular position. This is very similar to how they are used on assembly lines in the automotive industry. As an assembly line moves an object into position, the robot then moves to a predetermined configuration to position a component before moving back to its original position allowing the assembly line to move, only to repeat the action when the line has moved another object into position. While this has intriguing potential it does not necessarily resonate with notions of virtuosity and artistry. Instead the student appropriated an iPod application Touch OSC used for Djing (Fig 3 right image) and combined it with the Rhinoceros 3D software. The deliberate attempt here to combine unexpected and unusually components was largely informed by Deleuze. Who claims fantastic consequences can occur when communication between heterogeneous systems is established [19]`. The Grasshopper parametric plugin was used again, this time to establish a set of relationships between inputs from the Touch OSC iPod application and outputs to the Robot. An arduino micro-controller was used to mediate the connection between the iPod and robot through a WiFi network. We could conceive of this as an instrument that allows direct manipulation of the robotand the opportunity for virtuosity.

4.3 Beyond the cartesian

The desire for more corporeal and physical relationship between artist and object in light of this increased digitalism is not unique to design. It can be seen in a variety of practices where technology appears to undermine the immediacy of feedback between the artist and artifact. The recent popular v-motion project is one such example where a musician used a Microsoft Kinect controller to register his body position and thus control the music composition by his movement [20]`. Recent collaborations between Dance Studies and The School of Architecture at the National Institute for Creative Arts and Industries in New Zealand [21]` uses sensors and micro-controllers show how a performance can change the space it occupies and vice versa. All of these examples in some way explore different aspects of how technological intervention affects the relationship

between artist and artifact. The DIY KUKA robot suffered from some material weakness, where the perspex was inclined to flex and wobble causing inaccurate positioning. It did, however, establish a complete ecosystem for direct control of the robot. The addition of a hot wire at the end of the armature enabled the user, with some practice, to cut shapes from foam by manipulating dials and sliders on the iPod application. Culture of design virtuosity is thus concerned with how technology supports or undermines the relationship and intention that exsits between a creator and the created. In this respect the KUKA build has more in common with a prosthesis than a prototyping tool. From the etymology of prosthesis it was an extension enabling direct connection, manipulation and thus the potential for virtuosity. It enables the esoteric relationship between designer and object that is not always best served through translation into rationalised geometry, instructions and cartesian coordinates.

5 Digital savagery and construction

In this penultimate section we interrogate design as bricolage and engineering through the construction of a delta robot (Fig 4). These are two methodologies for problem-solving established by Lvi-Strauss in his seminal text The Savage Mind [2]`. The engineer is someone who designs a unique solution to a specific problem. They have mastery of their domain and materials to conceive of and deploy tailored solutions to individual problems. The bricoleur by contrast has no such mastery, they are in possession of a kit-of-parts, so to speak, that have been appropriated from specific contexts. They have been appropriated for their propensity for reuse and recombination so the bricoleur might address problems. The difference is not in the complexity or sophistication of problem that either can address, but rather in the methodology of problem-solving. If we are to say the engineer designs their solution then the bricoleur divines his through bricolage, critique and iteration; finding the way to an acceptable solution. In this section our observations lead us to believe a hybrid is emerging from the binary opposition of engineer/bricoleur or that perhaps Levi-Strauss arrived at false categorisations. Observations suggest that engineering and bricolage might be better represented as a scale on which all problemsolving sits. With engineering at one end and bricolage at the other, somewhere on this continuum all problem-solving techniques are found; some closer to engineering and some closer to bricolage, but always presentto some extentare both methodologies.

