(Kent State University)
So I am alive, I think. You tend to forget where you are in space when you sleep for 14 hours after not sleeping for 48. We presented our final projects yesterday which turned out to be my first (and very interesting..) jury.
I'm not sure how to interpret some comments. I was told I would be completely successful in undergraduate years and the rest of my career.. but come graduate school I would be in trouble. I guess it's kind of a backhanded compliment. I agree with all the comments made, though, and it got me thinking very critically about what I should be doing in the future. I was questioned on how I derived my forms, and that in graduate school at least (although he would also like to see it here), I need to have a reason, and process, a series of interpretations that influence or inform my form-making.. rather than “channeling the architecture gods,” as he thinks I do.
This makes me severely question the teaching method of the professors though. My juror is a recent grad form Ohio State University.. a great thinker, a great change to the second year program. He can think harder conceptually than most other professor at this school. His comments make me wonder why, then, are we given a set of programmatic square footages that are pre-determined? If he wants me to define the reasons for my forms, find the requirements that would define a certain form, then shouldn't I, myself, define the square footages? Let's all go to an archive building, study the traffic and record access. Diagrammatically map the environment, what smells do I smell where, where are the various aperture conditions and from which viewpoint? How much is a certain space accessed, are there demands for more space, less space, more advances, what? Who made up the program that knows exactly how big permanent storage should be? Why is the auditorium that size? Can't I determine this all myself?
In retrospect, I would have told him that my forms were informed by my site photomontages (that you can see a couple posts earlier). The elongated site, and the perspecticallity of the montages highly influenced the model designing process. Now, what I don't understand is, does everything have to be giving a reason for being there, or can our own self-grown intuition have a big part of this design process. Does everything have to be completely derived from something else, or can't our own creativity and intuition be a reason for some forms?
This is a question I'm going to be asking myself and other professors, and I would like archinect's opinion on it.. Here are some pictures from my final presentation, excuse the blurriness.
flickr photos for higher resolution