Strictly speaking, this project has its origins in speculations more than 40 years ago. MIT had a loose collection of projects named the ‘Architecture Machine,’ which in one form evolved into the current Media Lab. A related project, by a somewhat circuitous route led to this work. Generally, what bound the projects was the challenge of modeling the architectural design process. Certain facets of such design are simply engineering processes. Other facets, concerning style, are computationally tenable as well, with difficulty addressed even then by what has since become called ‘artificial intelligence.’ But one corner of the process has to do with how a space feels, just feels by the people inside it.
This is quite a different matter than how the outside shapes of the building register as a sculptural object; it instead concerns how the environment — in terms of perceived form — influence individuals, groups and activities therein at a psychological level. We knew that such a phenomenon existed, that in some crude way some effects could be observed and that some talented designers could intuit key principles somehow. The question was whether such a thing could be captured with the logical tools then available.
The answer was clearly no. This is equivalent to asking a machine to fall in love, be perhaps disappointed in passion and manipulate subtle theatrics to make art about the experience. In some ways, the goals of this project grew to be as large as the challenges of all AI and cognitive science. But the promising pathway for exploration seemed to by constraining the vocabulary to form, and the focus on fixing or extending machine logic. The project left MIT and was picked up by an intelligence lab, still unacknowledged.
Adding in Film
In my life, that context got mixed with my discovery of film as consciously designed cognitive manipulation. A turning point was a viewing of Woman in the Dunes in room 10-250 of MIT in 1966. That film contained obvious, almost condescending metaphor in the story. But it also had something else: a visual power, a cinematic grammar of form and manipulation of perspective that was at once less obvious and more powerful. My film viewing since has been informed by insights from the project in that lab, using what were then radical ideas in geometric logic — a sort of visual physics of what we have around us, from which we can build new abstractions.
As you will see, those abstractions simplify the world into a few elements. Where ordinary science reduces the world to objects with properties, forces and influences (with associated information exchange), we abstract the world to urges and functions of generative creation. The result are systems in which objects are embedded in and possibly result from their behavior rather than the other way around.
In other words, we have agents (which can be verb-like in addition to noun-like), causal dynamics that generate and or are caused by those objects, and environments (the systems and situations) in which they work. Those environments are characterized by form in such a way that relates to the shapes of architectural spaces, as well as cinematic narratives. But that form also has some logical properties in an extended mathematics of logic.
To put that in movie terms: the narratives in film have form, some of which is abstract, some real. Collectively, those narratives interact by certain dynamics (many of which we can understand) so that the elements of the narrative (characters, story, cinematic devices) generate the narrative's future from its past using certain causal logic (which with some cleverness we can also understand).
The bottom line: the FilmsFolded work is completely in terms of movies themselves, with their components described in ways a filmmaker or intelligent viewer would understand. Those components are tied together in ways inspired by a rather clever, different way of parsing the world: one of form, its structure (that is, its folds) and the causal dynamics which govern it.