Tag Archives: Jury

Jury Q&A anticipation

2017-06-03 (12) 2017-06-04 (3) 2017-06-04

Potential Questions and Answers:

Q: No clear Proposal?

A: A manifesto in favour of the screen as a site/landscape – part of the argument in the project is advocating media as an aesthetic of pleasure, spectacle and distorted time not a source for facts but for narratively packaged truth, enjoyed as stories.

Q: Conceptual space/design Telescape?

A: Granting the screen a body and discussing the issue of surface and flattening of the mode of representing place and events-happening – architecture having been the built container of worlds and what of it when the apparatus is the screen.

Q: Why?

A: An increasing distance between our inside and our outside, a disparity that changes our perception of events – from Greek root of tele- meaning from a distance, we are beyond merely tele-vision but we tele-everything including event construction and spatial understanding of the world.

-An annoyance with the attitude towards fake news, media lying, conspiracies, post-truth etc. whereby I wanted to discuss the architectural/spatial role of surface in turning any curated media (from traditional ornaments in the past to digital texture today) into a cult of tele-spectacle where fact doesn’t matter over story-telling.

Q: Role as an architect?

A: The curator and designer of spectacle – my take on the Diamond Age as a brief is to look at footage as the material substance of our age – the site is the screen and their common spatial denominator: surface. Curator, editor – story-teller – time compressor/exploder.

Q: Time?

A: The explosion of it –exploitation of every singular moment to be stretched and expanded in the media – everything becomes spectacle – therefore is everything also beautiful or subject to aesthetic scrutiny like never before?

The image collapsing scale was what the Eames most successfully demonstrate in the powers of 10 – More currently it is TIME we are extrapolating to the powers of 10.

What is our role other than condensing in reverse through omission and curation our work at juries at the final table or at exhibition – every year at the AA tutors repeatedly in my experience I hear saying how horrendous we are at displaying our own work – because we go for maximum spectacle and no other means of representing the work itself in its depth but on its surface – visuals above content is the casualty of our discourse perhaps and the Telescape doesn’t necessary look at this negatively but celebrates it as the creed of our times and of the future.

Q: Why the Baroque ornament?

A: The fold inside/outside disparity – the theatricality conceptually works; the ornament as a frame to screens screaming for attention – Vatican of Screens – a celebration of the screen – the screen is put dead centre of the frame we venerate it.

Also early on in the year part of my writing and research delved into notions of the neo-baroque and looking into the construction of facts in Latourean terms as well as his argument of us never having been modern – and I particularly like the opening to the book itself where its very much like my scroll-edit transition where he introduces the crux of his argument by describing the headlines in a news article he’d been reading and how they sit amongst each other on the cover page not only in visual disparity but also content.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

Telescape – A FACTory of Surfaces

Working on the models for the scenes I’ve metioned yesterday.

Some points on yesterday:

  • - I particularly liked the idea that the FACTory is granting the Screen a body : The Telescape is the screen given a body by surface.
  • - The galleries (the Wallace Colelction and Saatchi exhibit I plan to frame within my telescape surfaces as an introdicution to the film)
  • - MORE footage MORE clips appearing for shorter times – exploit the viewers positon as the one making asscoiation but keeping it short enough – 5 secs max each clip – to pevrent each micro narrative from taking over (thanks Nathan!)
  • - Finally, the “Screen Vatican” to be way MORE COW BELL – explode it out of a room, bigger crowds and surface as an increasingly dominant medium in the urban context.

Telescape_01_FINAL FINAL

Exhibition_01 00_Telescapes_small

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

APRIL 28 Jury


Tags: >
Posted in news | Tagged , | Comments Off

Final Jury!

Thank you to our critics:
Kenneth Fraser, Manolis Stavrakakis, Theo Spyropoulos, John Palmesino, Doreen Bernath, Max Kahlen, Barbara Penner, Ed Bottoms, Barbara Campbell-Lange, Evan Greenberg






Posted in news, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off

Jury – 28 April




Tags: >
Posted in news | Tagged , | Comments Off

Presentation notes

Ok! I have a plan! A journey. Some stories. I think I need 2 to 3 tables on the day of the jury.
I will start with a blank- the table, and take you on a journey through my places. Each map will go on the table one at the time as I tell its story and no map gets chucked away. (Like anny’s drawing we build up this collection of maps that all relate -an atlas of some sort)
I conclude the presentation by revealing the map of the project. That summarises the journey and the main ideas to retain.
And then we discuss.
Draft text coming tomorrow (in the afternoon /evening) and then back to drawing.


