WEEK 2: VOICE

ç

Precedents and research used in past Studio Fable were a mix of speculative and existing technologies, in which some was scrapped however this was beneficial as it equipped me with knowledge I could incorporate in my current studio, Bathing 2.0. As Fable required group effort, this vastly cut research time and made for more experiments and iterations available. Group-focused projects did allow me to expand different ways of design thinking, helping me to be more versatile and open-minded in approaches to studios. However this semester I would like to challenge myself by going full independent- where there is a choice to avoid ‘group’ tasks in main studio, I would like to see and analyse through this module, how I fare by solely relying on my own ideas without the influence of others.

I think reviewing the past self in former studios was particularly useful in determining ability and personal threshold to work in a group successfully, adopting a mind that allows for a lot of compromise in order to achieve an end product all members could be content with. It was longwinded and somewhat exhausting but the further the compromise, the more efficient or smoothly a project went.

I understand this was not necessarily good for my mental health over many semesters of unintentionally getting into group-focused studios as I began to think of architecture as a factory, and myself as one of the many printer machines at the factory. It was all work, no emotion, a constant auto-pilot drive.

As my final year before heading out to the design industry, I would like to investigate methods and analyses to regain at least a bit of what I had lost at some point- emotion associated with work, to further improve and expand my design processes and concepts associated with it.

From past designs in bachelor’s, I fell into the traps of conformity and social gender normalities in design (eg designing feminine projects for women etc). This definitely has hindered my progress to a degree which I can’t specify what for now, but in coming weeks of this journal, I should be able to. They were stereotypical and this semester I fully intend to engage in the opposite, to address controversy where I can, and instead of having positive designs and products, I would like to deliver shock, either in post-production or distort the standard way of architecture workflow to still achieve an accomplished product.

R E F L E C T I O N

This was the preparation for Week 2: Voice. Although I think I was able to identify what needed improvement and past attributes, accounts etc... These addressed elements of the past, not a future ‘voice’. The tutorial for this week helped identify factors to find a specific ‘voice’ as in what you stand for as a person not just in design. I found this to be helpful in defining what I did not approve of amidst writing this however. There are many aspects of architecture I cannot support that can seem harsh or controversial, such as my personal sight that ‘going green’ and ‘zero waste’ is either misunderstood or completely hypocritical. To build, architecture especially, will always produce some sort of waste as by-products. This is in no way ‘zerowaste’ to me, and chemicals as a by-product also count as waste especially if they are fuelled or carbonated toxins. These cannot be 100% recycled and thus I am unable to support the mindset, although I do appreciate the efforts and enthusiasm of others to better support our environment. ‘Lessening of waste’ is not entirely 0% waste, no? And we cannot build for anything more than a small-scale area out of purely plants that are living and left unprocessed, not in this current generation and times of technology. Architectural design, personally, should be a process of logic otherwise it is very difficult to make its products exist in the real world.

_3 things learned that day

• confirming states of ‘hypocrisy’ • a voice is what you stand for as a person that can affect a design, not just what you design • ultimately i need to analyse more to have more clarification on

‘strengths and weaknesses’

_3 things not discovered that i might have liked to

• how far does this ‘voice’ extend, is it allowed to change? how dynamic is it and does it disappear over time • is a ‘voice’ to be personal or does everybody want a ‘voice’ just so they can be influencers? • would like to expand my knowledge and this could be helped by listening to peers, because i don’t understand how ‘loud’ this voice needs to be? Is it a passion? Does the ‘loudest’ person always win the fight?

_3 things to try out at another time

• thinking more deeply about what other peers are saying (listening not just hearing) • adopt awareness about biasness in research • being more careful about how i present in main projects so ‘stupid questions’ don’t occur for the secon Later on I state and reflect that I support the architectural mindset of building for a dystopia, buildings designed to be resilient against disaster and conflict, whether manmade or natural. This in no way refers to the movement of becoming ‘green’ or going zero-waste.

The tutorial exercise in week 2 has certainly made me feel more confident and determined about pushing my thought processes, rather than re-falling into the trap of compromising my opinions just to conform to the culture and my peers around me. However, future projects must be credible and thoroughly researched in order to support an unpopular opinion.

I believe logic and thorough research imbued in especially the beginning stages of any project will, and must defend this stance.

For future projects and designs, I will bring this phase of process stronger and intend to provide credible information from multiple research points for both myself and clients; to prevent confirmation-biasness from occurring as well. This biasness was a fault in decision making for especially my previous studio, Fable as no matter how much research was done on the feasibility of long-term building in space, it required extensive research done outside of architecture such as the adverse health effects on vulnerable populations if they were to take such a risky migratory move (to outside of this planet and atmosphere).

The intention here is to also prevent doubt in projects and concepts, and shut down the notion of ‘stupid questions get you stupid answers’. If I am able to provide sufficient and adequate information which will require research decisions as well, this will prevent clients from asking things they shouldn’t even need to question in the first place.

Again I will take responsibility from my faults in Fable and adopt this awareness to this module, the current main studio and my other electives to come.

