The following were the questions asked with some responses made by myself.

I want to wrap a few loose ends up, reformat some work, look at colour and start a time dependant drawning for next Friday.


What happens with the ruin?

The ruin is the final state of the process, which allows the transient ruination process of Dungeness to continue to exist. The ruins then exist as ruins.


What are the pods?

The pods are a technological/ environmental response to sustainability. They also protect the contaminants from decaying because of the ruination process. At the moment they have no specific ‘interior’ or definitive function.


They trap the reminiscence of the landmass

More of an expression than a trap. Not sure of this statement.


Many skins (multiple layers)

Leave Traces of what its been used as?

Although I imagine that there could be a variety of ‘skins’ for varying points of a structure’s lifespan, I’m thinking of it more in terms of verity because I am somewhat arguing that the temporality of the structures is tied to the end of the land lease agreement. A new skin would only be possible in the event of a renegotiated lease where this could act as precedent/ protocol.

Furthermore, it takes a while for the materials to degrade, and I am imagining 50 year lifespans base on

  1. The lease is up in roughly 75 years so will not have an opportunity for more than 1 skin before this ends.
  2. The arguments that I have made are based on a new structure when the coast grows roughly 50m based on current conditions and the cost grows at roughly 1m/ year.

The poetic-ness of something shedding its skin as it moves is nice so I will consider it.


Going against designing for visual change

Arguably the visual Impact appraisal by the council says that part of the beauty of the landscape is the ruination, and therefore it is in line with the policy in addition, the containers are more of a visual hazard because they do not degrade in the same way as a hut or small structure. (designed to withstand sea environments).


Preserving decay: Trying to preserve various states of decay (missing)

I have never considered it preserving decay, or preserving a state of decay, more to facilitate a system where decay happens (somewhat in a controlled way) by introducing new structures which decay, the process is preserved.


Pristine next to decay

It can be said that some of the qualities of Dungeness lie in the juxtaposition between Decayed and Contemporary structures.  Which can be explored later when detailing the pod/ internal structures.


Different decay timelines

More than just the one building! (think wider than Derek Jarmans house)

You need to explore multiple buildings beyond Derek’s house.

I have focused on Derek Jarman’s House as part of the wider Derek Jarman subject. I have been reluctant to go beyond Jarman’s house because I imagine new structures decaying rather than the existing.


At what point does it become a ruin? 50 years? Or longer?

The ruination isn’t a snap moment, although the intention is that every 50 years it gets to a point where it can no longer sustain itself and must move.

It’s about frozen in time preservation?

Nothing is being frozen, its fluid, things decay, new structures are built, they decay… and so on…


Record your aesthetic ideals as your project continues, more complex comments on the overall beauty.

As the models are experimented with, I will photograph the process. It is possible to explain a ‘section of landmass’ with the shifting shingle and structures.


Designed for Visual material change?

How does it go beyond aesthetic value judgement?

It’s a commentary on the restrictiveness of preservation. It’s a strategy for sustainable growth specific to Dungeness. It looks at the landscape and proposes something in line with it but without being an obstacle.


Develop a critical composition up front. Ensure everything about your critical position is explored

I will make the argument at the start stronger and link it to the outcome throughout quicker


You need test to see dynamic effects

Look at material scale, do things leak? Iron and salt solution to enforce manipulation

Water staining at different rates

I will look to this for the next stage of the material investigations along with BRE.

I would like to perform some experiments an back it up with some BRE information



Meaty research into melty houses, rusty house etc.

Come with art installations

Hong Kong shoreline, layers of urban seafront as layers on top on one another. Building become irrelevant as the shorelines change

Sarah Wigglesworth

I’ll look into these precedents as well as some which are about temporary structures 

One thought on “Lewis_JanCrit

  1. Hi Lewis,
    I dont think your project is about preserving decay – if anything, as I understand it, it’s about ensuring continual change and the presence of different states of different objects in the landscape to ensure diversity and some sort of understanding of time passing, and how that is reflecting through material change.
    This needs to be developed as an overall strategy and then perhaps by looking specifically at a single site (whether that’s Jarman’s House or something else) and developing a critical position on the way that site is currently being preserved, and how through the application of your strategy it would be done differently. This would allow you to draw the change or lifecycle of this site/ footprint/ building over a large expanse of time – and would thereby allow you to investigate how materials can manifest certain agreements, legislations and constraints on the landscape (I really liked your comment above on the shedding of skins based on the end of land lease agreements, which would allow for your analysis and research on the site, to translate into the language and design of your proposal).
    More case studies need to be drawn up to show the cultural context you are situating your project within – its not enough to talk about Rem’s treatise on Preservation – perhaps draw what struck you as most important about it, and quote directly from it in your presentation to show your position in regard to it.
    At the moment the portfolio is a linear stack of squares, and needs more hierarchy and balance between your diagrams that allow us to understand the site, and big propositional drawings that show your intent for how the site will change over time.
    In your presentation you referred to the “breaking point’ of preservation like the stress point of a material – which I thought was a great analogy and perhaps could develop into an interesting time-based drawing on where current preservation strategies fail or succeed – what is their breaking point in the context of Dungeness?
    The suggestion to start testing things materially is a good one, and will help you progress with your proposal. Some artist references to look into were the work of Anya Gallaccio: http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/gallery-lost-art-anya-gallaccio
    As well as this project by Alex Chinneck: http://alexchinneck.com/project/pound-flesh-50p/ or http://www.designboom.com/art/alex-chinneck-melting-house-london-10-28-2014/

    Another precedent to look at is Victims by John Hejduk – a proposal that was designed to develop over two 30 year periods: http://socks-studio.com/2015/11/01/a-growing-incremental-place-incremental-time-victims-a-project-by-john-hejduk-1984/ – and the whole project is thought of as a construction of time – subject-matter aside – I thought the strategy and drawings might be useful for you to look at.

    Finally, I found these diagrams pretty amazing in how much data they compress onto a page – and could be useful in terms of how you develop more detailed drawings, starting with your preservation diagram from last week: http://socks-studio.com/2012/07/03/minjeong-ahn-an-autobiography-in-diagrams/ – not really a project precedent, more just a drawing/ diagram reference to look at.

    Good luck and looking forward to seeing how this develops for Friday both in terms of material testing as well as time-based drawings.

Leave a Reply