So I just had my crit last night (3rd year student) in which our charge was to design a studio for our University's masters in sustainable design program.
I started my presentation with an image of a Pennsylvania fore-bay barn and discussed that one "sustainable" train of thought is to follow vernacular forms as they address environmental and thermal conditions in an effective way. I studied the barn, took a bunch of sections of a barn and began to modify roof angles and heights to begin to address the two major programmatic functions of the building (studios for design, charrette/presentation space).
To this the 2 jurors, and all jurors are different, responded that they didn't see the barn in the project, wanted to know if there was a barn on the site, etc. etc. My professor mentioned that there was a barn on the site for our last project, and the jurors suggested that I should "bite" at the opportunity to mention that.
So to my point/question. In the past three years of my schooling, I have been taught that there is a "concept" or "big idea" that drives the form making of a building. And then this crit happened... SO..
1) My jurors focused on the barn. Would there really needed to have been some sort of romantic gesture about a barn, feeling towards a barn, barn close to site, in order for my research of the barn to be applicable at all?
2) When should a critique be about how the building functions as a building type, (how well does a studio function as a studio), compared to discussing how well the design relates to a big idea?
3) Is it logical or "right" to have a big idea that is "I wanted to make a function studio", instead of "I wanted to build a wall that would seperate man and nature!".
4) Why do students use the phrase "I wanted.. I wanted.. I wanted.." so often in presentations?
5) Will Nova make it to the NCAA Final Four?
It's typically a hit/miss deal in crits. The main difference between a crit and real life is that you KNOW your client in real life. You can bounce off ideas, understand the client, see their desires, etc. before you present a final idea.
In a crit, you're stuck with arrogant architects/juror that enjoys criticizing because it's what they went through while they were in school, so you should have to go through it too.
It sounds like you missed a selling point in your "pitch" to the jurors. Sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't.
Add to portfolio. Take criticism with grain of salt. Time for next project...
Mar 27, 09 3:57 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
What?
So I just had my crit last night (3rd year student) in which our charge was to design a studio for our University's masters in sustainable design program.
I started my presentation with an image of a Pennsylvania fore-bay barn and discussed that one "sustainable" train of thought is to follow vernacular forms as they address environmental and thermal conditions in an effective way. I studied the barn, took a bunch of sections of a barn and began to modify roof angles and heights to begin to address the two major programmatic functions of the building (studios for design, charrette/presentation space).
To this the 2 jurors, and all jurors are different, responded that they didn't see the barn in the project, wanted to know if there was a barn on the site, etc. etc. My professor mentioned that there was a barn on the site for our last project, and the jurors suggested that I should "bite" at the opportunity to mention that.
So to my point/question. In the past three years of my schooling, I have been taught that there is a "concept" or "big idea" that drives the form making of a building. And then this crit happened... SO..
1) My jurors focused on the barn. Would there really needed to have been some sort of romantic gesture about a barn, feeling towards a barn, barn close to site, in order for my research of the barn to be applicable at all?
2) When should a critique be about how the building functions as a building type, (how well does a studio function as a studio), compared to discussing how well the design relates to a big idea?
3) Is it logical or "right" to have a big idea that is "I wanted to make a function studio", instead of "I wanted to build a wall that would seperate man and nature!".
4) Why do students use the phrase "I wanted.. I wanted.. I wanted.." so often in presentations?
5) Will Nova make it to the NCAA Final Four?
Thanks for listening/responding
It's typically a hit/miss deal in crits. The main difference between a crit and real life is that you KNOW your client in real life. You can bounce off ideas, understand the client, see their desires, etc. before you present a final idea.
In a crit, you're stuck with arrogant architects/juror that enjoys criticizing because it's what they went through while they were in school, so you should have to go through it too.
It sounds like you missed a selling point in your "pitch" to the jurors. Sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't.
Add to portfolio. Take criticism with grain of salt. Time for next project...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.