Articles from Our Writers
Contents
I have been fascinated with the parallel between art and architecture for some time now. This personal fascination happens especially as Masters such as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright are all publicly noted as celebrated thinkers, architects and artists.
Indeed, Corb is affectionately remembered as a "Culture Vulture" by some. Furthermore, many prolific and highly acclaimed architects (Arne Jacobson and Mies Van De Rohe, to name a few) are known to have engaged with the discipline of design at large. Our own modern day "starchitects" (such as Zaha Hadid and Amanda Levette) seem to share the same preoccupation of designing cars, furniture, perfumes, cutlery or, some might argue, attempting to design…
But can art have a tangible influence on architecture besides the obvious help of pretty and convincing renderings of your virtuoso masterpiece of building?
Roxanne Walters
Part 2 Oxford Brookes
Each year I am increasingly convinced that it might well be so. Maybe Will Alsop did come by that amazing building by a beer and wine induced watercolour. Perhaps those still life classes that the Uni tortures one with and the diabolical museum trip project-related coursework do have a point. Not to mention those infernal sketch books that any tutor worth their salt would encourage you to keep.
In fact, I think it is worth mentioning that architecture is the only design discipline I know of where students can often devote large quantities of time and attention to the subject without keeping a sketchbook!
My point is this: art inspires the imagination. The consumption of foreign art and culture (in another country or in a museum/art gallery here in the UK) can expose the designer to a new solution to a common architectural problem; or, putting it simply, encourage the soul. A worthy and useful tool for a designer as well.
Interestingly, some critics attack Corb as never having an interesting idea himself. In a time without the information technologies we enjoy now, it is argued, he was only clever enough to journey to remote cultures no one else could easily access. And steal the ideas of those peoples.
How true this may be I do not know. But my ramble (and I do like Corbusier really) is to serve this point. The consumption of art, not only studying other buildings, can be an immensely rewarding exercise for the would-be architect. Art develops the imagination. Art is a formidable teacher on the treatment of light. It gives insight to the treatment of materiality and texture. Art can even inspire the mind about a totally unrelated design problem (speaking from personal experience!) and much, much, much more.
So I have been my own “Culture Vulture”. I’ve been scoring the streets of Oxford and London in “a great experiment”. To see what secrets I can find from Art.
In the Tate, it is always difficult not to get distracted by the building, but my old friends of Futurism and Surrealism were yet still encouraging about dynamism and suspension. There is a riveting exhibition at the Museum of History and Science aptly titled “Compass and Rule”. There one could clearly see the benefits of keeping a sketch book. If Sir Christopher Wren could do it, I ambitiously tall myself ‘So can I’! The overriding point of this exhibition is the fact of “Architecture as Mathematical Practice”. For me it was a revelation they tortured even young monarchs to draw buildings in perspective. Architecture was then thought of as a necessary tool for the training of a monarch but perspective was also considered a serious science of mathematics. This is a fact perhaps now forgotten among us non-drawers, especially with the advent of 3D computer modelling programmes.
And then I went to “a foreign land”. Sometimes independent exhibitions or shows put on by younger galleries require a certain amount of faith. After all, one is in danger of being forced into the position of comparing one’s own miserable efforts to the dismal works on the wall, only to grimly wonder why it is you don’t have your own exhibition.
But every now and then, you can find a real gem. Take for instance my favourite upstart gallery in Oxford - “Not Famous Yet” (www.notfamousyet.co.uk|) and the work of Artist Julie Monaco.
Besides the fact that the gallery has the avant garde approach of hosting exhibitions in unusual locations (this time a chapel), Julie Monaco generates an immediate cult following.
Csr0/3 © Julie Monaco
The unexpected impact of her dark graphics of hyper intense natural imagery is compelling and it leaves one breathless. Her work is sumptuously presented in both book and enigmatic print on aluminium and diasec. Her foreboding atmospheric images that evoke an ethereal sense of apprehensive angst inspires me to think of (dark) mood, weather, light and somehow my subconscious leans towards creating a building that encapsulates these feelings with the same power and mood Julie does in her work.
