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