Lewis_CrossCrit Feedback






The following is the presentation made at the CrossCrit:

161122_crosscrit2 161122_crosscrit3 161122_crosscrit4 161122_crosscrit5 161122_crosscrit6 161122_crosscrit7 161122_crosscrit8 161122_crosscrit9

The main feeback was the followng:

  • Focus on the outcome rather than the analysis.
  • Look to the garden precident;
    • In particular Derek Jarman’s garden as a precident
    • Think about the Botanical Garden
  • Diagrams are useful but dont push the project forward.

One thought on “Lewis_CrossCrit Feedback

  1. The diagrams are very useful to explain the relationships uncovered on site between the natural and the man-made but without an explanation of what the project is and where this is heading, it was very hard to understand the relevance of the research and how you could move forward with it.

    The hatched drawings still need to be resolved in terms of the hatch resolution – they need to be much finer like the Luis Callejas example you were inspired by.

    How do you show us why these man-made and natural processes are occurring on site? How do you intervene to slow them down or speed them up? The Nuclear Power Plant could be an interesting object in the landscape to take a position on – rather than the obvious decision to view it as a negative, how do you instead see it as a positive encouraging different growing conditions to introduce new types of plant life to the site? How do you zoom in to show that rust chips mixed with shingle actually provide a very specific growing environment for particular plants?

    At the moment what was presented is still too much in the realm of analysis images and diagrams instead of any propositional drawings – I would aim to concentrate on this for Tuesday – starting to draw how you would re-read Dungeness as a garden of man-made and natural elements, as well as a gradient of hybrids that exist between these two extremes. What would you eliminate from the site? What would you encourage? How would you zone the site to showcase the different types (as identified on your graphs and diagrams)? What is the time frame for this? Is it something you develop over 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, more? What is the phasing of this project/ your strategy of deploying your idea across the site? Why is the relationship between natural, man-made and the variations in between important in the context of Dungeness? Who do you see as a visitor to this garden?

    Derek Jarman’s garden would be a good case study or precedent to draw as a means of understanding how he brought natural and man-made elements together to understand their relationships to one another and form an overall composition. In a way, this can be read as a microcosm of what you are trying to do – carefully bringing together elements from across the site to form more of a curated experience of Dungeness. Make some drawings that investigate the garden, its constituent elements and the forces that shaped it – this will help you find a way in to your own project.

    Another case study that could be useful is Canvey Island, and understanding how it became a natural reserve through being misused by man.

    As Jason stated, Architects instrument change, what change are you instrumenting through the creation of this project? And how are you constructing, facilitating or augmenting this change?

    At the moment, it feels like you are trapped in the world of research – “analysis paralysis” – which is common at this time of year, but its important that you start to apply this research towards a proposition in order to move forward. Think about what media you would like to use to explore this in addition to drawings. Is it models? Film? Photography? Some sort of experiment? Work on new drawings for Tuesday that address the questions above as well as working on a case study of Derek Jarman’s garden so we can discuss how to push forward for the crit the following Tuesday.

Leave a Reply