5.1 The delta build

Fig 4: Delta robot with 3D printer armature and ball joints (highlighted) by Adrian Kumar. Construction of the delta robot (Fig 4) was similar to the KUKA robot in the previous section. A template was sources online and constructed for the first iteration, then parts were modified and additional softwares and controlling mechanisms were tested to illicit its applicability to the design problem. In this case the intention was to have the delta robot control the movement of a nozzle that would be ejecting a viscous fluid, which could function as part of a 3D printing device. However what we wish to focus on here is the design and fabrication of 'ball joints' as highlighted in Fig 4. The ball joints as highlighted in Fig 4 allow freedom of movement in all three axis (x,y,z) and are a key part of the design. The standard commercial brass joints cost approximately twenty New Zealand dollars. Although they are reliable, the design required twelve which was costly, also their combined weight might put the servo-motors under stress and potentially adversely affect moment of the robot. The student suspected he could print them on a high quality nylon 3D printer, the

resultant component highlighted in Fig 4 was strong enough to be fit for purpose, light and had a relatively low friction coefficient resulting in smooth movement. Eventually a large percentage of the delta robot armatures were being designed and printed because it was cost effective, the materiality was adequate to function structurally on a project of this scale, it made modifications quite easy as now all parts were under a state of contingency and could be changed if required.

5.2 Bricol / eering

In the burgeoning field of digital innovation it is the bricoleur who is now centre stage; something I have explored previously in regard to design and making [22]`. The technologies, services and devices appear to be changing too fast for the engineer to gain the mastery Lvi-Strauss claims a prerequisite for the role. It has been the savage mind of the digital designer that has contributed to the inception of emerging phenomenon such as facebook and dropbox; where a problem is solved through hacking systems and mashing together functionalities and preexisting services. What we observed from the design of the delta robot was a more nuanced process than either engineering or bricolage. Bricolage gave way to intricate engineering of components and assemblages before it again returned to bricolage and the cycle started again. The student when questioned on the possibilities afforded by laser cutting and 3D printing found it difficult to elucidate the limitations now imposed. As almost all parts of the object and his creative process could at any point in the design and fabrication process come under a state of contingency; any and all parts could be repositioned, redesigned or resized. In fact the investigation into the KUKA robot from the previous section and delta robot in this section gave way to the rilafab (Fig 5), a bricolage and reengineering of what had been learned from the previous projects. Fig 5: Rilafab by Adrian Kumar a bricolage and reengineering of his KUKA and delta projects. Richard Coyne argues all design is hacking or bricolage [23]`, he goes on to posit the wedge is the primary architectural form as it addresses the all important gaps between components and ameliorates the brittleness in their assemblage. We could conceive of the 3D printer being appropriated in this example to create wedges. In which case if we are to divine anything from the delta build it is that, if all design is hacking then the hacker engineers wedges. Which causes us to question the binary categories established by Lvi-Strauss. However, as fabrication tools continue to proliferate, the distinctions between design and construction are increasingly blurred. This project suggests there is a need to reevaluate professions and trades. Where we conceive of them not as belonging to either design or construction but as potentially a hybrid of both and comprisingto some extentelements of bricolage or engineering.

6 Summary
Much of the rhetoric around technology in design and construction focuses on representation and form. What I have tried to do here is delve deeper into the consequences of digital representations on design and construction practices though developing a series of categoprisations. Material representations of digital descriptions impacts skills and knowledge frameworks, in both our opening tale and the rocking chair example cartesian measurement at times was irrelevant within the design description and fabrication; it was not required that it be known. Traditional paper documentation in the AEC (architectural, engineering and construction) industries is important as a tender and legal component. However our observations cause us to ask where are they needed? As the examples embraced new methods and technologies to achieve particular goalswithout the pressure to produce traditional documents or return to traditional techniquescontrary to Marx's position, they appeared quite liberating and effective, and still employed people. Of central concern to notions of virtuosity is the relationship between the artist/designer and artifact, a subject not unique to design and construction. Where technology is concerned it is

