Casting as Translation: Jesmonite, Concrete and Surface Behaviour

Casting is where intention meets consequence. Up to this point, the project had been shaped through research, drawing, cutting and mould-making. Casting introduced a different set of conditions: weight, gravity, cure time and surface behaviour. The joins were no longer diagrams or prototypes. They had to perform. This stage focused on casting selected join designs in Jesmonite and concrete, not to produce finished works, but to understand how each material translated form, surface and structural intent.

From Mould to Object

Working with the silicone moulds developed in the previous stage, I began casting small join components, paying close attention to consistency across multiples. The aim was not a single successful cast, but repeatability.

Jesmonite proved responsive but demanding. It captured fine detail easily and allowed for controlled colour integration, but it also made any weakness in the mould immediately visible. Air bubbles, seam lines and surface inconsistencies were not defects to be hidden; they were indicators of where the system was under strain.

Concrete introduced a different dynamic. Its slower cure time and greater weight altered how the joins behaved both visually and physically. Edges softened, surfaces absorbed light differently, and the mass of the material shifted how the joins were handled and perceived.

Surface Is Not Secondary

Surface behaviour became a central concern during this stage. Finishing processes — sanding, polishing, brushing — revealed how quickly a join could lose its architectural presence if overworked.

Jesmonite in particular rewards restraint. Minimal intervention preserved clarity of edge and form, while excessive finishing risked introducing a decorative quality that conflicted with the project’s intent.

Concrete resisted intervention in a different way. Its inherent irregularity and grain demanded acceptance rather than control. This forced a recalibration of expectations: not all joins needed to behave identically, but they needed to operate within a coherent language.

Weight, Handling and Trust

Casting made weight unavoidable. Joins that felt stable as laser-cut components behaved differently once mass was introduced. Some designs gained authority. Others became awkward, either too heavy for their scale or visually underpowered for their weight.

Handling the cast joins repeatedly — assembling and disassembling them — revealed subtle issues that would not have been apparent otherwise. Small chips, edge wear and surface marks accumulated, offering insight into how the joins might age over time.

This raised important questions about durability and trust. A join does not only need to hold structurally; it needs to withstand being handled without becoming precious.

What Translation Revealed

Casting did not simply reproduce the designs developed earlier. It translated them, sometimes faithfully, sometimes brutally.

This stage revealed:

• which join geometries translated cleanly across materials

• how surface finish affects perceived strength

• where weight enhanced or undermined structural intent

• which designs were viable beyond a single successful cast

Some joins progressed. Others stalled. This was expected.

Preparing for Force

By the end of this stage, the joins existed as real objects with mass, surface and presence. They were ready to be tested not just as forms, but as systems — particularly once magnets were embedded and force became an active component.

Casting had given the joins a body. The next stage would ask whether that body could be trusted.