Tuesday, June 1, 2010

General Feedback for EXP1+2 that you should consider for EXP3

General Feedback for EXP1+2 that you should consider for EXP3

Architecture should be thoughtful and thought-out. This includes considering the relationships between architecture and landscape, client spaces and clients, architecture and elevators, architecture and structure.

Attentiveness to clean and neat linework, varying lineweights to produce and hierarchy of elements, accuracy and precision, holistic presentation (how do they read as a set?).

Consider the way you capture your architecture, how it is cropped/framed, how you present your images, the camera angle and the inclusion of foreground+midground+background.

Quotes/News articles:
Make sure you include all correct referencing.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Experiment 2 Feedback

Experiment 2 Feedback

The intention of publishing the feedback below is so that all students can benefit by understanding the strengths and weakness’ of a range of projects. Please take the time to review other students work with these comments in mind. If you have any questions or would like any further clarification don’t hesitate to ask me during the studio session.

Ashley Marie Wells
Strength: Clean presentation, clear reasoning and conceptual understanding, thoughtful use of tones as opposed to colours.
Weakness: Both sets of axonometrics and textures, although exploratory, can improve with careful consideration of linework.

Benny Shuo Zheng
Strength: Use of landscape as a sundial, mature and controlled proportioning of volumes and voids, clear identification of client spaces.
Weakness: Axos and textures consist of average experimentation and careless linework and hatching.

Chenghao (Roger) Tang
Strength: Amazing textures excel in linework, hatching experimentation, neatness, order and hierarchy.
Weakness: Central space inaccessible from one side, exceeded 9 prism limit.

Demas Rusli
Strength: Considerate proportioning and assemblage of prisms; equal consideration of ramp/cave, tilted siting and orientation towards river delta.
Weakness: Although there is evidence of experimentation with hatching styles, further care can be taken to ensure precision of linework in the axos and textures.

Dong-Hyuk (Alan) Kim
Strength: The experimental nature of drawings, especially the textures, which contain neat and careful linework.
Weakness: Relationship between architecture and landscape is not apparent (unable to explore environment in Crysis in order to confirm); the building’s position seems random.

Hei Cheng Carol (Alexandra) Ong
Strength: Thoughtful experimentation with spatial relationships in axos. Landform relationship to client (although a bit literal as a metaphor). Strategic siting of architecture and consideration of its relationship to both land and water.
Weakness: Simplistic architecture which uses transparency carelessly rather than strategically.

Millicent Lakos
Strength: Conceptual rigour behind axos. Considerate ordering system and careful linework of textures. The water window is the highlight of your architecture.
Weakness: The development of the landform does not match the care and consideration given to the axonometrics nor the architecture.

Nasuha Abd Salam
Strength: Experimental hatching of axos and textures create vibrant and engaging drawings.
Weakness: Lack of experimentation with spatial arrangement and composition.

Rachael McCallum
Strength: Outstanding textures; consisting of careful linework, hierarchy of line weights, hatching experimentation and clear ordering system.
Weakness: Extent of landform manipulation, although related to the architecture, is minimal in scope.

Rosemarie Still
Strength: Cohesive architecture that considers the assembly of materials/textures, space/void and proportion, spatial relationship and landform, lighting/furniture and programmatic use.
Weakness: Drawings, although already at a high level, could experiment with spatial dimensions and different proportional systems.

Sarah Cao
Strength: Excellent hatching and linework in axos, considerate and careful assemblage of volumes/voids in architecture.
Weakness: Use of light overpowers, rather than enhances the architecture and its relationship to landform

Shamma Hasan
Strength: Cohesive architecture its relationship to landform. Clearly considers the human proportion to make the architecture inhabitable.
Weakness: Although neatly presented, the drawings lack careful linework and experimental hatching.

Tao (Keith) Xue
Strength: Clear consideration of clients and the way in which they may use the architecture, including a marine life pool.
Weakness: Minimal manipulation of landform, which fails to establish a considered architectural relationship to landscape.

