Anamorphosis [Ana – mor- phosis]

[Ana – mor- phosis]

A distorted projection or drawing which appears normal when viewed  from a particular point or with a suitable device.

In order to keep a physical record of the principle of the perspectival and anamorphic illusion; I made another model by re-scaling the first experiment to a more manageable sized model (below).

Anamorphic Model 1


From that, I started to work with a  3D environment and experimenting with basic shapes and alignments of  a vantage point in relation to a  shape. Some screenshots and a very basic animation here Anamorphic – Study 1


Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 12.51.57



In principle, there are two main categories of Anamorphic:

  1. The view is only made possible from a specific already set vantage point/ or through a peephole / viewport
  1. One is free to move and explore in order find the specific vantage point where the anamorphic becomes complete.

Common Places and Particular Perspectives’ –

 Bernard Fibicher in his text (found on site above) discusses ideas in Varini’s works – the gradual discovery of different fragments follows the same rules as a puzzle or a rebus – with certain clues given but ultimately the spectator is seeking the vantage point – that way seeing/ discovering the whole thing! Element of surprise and achievement .

For this proposal- The Void- the intention is to create a sense of discovery, much like in a pilgrimage, where you explore and experience the journey, so a set of fragments become one activating or deactivating the wholeness. I think this particular will be experience only from the vantage point, the pilgrim may not ascent to the summit, as the intention is to preserve and highlight the value of the void – as emptiness is only seen as monetary value once someone demonstrates interest in this otherwise empty plot. (not sure if makes sense yet!)

I’m considering the following criteria to develop the design to the next stage:

  1. Define the angle and position of the vantage point\ observer.
  2. Create a projection.
  3. What are these fragments – when looked at individually?
  4. Is it just one large fragmented square wall when viewed from another angle? Does it take from and shape from a previous existing building?
  5. Materiality – the use of brick as a material as it reads the materiality of the area and site and context.
  6. Make it happen!!!


I’m starting to develop an idea of the shape of these fragments and I want to make a small site model and see the interaction that way… creating some brick fragments for it.


Onto site 3….

Im trying to develop a language – as we discussed on Tuesday, the main idea is to define the ‘qualities’ and what the intentions are; i.e what is the proposal preserving?

Using the narrow passage between the two buildings to insert a staircase – perhaps a stair for one?

Then leading to viewports and platforms on the roof. These will act as viewfinder or a portal with a view directed at something – such as a particular view of the city? Looking towards the WTC ? Or looking towards the changing cityscape – as in NYC you can never be too precious about your views?

Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 19.00.23 Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 18.57.21

Perhaps will draw on this installation by Thomas Saraceno at the MET in 2012. I like how he used this superstructure to create spaces and those framed certain views of the city…

Ill review my crit storyboard as this is likely to change to incorporate new site information and proposal ideas…





One thought on “Anamorphosis [Ana – mor- phosis]

  1. The anamorphic work is really great, well done for getting going with this. The smaller model is really quite elegant and will be brilliant to bring out in the crit. I felt that I wanted the animation to move a little slower to understand the parts before they become the whole, but I am sure this can be adjusted.

    The anamorphic provides you with a trick of concealing so maybe that could help you answer the question of what the fragments and whole are/is. The illusion of the plane (the assembled anamorphic) allows you to hide the depth of space that the fragments are located in. Or taken from the other perspective, the fragments viewed as fragments allow you to hide the whole that they create (if the pilgrim knows the right location to assume). Does your narrative of change and loss; of developers, existing communities and new communities suggest something that might be concealed either to preserve or surreptitiously introduce?

    Keep going thinking about what you will collect on your third site. Again, this could be found through the research that you have already done. But I think views has been in your list from the start. Perhaps produce some drawings showing the tracts across Manhattan that would be taken into your views, what would you be framing in particular? How would you choose a view that would particularly animate with change? Or maybe it is about easements of existing or future buildings – preservation of a passage of light onto an old man’s balcony or his habitual turning around the block could become a constraint for future development. May sound sentimental but just to suggest how an easement might be narratively introduced. Play around with some ideas and we can talk about them on Tuesday. Where your critique or position falls in relation to change and stasis will come up at the cross crit and maybe site 3 is an opportunity to articulate this position.

    As we said on Tuesday, great start with the storyboard. Seemed to be the right amount of stages to tell the story, look forward to seeing the final storyboard and thinking on Site 3.

Leave a Reply