Last night was rough for all of us, but there was great benefit in having outsiders. I don’t think any of us were prepared to pitch our whole thesis, and we’re going to have to really focus on the meat of our ideas to distill our descriptions to a few minutes.
I really dropped the ball on my presentation, got nervous, and did a really poor job articulating my ideas and left out quite a few that might have been helpful to the outsiders. I think they generally got the idea and there was a lot of discussion from every juror; advisors and outsiders alike.
I need an effective diagram displaying my ideas. I don’t think they could easily wrap their minds around the social issues and current relevance I hope this monument to bring up. I’m hoping to allow visitors to draw conclusions from their own actions and the actions of people in power. Basically that there is a consequence to everything, and even war can be boiled down to consumerism and the general public. I’m thinking of a diagram like a March Madness bracket of ideas/consequences/effects or something like the food pyramid.
Andrew’s one juror brought up the ideas of sensory architecture, and that is a goal of mine. A site like this brings heightened awareness of the senses, and my architecture will extend this. Sensory perception is also why I did paintings as diagrams, I’ll be searching for more emotive ways of representing ideas.
The argument of whether or not to build here is something I was happy to have discussed. Some people will be offended by it, some people will be intrigued by it. In any case it will generate discussion and controversy that will get the gears turning in visitors’ heads. My hope for thought provoking architecture will benefit from a sacred site like this. I will not back away from “you should not build here.” This is part of the attraction and crucial to the effectiveness of the project.
Some things to work on:
Abstract/script to read from/memorize for the ½ way jury. I really need to be concise and clear and not stumble on my words like last night.
Ideas/chain of actions diagram
Determining best way to approach site, continue partis through drawing and model
1 comment:
Paul,
First, I appreciate the time you took to look back on the presentation and really think about it. It's easily forgotten in the post-jury exhaustion, and therefore all the more important to do exactly this, write up about quickly and intently.
I'm going to start off with the notes I took during your presentation and we'll see where it goes from there:
Introduction - Last semester your words word well crafted, and had an elegance to presenting the depth and scope of the idea and your objective, but your architecture was lacking. This presentation, you lacked the depth in your words, but the architecture was very fully explored and well put together. (this is exactly why we could have such a productive discussion)
Site elements to highlight - small town highlighted by big catastrophy
*you never mentioned your theory of the anti-monument, criteria for unmonumental vs. monumental, this was a big part, and still is, the work, the terms, should be shared
small things make a big difference, another key philosophy in your approach, i think should also be mentioned
To this end a few questions asked that I wrote down:
-How do you make an experience monumental?
How do you make a monumental experience accessible?
I think these questions will lead you towards looking at the point of interaction between the individual and the architecture/site/experience it is a study at very close detail, detail you can't get from the car window. I think this is why the architectural solutions feel a little forced, but what did feel good about them was when you could start imagining what it was like within the space, what the space was like - rather than it's description in plan (not to say that we dno't need that, I'm just saying that it's not the prime communicator of the experience and the ideas behind it).
You have to address and be very clear about the Paul Ideal of Sustainability. I know your even a little fuzzy on this, but it needs to be stated clearly, because otherwise it's a term people will immediately apply their own definition too, and it will take a while (as it did tuesday) for the jury to come around and realize what your talking about is a different take.
In that same vein the connection between Paul Sustainability and the Civil War, is still very tenuous. It is very loaded, but i'm not sure how you are tapping in to them and linking them together yet. I think the first steps will be talking about the language, terms, definitions, and we'll take it from there.
Finally, the presentation materials were excellent, it was very useful to have the multifarious response visually. Architects usually have to decode their drawings for clients that can't read them. Likewise, sometimes even architects need to supplement their diet of drawings with some images and the paintings started to give some spirit to the place beyond the drawn forms. My initial response to your designs was that I appreciated your painted design the best of all those presented. Please continue on this multi-tracked path because i think it was invaluable in the jury.
We might also think about inviting your painting prof. to one of the juries?
Closing notes, I think we will all benefit from a practice round and some writing and rewriting of the terms, the statements, emphasis on the ideas.
This is what I want to start with when we meet monday, and I would like to make it a part of every meeting until you feel you've got it nailed down.
-Andrew
Post a Comment