Besides the obvious, everyone but everyone should take in at least one of Not Famous Yet’s shows or at least visit them on the web (and if you can - get the book!).
Either as an architect or an artist, I feel that one is left with the profound importance of the fact that whatever you do it should be done to a high standard of professionalism. This is particularly true, it seems to me, when trying to break into the demanding world of the creative industries.
And as for the importance of Art on Architecture?.... I think I have just found my next building.
Back to Top|
Summer holidays for students are a myth, unless you define a holiday as frantically trying to cover the costs of studying architecture. The height of summer, when it never gets properly dark where I live, allows me to experience another mythical thing: a town without people. When I'm heading to work at 5 in the morning it's light enough to pass as day, yet there are no cars, no people, not even any birdsong to break the silence. I get lulled in to this false sense of an uninhabited town and forget that the milkman, who's silently wafting around in his electric float, can see me picking my nose crossing the High Street. Most of my early part 1 work was geared for exactly this kind of unpopulated environment and it's a commonplace nasty streak at all levels in the profession's schools.
Kyle Strachan
Part 1 Edinburgh College of Art 2009
In the last couple of months you’ve probably had a look at the various degree shows around the country and been wowed by the standard of visual art. However, I will admit to being totally perplexed by most of the work on show. It’s as if each architecture school has told a private joke not to make reference to the layman. And when the human form does appear, it’s always in those ‘ideal state’ perspective drawings where everyone’s smiling on a summer’s day with a hooded youth helping an elderly lady cross the road, casually ignoring a group of tarts and vicars vomiting on the pavement at 9am following a staff do. Obviously, challenging architectural problems are being addressed in the work, but its inaccessibility to the general public is alarming and I can’t help but think it’s the result of students being groomed in schools, immersed in environments where standing out is essential leading to obscure and introvert work.
Luckily, a foreigner and a PowerPoint presentation were on hand to explain to me the error of our ways. This bloke demonstrated that by immersing his students in industry from day one kept a loose rein on students’ ambitions and addressed the fundamental aspect of the big bad commercial world: if you can’t sell it, there’s no point. I’ve heard this time and again, most convincingly from Peter Eisenman last year when his practice was entering a competition. His team knew what kind of designs other practices would produce and therefore aimed to take them out by finding the niche. Eisenman’s winning strategy was a careful balance between business know-how and crafty design, something that’s ignored in architectural schools. And looking at the degree shows I ask: what, in the real world of planning applications and conservationist flak, would actually get built? Thus we arrive at a dilemma. Should students be designing purely to sell? Or should their imaginations be allowed to run wild? Eisenman proves it’s possible for the two to coexist in the real world, but is it really possible in a school? If not, a serious question needs to be asked.
It’s not surprising to hear graduating and year-out students lamenting spending years and much money on an education that’s not ideal. The irresponsibility of schools turning their backs on students knowing that they have nowhere to go is quite shocking and they don’t deserve the largely outrageous fees charged in the UK. Just now at least, the alternative path of working in practice from day one and just sitting the three exams looks much more enticing in terms of providing coveted experience and commercial knowledge, not to mention the absence of student loan repayments. Admittedly, you still have to get the job and there’s some social benefits of studying in a school you might not want to forgo, but you’ll also miss the queue for unemployment benefit at the end.
I think it’s good to touch base with reality and admittedly I feel quite alone just now, and consequently have decided to leave the architecture ‘system,’ temporarily at least. I hope you have grand ideas for the future of our education because recently it has become blindingly obvious that it’s going to be up to us to change it, and soon as it’s only a matter of time before that milk float catches me out crossing the road.
Back to Top|
This year was to be different at Leicester. Having been told that there is a specific set way that students should present their work at the degree show throughout our time at Leicester, it came as a shock to some that 2009 would be unique. It took some time to persuade people, with many still hesitant at the idea, to buy into this very different format.
Coinciding with a new head (Professor David Dernie), the school needed to be shown in a different light, dropping the shackles that had existed for many years. The individual boards of students work were eradicated and a design for a well crafted exhibition was needed. White paint and dull lighting was to be binned, being replaced by a slick re-launch show that would show off the true talent and opportunities that Leicester School of Architecture (LSA) offers.
