Monday, May 18, 2009

Experiment 2 Feedback

General strengths: Overall, a good effort has been made to engage with the project and pick up on the new software. All of you have picked up on the use of light and shadow in the program - great to see. Looks like many of you have also used graphic programs such as 'InDesign' to lay out and present your work on the blog as well. This lends a lot of weight to your visual presentation. Well done.

General weaknesses: Most signficant weakness is the understanding of scale. UT2004 lends itself to generating monumental spaces due to its gaming nature. This needs to be brought under control in EXP 3. Remember you are creating for a real client and the physical relationship between scale of space and user needs to be addressed. You all need to take care with your English on your blogs. Proof read aloud to eliminate silly mistakes. If English is your second language, have a native English speaker read over your work to iron out any problems.

Aleze


Key strength of the scheme:
Aleze, your axonometrics show quite a bit of promise - neatly drawn/presented and some interesting volumetric experimentation.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Your explanation of the scheme is not clear at all. You have not fulfilled the requirements of the brief - there are no ramps. The external lab I presume is for Cousteau? This is not habitable and cannot be reached from the meeting place. The internal lab is a series of corridors off a main space that appear to lead nowhere. In terms of scale, the application of textures is inappropriate. Not a successful scheme.

Angel


Key strength of the scheme: Angel, strong point in your scheme is the articulation you have developed for the structure of Nobel's lab and the meeting space. This relates clearly to your design intent. Axonometrics are good and well presented.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
In your lab for Cousteau, the proposition for his sunken private lab isn't well resolved - how would he get down there if the ceiling is glass? How high is this space? The ramp from the meeting place to Nobel's lab is way too steep. The double ramp of the meeting place is an interesting concept, but is a little ambiguous in its current stage of development. Overall a good effort.

Art


Key strength of the scheme:
Art, you've made a good job of exploring the metahpors you propose for each of your clients - Cousteau's exploration through a circuitous ramp, Nobel's myopic vision through a space with limited perspective. The use of textures and light is restrained and works well too.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The route through the spaces feels a little labrinthine, which tends to detract from the impact of metaphors of your architecture. Some ceiling spaces and head-room in Cousteau's labs feel a little claustrophobic. Overall, a very good effort.

Austin


Key strength of the scheme:
Austin, the strengths in your submission are the textures and some of the axonometrics. There is some evidence of exporing what you were asked to consider in each of these exercises.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The laboratory spaces and meeting space are very weak.. They are simply a network of tunnels with no serious proposition of how the laboratory spaces will be occupied. Some texural application is evident but it is hard to see how it relates to your scheme. This is an unsuccessful proposal.

Baha


Key strength of the scheme:
Baha, it's clear that you have put a lot of time and effort into the axonometrics and texture experimentation. They are carefully drawn and show some good exploration.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The same level of care hasn't found its way into your model yet. The proposition for Campbell's lab is ok, although the choice of materials and the notion of the yard is kind of questionable. Nobel's lab is seriously unresolved - stairs are not accessible and the upper labs are blocked by a glass screen making them also unaccessible. This compromises your scheme dramatically.

Brandan


Key strength of the scheme:
Brandan, your work with the axonometrics is strong. Exploration with volumes, links between spaces etc. is good to see. The proposition of height in Nobel's scheme is also a solid idea.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The meeting space is not strong. The disposition of the stair makes the space awkward. You've chosen to deny any view out of this space which is puzzling. Your choice of gaming-based colour and texture effects also detracts from the architecture as you are relying on a visual effect of wall surface (much like wallpaper) to convey your ideas.

Brendan


Key strength of the scheme:
Brendan, your textures display good variation and there are some very interesting propositions of volumes in your axonometrics. In your scheme, the double-height space for Nobel with elevated walkway is a good start. So is the idea of an lab open to the sky for Cousteau.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The weakness lies in that these ideas feel like they are at the beginning of development rather than at the end. How could you have further explored openess for Cousteau but still give him some sheltered space? Could the tunnel down to Nobel's space have provided some view into the space as you approach?

Britta


Key strength of the scheme:
Did not submit.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Did not submit.

