but as I suggested, that does not have to be entirely bad, that is why I was ASKING about the process.
the process for instance, could be a way of distinguishing this project from others.
yes I have no idea about the process it took to make this project come into reality, that is why I would have liked to learn.

the blurring element was a suggestion again what might have distinguished this project from the one at the ETHZ, and since no robot-arm was used and as I was able to learn the data was projected and built manually, imprecision does occur.

obviously scritping is precise, but again reproducing an algorithm, which has already once been reproduced (GSD) isn’t novel at all.

so I was barely asking, what the innovation with this iteration is, what have you learned, was the process the real product?

I was trying to make sense for myself, so I helped suggesting topics.
no need to become defensive and to rationalize.
but if images are shown in this presentation, that suggest it’s a copy and by now third iteration of a previous established and built concept, it just won’t do for me and there it where it would fail for me as reader.
but I did not wan to be dismissive, hence I was posing questions and if you suggest, a huge apparatus of people and institutions where made to work together, where is a visualization thereof?

I guess you get my point now.

You have no clue about the process involved in this piece; the work it involved (e.g. writing a computer program with hundreds of lines of code); the people it involved (an architect und an interior architect wrote the program – not a computer scientist!) and how 3 departments of our university worked together successfully for the first time.

I was there, and for what it’s worth I can tell you that they made this idea up by themselves. And considering your statement that a manual build-up is blurring a ‘precise’ scripting effort: Scripting is in most cases precise. It’s the unprecise which empowers our imagination and makes most pieces interesting. By the way, check out the other booth concepts on the website – I bet you can find similar ones too if you search long enough ;)

“don’t matter if they copy if they learn from it – after all it’s a university.
I guess scripting things will easily have similar outcomes. you don’t come up with a new architecture every Tuesday…”

perhaps not every tuesday, but you can’t just publish a booth, which looks pretty much the same like two previous versions which you weher able to see here and elsewhere last year.

and when you point towards the generative process and spatial qualities of the system, the gramazio kohler (and later gsd) example have been more than references, but actually you applied their way of putting together elements and articulating the space. if it’s done by robot or not is secondary, but the design process of (whatever) scripting has led to similar shapes.

so the question begs, what is your innovation with this booth and design?
that it was built by hand? (somewhat blurring a precise scripting effort…?)
that it was projected by beamer, that the students knew where to put the elements?

I am not saying it’s ugly, on the contrary, it is nice. but honors are due and I guess we have seen it a couple times already, so the viewers get a bit tired of it.

but keep it up!