Wednesday, May 19, 2010

EXPERIMENT 2 COMMENTS

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 student's 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.

Some general comments that everyone should take into account:

Consider carefully the perspective views that you take of your scheme. Introduce the scheme with one aerial shot from a distance to give an overview of the whole scheme and how it fits into the landscape. Other perspectives may explain the views you see on approaching the scheme and then detail views of specific spaces.

Look at your scheme and ask yourself if you can see the personality and character of the client expressed in your design. More successful solutions were ones in which the client's influence could be read clearly.

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO SCALE. You should think carefully about how big the spaces are in relation to a human. Take care not to design on a monumental scale - this may look impressive, but shows you have no understanding of how big your building needs to be.

Here are some blogs of other students in the year that did well this project. Take a look at their work and the attention they have paid to setting up their blogs:

http://jamesphilipgito.blogspot.com/

http://luen-samonte.blogspot.com/

http://livgreen3331408.blogspot.com/

http://xin--zhang.blogspot.com/

http://www.jingyukingyao.blogspot.com/

_____________________________________


Demetra

Key strength of the scheme:

Quite compelling siting for the proposition. Texture exercises show care and precision.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

The model exceeds the limit of 9 prisms. Repeating the use of one form for each of the clients' labs doesn't really explain how you've accounted for the peculiarities of each clients' work and their perspective on the field of science. Late submission.


Rabi

Key strength of the scheme:

Some care and thought into the siting of the structure and it's engagement with the landscape is evident. Interesting variation in textural explorations.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Rabi, views in your image captures make it hard to understand overall massing/composition. Take care in scaling of the texture mapping - make sure it doesn compete visually with the forms.


Danny

Key strength of the scheme:

Good invention apparent in formation of landform and vegetation. Nice use of visual framing in your screen captures of the model. Good progression evident from draft models.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Agglomerated axos don't appear to be hand-drawn. Choice and scaling of chevron texture to the form below the meeting place is distracting. Meeting point is actually meant to be part of the landform.


Patrick Marsden

Key strength of the scheme:

Textural studies are carfefully drafted and well-thought out. Some interesting ideas starting to develop in the formal approach to each laboratory.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

The labs are not linked by a volume (a requirement of the brief). Consequently, very difficult to see how your are trying to explore the relationship between the two clients.


Heather

Key strength of the scheme:

Interesting engagement with the site. Very good attempt at the axonometric sketches.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Late submission. Final propostion exceeds 9-prism limit.


John

Key strength of the scheme:

Beginnings of some interesting ideas starting with formal composition and engagement with landscape.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Some care required in finessing your sketch drawings. Linework still feels a bit 'beginner'. Would have liked to see development of superstructure idea for Kuepper's solar cells. Late submission.


Martin

Key strength of the scheme:

Good to see process sketches of scheme. Some clear signs of how the building structure might fix itself into the landscape. Clear logic behind selection and displacement of textures.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Potential of engagement with landscape not fully explored - which parts of the structure would 'root' itself into the landform? How could you use vegetation to enhance exterior spaces?


Rhys

Key strength of the scheme:

Interesting variation in textural explorations. Some ideas of hierarchy evident in proposition of the architecture.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Application of the textures to model appears haphazard - requires more control and consideration of scale and visual restraint. Relationship between building and landform not convincing, lacks cohesion.


Chad

Key strength of the scheme:

Some interesting ideas in formal manipulation - stepping, cantilevering over landform. Interesting play on filigree in texture exercises.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Overall propostion feels hurried - exploration of built forms and landform acceptable as a 'minimal requirements' submission.


Nazgol

Key strength of the scheme:

Some carefull consideration evident in narrative of landscape and the interaction of the built form. Experimentation of linking prism as a 'negative' volume of light very compelling.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Darwin's lab still feels like some work required to complete the evolutionary idea - use of scale, linking of similar forms, etc.


Julie

Key strength of the scheme:

Interesting idea of straddling river. Some ideas of proportion and cantilevering are present in a very basic form.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Late submission. No textures evident in initial upload. Screen captures taken from the editor rather than the program. Application of texture to Kuepper's lab is distracting - tighter control of scale and orientation required.


Patrick Leal

Key strength of the scheme:

Patrick, lots of thought put into composition of landscape, built form and the engagement between the two. Textures are also thoughtfullly deployed.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Screen captures appear to be taken from the editor rather than the game - tell-tale light golbes bring the imagery down.