Charlie


Key strength of the scheme:
Charlie, there are some interesting ideas in your later axonometrics that have found their way into your model. The textures show good variation from light to dark. The consideration you've given to the lighting effects is also evident.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The weakness is in the overall resolution of your scheme. There are no ramps. The ideas are evident - growth, expansion, etc, but the spaces lack discipline. The external lab for Campbell does not provide a convincing, enclosed lab space and the stairs to the platfroms are not practical. Cousteau's lab reads as a series of rooms connected by corridors but there is no hierarchy or sense of progression through these spaces.

Ethan


Key strength of the scheme:
Ethan, your strengths lie in your axonometric explorations and textures. Both are solid efforts.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
You have failed to translate any of these ideas into your model. Think carefully about the meaning of each of your quotes and whether providing a difficult route through your laboratories is appropriate. You have proposed a series of different ideas that are difficult to move through and it is hard to see how they relate to one another. You need to develop your scheme much earlier on in the process so that we can look at what is working and what needs to be edited.

Frances


Key strength of the scheme: Frances, you've made good use of the textures through the progression of your spaces and there is a clear relationship between your axonometric sketches and the model. The lab space for Cousteau seems more convincing than Nobel's.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
It's almost impossible to get to Cousteau's lab from the meeting place, which suggests to me that you haven't tested this very thoroughly in the game. The stepped ramp is also really just a series of steps, not a series of stepped ramps as we discussed. Feels like this needs another week to develop into a more convincing proposition.

Hao


Key strength of the scheme:
Hao, your axonometric sketches are the strongest part of your submission. They show some care in drawing style and potential in expoloring 3-D forms. Take care with scanning and cropping. Textures are ok.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Your model is very basic, and disappointing considering the sketches you generated. Ramps are not distinctive and the labs do not propose any character that could relate to your clients. The meeting space should be either straddling or engaged with the edge surface.

Jin Chen


Key strength of the scheme: Jin Chen, your axonometrics and textures are very good and you have come up with some impressive-looking propositions for Cousteau's and Nobel's labs. The undulating cubes in Nobel's upper lab are the most compelling element here and bear further development. The interlocking pieces of flooring and the frames of Cousteau's scheme are also evocative.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The weaker points are to do with how you express your ideas - when you say that many stairs represent a thousand ideas, is this metaphor as convincing as you say it is? The meeting space also seems the least convincing of the three spaces - not as much consideration of this space evident as in the other two.

John


Key strength of the scheme:
John, this is a very well thought-through scheme. All aspects of the project have been developed and tested - quotes, conceptual proposition, spatial explorations, mapping of textures, and the architecture. This is a compelling proposition that is underpinned by a solid conceptual position, imagination and astute interpretation.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
N/A. Congratulations.

Kate


Key strength of the scheme:
Kate, strengths in your scheme are the manipulation of visual relationships between your spaces and the circulation routes (although a bit labyrinthine at times). Good modulation of lighting as well. Cousteau's double ramp is very interesting.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The meeting space is the least exciting of the three and there are a couple of problem ledges that are easy to fall from (a technical point). The in-game rock and coloured lighting effects work well for Nobel, but I think you could have explored the use of some of your textures to differentiate the materiality of Cousteau's lab from Nobel's. Very good effort all up.

Kent


Key strength of the scheme:
Kent, you have some really beautiful elements throughout your spaces - the bifurcated stairs, the slot windows, the articulated wall planes and work surfaces, the frame structure over the meeting place etc. There's a lot of thought going into the detail which makes for a rich experience.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Really feels like the application of your textures is competing with the architecture. The grided interiors to the cubic recesses in the walls work well, but the diagonal patterns confuse your stepped surfaces that are already complex enough. Work to improve your editing skills and you will strike a much more convincing balance.

