Response to exp 1 feedback from Helen

In response to the exp1 feedback I received I would like to defend some of the criticisms from the tutor and make some more general comment on the exp1 structure. I would appreciate if it was read fully and responded to so I could better understand the criticism I received

My design isn't missing ideas drawn from the respective clients, and was certainly not intentionally ignored. My design of the below and above sections symbolises and represents concepts from the clients in a more general way. Who would design an entire studio for a client based on an abstract section based on a single word describing a single artwork in their repertoire? After undergoing so many transformations, by the end of it all, the design may no longer have ANY significance left to the ideas and themes of the actual artist for whom you're designing. The design process outlined by the course is great for providing inspiration and a mechanism by which design ideas can be churned out for further development. However, this process does not, in my opinion, necessarily produce a design that's ‘meaningful’ to it's purpose or client.

Architecture is not an inside joke, it's not just art, architecture has an actual purpose and if it is to have deeper meaning in it's design it should be more straight-forward.

My below section has a clear reference to photography and manipulations with light, which has a straightforward relation to Moffat and is relevant to a building showcasing photography and film. The space resembles the inners of a camera lens, the most crucial element to photography. The levels appear to rotate like the mechanism of a lens focusing an image. At the top of the space is a transparent dome letting in natural light analogous to the camera lens and the sculptural element extending vertically down from the ceiling and converging at a single point on the ground like a stream of photons being focused on a sensor or film.

I think meaning and symbolism, although important, takes second place to good design, aesthetics and functionality. Rather, symbolism and meaning shouldn't be at the expense of the previously mentioned aspects.

The above ground space was designed with Gascoigne’s artwork and style in mind. She is modern, she is daring, her work is often a mixture of geometric components appearing chaotic but arranged in a structured way. The design of the building echoes these basic principles which define Gascoigne as an artist. However this is not at the expense of creating an attractive building. So, although the sections inspired the final form of the structure, and the words inspired the chosen sections, my final design will be representative of the clients not the process by which the design came about. My design has a clear relationship with the clients, which as a result doesn’t require that much explanation.
The process by which the final design is realised is a guide and as long as it serves its purpose, which it does, it should be flexible, and doesn’t need to be exact.

In regards to the comment I made about the second draft, the fact that I disregarded my second draft is not representative of my own design philosophy, I have nothing against the process described by the course, I just happened to settle on a design earlier in the process than others. Had this not happened I would have developed my second draft before choosing a final model.

I do however agree that my building is over scaled for the design criteria. This is partly my mistake due to not reading the design brief carefully before it was too late to make changes. However I can also attribute this partly to the design procedure. We were left in the dark as to the reasons behind picking words and making sections. In fact we were directly instructed when creating the sections to be purely conceptual and not worry about our section being practical or resembling a building. Then when it came to modelling our draft design my chosen section didn’t really allow for a small building. It’s form demanded a large multi level building if it was to at all resemble the section and it’s designated word. So if practicality issues, such as scale, are given no importance in the design process because it’s ‘conceptual’, then it shouldn’t be a major issue, particularly since many of the other student designs have some practicality issues, inherent to the ‘conceptual’ nature of this course.