Assessing the jury based on my three different forms of output (plates, book, presentation text) I would say the plates and the book were successful in presenting my argument overall but the text was not, and paired with a confusing text the other two failed a bit in that regard. I think I only managed to communicate my thesis during the discussion rather than the presentation and because of this most of the discussion veered towards a different direction.
Regarding the presentation/text – the whole time whilst trying to write the text I was lost about how to switch between fact and fiction within the same piece of writing, and I drafted the text so many times that some versions referred only to the plates and the latest one, I realize in retrospect, referred mostly/only to the book (the research narrative and not the fiction). Within the book I did include images of each of the 6 plates to mark each ‘chapter’ in the book so that they would understand that each conclusion I was drawing from the research was being expressed in one of the plates. I don’t think this came across though and it made the presentation confusing.
The jury made a point about the irony and humour of Wines’ projects and how my presentation was quite serious in contrast to that. Barbara spoke about the artifice and a general theme in the discussion was the idea of technique and artifice, and the technology used to make the illusions into reality. Charles mentioned a reference (The Crying of Lot 49) about other artificial ruins that are misread. Also in the discussion were mentioned the ideas of ‘maximalism’ and restoration (and the contradictions present in that idea).
I am still not sure what particular interest I want to take forward for my project, but I don’t think it is that of the artifice and the illusion. I also feel that getting too focused on a technical aspect would be missing the point of Wines’ general critique, and the same for focusing too much on the humorous aspects of the designs. I think at the time that they were commissioned the shock-value of the buildings was much higher and the irony in itself was something to comment on, but nowadays we are so jaded by shocking imagery that I feel that it is no longer really relevant – although perhaps this critique could be a way to challenge the project?
I think overall I am still fascinated by the themes of the box, the ruin and the suburbs, and I also think that to move forward I should work with another form of media (not only images) so that I am thinking about the project in different terms in order to move it forward.
Meanwhile this book that I had ordered a while ago finally arrived in the post yesterday – it’s the catalogue of an exhibition the MOMA had in 1979 inviting 6 architects to each design a new showroom for BEST.. all (very!) different from Wines. Hopefully I might find something in here that could be helpful!
For tomorrow I am going to work on a re-con of my re-con (hah..) where I edit my text to refer more to the plates, and make it clear somehow in the book what is research (reality), what is manifesto (intermediary between reality and fiction), and what is provocation (fiction). Will also try to think of a new form of output..