Linh

Key strength of the scheme:
Linh, a solid proposition. Your axonometrics and textures exercises carefully drawn and show skill in exploration of scale and linework. The volumetric experients in the axo's make for a promising design proposition in the labs. The labs and meeting space display a good variety of spatial qualities and some deft handling of form, architectonic elements and lighting - eg. the ramp and screening elements in Campbell's lab. This definitely feels the most convincing of the two labs. Good selection of images.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Some of your gestures I find a little conventional in comparison to your overall proposition. The ramp into Nobel's space feels a little pedestrian - perhaps it's the resolution of the balustrade. Your argument of the mesh pillars representing explosion is also tenuous. This would have been more convincing had you managed to incorporate a texture of your own rather than one from game. Your goal next project is to concentrate on the interpretation of your idea in architecture, rather than representation of that idea.

Rezi


Key strength of the scheme:
Rezi, the it's possible to see how your consideration of the clients has influenced the arrangement of your your spaces and the way you access them - some merit here.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
There are serious issues with scale in your model. It is physically impossible to negotiate the ladder and the size of the shelving and work surfaces in Nobel's space is absolutely monumental. This suggests that you have not spent a lot of time testing your model from inside the game itself. Try to stay away from the in-game textures and finishes to surfaces and explore the potential to be found in your own textural experiments.

Rouhi


Key strength of the scheme:
Rouhi, some intersting volumetric ideas in your axonometric sketches.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
These haven't found their way into your model. The spaces you provide are very basic, with no apparent consideration of how they would be used. Choose colour and texture carefully to accentuate your architectural intentions, rather than just decorating a wall surface as you would with wallpaper.

Simon

Key strength of the scheme:
Simon, some interesting ideas - the visually restricted spaces of Nobel's lab, the open frame approach to Costeau's lab and relationship to water.

Most significant weakness of the scheme: Be careful with the scale of your proposition. These are huge spaces and I'm not convinced they need to be this big. Your allusion to a lost temple is tenuous - how do labs and a meeting place relate to the idea of a temple? Why have you adopted this approach?

Terry


Key strength of the scheme:
Terry, there are some simple yet powerful ideas explored in your axonometrics. Your textures show good variation despite their being more like patterns than textures. Good use of lighting in your model and some interesting gestures such as space frames, etc.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The model lacks the clarity of volumetirc relationships you explored in the sketches. It's difficult to read how the themes you picked up on in the quotes are informing your spaces. Make sure you have a clear understanding of your initial concept as this will help direct and focus the architecture you produce.

Tom

Key strength of the scheme:
Tom, your axonometric sketches are good - textures less successful as they deal with variation in pattern more than they do light and dark. Good effort also in the use of light in the model. Being able to see back from the meeting place to Costeau's lab is a good gesture.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The ramp up to the meeting place still has not been resolved as much as I had hoped. The 2 lab spaces show some thought in terms of layout and use. However, the premise that Campbell's work is restricted from the public whereas Costeau's is not is flawed as Campbell's work has helped inform stem-cell research. This compromises the intellectual basis of your scheme. Again, be careful with proportion and scale in your spaces.

Tristan


Key strength of the scheme:
Tristan, the arrangement of the lab space for Nobel is the most developed. The testing platform and viewing area for testing work well together. The meeting space has a stable feel and the ceiling texture works well here.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Like a few others, I think your proposal suffers a bit from the sheer monumentality of the spaces. This makes gestures like your encircling ramp less tenable than would otherwise be as the route is so long and circuitous. Your lab space for Campbell aslo didn't find the resolution we were hoping for in your last crit. Would have been good to see some development of how the spaces would be used in addtion to their relationship with each other.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Experiment 1 Feedback

The intention of publishing the feedback below is so that all students can benefit by understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a range of projects. Please take the time to review other students work with these comments in mind. If you have any questions or would like any further clarification don’t hesitate to ask me during the studio session.

Aleze
Key strength of the scheme:
Aleze, there are a few interesting ideas that you allude to in this scheme – folding space, use of recycled, discarded building elements. Your textures show a definite improvement in the exploration of your linework over the sections from the week before.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The interpretation of these ideas is the major weakness. The upper studio is a room with folded ceiling – the opportunity to fold spaces into one another, fold the floor plane, and use the result to manipulate light is overlooked. Looking back to the artwork that inspired the lower studio suggests a series of objects that could have been used to bring light into that space….


