Yesterday's USC school wide final reviews meant to be a spectacle for the architecture community and the students and it was. The views from 50 & 51st floors of a downtown Los Angeles building were pleasantly distracting and breathtaking. The endless loop of student projects, varied from conceptual to practical, from small to large and extra large, reflecting the variety of faculty, students and the ideas. Well done. slides
27 Comments
Dear USC Students:
They make this stuff called double-sided tape. It's pretty awesome. You can stick it on the back of your presentation board and then stick the presentation board on the wall. It totally works and it looks a lot more professional than hastily torn pieces of blue painters tape.
You know what else looks professional? Mounting your prints on foam board. Then you don't get that unsightly wrinkling and curling at the edges. In that case, you will need the double-sided foam tape because it's way stronger. Heck, even mounting it on chip board would be an improvement.
Might I also suggest a model stand? They take, at most, 2 hours to make. You could even just drive to IKEA and get a LACK end table. What are those, like $19.99? Because let's be honest - when your model is carelessly tossed on the floor, do you know what I think it is? Trash. That said, I do appreciate the trash can model stand. Well played.
You might think these small things do not make a difference, but they do, they most certainly do. So next time, please plan ahead, test your projection so you make sure you cut an appropriately sized sheet of white paper, and ask yourself if there is anything you could do to improve the appearance of your presentation. And remember, showering is considered presentation, and speaking from experience, almost everyone in architecture school could work on that.
Your friend_
Archinect
P.S. great pictures Orhan
cc, most models on the floor were after their presentations were done. there were hundreds of projects and most of them utilized some of the suggestions you are making. i am assuming they were asked to hang their projects with blue tape after the presentation, so it could be easily spotted and cleaned by the maintenance crews.
regardless, i am uncannily attracted and unconsciously drawn to imperfect.;.)
i think trashcan model stand was beautiful, humorous and reflected perfect architecture student culture, and whoever done it should be an architecture critic upon graduation, i think it was a first year student. i loved the strategic location too, the exit at plaza level.
there are some anecdotal commentary i made to some photos, if you press to show info function on flickr.
I agree about the imperfect, but that should be an idea that the student put into the project design AND the presentation, and if that was the case, the blue painters tape does not push the concept far enough. Given that the photos show students presenting in front of blue tape presentations, I assume that this was indeed the manner said student choose to present his/her work. Shouldn't the students also be held responsible for cleaning up their work after the presentation anyway? What is this, USC circa 1860?
It comes down to deciding if you want the presentation to be the focus or the bystander. In most cases, the students should allow the presentation to be the bystander and be as invisible as possible. The blue tape, which I do apologize for commenting so much on, is sloppy and distracting. It says the student did not care enough about their work to take the few extra minutes to mount and present it in a clean and professional manner. The ragged edges, misaligned placement, and the fact that it overlaps text all show that this was non-intentional. Sure, the work IS what is important here, however I feel like presentation quality is an important skill that far too many students do not learn. This is after all, a final presentation and it should be treated as such.
Considering that many of these students will go onto jobs where the spend many an hour putting together matters for various client presentations, competition submissions and job proposals, where better to start learning that what's on the page is as important as how it's put on the page (or in this case how that page is hung).
That said, I would have liked to see more students really take advantage of the space with their presentations. It seems a shame such an awesome space (that view!) was treated as if this were a standard mid-term review in the school corridor.
cc, you don't have any comments about the work itself? We all know how the presentations happen - the students work all night, and then have to come and present. Who cares, at least in a student jury how the boards are finished? Its about content.
The way I saw it, the temporariness of the whole event felt like, advocated, equaled and found its personality in a produce market.
Sure, it could be some over curated gallery show-like but that would require much more time and I think all the students have their projects to finish instead.
This was truly a road show. It could be in a cruiser, cargo ship, hotel, abandoned building, large parking lot structure, bus depot, L.A. Harbor/river, etc..
