so how did these approaches influence the the kunsthaus project?
|ad 1) we never considered a purely 'organic' approach. the shell had to be a free form that was embedded in the surrounding buildings.||
it was not intended to point out that the shape was derived from considerations that came from structural
engineering. the structure came second and should not be overemphasized. furthermore, it was desired to communicate a
certain arbitrariness regarding the shape.
ad 2) fuller was an inspiration when we had to find a layout that allowed us to connect the triangular steel spaceframe and the rectangular plexiglas panels, this will be explained later on in the text.
ad 3) while the competition entry was a sculptural piece of art roughly based on drawings, but more on the intuition of the modelmaker,
(moreover, in the competition scheme plans and sections eventually would not fit together) the working plans we did
afterwards came out of a 3d-cad system and virtually no handmade modeling was done.
computers tend to produce very smooth, clean curvatures as opposed to the edges and imperfections you inevitably get from a handmade model. but sometimes these imperfections will add a certain liveliness that is in turn very hard to achieve from mathematical curves.
we started from scratch using a potato-like shape that had been defined by using only a few curves in each axis. these
curves were based on plans and sections that included the main features and requirements - just to make sure that the volume
was large enough to incorporate all the facilities.
there is no fancy philosophical background for the geometry that we would have consciously used. at a very early stage we decided to freeze the outer surface of the building (a simple nurbs-surface done in rhino) and to focus on the technical issues we had to resolve - which means finding a way to transform it into something that can actually be built by a construction company.