Angel
Key strength of the scheme:
Angel, the form of your upper studio space is the most promising element in your scheme. The stairway to the lower studio also shows potential as a powerful experience.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Allow your ideas to infuse all aspects of the space. The ‘organic’ material for the upper studio is only on the outside, but not experienced from within. The interaction between light, space and people in your lower space and how this talks about ‘reconciliation’ needs a more convincing resolution.


Art
Key strength of the scheme:
Art, your sections and textures are inspired and demonstrate creativity. Linework is careful.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Feels as if you ran out of time when revising the scheme for your final submission. There are promising ideas in roof form and ceiling plane in the scheme that appears under ‘further Sketchup development’ that seem to be lost in the final proposal. Spaces feel a lot more restrained, and lack the life of the initial schemes and sketch drawings.


Austin
Key strength of the scheme:
Austin, your stair is the only element that seems to have had any consideration and design invested in it.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Your submission is incomplete. You have not posted any sections and a paltry few textures. This is not acceptable. Much more effort required from you.


Bahareh
Key strength of the scheme:
Bahareh, your textures are the strongest part of your scheme – neatly executed and good variation.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Still not clear how your proposal relates to the idea of ‘missed’ and ‘simulate’. Your spaces appear to be simply an arrangement of boxes and feel like they need more time to develop the character that has inspired them.


Brandan
Key strength of the scheme:
Brandan, most promising gesture in your scheme is the roof form and the double-height arrangement of the exhibition/upper studio space.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
However, still very unclear which is the upper studio and which is the exhibition space. All three spaces seem very limited in the way they could be used or occupied by the artists. Still a lot of work needed to resolve these spaces.


Brendan
Key strength of the scheme:
Brendan, your textures show the most invention and exploration of ideas by far in your scheme. There is an interesting proposition apparent in the cross section of the upper studio particularly, and, to a lesser extent, the exhibition space.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Your spaces feel a bit ‘thin’, especially in the animations. I notice that your sketch sections are all single line weight – no modulation in the thickness or exploration in line qualities. This is reflected in your model in that while the building elements have thickness, there is very little exploration of weight and mass over different elements. Your chosen words (structured / confronting) suggest a lot of potential to explore these ideas. Make sure you squeeze as much out of your initial concepts as possible.


Britta
Key strength of the scheme:
No strengths apparent.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Majority of submission requirements unfulfilled. Did not submit.


Charlie
Key strength of the scheme:
Your upper space is very evocative of the word you have chosen. Both stairs are equally as evocative and thoughtfully detailed.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Sections exercise feels a bit scrappy and rushed. Evident that you took more care over the texture exercises. Lower studio and exhibition space are weaker than the upper studio. Infusing them with the same sculptural qualities as the upper space and your stair elements would lift your scheme dramatically. Lighting channels for the lower studio need to be further developed.


Ethan
Key strength of the scheme:
Ethan, strength lies in lots of little ideas throughout the spaces – bulbous walls, circuitous stairs.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Your proposal feels like a box of unrelated tricks – they bear no relation to one another. The ideas of scale and exploration are only apparent in these unrelated objects that you decorate your boxes with, rather than creating a series of spaces that engender exploration and engage with issues of scale.


Frances
Key strength of the scheme:
Frances, the strongest element in your scheme is the progression of stairs down through the lower studio.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Some random elements such as the double spiral stair - intriguing in its own right, but how does it relate to the space it serves? Is the upper studio a vessel for art, for light, for people? What ideas does this suggest about containment? How does your dome relate to the notion of a vessel? Your gestures need to suggest and develop the conceptual driver of your proposition.


Hao
Key strength of the scheme:
Strengths lie in individual ideas such as the skylight element, the displacement of each of the studio spaces and the exhibition space.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
These ideas are not linked, but read as independent gestures that do not relate to one another. The stair elements and geometry of the columns seem a bit random, feeling like they need a rationale to tie them into the scheme.