Doing it in a corporate tower, I thought, was a brilliant move to juxtapose it with corporate America and global trade since L.A. is important hub. There were so many projects with ideas that were socially purposed and placed in architecture, that private corporations need to incorporate them into their mindset.
Architecture is not the only field needs to adopt and change. It can/should also influence the financial resources and let them know that, "Hey this is what we study, see and reckon with and its no joke... Here is your zero waste city, finance it...etc.."
I think USC can really make that bridge to business world via its connections to it. At least that was an apparent and abstract feeling for me as I chance walked all sides of the elevator core on both floors of at least 20,000sq ft. and moving through the various size rooms of the available office space stock, recycled and used in some manner and seeing a generation of projects, much more engaged with the world and its problems than the most corporations. That juxtaposition and infiltration were valuable images for me even though some others might see it differently. But I think a lot of students got it, or I should hope so.
I have been in reviews for the good part of last two weeks and this was the most special one in terms of providing a populated spectacle and a picture of a large beehive like platform of youthful power. Architecture must evolve powerfully and integrated. There are dire consequences, if not.
Thanks to all and each, via Archinect, who have invited me.
Since most of the photos have been taken at a distance from the work, it's nearly impossible to discuss the actual content without making gross assumptions and huge leaps of faith, which is why I commented on what I could read in this photo essay, which is the overall impact of the presentation and the way the students have/have not engaged what is a potentially interesting urban remnant.
"There were so many projects with ideas that were socially purposed and placed in architecture, that private corporations need to incorporate them into their mindset."
This almost makes the presentation issue that much more important. What it comes down to is detail and credibility... that whole thing about a lawyer is only as good as his suit. Why should I, as a reviewer...a client... an outside observer, care about the content of the work when the student (architect) hasn't even taken the few minutes to present it to me in a manner that demonstrates that they actually value my time and feedback. It's disrespectful.
"We all know how the presentations happen - the students work all night, and then have to come and present."
That is an excuse for poor time management and also not thinking ahead about what the final will look like and what materials and supplies are needed to make that happen. Architects are notoriously bad for their lack of foresight and planning, opting instead to wait until the last minute and writing it off as a pitfall of the profession.
I just want to reiterate that this was a FINAL presentation. It's not like they didn't see it coming. A final presentation, regardless of the venue, should demonstrate the culmination of a semesters worth of work and have some sense of finality, to the extent that architecture is capable (as we all know nothing is finished). I realize this is all superficial commentary, but we are indeed a visual profession and superficial is just part of the business.
I'm sure the work was interesting and the students largely put a lot of time and effort into it. It's that extra detail, that for me, that makes me care about the project and want to engage it on a more intellectual level. Otherwise, it's a middle school art show.
I think if you are going to make statements about why blue tape is all over the place you need to realize that it is not the students fault. We were instructed by the faculty to place blue tape on our drawings and it was the theme of the event. We were not to damage any of the surfaces of the building so the faculty chose blue painters tape because it is not very adhesive. Many of the students hung up their drawings with the tape not showing but due to the not very adhesive tape many of the drawings began to peal off the walls. Therefore faculty and other students placed tape on the edges of student work to support them to the surface.
Believe me we did not choose to place our drawings on the wall with such a material or in a distasteful manner.
Nor did we have any say in where we pinned up. That was all pre-planned by our professors. We all got sleep before our reviews, as these were all due a few days before our presentations. None of this was hastily taped up, but rather encouraged to be playful in nature to go with the "temporary" display.
You guys are like tape recorders.;.)) Get over meng! It was great regardless.
I'd like more pictures with more people. Anyone has them? Please post. Or, e-mail send them to me.
Thanks FuzzyWuzzy for providing some inside perspective. I'm glad to hear that at least the USC Students know what is appropriate for a final presentation, even if they are not always given the opportunity to do it.