Lynne

Key strength of the scheme:

Some interest shown in formation of landscape. Some logic apparent in application of textures.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Axonometric sketches not acceptable. No clear understanding of composition or hierarchy in model. More thought required in deployment of textures and their scale.


Daniel

Key strength of the scheme:

Strong sense of primacy in invention of landform and the way in which the building engages with the landscape.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Landform still feels a bit underdeveloped - exploration with rock formations and landscape would have enhanced this primal feeling. Screen captures taken from editor rather than inside game - light-globes compromise the imagery.


Peter Petrovski

Key strength of the scheme:

Adventurous creation in landform/landscape and your siting of the building. Sensitive negotiation between forms and vegetation.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Some evidence of textures applied to underside of building, but how could you have used these to offset differences between structural and spatial elements of building?


Carrie

Key strength of the scheme:

Most interesting element is the landform and potential for engaging with the crevice.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Spiral displacement of forms feels random. No real exploration of each of the scientists' personality and work is evident in the physical forms you have given the labs.


Peter Tran

Key strength of the scheme:

Beginnings of some interesting interacation with forms and the surrounding landscape. Appilcation of textures effective in communicating scientist's interests.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Still difficult to read which parts of the complex belong to which scientist. Meeting place is meant to be on the landform rather than part of built form.


Ireen

Key strength of the scheme:

Good to see some attempts to play with form and scale to differentiate between clients. Good attempts at axonometrics.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Late submission. Lack of resolution in final scheme indicates poor time management.


Pansy

Key strength of the scheme:

Some evidence of engagement of ramp, landform and the relationship they have with the built forms. Individual texture studies are strong.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Scale of building against landscape a little suspect. Some more exploration of proportion and refinement of volumes still required.


Laura

Key strength of the scheme:

Experimentation with landform, building and how they relate is adventurous and daring. Logic behind the compostion and how it relates to clients' work is strong. Very good work on the axo's and textures.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

More development of landscape, exploration of vegetation etc. required to make this feel complete. Drama of the engineering feels let down a little by the basic nature of the landscape.


Vivian

Key strength of the scheme:

Adventurous exploration between landform and built form. Clear logic behind placement and forms of each client's lab and how they relate to the clients' manifestoes.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Meeting place should be on the landform itselft. Unclear where this is in the model. Further exploration of landscape and vegetation encouraged.


Amy

Key strength of the scheme:

There is interesting potential in the spatial relationships you propose in the scheme.

Most significant weakness of the scheme:

Scale of volumnes in relation to landscape is suspect. Scaling and mappinf of textures over building surfaces still requires a lot of thought and examination.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Monday, May 10, 2010

2 POINT PERSPECTIVE

Hi All,

Some images to help you adjust your headspace for today's tutorial exercise: 2-POINT PERSPECTIVES - same idea as 1-point perspectives, but twice as fun...

















1. Establish a horizon line.
2. Mark off 2 vanishing points on the horizon line. Think carefully about the spacing of the vanishing points and the implications for your drawing.
3. Generate a the perspective view of your object by projecting back into the vanishing points. Resist the temptation of using a ruler or straight edge.

Some examples from last year's students....




























































Theorists and designers have used the graphic qualities inherent in this kind of drawing to impart a sense of power and dynamism in their work.

Perspective was used extensively in the CONSTRUCTIVIST movement in architecture - active during the birth of the Soviet Union. These graphic/architectural fantasies are the work of Iakov Chernikov...








































































This last graphic incorporates a repetition of the slogan 'We Are Building'. c.1930

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

SketchUp model from design tute - May 4, 2010

Hi All,

Below is a link to download the model that people were playing around with during today's design tutorial:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/ygvxduyuyy2/ARCH1101_20100504_TuteModel.skp

Knock yourselves out....

Ken.

Monday, May 3, 2010

DRAWING IN PERSPECTIVE

1-POINT PERSPECTIVE: a horizon line and 1 vanishing point

















Composition using 3 forms drawn in perspective





PERSPECTIVE

Considering the history of art, the study of perspective is a relatively recent conception....






















































































Dürer: Draughtsman Making a Perspective of a Woman (1525)





















Fra. Carnevale: The Annunciation (c.1448)


















Carpaccio: The Disputation of St. Stephen (1514)
















Raphael: School of Athens (1518)

JOURNEY

Consider the journey through the spaces you create - both the studio spaces and the gallery space. How do you enter? Is there a sense of progression from one space to the next? Is there a sense of arrival? How can the artist move artworks through the spaces? How can you use this to create interest in the spatial arrangement?