perhaps useful to conceive of this through the metaphor of prothesis; as we currently seeing these devices gravitate away from approximating the physical. The lower legs of Oscar Pistorous are an example par excellance of this rejection of cartesian representation. Thus within culture of design virtuosity we observe the effects of this movement away from cartesian representation. In the DIY KUKA build there is a concerted effort to retain the possibility of the esoteric and the personality of the artist/designer; the culture of design virtuosity investigates how digital processing affects these characteristics reaching the artifact. The digital savagery in construction we are given cause to rethink our conception of traditional roles and skills. We can see why the digital bricoleur is dominating the contemporary business landscape. It is a way of thinking no longer associated solely with the gifted amateur or the garage tinkerer. It is precisely the affordance of the bricoleurs iterative way of thinking and hacking that establishes advantage in this fluid environment. An environment in which the engineer will struggle to gain mastery of materials that quickly change. Nevertheless the engineering of the gaps and interfaces of the bricolage was critical with the construction of the delta robot. Digital savagery in construction is a theme that asks us to rethink our conception of practices and roles. The observational evidence presented here suggests it could be useful to reframe professions in terms of bricolage and engineering. Wherein any job or problemis there opportunity for bricolage and where are the gaps that require an engineered wedge?

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the students who created the works in this paper, Lynda Ea and Adrian Kumar. I would also like to thank Franca Bertani and Dave Macallum who are largely responsible for the success of my 'soft table' adventure. I would also like to thank Mary Galvin who pointed me towards key works by Paul Dourish that served as important inspiration for this paper.

References
[1] P. Dourish and M. Mazmanian, Media as Material: Information Representations as Material Foundations of Organizational Practice, in Perspectives on Process Organization Studies Vol 3: How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts and Materiality in Organization Studies, P. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley, and H. Tsoukas, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. [2] C. Lvi-Strauss, The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966, p. xii, 290 p. [3] K. Wachsmann and T. E. Burton, The Turning Point of Building. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1961. [4] Three die as tower block collapses. [Online]. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/ stories/may/16/newsid_2514000/2514277.stm. [5] Dwell Home Design Competition, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.archicentral.com/dwell-home-design-competition-1684/. [6] K. Marx, Grundrisse, in Karl Marx: Selected Writings, D. McClellan, Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. [7] R. Kling and S. Iacono, The Control of Information Systems Developments After Implementation, Communications of the ACM, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1218C1266, 1984. [8] R. Kling, Computerisation and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 1996. [9] R. Kling, Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research, Computing Surveys, vol. 12, no. 1, 1980. [10] A. Clark, Reasons, Robots and the Extended Mind, Mind and Language, vol. 16, no. 2, pp.

121C145, 2001. [11] A. Clark, Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. [12] R. Coyne, Thinking through Virtual Reality: Place, Non-Place and Situated Cognition, Techn: Research in Philosophy, vol. 10, no. 3, 2007. [13] D. McMeel and J. Cockeram, Unstable Building: virtual environments and real relevance, Journal of IT in Construction, vol. 16, no. Use of virtual world technology in architecture, engineering and construction, pp. 231C242, 2010. [14] M. McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962. [15] M. Burry, Digitally Sponsored Convergence of Design Education, Research and Practice, in CAADFutures: learning from the past, 2005, pp. 3C22. [16] B. Kolarevic and K. R. Klinger, Manufacturing material effects - Rethinking design and making in architecture. Routledge, New York, 2008. [17] B. Kolarevic, Architecture in the digital age - design and manufacturing. Spon Press, New York, 2003. [18] M. Parker, Joys of Travel: Introducing the Spectral Tourist, Leonardo Electronic Almanac, vol. 15, no. 11C12, 2007. [19] G. Deleuze and P. Patton, Difference and Repetition. London and New York: Continiuum, 2004. [20] J. Nusz, V Motion Project C Part I: The Instrument, Custom Logic, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.custom-logic.com/blog/v-motion-project-the-instrument/. [Accessed: 06-Dec-2012]. [21] K. Chapman, Divergence - The making of, YouTube, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-5x95hjfLc&feature=plcp. [Accessed: 30-Nov-2012]. [22] D. McMeel, System mash-ups: emergent crafts and rule-based approaches to design and construction, V!rus, vol. 2010, no. 03/08, 2010. [23] R. Coyne, The Tuning of Place: Sociable spaces and pervasive digital media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2010.