Unity Model Comparison

My final Unity model and my classmate's final unity model, pictured below respectively, have both clear similarities and distinct differences.

This Unity model and my own both use the idea of weaving the Bristol board planes through the rods. However, this model uses this idea to create a model which embodies a sense of impenetrable strength, a solid wall; while my model uses this idea to illustrate a sense of movement or transition. In my classmate’s model unity is represented as a solid, highly organized structure. My model uses singularity of movement in addition to singularity of being to represent movement. Although both models, thorough the technique of weaving, introduce a sense of rhythm into their composition. It should also be noted that my model plays with and engages spatial voids. The unified nature of these spaces namely, the distance between the Bristol boards on the arms and between the arms (the central square) is as much a factor, if not more so in the creation of unity as the rods and planes themselves. These spatial voids are also repeated in the spaces between the end of the Bristol board planes and the outer rods (on every edge) as well as between the rods themselves. In contrast, my classmate’s model is defined by a lack of spatial voids. However, both models have a very measured and repetitious use of proximity in the placement of both rods and planes, and it is this careful attention to proximity that most defines the overall unity of the forms.

.