After the jury on tuesday I tried to put my object in a context to test the relation of these objects with an existing environnement – in term of scale first – but also what would be the immediate sens coming out of the tests. I am currently doing test by trying to set the model in 3 different urban environnement : the dense city, the sprawl and the des-urbanise environnement (desert). I dont think that the model can be detached from the condition of the city but have to be rather see in relation to the urban environnement. And as a matter of fact, you can see it more as an ‘urban failure’ when put in the desert, probably more as an ‘urban disruption’ in the sprawl, and perhaps more a sort of post modern urban addendum in the city.
Following the comments of the jury I am not sure I want to go on building a model and work on the relationship in between model and photography and scales…
I would rather take the project further into questioning the mechanism, tools and mediums through which (the image of) the ‘real’ city is constructed today. And through mechanism and tools I think of ways of capturing (photography, films, google earth,…) but also the tools through which the city (as a set) is organised, which is to say laws and regulations. If one can consider the city the same way as the space I created you need to have both the frames AND the ‘how’ the objects are positioned.
I am not sure if it is relevant to continue in that direction so I think it needs to be discussed further.
Here are the images (they are really on the process of being made – I did spend quite some time thinking first on how the project could evolve, so they are really bad ongoing versions) :
Here is also some version of the images I did for tuesday but decided not to show. I wanted to explore as well a sort of ‘image in 3D’ to represent the scenes. I didn’t have the time to texture it and they are somehow ongoing reflexions as well, as a way of thinking about the format as well that would translate the tension interior-exterior.