Notes from Day 3 of Midterm

Critics; Marc Schaut, Dan Buscescu, Michael Eng, Jeffrey Hogrefe, and Lex Braes

Kyung Sic -
Have you looked at Tando Ando's temple in the water? It is very graceful in terms of the descension.
Is this merely an extension of the MET?
Is the obelisk moved? So it's a little bit moved. 5 meters
What is the connection between museum, obelisk and the park? What is the importance of this? Why does the obelisk NEED to be IN the museum?
You are using a VERY moral language, this should be here, and there. You are creating a movement from the museum to the obelisk, its a utilitarian answer. You are saying there is a connection, but why should it have anything to do with the museum?
The existing glass box is solid = very unfriendly.
Lex was happy that the obelisk is where it is and is seperate from the museum and no access to it.
The obelisk might be a red-herring.
You are installing a kind of machinery of vision, sensation into the park. The obelisk is a cultural artifact, you mention the sun god relationship. It's a history of colonialism, empires conquer and bring back artifacts, they are given to us.
The museum is an Interiority of identity, build boundary around yourself. The Egyptian wing, is an illusion of transparency, see outside/inside yet the reality of construction is opposite. It is quite solid. Are you trying to make it more fluid? park > museum, museum > park? Just cause you can? Should you or not? Why?
It is a critique of inside/outside. Why does it follow the axis of the existing building. Maby bring in something that doesn't follow the grid.
Fundamental answers that motivate your decisions, those are cultural decisions.
You want to bring in other vitality into the museum, cyclists', runners, park tourists, through the museum.
Through this you are creating and talking much about the different speends of experiencing. This has alot to do with the horizontal but you should be thinking of this in the section and elevations, you talk about levels.
Think about the figures at different levels, maybe at different levels in water.
For most, the obelisk should remain exactly where it is, talk to Brian Jones, he seems to have a good bit of knowledge on what it would take to move one of these.
Undermine the obelisk, look at the foundation, design a new foundation, look at it in a new way, come up under it.
You also need to qualify the bodies of water, higher/lower, how does it move, do we hear it is it still, reflecting or not, and sometimes moving.
Shouldn't the architecture be more friendly to the park, you are breaking up the rythm of the park contours with hard edges, which could work but you need to think of the quality of the space. Be more sensitive of how the park contaminates your project, subtle, and sensitively.
The stairs from for the runner, will cause them to concentrate on their feet, and miss the entire museum, which is against what you want. Where is the landscape, the vegetation, materials, trees. It might not be the formal moves, but the dialog that needs to be looked at.

Zach -
Why just put 3 of those square volumes into the rectangular space, shoudln't you redisgn, it was stronger as 1, there was dialog. And the more similar they are, the one in bunker and the one out in the water, the more different they will perform, one is about water, the other about sky. You are trying to bring attention to the erosive quality.
Effemorality and loss, different than temporality.
Monumentality is unmasterable.
There are relationships between different sites within your site.
The flipping of God's eyes and being within the earth, the detail is important, specifically commented on your section drawings through the building.
Stable structure VS unstable one, that racks and moves. How is the steel treated, does it rust? The wood will rot. Come back in 100 years, will it be there? The hard lines of your geomety are parrelel with the existing, and reminiscent of the Holocaust, rails/crematorium.
Look at Paul Barilia, Bunker Archeology.
The weight of the collective memory is here.

Namtip -
the programs don't necessarily need to be governed by the artists' work that is to be displayed.
There is an equivocation of architecture/work
issue of materials can address that which creates the synaesthesia.
It really is difficult to keep the senses seperate, yet we believe that we can seperate them, your project reinforces the seperation.
Vision is a form of blindness, architecture is also. THis idea is stronger than merely bringing other senses to light.
Architecture is complicit in the ways of seeing. You don't need to amplify these senses individually. Concentrate on the tactile quality, materiality. Look at Richard Serra, scale, it HAS killed people.
You can critique lines of sight.
You dont want this to become just another museum.but dont forget the criteria that allows the audience of people who dont normally visit. You need interaction with the park, as you walk, are there plantings along the paths, how do they invoke the senses.
Rodney Graham, Sylvia Kabowtsky? check them out.
technology of the body, makes you experience what the architect wants you to experience.

Carrie -
The gridwork is a bit too rigid, in terms of being in line with the existing. Tracking/tracing, your hand is working more closely to your idea, get off the3d rendering. be more primitive, there is too much tracks/wheels. Think about the lightness of it, the model shows very well the space between, the drawings flatten and you assign a thick black line to what is the track. work more in model, full scale. Lok at Elieen Grey. and Walter Benjamin. the emergence of the World's Fair in the rising Metropolis, we began to commodify the city.
museum is about the commodification of cities.
not ypical at all, but is in line with the idea of museum, museum without walls.
Look at Margaret Ross's work.
you shouldnt be giving people another place to buy something. What is the relationship between space and commodity?
work/leisure, weekend/weekday > dialog.
what is the rationale in your track system. it closes the system and there is less spontenaity or free-quality, there is no freedom of organsization. the width of the track is the width of a parking space, okay good. there could just be parking lines and not tracks. and the wheels maneuver and then at tijmes fix themselves at some point. you could get off the grid at some point, that is a commentary on the commodity issue. dont forget this is a flea market/museum.