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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment