First of all forgive a certain hardness in the criticism but I am your teacher.
(we know it's hard, we will not fail also to encourage and highlight your strengths).
sometimes Reading your texts and seeing the process that you can count on your suggestions: references , sketches, models etc, but you'd think that students of architecture
it are of a new discipline: architecture magazine readers or the best: tasters of architecture, or lifting, critical.
diners (that if luxury restaurant) rather than cooks !
I do not mean the reference architectures, information or events, and I think it's great we do too. I say this because you project and trying to anticipate a result - more accurately, like trying to ensure an outcome.
(This is a bad sign, because clearly priority objective value result (typical for a diner or a critic) over the personal research, involvement and risk (own trying to learn and train , built )
but also, (this is the most disturbing), considering you do, almost always, only geometric aspects, volumetric .... and once for texture, but less ...
The proposals seem to try to get eigenvalues \u200b\u200b visible object (from the outside, and almost always from a calling bird)
( volumes, strips, levels, flights, towers, pads, platforms, parts, auctions, rigid, soft , wavy, long, short, structures, tensioners, industrial gestures , loose, bonded, attached, separated, U of H in L, in pasta, on skewers, to lasagna, blind transparent, raised, outstretched., rectangular, parallel, oblique, straight, twisted ....
(taken more or less, added some edible, the texts of your explanations)
visited more than or tours (from inside, outside or from inside to outside, or from outside to inside)
and in almost no case values \u200b\u200bof living space:
the fact be (stable, time), use (utility, fitness), enjoy spaces (their qualities in relation to our sensibilities and ability perception). Even
the outside ( place) is used as landscape, history, culture , but simply as a soil , with a form, where to deposit your " object"
Ronchamp who has seen as an object, has not understood anything .
Anyone who has seen the Rolex Learning Center, as an object, have not understood anything.
In both, albeit very different, they nest and how!, values \u200b\u200b spirit, that is the human being . That might just appear in your drawings (which could be ominous sign that does not appear in your thoughts)
and hopefully not confuse with the figures of the Autocad or similar library.
Not everything is arranged at the end with some setups or with Photoshop: Although it seems that push us to the contrary (publications, need for imaging successful in competitions, etc.), architecture is to man and not vice versa .
(Do not think there is good architectural ideas for dead people (unless proyecteis cemeteries and even in that case.) Fill your living spaces!
Express brilliantly good or a good idea architecture (ie designed to be lived with happiness and sensitively by humans) that can enclose formal aspects innovative conceptual or is another thing.
hope your reaction.
A little soul .. please. JMS
0 comments:
Post a Comment