Cross Crit – Quick Update

Right. So these are a couple of things i would be presenting on the day.

  • Some selected drawings from Semester 01, There are a couple of images ( Around 4) which link directly into the direction im heading.
  • Im taking forward the idea of excavation/archaeological dig as this ties in nicely with the whole idea that fiction is born out of fact. And so these minimal structures then form a base upon which multiple fictions can be overlaid. Im working on a model (which hopefully will demonstrate this). I dont want to rush the model part just yet, as the earliest my materials arrive are next week so ill be presenting a sketch model, And after the feedback from the crit ill get on with the models.
  • On the taxonomy part (stripping the element down to the bare minimum) i am struggling on the representation part. I would love some suggestions/precedents to look at in this aspect.
  • Im looking to do a lot of drawings, with different investigations into form and function which would be all be constructed with the same elements. I feel this would be a good way to invite the guest crit into the project, by providing a range of what the design could be/how it would look.

I had a question about the program / brief that i sent to you earlier. Do i present the programme (the one that involved the fields of artists etc.) which provides an opportunity for feedback? Over the week i will still be concentrating on what kind of space/architecture i want to create, and wont be thinking too much about the programme just yet but just thought it would be a good idea to get a feedback on it.

Lastly, I did have a go at trying to represent the breakdown/taxonomy of the elements that feed into the design.


The video is pathetic, which is why i would love some suggestions.


I still need to work on the flow of the project, All the way from concept to creation, as i feel there a lot of holes still present. But thats after the cross crit.

I was thinking about printing the images in A2 size.


One thought on “Cross Crit – Quick Update

  1. I posted a few taxonomy examples for you on the main page of the blog yesterday – its the post titled Cakeland and more… – I think the video is too simplified and you want something in-between something that reductive and the complexity of your drawings – you want us to understand what are the rules that translates a tree, a stadium, a bridge, or a mill into a series of forms, ruins in reverse or fake remnants that are built as frameworks on site for the rest of the space to be constructed around. The taxonomy is almost like a rule-book or manual to understand the process of abstracting these fictions and making them fact – it could almost be drawn on a sliding spectrum starting as pure fiction when they were just a proposal to becoming fact as they are implemented on site and then the process in between.
    Regarding the programme – I think your project has moved on from that or at least for now its more about these structures and how they exist between fact and fiction in terms of the experience you are trying to create. If you introduce a more complex programme about everything except the architecture it will distract the conversation and might not give you the feedback you need. If you do want to present the programme then you need to rework it and strip it off all the extraneous elements till it becomes about the architecture and fact and fiction – that’s your project. If you don’t have time for that then leave it and focus on the sketch model that sounds really compelling and the taxonomy drawing. You have a lot of great drawings of the site and the project and I think with all of this you have enough. Use the dogville precedent drawing from the last crit and maybe make a similar one analysing the Serpentine pavilion to understand how their fiction was made fact by constructing the archaeological site and the fake foundations to pavilions past.
    A2 prints sound good – remember to rehearse your presentation to make sure you are within time and that you have the order correct – start with Marine Park and its relationship to Manhattan as a site for whatever the city needs but never got, the Paris Review article (which you could present as evidence) etc. And then continue with your analysis of the site. Only introduce Semester 1 work where it is relevant, for example your interesting research into fact vs. fiction and your diagrams defining it.
    Hope that helps and good luck!

Leave a Reply