Steven David Jones
Part 1 De Montfort University 2009
A month before, a cohort of students was chosen to start the ball rolling on the show. The brief was set to make something exciting, new and individual, an opposite to the previous degree shows that existed for many years. There had to be some sort of structure that people could use as an icon for the show, spaces to view work in digital and printed format , along with the general idea that it had to look ‘sexy’.
Leicester School of Architecture Degree Show
© Steven David Jones
The space available was the large room where we had spent all the year working. It was a mess with pieces of models, paper and drawing pins, mixed with the array of furniture that had become ‘home’. It was our calling to transform this space into something that would express the qualities of LSA, at the time seemingly daunting.
Armed with paintbrushes and ladders, we started the transformation.
Black and Grey paint turned the once vast space into somewhere more atmospheric, removing the feeling of institutionalised studio space creating somewhere with a bit more class. After a change of plan, a giant structure was placed as the back bone of the exhibition, suspended at the centre of the room. Its position was prominent with its shape allowing people to walk around and under it, viewing the various models tucked in the niches.
A team of students designed the structure, wing-like in shape, to express the fabrication technologies available to the University and the design software apparent in our studies. Using computer software and laser cutting systems, the structure was formed a little like an Air-Fix kit. Taking a few days to piece together, hang in sections and secure the structure created the focal point of the show.
Creative films of models and work were compiled by a professional, expressing the quality and capability of what LSA offers, along with showing student’s masterpieces uniquely. The two videos were projected on voiles that were suspended from the ceiling, which also created interesting effects as the images passed through the layers.
Digital formats were another key element of the show, with research being made into giving computer models a bit more life. A three dimensional television was borrowed from The Institute of Creative Technologies. Using software and programs, images could be created that would bring the form and depth of the models out. Videos and images played allowing people to stand on the marked points to get the full appreciation of the 3D effect, an element that will soon become apparent in everyday living.
Leicester School of Architecture Degree Show
© Steven David Jones
Form was apparent throughout, with shapes and views being created by the elements of the show. The structure allowed distortion of views around the room, but created detailed windows where people could look at crafted models up close. Plinths and frames allowed people to wonder and admire student work closely, with the projections and the 3D television allowing for a continuous change of imagery, as well as element of surprise to the show.
Having broken the mould of bygone shows, LSA focused on the new and exciting and expressed the qualities and techniques available to its students. The re-launch event was a good experience to be part of, allowing experimentation of different processes and new technologies. The show should act as a promising element for the future of Leicester School of Architecture, giving it some hope to rekindle its presence as an established exciting School.
Back to Top|
As part of this season's ongoing coverage of this year's summer shows, I had a peep at what the architecture schools in London were up to. Bearing in mind the close proximity in which these events are showcased, both in distance to each other and duration, means the fortunate punter can get a real flavour for what's on display at each school every year.
What struck me about this year's Westminster show, in contrast to London Metropolitan and Architectural Association, was the layout. You'd expect a gradual procession from the undergraduate to diploma works. However, Westminster chose to place the latter at the forefront. Only afterwards was it pointed out to me those were the studio arrangements over the academic year, but it just seemed peculiar to read a book from back-to-front.
That aside, the range of projects and individuality of its diploma units shows why it's a school brimming with promise. The most notable entries were from DS 16 (tutors Murray Fraser and Anthony Boulanger) and DS 14 (tutors Susanne Isa, Sacha Leong and Marcus Seifermann).
Gordon O'Connor-Read
Part 1 Bartlett School of Architecture 2008
Each project possessed an evocative set of drawings and proposals that drew you into their world, as well as utilising their models to both explore and explain the conditions of their environment. Whether they dreamt up a Bird Factory in Hackney, or a vast UK Immigration Sea Port of Entry, their in-depth analytical style only enriched the enjoyment without bordering on the convoluted.
It was only a minor pity that the first year display appeared to have been slightly rushed and couldn’t carry on that momentum. With the aid of the P3 space, providing the school with an outlet to the public and commercial facets of the creative industries, expect more to come from their diploma programme.