Jin Chen
Key strength of the scheme:
Jin Chen, this scheme is very rich with ideas that have been powerfully executed. The application of textures to the forms you adopt in your spaces works well. The stairs are considered and carefully detailed. These are exuberant spaces.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
You need to learn the art of restraint. Your proposal walks a fine line between sculpture and decoration. Start off with big gestures, then learn how to pare these down to a clear expression of your concept. Ask whether an element is absolutely essential to the scheme and if not, edit it.


John
Key strength of the scheme:
John, great work. The strengths lie in the interpretation of the ideas into how the spaces are experienced and used, application of textures and modulation of light, etc. There is also a development of your drawing skills evident between the sections exercise and the textures.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The lower studio space seems the least developed – feels like the ideas in this space still have some way to go to reach their full potential, eg. the light prisms, the break-up of the space into discrete uses. The stair to Gascoigne’s studio remains the least convincing element.


Kate
Key strength of the scheme:
Kate, a good start to the year. Your upper studio and exhibition space are a convincing synthesis of your initial ideas and sketch section. Manipulation of floor and ceiling plane particularly interesting.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The lower studio somehow still not as convincing. Your choice of octagonal form in the exploration of observation and voyeurism is understandable, but it feels quite disconnected from the other 2 spaces due to its singular gesture. I feel you could have explored these ideas using forms and deployment of spaces that would more closely relate to your upper spaces. Also, some resolution of structure required – glass wouldn’t support roof planes as you have proposed.


Kent
Key strength of the scheme:
Kent, main strength is the idea of creating elements out of scrap pieces of redundant objects.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Feels as if the idea of ‘oblivion’ has been a little difficult for you to explore. The dome structures seem singular in gesture and have difficulty relating to the rest of the scheme. The form of the lower studio space is the weaker of the two – almost as if the word ‘scrap’ has translated into a bit of an unloved space.


Linh
Key strength of the scheme:
Linh, your section sketches and textures show a fertile imagination. There are interesting and compelling elements in your design – the stairs, the roof forms, deployment of textures.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The weakness is in the synthesis of these elements into a coherent whole. Consider how each of these elements relate to one another and contribute to the overall concept. Parts of your scheme are still more of a decorated box than an architectural space that deals with form, light, mass.


Rezi
Key strength of the scheme:
Rezi, key strengths are your extent of enquiry, the thought that you have put into use of materials and, to a lesser extent, the displacement of work areas.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Your translation of the ideas into architecture is more literal than interpretive – sharp roof form over an ordinary arrangement of rooms for example. Take care that your work is about interpretation of an idea through manipulation of space, light, form, rather than an arrangement of objects representing your ideas within a space.


Simon
Key strength of the scheme:
Simon, your upper studio space is the strongest part of your proposition – a promising progression of spaces that would be interesting to see further developed.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Your lower studio space however needs much more work. I feel the generating word you picked up on (corrode) may have proved a little too difficult for you interpret architecturally. The lower stairs feel a little ordinary. And is that a giant pencil running between the floors?


Terry
Key strength of the scheme:
Terry, your upper studio is the stronger of the 2 spaces. Stair element and roof forms share a common language.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The whole scheme is still tending towards a random arrangement of patterns. When you introduce shapes – diagonals, circles – make sure they are serving a purpose or are backed up by a rigorous rationale, rather than just a play of lines and shapes.


Thomas
Key strength of the scheme:
Tom, the strength of the forms and the possibilities for manipulation of light, experience of progression through the spaces are all solid efforts.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
You have provided the required number of images (though not animations). However, it is very difficult to see how you have resolved things in your scheme because there is not enough information in the material you posted on your blog. The ideas might be powerful, but if the client can’t see them clearly because of your presentation, you won’t be able to convince them of that power.


Tristan
Key strength of the scheme:
Tristan, key strengths here are the element of the wall and the efforts to get light into the building.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:
What you have created is a building – a series of stacked containers that relate to one another only in their proximity. There is limited of form, mass, manipulation of space, light, consideration of progression through the 3 spaces. The entry feels like it belongs in a non-descript office building, not artists’ studio. In addition to the mere provision of shelter, architecture should be an emotional act.

Monday, March 23, 2009