A few notes: -not a big fan of "head and hand"; perhaps the concept vs construct?; something less blunt would be more appropriate -starting with the positioning statement, I do not believe that you are helping yourself much by outlining a return of "meaning and value" as I do not believe you are dealing with semiotics; remember that such discourse will result in a rhetoric that I think might be something that extends beyond the scope of the studio; perhaps you could be more explicit about your meaning of "meaning" and that could allow you to focus your objectives -there in an implication in the position statement that there is a disconnect; though I agree with you, I do not know what type of "connections" you are trying to establish; if it is merely an awareness of the efforts and insights one puts into a project, then it does not seem nearly as robust as what would be expected in light of your scope of investigation -my biggest criticism of your strategies would be that they are all tactical; though they do not all fall under the same larger strategy, the first and third certainly do; you could replace strategy one and three with something along the lines of "celebrate the natural properties of a building material at all scales throughout the architectural project"; despite the need to massage the wording, you can see how that encompasses your proposals for the first and third strategy; it also liberates the discussion on a specific material (which would be tactical in your case); unlike Fil who has outlined a desire to explicitly deal with WOOD, you have explicitly dealt with CRAFT, which is distinct as a thesis -the second strategy could potentially be folded into the earlier strategy revision however I hold it outside of that taxonomy because I am not 100% on what you are trying to get at; I believe what you could be saying relates to the strategic direction of "tectonic expression of material properties and detailing" or something to that effect; to explicitly outline materials in your context is not ideal as you are dealing with the larger craft issue
I think the overall direction is good and that you are embracing multiple scales and materials but remember that all the points must address the issue of craft rather than showcasing material properties alone. Does that make sense? Effectively I think we have generated 2 key directives/strategies but I think you have a few more that are steeping in the background that will help you out.
A few notes:
ReplyDelete-not a big fan of "head and hand"; perhaps the concept vs construct?; something less blunt would be more appropriate
-starting with the positioning statement, I do not believe that you are helping yourself much by outlining a return of "meaning and value" as I do not believe you are dealing with semiotics; remember that such discourse will result in a rhetoric that I think might be something that extends beyond the scope of the studio; perhaps you could be more explicit about your meaning of "meaning" and that could allow you to focus your objectives
-there in an implication in the position statement that there is a disconnect; though I agree with you, I do not know what type of "connections" you are trying to establish; if it is merely an awareness of the efforts and insights one puts into a project, then it does not seem nearly as robust as what would be expected in light of your scope of investigation
-my biggest criticism of your strategies would be that they are all tactical; though they do not all fall under the same larger strategy, the first and third certainly do; you could replace strategy one and three with something along the lines of "celebrate the natural properties of a building material at all scales throughout the architectural project"; despite the need to massage the wording, you can see how that encompasses your proposals for the first and third strategy; it also liberates the discussion on a specific material (which would be tactical in your case); unlike Fil who has outlined a desire to explicitly deal with WOOD, you have explicitly dealt with CRAFT, which is distinct as a thesis
-the second strategy could potentially be folded into the earlier strategy revision however I hold it outside of that taxonomy because I am not 100% on what you are trying to get at; I believe what you could be saying relates to the strategic direction of "tectonic expression of material properties and detailing" or something to that effect; to explicitly outline materials in your context is not ideal as you are dealing with the larger craft issue
I think the overall direction is good and that you are embracing multiple scales and materials but remember that all the points must address the issue of craft rather than showcasing material properties alone. Does that make sense? Effectively I think we have generated 2 key directives/strategies but I think you have a few more that are steeping in the background that will help you out.