I guess I don't get this whole "playful / temporary" thing, given that is was in a pretty formal space. It would be one thing if the review was in the LA River or on the side of a Wal-Mart or something and the only option was to use Duct Tape. Without having insight into what the studio was about or the goals of the projects, perhaps it was discussed at length during the review and it only makes sense for those people directly involved.
At any rate, congrats for finishing another semester/year/degree. Sorry your professors subjugated you all to an awkward and "cute" review. It's all downhill from here.
Cherith Cutestory-
As a Freshman of the USC School of Architecture program I can say that I am proud of what my peers and I have accomplished and there is nothing you can say to diminish that fact.
It was NOT OUR IDEA to have Blue Tape at the review. Instructors and Teacher Assistants used the painters tape to mount our presentation sheets. We were not present.
Furthermore, we were instructed to use strong bond paper and not print on foamcore.
It was not an "awkward and 'cute' review." You wouldn't know.
As they say, check yourself before you wreck yourself.
We did the best we could as this was the first time USC Architecture has had a Super Review. You wouldn't know.
How about you give a little more effort in the name of investigative journalism.
Please and thank you!
I agree with your suggestions, however, try to not blame students (especially freshmen. We put in a lot of time and effort into our projects. Again, you wouldn't know.)
Joseph Cohan
USC Arch. '15
PS I took a shower that morning.
Wow Joseph. I hope you used the same level of intellectual discourse during your review. Clearly you missed my last post that vindicated the students after one of your other classmates informed everyone what had happened (unlike the original poster of this whole discussion thread). I will say that personally, I think having Instructors and TA's put your presentations up for you is pretty strange. I've never heard of school where that would be acceptable.
Having done both my undergraduate and graduate degrees in Architecture, I think I do know the level of effort that went into the presentation. And if you think Freshman year was difficult, you have a long and thankless road in front of you.
This is not a discussion thread but a news coverage.
I was there to observe and enjoy the energy and that is what I was interested to write about. I did not know the logistics of presentation boards and could care less. I liked what I saw and I am a content priority critic.
I participated in few studio discussions and they were of high quality and the jury members were highly qualified. As typical in any school, some projects generated great discussions and better thought out than the others and some were not.
I really liked the blue tape and kept it as a souvenir in my notebook.
cc, with all due respect, you are really missing the bigger picture here.. If you were there, you might have a different point of view.
Still though, you gave some valuable advise for students on presentation methods.
STFU cherith
signed,
Detroit.
p.s. you're the man, Orhan!
Cherith Cutestory:
I'm glad that you at least acknowledged the people who corrected you on your ignorance, but when you open with such a passionate outburst rife with criticism you must realize that you expose yourself to some retaliation. The circumstances which led to the use of blue tape (at the so very aptly named Blue Tape Super-review) and the space concerns which broke up board presentations have already been explained so I won't go into that too much, but do you honestly believe college students to be stupid enough to NOT do those things if we were afforded the option?
I don't know who you are or what your relationship is to the USC School of Architecture, but if you really feel that strongly that you know so much better than us, maybe volunteering your time to improve the system might be more productive than sitting at home writing scathing internet comments. This was the first time a superreview has ever been held in the USC program, so it was a learning experience for everyone (especially students, because aren't we in school to LEARN after all? that sometimes means it's not perfect on the first try).
As students, we truly appreciate anyone who takes the time to comment on our work, but commenting with a sarcastic and demeaning tone (calling it a "middle school art show? seriously?) when from your comments it doesn't even seem like you attended the event is really not that constructive or helpful to us. Please, the next time you choose to comment with the intent of "helping" us, listen to the advice and responses of every other person on this thread, and don't be so rude or presumptuous.
Thanks.
Dear USC_
I'm sorry I defamed your name on Archinect. You truly are the most visionary school of architecture in the universe and anyone who does not get a degree from your esteemed institution is clearly not worthy of the practice of life, let alone architecture. We all bow before you.
