Week 10 – Review notes – Museum of fiction

Work presented:

  • Panoramic drawing of Dungeness – the imaginary voyage/drift along the coast;
  • Map of the sailing journey;
  • Chemigrams;
  • Fabric experiments;
  • Site model – Dungeness as a museum;
  • Tech precedents. Research on Transylvanian wooden churches – dry joints, functional and craft considerations.



  • Lexical considerations – tourist vs. visitor; types of people attracted to the site – why, for how long and what preconceived ideas might they project on the site;
    • proposition – what do they see when coming there? intervening on the route, landscaping considering ambitions/duration/routes/visions.
  • Defining the museum – what is presented and for who/how many;
  • themes of landscape and the sublime –  Caspar David Friedrich – the lonely wanderer;
  • how can illusions be created on site? what types of illusions?
  • demographic conflicts – between visitors and locals.
  • to what extent do the artistic/story elements I have presented reflect in the project work.


To do:

  • The model – defining the boundaries;
  • A timeline of types of visitors/people living or coming to the site with durations;
  • Version 2 of the panorama – after visiting, how did it change;
  • The map should be detailed with journey impressions.
  • Technical – 2xA1 drgs; one of the Romanian church vs. one of a Dungeness bld to analyze the construction methods, materials used, environmental factors and cultural implications. Followed by tests/experiments on dry jointing for Dungeness.




One thought on “Week 10 – Review notes – Museum of fiction

  1. A very clear introduction to your project/ your interests in “cultural heritage and how built heritage can be used to fabricate a past, not necessarily true to its present.” How do you elaborate this introduction to explain the solitary nature of exploring this landscape, thereby setting up the project as a museum for one?

    As mentioned in your list above, the map of the journey needs to be improved to the level of sophistication of other work in the portfolio, having just an anchor on the page is too simplistic. Instead it has the potential to become an important piece of work in the portfolio, as a maritime map, charting the journey of the sailor and marking the points along the way where he encountered different objects, landscapes and views. Its a way to translate the fictional panorama with the physical map to make it function as a hybrid between a map charting the route, and a captain’s log.

    Your observations about the landscape and the aging population are interesting. How can the visitors to site, complete the missing demographics (children, young families)? Is the project about completion? making a whole?

    You talk about your chemigrams as not quite a photograph but not a painting either. The same is true of your fabric models which are somewhere between solid and flexible. This transient or ambiguous state is interesting – how do you document this in the portfolio and talk about it as a characteristic of Dungeness/ something you are trying to amplify or reveal through your project?

    You refer to the artists settling on Dungeness as “hopeless romantics” – bring this level of precision into how you describe all visitors or users to your reading of Dungeness as an Open air museum. How do you redraw it as a museum? How does the duration people stay on site/ in the museum affect how it is understood, and inhabited?

    Jason suggested you look at Rügen – the island off the coast of Germany as a sort of romantic vision of a landscape that inspired painters like Caspar David Friedrich. It is a very specific place whose qualities are captured in the paintings. How do you bring the same level of specificity in your treatment of Dungeness – its not Rye nor is it Margate – but what makes it special/ unique?

    If Dungeness is a Museum – what is it a museum of? Fabricated HIstory? Fiction? A fusion of fiction and fact? How do you dissect the landscape according to this? Curate an experience of the place?

    Rethink the boundaries of your model – at the moment they feel arbitrary, chosen according to the size of the sheet material. Is it about the coastline only, if so then carve away all that inland space and extend the coastline up to the limits of Dungeness – the Pilot Inn or the Acoustic Mirrors? Think about the different views of the site depending on the user and how they are viewing it – from a boat travelling along the coastline, from a car speeding along the road running parallel to the coastline, by foot – each will afford a different point of view and understanding of the landscape – your perceptual shifts will have to change for each. How will your panorama drawing change now that you have visited the site/ according to these different points of view/ speeds at which the landscape is experienced?

    Look at Orhan Pamuk’s Museum of Innocence – a project that began as a fictional novel and became a physical space. http://en.masumiyetmuzesi.org/page/the-museum-of-innocence

    Haunting has an emotional resonance – at the moment this feels absent from the project, how do you draw experience, the haunting of a fabricated past in the existing present? How do you make it feel more rooted in Dungeness.

    At the moment, there is no portfolio format – it is just a collection of work – how do you bring it together to tell this story more clearly? In the way that the Transylvania booklet feels complete and connected with consistent graphics, how do you do something similar with the whole portfolio to tie it together?

    Looking forward to seeing how all of this develops for Tuesday – bring drafts of as much work as possible to get feedback to develop for the following Tuesday.

Leave a Reply