VOCAB - needs to be justified in the beginning - let drawings and media back up vocab
- needs to be delivered - [create dictionary plot for monday-and keep adding to it]
JUSTIFICATIONS - overlaying different materials over each other comparing what has happened
-represent in 2D and 3D
-finding connections-what each thing am i using - cross examining each other- what will work through it
diagrams - needs to be better understood - labeling - vocab statements on each board - showing the research of surgery [plans, sections, elevations]
-mapping - go larger - understand whats around site and show how it was life - my site is 'dead'
documentation - what are the ways of each network - how each network was found
-unitarean diverse activities
users - intertwine even more - what does it mean
look at the roots of surgery
compare and relate those issues towards the site and how the people react - define meaning through it-what is the motive
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Tim,
You get a bit of a buy because you were working on the Stewardson, but I still have a lot of comments on your work, and your need for improvement.
First I'll say this - in the stewardson, although I specifically don't have a clue what you did or how long it took, I do know it requires you to do alot of work and alot of study in a short period of time, you should be ramped up on energy from this (maybe not literally if your sick) but mentally and creatively the juices are flowing. You've gotta let that energy flow, and if your too unwell to get into studio there is always other ways, blogging resources and thoughts, sketchbook sketchbook sketchbook, writing, small scale collages, reworking your verbal presentations. You need to be producing so much more work and reworking it until it is clear.
Your idea is excellent, that's in the can.
But you carefully took aim and shot yourself in the foot, twice last week during your presentation.
First, your architectural language up on the wall behind you was muddled and unclear. The diagrams, I've come to know, and they are tokens of conversations, thus I understand them, but the casual observer sees nothing but jumble. And there is no title, scale, or name or term definition to them. We don't know how they were drawn how they work; we know only what you tell us verbally. And as you well know any drawing that's a good drawing should explain itself without you standing in front of it. Additionally, they are all waaaaaaaaay to old and antiquated. You made them when you were figuring out the initial steps of your language, and they show that, now that you have a more clear idea of what these terms are you must show us that you can apply them carefully and with skill. AS the jury commented it's not about drawing a line that connects every building on the site. And by drawing at that level you did an immense amount of damage to the jury's belief in your idea and attitude towards it, which while a grave misunderstanding, they were not likely to get over for the rest of the discussion.
Secondly, while the drawings behind you couldn't back up what you were saying, what you were saying lacked any overall organization, narrative, or reflection of the "urban surgery" idea (the main point of all this in the first place). It is crucial that you use these terms you have down from the beginning and use them consistently with the definitions you provide, only then can the diagrams behind you back up what you're stating. Thesis is about stating and defending an idea, and so you must present the IDEA itself, not the work that is pinned up behind you. Presenting a chronology of what is pinned up behind you is helpful only when initially starting out, or conveying the latest greatest work, but it is also the last resort that 1st year students flee too when they are making their first presentations. Present the idea and then the work behind you will support what you identify. The chronological presentation was long, wordy (which gave you too much opportunity to misapply and be weak with your terms) and frankly boring, the jury lost focus and belief in the idea as they were distracted by other things and inconsistencies. As we move forward you and I will practice this. I am going to hold you to strict use on these surgical terms, and that is how you should always be thinking of this project, and if we go too far, they will tell us at 1/2 jury.
Specifically to this I think the surgery idea is very broad, and I think you've identified were to get specific already:
1. cancer theory of growing and spreading problem areas
2. restoration of circulation
3. scar theory (not very detailed this time around
Also in surgery
1. identify and explain the problem (infection/affliction)
2. " " " " lack of nutrition and health
3. " " " " steps of surgical alteration
4. " " " " 'rehabilitation process' and return to health
Other items that must be better done next time include
1. clarify and organize the graphical presentation
2. clear parameters of design, terms of surgery and their architectural reciprocal application
3. understanding and proof of research of site study and user biographies
4. increase study and level of interaction between populations, and a fully healthy system of users and bio-architectural structures and beings
Additionally, I think this is a program of large gestures, and tiny interventions, small precise cuts. Surgery which is less invasive is often much better for the patient overall.
I think you already know all these things, it's just that they are all coming out of your brain at once, and so the focus that you need IS focus, and self discipline to stay with one explanation of a term, a step, a process, and explain it well, clearly, concisely, before moving on to the next.
I have the following recommendation for you:
1. Contact Scott Shall and see if there are any upcoming first year pin ups you can sit in on, also perhaps 2nd year. Note what makes a bad presentation.
2. Rework your definitions, and rework and update the corresponding diagrams, check out any Richard Mier book, he makes very clear, simple and immensely effective diagrams that support his architectural studies.
3. look at you issue holistically, as restoring interaction at a variety of scales between many people, solving only for one group will not fix it for everyone, your treatment must have a synergistic effect on all for all.
See you Monday
-Andrew
Post a Comment