![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
transomwhiplassTWO. MORE. DAYS. OMG.
So we just finished tracing all of our crap. All that's left is watercoloring the panels and hitting up our lines. It just occurred to me that I use so much ridiculous architecture jargon. I don't even know if people reading this have ever seen an architecture presentation. Unfortunately, I don't have any good examples of hand done work on my computer (because it's too gigantic to scan). Maybe I should type up a little key.
Here is what I do to stay in school:
Basically, presentations include sets of technical drawings. There are several types of drawings. Plans, sections, elevations, diagrams, (true) perspectives (or axonometric/isometric perspectives). Plans give you the layout of the building from a bird's eye view--like fire escape maps. Elevations show the building facades. Sections remove the facade and show the layout of the building inside. Diagrams represent all kinds of goofy information: light, building circulation, zones, etc. Perspectives give you an idea of the experience of the building--how it looks from the inside/outside to a person. Axons/Isos are 3-D versions of the building, but not in actual perspective (ala vanishing points). You would recognize these drawings if you ever played around with SimCity or the Sims: buildings are represented as isometric forms.
Sometimes I also do models, those are pretty self-explanatory and I think most people consider models synonymous with architects.
Anyway, so these drawings are compiled and put into a presentation. Piles of theory exist behind layout, just like newspaper and magazine layout. Assembling drawings together is almost more frustrating than doing them individually because it's integral to make sure the information flows in the way it will be presented. Somethings things need to pop out, others are there just for reference if someone asks a question.
Usually I assemble on the computer these days, but this studio, we are back to doing everything by hand.
On computer, I typically render before I assemble; by hand, I render after I assemble. Rendering means coloring, essentially, adding light/shadow, texture, and surface detail. It can be done with pencil, pen, watercolor, marker, pastel, etc.
This process generally takes a few days depending on the size and detail put into the presentation. After putting together a presentation, the project is taken to "review." This can occur any number of ways: one-on-one with a professor, one with a couple of professors, one with a jury of professors and a number of your peers. Typically, people take notes for reviewees during critiques and others wander by to listen to the review. Often, it's like performing for a crowd: introducing the work, taking the reviewer(s) through the information and thought process to give them a solid basis of understanding from which to base comments on the design. This is what we do instead of final exam. In some ways it's more nerve wracking, in others, it's less. In UO studios, reviewers don't decide if you pass or fail--that's up to the studio instructor based on work displayed through the term and final output. So, if I royally fuck up--it probably isn't going to hurt much besides my ego. What is the difference between a good and bad review?
Good Reviews: Interested/coherent professor. Makes eye contact, encourages the direction they want to take the review by asking pointed question on his/her subject of interest. Comments are constructive. When a professor draws while speaking, it's always a huge plus. Makes suggestions, is interested in fixing problems and maybe co-designing for a few minutes at the end of the review to get the project to the "next level."
Bad Reviews: Disinterested, impatient professor. Interruption before finishing the overall project introduction. Doesn't seek to understand the entirety and thought process, just jumps on whatever pops out at him/her (i.e. the easiest thing to dissect or notice as "wrong"). Worry more about details than overall concept. Belligerence is always bad. Another version is where little feedback is given at all: either all compliments or silence.
Feedback is an interesting beast during a final review. Here in lies the curse of the major: you are never actually "done" with the work. It's just "done enough" to present. The feedback at the end is just to remember when applying larger themes to the next project. Some people actually go back and tweak things for their portfolio but they are in the minority.
So that's how it works...
Anyway, I'm getting really nervous for our review since we have four professors and apparently our entire class as an audience. Not only is this harrowing, but it's shaping up to be the most boring 5 hours of my life since we have to sit through everyone's presentation. Ughhh. I am not looking forward to that. I could understand watching 3-4 groups but that is not going to be good for anyone. Nothing like getting up in front of 18 people to present when they don't really want to be there.
Two days away, two days and it will be over. I'm excited to get this project done and over with. Bury the hatchet. I'm ready to be in Venice with all of this surface stress behind me.. more like aggravation. Studio hasn't stressed me out for awhile. I think last term, it was pretty much the least of my issues and/or I finally reached that state where I was able to apply my usual academic philosophy and zen-like attitude ("everything will work out in the end"). I realized that stress and deprecation should be reserved for professors during review, it wasn't helping to pummel myself before having to walk into a room with the utmost confidence and convince others that my project phenomenal.
It will be exciting/nerve-wracking to watercolor since everything we've done till now, we could erase. I'm not exactly planning to put this project in my portfolio so I've pretty much let it go. If I do, I'll put my plans maybe sans Chris' work. He's been really trying and I have been extra appreciative and trying to give him as many compliments to guide him in the right direction. However, he's made it clear to me now that this might be his last studio ever. He might take a few more academic classes before deciding whether or not to drop out of grad school. I've been trying to help him out, give him some confidence in his design but it's up to him to decide what makes him happy. I hope he figures it out.
It's no good to just wander or do something that doesn't make you happy just because you thought it would.
Anyway, I'm going to wander and find some food because I know that will make me happy. I thought I made my last grocery run today, but realized I might have one more in me for souvenir-food. haha.