Tayon Rahman
Strength: Experimentation with lights serves to identify different spaces.
Weakness: Building is sited without consideration of surroundings, orientation and manipulation of landform. Lacks articulation of materials and textures.

Uzair Shaikh
Strength: Drawings, both axos and textures, experiment with hatching and linework.
Weakness: Simplistic architectural resolution with little consideration of materials and landform.

Veronica Ho
Strength: Beautiful axos; careful and considerate linework, experimental in spatial arrangement as well as hatching style.
Weakness: The architecture and landform together have not been thought-out as much when compared to the architecture and landform individually.

Xinyun (Alex) Cheng
Strength: Conceptual rigour, cohesive architecture, consideration of materials, proportion and transparency.
Weakness: Exceeding the strict 9 prism limit.

Yaqi Guo
Strength: Clear evidence of spatial experimentation shown in axos.
Weakness: Unable to verify ramp accessibility because Crysis files have not been uploaded. Small images to capture architecture do not do scheme justice.

Yi Lin
Strength: Careful linework and experimentation of hatching in textures. Bold positioning of architecture to define an exciting relationship with landscape.
Weakness: Access between volumes is ambiguous, as is access to lower level.

Zhiyou (Amie) Fan
Strength: Images capture relationship between architecture and landscape. Beautiful axonometrics; hatching, linework, line weights all considerate and careful.
Weakness: The architecture’s immediate relationship to adjacent landform seems less considered than the wider landscape.

Watch Sliding Doors in Educational  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Experiment 1 Feedback

Experiment 1 Feedback

The intention of publishing the feedback below is so that all students can benefit by understanding the strengths and weakness’ of a range of projects. Please take the time to review other students work with these comments in mind. If you have any questions or would like any further clarification don’t hesitate to ask me during the studio session.

Ashley Marie Wells
Strength: Thorough documentation of design considerations from conception to final proposal.
Weakness: Final design did not entirely resolve complex forms and architectural elements.

Benny Shuo Zheng
Strength: The scheme shows an endeavour to maintain consistency between hand-drawn section and 3D architectural model.
Weakness: Did not utilise the section(s) in the animation in order to show important design features, such as the roof and stairs, and their relationship with the rest of the architecture. Uses of textures in 3D model do not enhance or emphasise aspects of the design.

Chenghao (Roger) Tang
Strength: Early progress of exterior architectural form derived from sketched section.
Weakness: Lack of high detail in the resolution between stairs+architecture, interior+exterior, materials+form.

Demas Rusli
Strength: Final combination of three sections and its development into a cohesive architecture that considers interior and exterior formal relationships.
Weakness: Sketched sections and textures lack consideration and care, especially when compared to model.

Dong-Hyuk (Alan) Kim
Strength: Richness and variety in the custom textures which explore different techniques and patterns.
Weakness: Unresolved model makes it difficult to distinguish draft models from final developed model.

Hei Cheng Carol (Alexandra) Ong
Strength: Final sketches, textures and architecture are all highly developed compared to the drafts.
Weakness: Simplistic stair design that feels isolated from the rest of the architecture.

Millicent Lakos
Strength: Cohesiveness of architecture and its juxtaposition to the stairs. Evidence of experimentation in the sketches.
Weakness: Rushed textures and sections seem to lack evidence of care; should consider drawing a lower quantity to a higher quality.

Nasuha Abd Salam
Strength: Persistence throughout whole design process to develop sketched section into 3D model whilst maintaining key aspects.
Weakness: Less experimentation in the production of custom textures compared to sketched sections. Also low quality scans/photographs of some sketches.

Rachael McCallum
Strength: Presentation of sections and textures has been considered. Attempt at a difficult and risky scheme, whilst endeavouring to resolve spatial relationship between stairs, architecture, entrance and studios.
Weakness: More care and consideration required in the sketched sections and textures.