London Metropolitan followed the more orthodox approach of placing their first year undergraduates at the entrance. The impressive hull of an opening room was bursting with energy that you’d expect from a group of wide-eyed students. All projects were based upon one location, Leigh-on-Sea, with each of their own design programme that would draw you in. All tied together as one package, the collation of drawings and models underlined London Met’s investment at undergraduate level. It gave a spark that didn’t really catch on as a whole.
There were the exceptions of Studio 4, run by Sabine Storp and Paolo Zaide, with their exuberant array of drawings, and Free Unit, whose students were supported by ASD (Architecture and Spatial Design) Projects, an in-house professional infrastructure. Instigated as a consultant ‘embedded’ within London Met back in 2004, the output from ASD Projects was the most fascinating aspect of the show. A series of 10 community spaces in the Navi Mumbai Quarry Settlement, India, demonstrated their intent to thread fabrication techniques and technologies, through all areas of the school. Coupled with practitioners in planning as well as architecture, such as AOC and Fluid, all this is fed back into the student programmes. But the school’s stance, whether deliberate or not, as a mediator between the theoretical and reality at times diluted some of the creativity in the work displayed and felt quite restrained. However, the benefits can be seen in the meticulous observations that invariably produced the most honest response.
At the tail end of a summer schedule, the Architectural Association is there to probe the viewer rather than entertain. Apart from this year’s ‘Swoosh’ pavilion, courtesy of Unit 2, there was little in the way of a visual feast. Not concerned with a final product, the focus was on the theoretical process. An exemplar studio was Unit 9, whose tutors Natasha Sandmeier and Monia De Marchi, instructed their students to formulate a manifesto prior to immersing themselves in design.
This retrenchment from the material obsession associated with the degree show format was largely curtailed here. More often than not, you’re expected to digest a barrage of work at an instant. To sit, read and engage with a fully-fledged manifesto was an overwhelming experience. But then again the AA is well known for its ex-pupils, such as Rem Koolhaas and Peter Cook, to revel in creating their own. Others chose to explore through testing the physical restraints of their ideas. Diploma Unit 11, as co-ordinated by Shin Egashira, cluttered their space with remnants of long sessions in the workshop. They embraced their ‘ugly’ working models and formed a ‘Micro-city’ from the collection. Only possible by engaging with the process, and not just the product, was a common occurrence throughout all the shows.
Back to Top|
Ruhul Abdin
Part 1 Kingston 2009
Daniel Rosbottom, the new head of the school of Architecture at Kingston University has introduced a new method of studying to the school’s students.
It was apparent that something needed to be done and Kingston needed a new voice. This voice came in the form of Daniel Rosbottom. Students did not know what to expect and sure enough there lay plenty of surprises, from the adventurous vertical studio experiment (every architecture student from second to sixth year surveying Metropolitan Croydon) to the freedom of individual studio tutors to set a challenging design task and constantly pushing the limits of the students.
Our ideas emerged through model-making and drawing: we were pushed and encouraged to think in a new way and were supported to take a political stance in the field of architecture. In the end we left satisfied and the degree show capped a great year. Everyone pulled their weight and the talented students of Kingston outdid themselves. Personally, I feel that, with the right guidance from Rosbottom that talent can finally be realised into an architectural ambition, Kingston certainly is beginning to set the pace again.
The variation of projects on display showed the capabilities of studios to hold their own, from the fantastic photographs of the campus to the adventurous lidos in the many car parks of Croydon. The array of free-hand drawings and models on display, from Louis Jobst’s emphatic 1:10 Residential unit to the amazing mapping model of Florence, to the towers for student housing, revealed that every studio had been pushed to a new high and every challenge set was gracefully accepted by the students. The show was undoubtedly a bold finish to a very structured year and if there was ever a lesson to be learnt from this year, it is that Kingston is slowly beginning to boldly go where no other Architecture school is willing to and re-introducing the stance of Modernity to suggest an architecture that is both challenging to the mind and beautiful on the eye.