About to fold

Friday, 20th August, 2010.

While the platform had found a rather satisfying resolution playing out the tension between common elements and ennobling surfaces, the suspended envelope proved to be much less ‘accessible’ to our design effort. Rather than thinking and sketching, it was the active engagement of our hands creating various folding patters that opened up a fresh approach.

We aim to condense structure and surface into the same element. Initially envisioned as being made from felt as well with the support of a plywood frame, folded industrial-grade cardboard suspended from a continuous rail now seems another viable option. Attaching the monitor for screening the documentary to the top rail will rely on custom-made ‘suspenders.’

The Borrowed Platform

Thursday, 19th August, 2010.

Our original idea of transforming the platform's structure into benches after the exhibition is over was rejected in favour of a different approach to sustainability. The platform will simply be a borrowed instillation – a stack of standard wooden pallets strapped together and covered in a soft felt.

The pallet dutifully fulfils our needs both structurally and in its dimensions. An arrangement of 4 x 5 pallets gradually layers up to lift us out of the space and form steps of a gentle gradient. After the exhibition is finished they will be returned to the where they came from – a local timber recycling centre who have kindly agreed to provide us with the pallets for the show's duration.

The platform does not conceal the logic behind its construction, but rather embraces it. The sides of the pallets remains visible along with polypropylene straps and seals, weaving through the pallets and stitching the overall piece together. Neatly clamped in place, they provide an insight into the process of how the individual units are connected.

Looking up

Wednesday, 18th August, 2010.

Closely scrutinising our initial assumptions about the position of the HD monitor prompted us to revise measurements and positioning of the suspended screen. Equally taking optimum viewing distance and angle into account as well as views into the domed space, the screen sits lower at the monitor end for controlled viewing and lifts at the opposite end to allow for sufficient clearance when stepping up unto the platform.

Suspending the screen above the platform allows the exhibition space to be experienced as a continuous whole without fragmenting it further. Once ‘inside,’ the surrounding exhibition is veiled from view, allowing the viewers’ concentration to focus on the documentary screened.

Where we are at

Tuesday, 17th August, 2010.

Yesterday’s presentation, with one week to go, provided not only some crucial input but also insight into the turbulences any design process is likely to encounter. Faced with a limiting restriction, one’s own conceptual stance has to become clearer once again – we have to show what kind of architects we want to be.

As a result, the recent discussion confirmed the basic propositions of our design. Responding to the curators’ intentions, to the given exhibition space and certain expectations about the documentary to be shown we focus on notions of Slowness, Threshold and Movement and strive to create a setting that allows to ‘see the space differently.’ We propose to create a raised platform (approx. 6 by 3.5 metres) within the Church Gallery and to hang a four-sided screen enveloping the space above the platform, both combining to create a ‘space within a space’ without restrictive containment. Thus controlling light, view and sound the documentary will be shown inside the suspended screen. This installation is positioned in the gallery space vis-à-vis the entrance/exit to conclude a tour of the exhibition, defining distinct exhibition areas either side of it whilst overstepping some of the divides that otherwise break the church space into separate entities.

During the discussion the use of a high-definition monitor or a projector to show the film was called into question. Our proposal was dimensioned for optimum viewing on a monitor, and unless indicated otherwise, we will pursue this further. We have contacted the filmmaker Daniel Keane for his view on related issues. Likewise, the modesty of viewing a film versus the grand gesture of suspending the four-sided screen above a platform was questioned. While we believe the setting provides for more than just viewing the film and responds to the gallery space, we can sensibly respond to these concerns in our proposal. Upon exploring our thoughts on sustainability we will have to scrutinise further the idea of transforming parts, pieces and materials used in our structure to serve subsequent purposes, to develop a robust proposal for ‘up-cycling’ or investigate alternative ideas.

As another result of the last client meeting it was made clear that additional funding beyond the limited budget of the exhibition project is not available; the actual costing of our proposal and the idea of sponsorship became imminently relevant. Faced with the possibility of pairing down our current proposal so that it can be cheaply realised, we prefer to engage our design intelligence to propose a convincing way to construct and ultimately realise our design. While the hope of seeing our proposal realised has driven many of our considerations, we are convinced that a design that is intelligent and plausible as well as poetic and elegant may prove to be more seductive and enticing when looking for extra funding than a paired-down cost-saver. Or, as it has been put more frankly, “It would be a pity if it wasn’t built, but it would be more of a pity if it was crap.”