Rosemarie Still
Strength: The precision and care put into both sections and textures to create delicate yet vibrant drawings.
Weakness: Simplistic external form of architecture does not seem cohesive with initial concept drawing nor stair designs. Addition of some complexity could give building orientation, selective (rather than generic) views and a spectrum of privacy/publicity.

Sarah Cao
Strength: Collection of sections demonstrates drawing experimentation and spatial exploration.
Weakness: The selected section seems to be a “safe” choice, whilst the skills demonstrated by the student evidently show they are capable of taking upon a “riskier” challenge. Did not capitalise on the use of the “section” to reveal significant aspects of the scheme in the animation.

Shamma Hasan
Strength: The final stair design and relationship to the interior space.
Weakness: Sketched sections could be improved greatly by a steadier and more considerate drawing technique that uses finer line work.

Tao (Keith) Xue
Strength: Good use of section cuts in the animation that communicates the multi-level connection between stairs clearly.
Weakness: Inconsistency between a highly developed and articulated staircase and a simplistic one which lacks thoughtfulness.

Tayon Rahman
Strength: The submitted textures show evidence of experimentation and the intent to create a variety of patterns.
Weakness: Poor quality scans of images, textures and sections. Did not submit animations of SketchUp model.

Uzair Shaikh
Strength: Sensible and controlled arrangement of spaces that suggests a very intentional spatial relationship between each artists’ studio and gallery.
Weakness: Animations do not highlight the features of the architecture; their composition seems to lack control.

Veronica Ho
Strength: Clever arrangement of spaces to create a public point of interest at the entrance that harbours movement in six directions of space. Use of sectional animation capitalises by showing the most predominant aspects of the design.
Weakness: Sketches and textures would benefit from a more considerate graphic presentation.

Xinyun (Alex) Cheng
Strength: Cohesive architecture that pays particularly attention to openings and resolves the junctions between opposing geometric forms. Sections and textures are drawn with care and consideration.
Weakness: Poor quality scans/photos of both sections and textures.

Yaqi Guo
Strength: Below ground staircase flows smoothly from above ground space. Early signs of a consideration to capture architecture dynamically using strategic points of view.
Weakness: Lack of understanding of the section and its use to describe space in architecture.

Yi Lin
Strength: Precision and care evident in sketched sections. Gallery stairs are distinctly prominent and addresses the entry.
Weakness: Small scans of textures. Resolution of the roof structure and its relationship to the rest of the architecture seems only partially resolved.

Zhiyou (Amie) Fan
Strength: The architecture as a whole is unified and shows evidence of interior and exterior consideration. Sections and textures are detailed and demonstrate thoughtfulness.
Weakness: The stair designs, although modestly allowing the architectural form to flourish, do not seem to contain equal levels of consideration.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

File hosting on MediaFire

MediaFire - Free File Hosting Made Simple
MediaFire - Free File Hosting Made Simple





Thursday, March 11, 2010

Examples of sections drawn by architects

Carlo Scarpa is an architect whose drawing, although rough and sketchy, convey detailed information about his architecture. You can check out more of his drawings here:


Also worth checking out, are sections/plans by Donovan Hill.
They are based in Qld and these were taken off the UQ website:


Monday, March 8, 2010

Richard Goodwin Talk at COFA tonight...

Take a look at Fruzi's blog here:


And you will see the details for a talk by Prof Goodwin @ COFA tonight at 6pm.

Oh and by the way...its free.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Artist Works


Ricky Swallow, Tusk, 2007
http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/rickyswallow/ [accessed: 4 Mar 2010]

n: agreement
v: unite
a: skeletal


Patricia Piccinini, The Stags, 2009
http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/31/Patricia_Piccinini/1202/42827/ [accessed: 5 Mar 2010]

n: reflection
v: animate
a: lazy


Richard Goodwin, The Wing House, 2007
http://www.richard-goodwin.com/public_html/gallery/gallery/03_Architecture%20Parasite/01_Dempster%20House/slides/The-winged-house_05.html [accessed: 5 Mar 2010]

n: span
v: soar
a: elongated