After last presenting our projects, Sebastian took us to see some third year architecture students having a critique. This was relevant because the starting point for their brief was also a suitcase; they were trying to create 'different environments' or something that 'popped out ' and could be stored inside the suitcase.
Our brief is similarily open with whatever we create needing to be able to fit inside the suitcase and our suggested starting point for our concept being 'modern life'. Even though the briefs were similar, the different backgrounds of architecture versus creative technologies were evident in what they had produced.
It seems fairly obvious to state but their products were more focused on how it was constructed and what sort of 'space' it was creating. A few of the ones we saw were a work space on the go which isolated the user, a fold up changing room, a tensegrity unit, an 'impossible structure' and a metal mesh structure. The one I liked most was a croched hammock / net structure made from 1.5km of twine(?) made to be hung from a tree or other structure to be sat inside. The idea that came through was a way to think differently about how we use outdoor spaces.
Even though these projects too were just halfway through (to be completed by end of semester), it was a useful experience seeing their work and hearing how the lecturers responded to it and what feedback they gave. It was and interesting insight as one of my options for university, had I not chosen Creative Technologies, would have been architecture. Creative Technologies itself is supposed to be a multidisciplinary and so taking influence from other practices can only help drive our work.
Discussing with Sebastian after, we agreed the most interesting structures were those that contained lots of multiples of individual pieces to make a whole. Structurally and visually it was just a more interesting piece. What I found different in their approach to the brief was that their focus was on the practical use of the space and it's intended use where our projects (or I aim for mine) have more of a conceptual grounding, in this case, modern life. Some conceptual meaning could be read into their works but I am not sure whether it was intentional and in the series of only short 5 minute crits, perhaps there just wasn't time to discuss it.
Seeing their critique has encouraged me to think more about the space and the environment I will be creating when viewers see my project. It is easy to get carried away with the concept, the programming, the visual aesthetics, but it is important to think about what effect these all will have in combination for the viewer as ultimately, they are the ones who are going to be experiencing it.
Our brief is similarily open with whatever we create needing to be able to fit inside the suitcase and our suggested starting point for our concept being 'modern life'. Even though the briefs were similar, the different backgrounds of architecture versus creative technologies were evident in what they had produced.
It seems fairly obvious to state but their products were more focused on how it was constructed and what sort of 'space' it was creating. A few of the ones we saw were a work space on the go which isolated the user, a fold up changing room, a tensegrity unit, an 'impossible structure' and a metal mesh structure. The one I liked most was a croched hammock / net structure made from 1.5km of twine(?) made to be hung from a tree or other structure to be sat inside. The idea that came through was a way to think differently about how we use outdoor spaces.
Even though these projects too were just halfway through (to be completed by end of semester), it was a useful experience seeing their work and hearing how the lecturers responded to it and what feedback they gave. It was and interesting insight as one of my options for university, had I not chosen Creative Technologies, would have been architecture. Creative Technologies itself is supposed to be a multidisciplinary and so taking influence from other practices can only help drive our work.
Discussing with Sebastian after, we agreed the most interesting structures were those that contained lots of multiples of individual pieces to make a whole. Structurally and visually it was just a more interesting piece. What I found different in their approach to the brief was that their focus was on the practical use of the space and it's intended use where our projects (or I aim for mine) have more of a conceptual grounding, in this case, modern life. Some conceptual meaning could be read into their works but I am not sure whether it was intentional and in the series of only short 5 minute crits, perhaps there just wasn't time to discuss it.
Seeing their critique has encouraged me to think more about the space and the environment I will be creating when viewers see my project. It is easy to get carried away with the concept, the programming, the visual aesthetics, but it is important to think about what effect these all will have in combination for the viewer as ultimately, they are the ones who are going to be experiencing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment