delal
you need to post.
you need help.
i believe it would be in your best interests at this point to move exclusively into perspective for a bit.
you need to get away from your orthographic projections.
i think your plan is difficult and very aggitated.
is this appropriate for these occupants?
it maybe so, but you arent really discussing this.
you were asked about putting these people on and is(eye)land...
i think you could reverse this negative perception if you are clear about why this relationship to the city and water is theraputic in some way to the users...
6 comments:
also...
i dont think you are successful with these two frame as a formal move...
if this residue of gamals' process (although he rotates one of the frames as an initial move)...then do it right...
although...as i have said...i think you need to get away from this method for now and occupy the building.
The frame idea has nothing to do with tha gamal process, actually i have never taken his studio. I wouldn't want it to be understood that way. The plan i agree that looks disturbing, maybe it is all about that anxiety at the end, the question is you don't know whom is the patient, or the occupant of the houses when the engagement of the two happens in the field. The people whom live in the houses can walk in the gardens of the hospital. but in section it is some idea that evolves in between light and water. My mistake was to represent it as a whole. I need to fragment the levels, Because the housing part, and the hospital itself are at different levels. I wasn't clear on that in the drawings. The frames to me were these boundaries, that had moments of hinges in them. The tree as an object, the part with the bolts the housing, and the station of the doctors. At the end i realized i didn't need to show those two frames. But only the objects' touch to them, and the bridge that connects them. In the section drawing, i figured that , the whole system is really affected by the water, and the light, and there could be moments allow it to become this theraputic field. These rooms are elevated from the ground with structures, and these structures allow water to come in and even sometimes flood the gardens. I am going to finish that long section drawing, and maybe it would be more clear what i am saying, as the whole passage can be seen. On the other part i want to focus on different type of rooms, in a larger scale, but don't name them as this is the room of the patient, or this is the house, because those things are clear more than how they are affected by the site/ water and light. I think the perspective or sections of those moments in a larger scale would help. I would like to discuss it if you have time on monday. Thank you for your comments.
Also as a response to the review, i really thought about what they were saying, being distant to things, that you are involved so much.. I think, the plan might read disturbing because the program itself deals with the idea of people whom are anxious, or there is alot that goes on the society, and things written on the subject matter, and it is true i take metaphors, maybe i need to explain what i mean everytime i use them, because i feel connected, and skip the explanations during presentations. I really see where my project is going, and the questions they asked me sort of made look as an outsider.. it would be great if i could discuss with you.
Delal, this might be helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze
"I think, the plan might read disturbing because the program itself deals with the idea of people whom are anxious, or there is alot that goes on the society"
If I were in a mental hospital, i think I would rather be in a place that is designed to help me with my illness rather than archtitectually represent my own disturbed mental condition.
If architecture is considered as a solution to a problem or condition of some sort, when you use metaphors they should be about the solution, not the problem.
I believe that the solution is generally in the problem, it is defining the problems that lead us see things, and the solutions evolve.. Everything has its own nature. All i am going to say is this is my personal observation, or belief, the only times in my experience of things that i use metaphors, is towards things i see, i hold, and experience, then i desire the metaphor to grasp the memory that i feel naturally from a color, to a detail. Color has history, has been used to define or dress a period. I believe moments in space allow this more, architecture indefinetely, and as we evolve/grow our perceptions change, meaning the way we define things.. There is not one way of experienceing or representing a condition. The beauty is that we all taste different, and we will never know what the other really experiences, although we can only talk of that experience. I am writing this only in respond to what i think of this solution problem thought. I appreciate you bring it up. There could be a building that has no function today, or either an assigned programme, and it could be this structure, or mass, that is all to it.. then what would one call that, a problem because noone occupies it( i don't agree with that), would that be really doing nothing for us?or the experience of walking through that structure is somethings else?. Somehow we enjoy abondened things and they carry memories, that only our own experiences , or the metaphors we create carries as a memory. Alex, i am just writing my thoughts on this one question you are raising, nothing to have a debate or anything, it is great to see how we think of things different..
Post a Comment