Congratulations on a job well done USC students and faculty. Your Super-Review will truly be discussed amongst architecture critics for years to come and will be emulated by every school in the country. The now legendary blue tape was a brilliant move that truly captured the temporary nature of the review, equating it with the pop-up shop movement that is all the craze in retail. I expect to see blue tape show up at all the best schools of architecture for years to come.
I am ashamed and embarrassed I didn't attend your fine institution and will not regret the experience I was not afforded for the remainder of my days.
_
if you want to invite productive discussion, it would help to not mob the only commenter who was not a juror or student.
Those of us who wanted (and whose professors wanted) the work to look professional did - at great cost! I understand that not everyone wants to spend literally hundreds of dollars dry mounting semi-gloss heavy paper on gator board, a few hundred more on 3D printed models, and the huge coordination effort to make a video showcasing the entire studio's work. It looks good, takes huge effort, and requires a large financial investment. On the other extreme are the hastily blue-taped sheets on thin bond paper. Something in the middle can be a happy medium. Regardless, it was nice to see the range of work all in one place at one time.
everybody please. i spent some time putting this together, please no elongated arguments about the same thing.
my views, continued.
it was not such a privilege, but rather an opportunity to attend to this event. if anybody interested, like art openings, they could just walk in and be welcomed. i was invited but nobody checked my name. i was given a pass, a blue tape tag i posted above. some people had printed version of it, neater graphically, but not as 'touristy' like mine.
i ran into few friends and just spontaneously sat down in their jury and help review some projects, few in geoff manaugh's and few graduate school thesis 'last check' presentations before dissertations next month. they were highly socially engaged and definitely progressive projects. very urban, very real and very for people...
so please don't make blanket statements about the work. there were all kinds and types of work, must be several hundred projects from jacuzzi size to pacific ocean size. there were few projects i am still thinking of. that is a good thing. i remember them well.
this one in geoff's studio which i sat in.
in one thesis proposal, there was an interesting discussion of an urban edge condition project where industrial parcels edged single family residential area, a common condition in many cities of california and other places. the project was about mitigating this condition.
i was shown this elementary school project. i was told crit didn't go very well, that the jury didn't like the plan detail that every classroom was connected via semi open corridors like apartments. i thought that was not a big problem but courtyard and continuing bullnosed plaza could be more imaginative than it was depicted. it had controlled louvers with energy calcs in place. i knew the student, so this was an impromptu short critique, one to one.
atmosphere created by this model and my camera was very alluring. i thought it was a parking structure project. conceptually and structurally very beautiful.
and, i liked this project installation. it had a lot of presence even with blue tape.. this was, later i found out, in mia lehrer's studio.
BTW, 3230+ view of the slide set..
orhan - that's some impressive work... how many students?
Thank you Orhan for taking the time to actually explain some of the projects and some insight on the review. Perhaps if the discussion had started with more of this information, it wouldn't have veered into the direction it went. I do think there is a lesson to be learned about open critique here in that people can only comment on the material that is presented to them. In the same vein that I have been attacked for making assumptions about a review that I admittedly did not attend, the nature of the initial post made assumptions that everyone reading said post had attended the review and no further explanation of the projects, review, etc would be necessary. Granted, Orhan has made clear he was uninvolved with the review process so I don't mean this as an attack, but rather to demonstrate that the argument goes both ways, and that an open forum invites critique from anyone who wants to participate, so it's always best to be upfront with your commentary. Anyone who experienced a less than expected review yesterday likely suffered not from bad material, but from forgetting to explain the crux of their project.
Finally, I do find it odd that an (no offense) uninvited juror has provided the most clarification about this review. With the exception of one USC student, the rest have just resorted to whinny retorts and defensive statements without much backing. It's fine to call someone out, and I admit that my initial posts were making commentary on the review without the back story, however very few people have actually done much to explain the review in more detail. For example, what is a "Super-Review" and what made it such a landmark occasion for USC? Someone mentioned something about the projects being due days before the review and then something about the faculty pinning up work without the students being involved. This isn't the norm with most studios, so I am curious if someone could illuminate us about that as well. Were projects pre-reviewed and then grouped? Perhaps one of the students would share their thoughts about the studio(s), review, etc. That is after all the intent of this thread, or at least what I believe the intent was - to further the discussion of the work being done at USC.
