Comments from Experiment 2 - Strengths and Weaknesses.

Hi all.

The performance across the tutorial group was not too bad but there is a need to be more concerted in the addressing the aims of the experiment outlined always in the marking schedule and the brief in the course page.

Whilst almost all students showed competence in learning and applying digital and manual methods of drawings and visualization, there appeared to be some ambiguity in terms of the way in which the labs were articulated.

For most students, the electroliquid aggregation did not develop/transform/change much when put into Crysis environment. Also, most students underplayed the role of the platform and the manner in which the platform is approached and links the two labs in distinctive ways. The element of detail was missing or not pointed out in almost all submission.

There were only few students who showed much adeptness with re-crafting the default/generic landscape in Crysis. Furthermore, the submissions could have been improved overall by undertaking a clearer blog presentation - One needs to think of recomposing their works into story boards or panels rather than use the blog format as free flowing sequential form of uploading.

Keep all this in mind for the next submission.

With thanks,

Anu

Ed

Thorough and systematic design method; cohesiveness between the conceptual (hypotheses) and formal (prisms) and substantive illustrations to back this up is evidenced; rigorous and methodical documentation is also commended.

Dean

This was a near complete submission but it lacked enthusiasm and the responses were perfunctory. The submission could have benefited from a greater sense of formal exploration, and engagement with the aims for this experiment.

Michelle

Complete blog, Strong and sensible investigation of the hypotheses, aggregation and outcome and the ability toe articulate that - Attention to moulding the landform is evidenced.

Bryan

Thorough submission; A good grasp on the three dimensional composition; Attention to land form. However the scheme progresses hypotheses that do not make a lot of sense in terms of activities and therefore their connection to the built form is not always meaningful. The meeting point does not articulate an encounter or sharing; the textures do not read as continuous or discontinuous sets of intensities. Nevertheless, the descriptions show that there is an ambition to connect idea and form even if the hypothesis is unworkable.

Anthony

Strong grasp of the connection between hypotheses and forms; attention to land form and the manner in which this informs the crafting of the forms and their use; the image captures could improve as they are sometimes from strange view points – try to pick one or two aerial, one under the form and the rest at eye level; Good axonometrics.

Hayden W

Strong image captures; Attention to landform and its engagement with the forms; Excellent axonometrics and textures; the electroliquid aggregation is competent but these do not adequately tell us about the labs and the meeting space; Like other submissions, this one does not announce a distinctive arrival to the platform.

David

Textures are competently handled; the final electroliquid aggregation is sensible; However the three electroliquid aggregations and their parallel projections have not been attempted? The amalgamation of prisms is mechanical and their combination is neither dynamic nor tested and explored; the insertion of the 3 d object into Crysis environment is not explored in terms of placement and crafting of the landform.

George

The axonometric explorations could have been stronger in terms of drawing techniques; and the textures could have been better drawn; The three electroliquid aggregations and their parallel projections have been attempted but primitive and incomplete; However, the distinctiveness of the labs, atmospheric quality, and the embedding of the forms into a created landscape is commended., and the image captures are quite effective.

Amy

The submission is well handled and strong progress from Experiment 1 is evidenced; the connection between the finalelectroliquid aggregation and the prismatic combination is lucid; landform could have been reworked to a greater detail as could have been the connection to the built form; The stairs are an interesting element but their derivation as a detail has not been articulated; The nature of the actual labs and the meeting space should have been explored.

Dominik

The electroliquid aggregations are depicted but unsupported by hypotheses; the labs have been considered in relation to their clients but the platform or the third space has not been indicated; attention to landform is evidenced but fairly conventional; detail elements have not been developed

Patrick

Blog composition ought to be considered a form of submission that needs some thought and craft and imagination in handling;Textures needed improvement;However, significant attention has been paid to the crafting of the landscape and the manner in which form sits into it and the way in which the clients approach this structure; The exploration of axonometrics is also competent as are the electroliquid aggregations; The submission could have been dramatically improved by improving image captures and combining them with text either as captions or as annotations

Robert

The textures could be improved; All parts have been attempted; The text in the blog attempts to connect the electroliquid aggregation with the prismatic combination but their development into labs distinctive from one another is not consider and neither is the meeting space or the third space.; Text should find its way into annotation and descriptive captions rather than being left as a paragraph.

Matt

Image captures are okay; But the movement between labs is not demonstrated or explained ; Textures are confusing as some are manually drawn while others are digital and they dont really work as a whole set; The three electroliquid aggregations with the corresponding hypotheses are missing so it is an incomplete submission! The hypothesis driven axonometrics (12) are missing. The image captures are okay but they are all external shots which also reveals that the composition is not inhabited and/or traversed –Ideally you would have shown shots of the labs, the adjacent areas, access to, movement in between labs, and the third space which connects it to the landform – Your composition mostly sits on the landform – A lot more exploration would have strengthened the submission.

Freddie

Competently handled submission and all complete except that the 3 experiments or the electroliquid aggregations did not have reworked hypotheses; and the textures are completely missing the mark; Apart from that the submission shows attention to arrival and the landform as it connects or disconnects from the prismatic composition; the only shortcoming is that most of this is form based and external and the submission could have been strengthened by including more eye level shots (gaming level) to allow the viewer to engage with what it would feel like to move around this structure.

Daniel

Need more skill in handling textures and building competence in hand drawing; Image captures are fine and the submission begins to note the distinctiveness of one lab from the other and the movement between but without pointing out which lab belongs to whom and how these clients arrive to their labs; More skill and effort needed generally; the blog is awkwardly composed – this could win or lose marks for you; the three electroliquid aggregations complemented by reworked hypotheses is missing. Please check marking schedule next time.

Alyse

The textures are an interesting set; Concerted effort into crafting a land form and atmosphere to connect with the prismatic composition; Overall a really well handled, explored, documented submission throughout. Can be improved through clearer annotation and making panels/boards for each part of the submission rather than leaving it a series of continuous blogs, and by focussing on interior shots and shots at different times of the day.

James

Overall okay submission; but the image captures or the descriptions/captions do not enter into a discussion about the form of the two labs and how the two clients meet each other and where, and how this connection to the landform is significant or meaningful; Textures are okay but maybe a bit sterile – Try to combine the tactility of hand drawing with computer aided drawing

Hayden C

The textures don’t really hit the mark in terms of competence in drawing; the 3 electroliquid aggregations as hypotheses are not discernible even though they are explored as axonometrics ( I think); the remaining twelve (6X2) axonometrics do not even have hypotheses associated with them; the forms do not indicate the labs or the meeting point or even who they belong to; The hand drawn axonometrics are okay but they are not overly competent in terms of a deliberate strategy for adding/subtracting/colliding rectangles; The Crysis work is not bad though; The whole submission could have benefited from engagement with the studio process and by methodically following the aims of Exp 2 (as outlined in course documents).

Frank

Beautiful textures; Well presented; All explorations well documented and explained; Final scheme is well explored in terms of the form of the labs, how they connect to each other and the landscape, and there is a strong sense of interiority as well as exteriority as well as mass; Crysis work is competent and makes the scheme very legible.