So we just finished tracing all of our crap. All that's left is watercoloring the panels and hitting up our lines. It just occurred to me that I use so much ridiculous architecture jargon. I don't even know if people reading this have ever seen an architecture presentation. Unfortunately, I don't have any good examples of hand done work on my computer (because it's too gigantic to scan). Maybe I should type up a little key.
Here is what I do to stay in school:
Basically, presentations include sets of technical drawings. There are several types of drawings. Plans, sections, elevations, diagrams, (true) perspectives (or axonometric/isometric perspectives). Plans give you the layout of the building from a bird's eye view--like fire escape maps. Elevations show the building facades. Sections remove the facade and show the layout of the building inside. Diagrams represent all kinds of goofy information: light, building circulation, zones, etc. Perspectives give you an idea of the experience of the building--how it looks from the inside/outside to a person. Axons/Isos are 3-D versions of the building, but not in actual perspective (ala vanishing points). You would recognize these drawings if you ever played around with SimCity or the Sims: buildings are represented as isometric forms.
Sometimes I also do models, those are pretty self-explanatory and I think most people consider models synonymous with architects.
Anyway, so these drawings are compiled and put into a presentation. Piles of theory exist behind layout, just like newspaper and magazine layout. Assembling drawings together is almost more frustrating than doing them individually because it's integral to make sure the information flows in the way it will be presented. Somethings things need to pop out, others are there just for reference if someone asks a question.
Usually I assemble on the computer these days, but this studio, we are back to doing everything by hand.
On computer, I typically render before I assemble; by hand, I render after I assemble. Rendering means coloring, essentially, adding light/shadow, texture, and surface detail. It can be done with pencil, pen, watercolor, marker, pastel, etc.
This process generally takes a few days depending on the size and detail put into the presentation. After putting together a presentation, the project is taken to "review." This can occur any number of ways: one-on-one with a professor, one with a couple of professors, one with a jury of professors and a number of your peers. Typically, people take notes for reviewees during critiques and others wander by to listen to the review. Often, it's like performing for a crowd: introducing the work, taking the reviewer(s) through the information and thought process to give them a solid basis of understanding from which to base comments on the design. This is what we do instead of final exam. In some ways it's more nerve wracking, in others, it's less. In UO studios, reviewers don't decide if you pass or fail--that's up to the studio instructor based on work displayed through the term and final output. So, if I royally fuck up--it probably isn't going to hurt much besides my ego. What is the difference between a good and bad review?
Good Reviews: Interested/coherent professor. Makes eye contact, encourages the direction they want to take the review by asking pointed question on his/her subject of interest. Comments are constructive. When a professor draws while speaking, it's always a huge plus. Makes suggestions, is interested in fixing problems and maybe co-designing for a few minutes at the end of the review to get the project to the "next level."
Bad Reviews: Disinterested, impatient professor. Interruption before finishing the overall project introduction. Doesn't seek to understand the entirety and thought process, just jumps on whatever pops out at him/her (i.e. the easiest thing to dissect or notice as "wrong"). Worry more about details than overall concept. Belligerence is always bad. Another version is where little feedback is given at all: either all compliments or silence.
Feedback is an interesting beast during a final review. Here in lies the curse of the major: you are never actually "done" with the work. It's just "done enough" to present. The feedback at the end is just to remember when applying larger themes to the next project. Some people actually go back and tweak things for their portfolio but they are in the minority.
So that's how it works...
Anyway, I'm getting really nervous for our review since we have four professors and apparently our entire class as an audience. Not only is this harrowing, but it's shaping up to be the most boring 5 hours of my life since we have to sit through everyone's presentation. Ughhh. I am not looking forward to that. I could understand watching 3-4 groups but that is not going to be good for anyone. Nothing like getting up in front of 18 people to present when they don't really want to be there.
Two days away, two days and it will be over. I'm excited to get this project done and over with. Bury the hatchet. I'm ready to be in Venice with all of this surface stress behind me.. more like aggravation. Studio hasn't stressed me out for awhile. I think last term, it was pretty much the least of my issues and/or I finally reached that state where I was able to apply my usual academic philosophy and zen-like attitude ("everything will work out in the end"). I realized that stress and deprecation should be reserved for professors during review, it wasn't helping to pummel myself before having to walk into a room with the utmost confidence and convince others that my project phenomenal.
It will be exciting/nerve-wracking to watercolor since everything we've done till now, we could erase. I'm not exactly planning to put this project in my portfolio so I've pretty much let it go. If I do, I'll put my plans maybe sans Chris' work. He's been really trying and I have been extra appreciative and trying to give him as many compliments to guide him in the right direction. However, he's made it clear to me now that this might be his last studio ever. He might take a few more academic classes before deciding whether or not to drop out of grad school. I've been trying to help him out, give him some confidence in his design but it's up to him to decide what makes him happy. I hope he figures it out.
It's no good to just wander or do something that doesn't make you happy just because you thought it would.
Anyway, I'm going to wander and find some food because I know that will make me happy. I thought I made my last grocery run today, but realized I might have one more in me for souvenir-food. haha.