Frank Lloyd Wright: Guggenheim Museum, New York City

Frank Lloyd Wright:  Guggenheim Museum, New York City
The progression through this gallery space is paramount. The gallery spaces are arranged around a central drum-shaped void.

Guggenhiem: Gallery spaces

Guggenhiem:  Gallery spaces
Each space is linked to the next via a ramp that circumnavigates the central void.

Guggenheim: Circulation

Guggenheim:  Circulation
The fluidity of the circulation route and its progression throughout the gallery imbibes the experience of the space with a sense of continuity and calm - ideal conditions for contemplating the artwork on display.

Importance of Light in gallery and studio spaces

Keep in mind for both of your studio spaces and the gallery space in between, the introduction of natural light can be crucial to the success of the space. Consider orientation - the direction the light is coming from, its intensity and the amount of light entering the space.

Herzog + de Meuron: Sammlung-Goetz Gallery, Munich

Herzog + de Meuron:  Sammlung-Goetz Gallery, Munich
Positioning of window openings will determine how light falls into a room.

Sammlung-Goetz Gallery, Munich

Sammlung-Goetz Gallery, Munich
This is a two-level gallery building. Note the ceiling height. The gallery space is below ground level. The high-level windows you see in the interior shot are at ground level outside.

Sammlung-Goetz

Sammlung-Goetz

Kahn: Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas

Kahn:  Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas
A gallery comprised of an assemblage of vaulted spaces arranged side-by-side.

Kimbell: Section Detail

Kimbell:  Section Detail
The vaults drawn in section - the light source is located at the apex of each vault.

Kimbell interior

Kimbell interior
The result is an even, indrect light that falls down the sides of the vault providing ideal lighting conditions for viewing the art.

Materiality and Texture

Hi All,

Following on from some of the discussion in today's studio, some images to consider about material qualities and different textures that are related to different materials. Think about the work of each of your artists and their process. Think about the characteristics of different materials and the process that is involved in working with that material. Is there a connection to be made between artist/process and material/process?

Concrete

Concrete
A 'plastic' material - traces of its process are left in the surface finish...

Nervi: Orvieto Aerodrome

Nervi:  Orvieto Aerodrome
Nervi experimented with the structural actions of the building that resulted in a visceral, textured surface.

Nervi: Palazzo dello Sport, Rome

Nervi:  Palazzo dello Sport, Rome
Plasiticity can lead to moulded geometric arrangements that explain the structural activity of the building

Hadid: Phaeno Science Museum, Wolfsburg, Germany

Hadid:  Phaeno Science Museum, Wolfsburg, Germany
Hadid uses concrete's plasticity to create a hyper-smooth architecture, 'cool' and 'fast'.

TIMBER

TIMBER
Fujimoto's 'Final Wooden House' uses timber in an elemental, massive sense. Structural and textural characteristics of the material lend an organic, human quality to the space and light entering that space.

ZUMTHOR: SWISS PAVILLION, HANOVER EXPO 2000

ZUMTHOR:  SWISS PAVILLION, HANOVER EXPO 2000
Stacked timber used to expore notions of transparency vs. enclosure...

PIANO: KANAK CULTURAL CENTRE, NEW CALEDONIA

PIANO:  KANAK CULTURAL CENTRE, NEW CALEDONIA
Timber doesn't have to be straight...

Kanak Cultural Centre, New Caledonia

Kanak Cultural Centre, New Caledonia

RSP Architects: Henderson Waves, Singapore

RSP Architects:  Henderson Waves, Singapore
An aerial walkway through rainforest national park makes incremental use of timber to achieve a fluid result.

RSP: Henderson Waves

RSP:  Henderson Waves
Floor plane, wall plane, ceiling plane morphed into one element...

Glass and Steel

Glass and Steel
Nouvel: Institute of the Arab World, Paris. An active steel shutter wall under a glass skin.

Nouvel: Institue of the Arab World

Nouvel:  Institue of the Arab World
The shutter system repsonds directly to external light levels and references traditional arab architetural screens.

Nouvel: Institute of the Arab World

Nouvel:  Institute of the Arab World
The screen generates a mosaic of light on the building's interior.