R E F L E C T I O N

Onward to the rest of tutorial, we review several Pritzker Prize Awarded architects’ strengths, disadvantages, aspirations, results and also the traits of Novelty/Utility/Aesthetics/Authenticity. This felt like another condensed crackdown on comparison of ourselves to our peers and that which gives us insight to the architects’ thoughts and processes. From my chosen quick study on Arata Isozaki, I agreed with the point that problems and disasters are what catalyses design process and the necessity for works of resilience and built structural stability like his. It appears to benefit the people and environment as less money and resources are used for maintenance of such rigid fortress-inspired structures.

Together as a group in class, we could understand design is ingrained in the creativity of people, and is only limited in of such. Isozaki focused his thought process on memories of the WW2 bombings in Oita, his hometown. The recollection had an adverse impact on his style, which gave me the impression it was a subtle showcase of his pains from the memories. His style of buildings appear to protect, aim to cage, keep everything inside separate from the outside like underground vs ground.

Although I had come across his works, I didn’t fully engage in research on him until now. I have also felt perhaps I could incorporate my own experiences into studio projects but decided against them due to shame or embarrassment. Being exposed to a unexpectedly similar example and given the opportunity to analyse them does alleviate this fear and I feel it is beneficial to personal design growth.

I was expecting the precedent to be unrelatable and jovial, but Isozaki turned out to be quite the solemn, down-to-earth character. His tendency towards the monochromatic has also encouraged me to reflect on my past designs-- (why should I need to use vibrant colour schemes when I also much prefer the somber monochromatic? I wonder if this is due to my past attempts to conform with my peers’ sense of designing.)

R E F L E C T I O N

Quality designs include part of a response that resolves problems and puzzle forming. It is an infinite process with periodic conceptual shifts where necessary and backtracking to and fro in the process can help with iterating more design variations. I noticed this can also be applied to the same preference to studying not just building precedents as part of answering the question, but also looking at the personal characteristics of the designers themselves.

Also, reviewing peers notes on their analyses of their chosen Pritzker Prize designers gave insight to how thoroughly they take their research and also which points every person chooses to emphasize on/found interesting etc. The diversity here has allowed me to realise, in a roundabout way, that adequate design should cater for an audience you must study about, not simply rely on research or personal preferences. Of course, this was known, but the feeling of realization is always different (ie actually ‘listening’ and not just ‘hearing’).

This module’s reflective process reinforces our own design statements to follow up from and continue to strengthen, in which I am appreciative of this module- Also understanding that movement to a specific objective is associated with inter and intrapersonal shifts that can be obtained from other’s insights.

R E F L E C T I O N

The preparation for Week 3 felt very focused on creative play, routine and solving for ‘adjustments’. This seems similar to the notion of clients giving directions and the designer composes accordingly. On Greg Missingham’s extract of “On Cueing”, I much liked his analogy on the relationship of “games and works of art”. It explores the detached yet connected mental link between a creator and their art work, interpreting it as another dimension of its own. I suppose design does hold that meaning to some extent for me, as it is essentially a reflection of the mind’s recollection, except abstractly put into a building formation.

After this prep exercise and tutorial, I revisited the Lord of the Rings films, considering the atmosphere, frameset and props within the composition. It led me to think design is best experienced where there is the support from a narrative, not merely a ‘concept’ derived from reading regulations and planning textbooks and excerpts. To find the balance between extreme logic and emotion in design, I think from this exercise, it would be beneficial for me to go back to the traditional ways of drawin.

Maybe even try rotoscoping some scenes again, for my current projects and build upon that narrative, so that I can find whatever passion or feeling I once had for architecture as well-- that maybe ‘architecture design’ goes far beyond ‘client needs’ and ‘research research research’? Also, the Drama+Ritual prep was confusing. I didn’t know what a ‘set’ is; I assumed it was just a space holding all activities required together. This was probably too generic of an understanding but I did learn later in the next lecture that sets consists of many factors imbued in an environment to portray human behaviours.

The very bland routine set drawn made me realize also how mundane my life is unfortunately. Most of it is ironically spent in the computer, either for work, or in MMO games which is technically the equivalent of going on a holiday and travel...at the desk. The more ideal situation would be to continue on with this, except I’d prefer working for something else that isn’t architecture.

_3 things learned that day

• set design as a technique to get inspiration and motivation • faster analysis, to be in the same setting as the audience you design for • drawing out the ‘sets’ in sequences of small thumbnails is also efficient

_3 things not discovered that i might have liked to

• can this set sketching be extended to things other than architecture and how can it help out • more specific defining of the topics of Novelty/Aesthetic/Utility/ Authenticity concepts. • how do you find adequate evidence to prove to yourself that it is enough for the self-critique? At what point is it sufficient enough

_3 things to try out at another time

• tiny thumbnal sketching, even of the mundane or anything that comes to mind if suffering from mental blockage • being at the social setting or environment for the users i am designing for • taking out past notes and seeing what ideas i can not only recycle from them, but also take smaller elements, hybridize and use them for future projects