Also, everyone who made attacks AFTER I acknowledged someone for providing the background on the Blue Tape, try reading the entire discussion first. Let's all just consider the matter finished. Please and thank you indeed.
Cherith:
I certainly did not mean to insult your education or your credentials as an architect, I merely thought that the tone of many of your comments was neither polite nor constructive. Since you seem genuinely interested, I'll do my best to answer some of your questions.
I should start by saying that I am a second year student. The "super-review" was merely the name given to the event by the faculty, I assume to denote its intention to move beyond the confines of grade level or studio, and to attempt to connect all the students of the program to the overarching mission of the school. The fact that USC gained more public attention for their program by holding final reviews this way probably contributed to the decision as well. For our final projects last year, we merely held reviews in sets of 2 paired studios, and while all the work from our grade level was pinned up simultaneously in the various galleries at USC, our exposure to the work of other years was minimal.
As far as the due date/delivery process, the project was due on the Monday after Thanksgiving, so almost a full two weeks before the superreview began. At this time, instructors signed off on the work which we had completed, the studio was locked, and no further work was permitted on the project. Students were only allowed to present material which they had completed by the arranged time that day. In the two days prior to the super review beginning on Friday the 10th, the projects were moved from USC to the downtown location, mainly by the students. In our year, the faculty provided a UHaul to transport the site models, but transportation of the individual projects fell on us. As far as I know, the first year instructors were the only ones to pin up boards for their students; the other years did it themselves with some direction from faculty.
I arrived on Thursday evening (after two exams at school) to pin up, only to find that the amount of space had been miscalculated and there was no choice but to split up my presentation board and mount it on several adjacent surfaces. Although I felt that this detracted from my presentation, I was informed that I had no choice in the matter. My layouts were mounted on foam core, which I at first tried to mount on the wall using glue dots, per instructions from my professor. Upon realizing that the board would not stick, I used some blue tape (on the back of the board) in addition to the glue dots. This seemed to do the job. Upon arrival on Friday morning (dressed formally and showered), I noticed that one of the boards had fallen down overnight, at which point I used small amounts of some more adhesive double-sided foam tape.
My model sat on a stand for the duration of the super-review.
All projects were reviewed formally on one of the two days (Friday or Monday). I cannot comment on when the private grading process was completed.
As you may be able to tell, I had some issues with the way in which the event was organized, but in hindsight, some of them are forgivable considering the unprecedented nature of the undertaking. However, the timing as it coincided with our final exams for other courses was rather inconvenient. It would have been one thing if students had been informed of event details, or any kind of schedule as to when transportation/pin-up/reviewing would occur, but very little information was provided to us beforehand. It seemed as if a great deal of the logistics were improvised (again, first-time kinks to work out), which resulted in considerable stress and in some cases, detriment to the work being presented. This may have contributed partially to the emotion with which some students responded to your postings.
Just so you're aware, I did read the entire thread before posting my comment, which I did not feel was unreasonably vehement. I hope that the people arguing both sides of this issue can learn something from it: a) we don't necessarily have to take the criticisms of others so personally and b) we should all try to do extensive research and comment politely and constructively in this type of forum. Based on the reactions of student posters that I have read, many of them, like myself seemed offended by some blanket assumptions made about their abilities and instincts and some sarcastic remarks that frankly were unnecessary and came across as petty personal insults. I hope that I've made my position clear and that I've been adequately diplomatic in doing so, and I also hope that I've clarified some of your questions in regard to the review event.
Sorry for the multiple postings, the site seems to have a character limit.
Cheers.
Another review of the event from my colleague Geoff Manaugh in BLDGBLOG.
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.