Ps: the maps are still to be compiled in the book format previously shown, along with the stories written and research etc but i don’t know how realistic that is for next week.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off

Jury in January



Tags: >
Posted in news | Tagged , | Comments Off

Recon Jury






Tags: >
Posted in news | Tagged , | Comments Off

January jury notes & thoughts

Notes from jury:

– Project is too wide in its ambition at the moment, doing too many things. Grid/box as city-forming device, and shopping-city are two different things and the danger is that the shopping narrative may overtake everything else. Shopping should be instrumentalized in the project and not become either protagonist or conclusion. Also the link between the formal argument and shopping is not there yet.

– Shopping is overrated. (I agree).

– I really liked the way Maria summarized the aspect of duality in the project: that there are two cities; one thinks it is living a normal life whilst the second one revels in its own artificiality, almost mocking the first city whilst consuming it at the same time. The second city percieves the first one as a product. Perhaps the first city is not even aware of the second one’s existence?

– Project reads more as about the grid at the moment, rather than the box. If it is to be all about the box this should be more apparent in the design and the drawings (drawings are too conventional at the moment – if about the box I should be drawing only that and never the grid). What is the relationship between the two, does one enhance the other’s role?

– Need a better argument about the size of the box’s definition (1 mile x 1 mile), which currently is arbitrary.

– What is the geographical and political context? Although I am arguing that they are not relevant, will giving it a specific context challenge the project more? (not convinced).

– Is the city ultimately a massive Big Brother? The Truman Show? Like Celebration? If I am designing a dystopia, it needs to be grounded more in reality, to highlight the dystopian aspect of it. If an architectural dystopia, what are my real precedents? What are my city precedents, and mall precedents? Shin suggested that having a critical analysis of a precedent city in terms of its organization can help me design a more extreme scenario. In terms of a dystopian narrative, does context become even more important?

– What is the urgency of the project? Why is it important today to discuss alienation in the city?

– Maria said not to lose the subtlety of the recon, the ultimate incapacity of anyone or anything to break the box. Box cannot be anything other than itself and does not tolerate ruination. Is the ultimate argument of the project that you can not break the box, that it endlessly reconstructs itself?

– What is in ruin?

– Ricardo’s suggestion of some sort of material orientation device for this dystopia. How do you orient yourself in the space, how does the architecture become connected to what it offers, what is available? What can be the vehicle for this orientation (a catalogue?)?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off


Construction/Deconstruction of the stage


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

The Edge of the Stage

Where does the stage begin and end?

This version of the flat-stage shows Xia (who played Yamasaki) helping me carry parts of the stage back to the studio after the re-con jury. It was the same evning that Zaha Hadid was giving her lecture.

Physically the limits of the stage are questioned as the drawing overlaps the defined plinth/stage-size.

The collage is another backstage view, this time exploring the deconstruction of the stage. In a sense, backstage is “reality”, and the stage-set a kind of facade that manipulates reality. The audience sit in their seats with controlled views of this imagined reality that for a period of time becomes more “real” than the physical theatre. Once the performance ends actors and audience assume their original identity, and the stage-set is deconstructed into physical pieces that feed back into reality. “Backstage” is huge – it is everything that is real and contributing to make something unreal – its physical limits are becoming impossible to define!

– I hope this makes some kind of sense!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

thoughts on the recon jury – comments please!

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..

Tags: >
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Re-Con Jury

With our critics Kenneth Fraser, Charles Arsene-Henry, Javier Castanon, Barbara Campbell-Lange, Inigo Minns, Brett Steele, Matthew Butcher, Mark E Breeze, Mark Campbell, Mark Cousins, and Francesca Hughes.
























Tags: >
Posted in news | Tagged , | Comments Off