As an architecture student, presentation is very important for us. While presenting our ideas to other people whether they are architect or other people we should be very impressive and clear. So, in order to do this, we are making posters or we are using other things beside our constructs for our presentation. We are doing this because sometimes these posters or other visual things can help us to explain our ideas more.
In our Arch111 course we are assigned to make a poster for our construct. It was our final assignment. For poster, we drew orthographic sets , a section and an axonometric drawing of our construct. We arranged them what we want.
While making my poster, I tried to keep it simple. There is one reason for this aim which is I don’t want to lose my control on the poster. If I used more colors or such things, I thought I would lose the ability to control it. And also I only use my construct photos colorful so that they can attract people. Also, I don’t want to make poster as a combination of drawings (because we have lots of drawings) I preferred to divided my poster pieces and arrange them in an aim which is about presentation. I thought, how would I present my construct without seeing it as a 3D. That’s why I designed my poster in this way.
I have couple of mistakes that I notice after the submission. One of them is the spelling of ‘orthographic.’ and the other one is the place of the ‘dense and sparse units’ writing. I think I missed that part while designing the poster because I was mostly thinking about the position of the photos and drawings.
Anyway, it was the first poster for something that we should present so, I will be more careful for next ones.
For each semester, architecture students are making a project for jury. As an architecture students, we work on that project hall year and after that we present it to the jury. But this semester, the jury was our peers. It was not counting as a final jury whereas it was an assignment which has a big grade for us. Now, let me criticize this peer evaluation as a student.
To present our work to our peers was really excited experience. We were listening their project, their aim, their strategy, in short their all ideas and their works for their projects. We tried to understand what they want to do and whether they achieve their aims or not. After we listened them we can ask questions about the works and if they have some misunderstanding or so on, they can explain themselves in the question time.
Everything was alright but… There is a point which I don’t like: giving grades to our peers. I don’t like it because everyone has some ideas about criticizing and we can give different notes it is not a big deal but also we are evaluated but our instructors about what we give to other students. The main point was they can’t know how we evaluate them what was our criteria etc. So I am not sure whether it was a good idea or not.
On the other hand, it was very useful because we can explain ourselves very well and because the jury was our peers we can easily understand each other. So, it was very excited.
These are the photo’s of my construct and axonometric drawing of it.
And this is the diagram of my project. You can see my strategy here. I have 2 parts one of them is sparse and the other one is dense. I have a transition units which has the same elements with both part of the construct.
As you can see the previous posts, we firstly made a 3D loop, we revise it over and over again and after that we intervened the someone’s construct in order to understand the operations. After all of these process our instructors want us to zoom in our own construct and use it as a 3D diagram. At the beginning I couldn’t understand how it will help us or why we were doing this etc. but after the lesson I understood. By using this 3D diagram we were expected to produce our construct for pre-jury.
For pre-jury, I produced a construct which has 2 parts. One of them is condensed part and the other one is dispersed part. And I wanted to made dispersed part covers the condensed part so that it can look like isolated. In order to achieve this aim I try to use sticks as a gap but as I understood from jury’s discussion I couldn’t use the sticks properly. Because sticks is not just for the stability of construct they have a lot of properties so I should explore those properties. Also it was smaller than the expected.
These are the photos of my construct.
This is the diagram of my construct. I think it is representing my idea in a good way.
This is the ortographic drawing of my construct but I couldn’t draw it very well.
After we made our loop, some of them are chosen by our instructors for pool that we use for intervening. We applied some operations according to our words mine was fragmented which means broken into separate parts. I chose one part of the construct which looks like more integrated and in order to make this part fragmented I decided to break primary relations and make them secondary relations I didn’t change the construct too much so that we could see the differences. Some of my friends who have the same word with me try to work on units and elements in order to achieve fragmentation but at the and we made the construct fragmented.
This is the main construct which I worked on it. (Dilan Nadir’s construct) Blue area is intervening area.
This is the construct that I intervened.
I was mentioned before we assigned to build up a loop and this one below is the revision version of my constract.
Also, for this assignment we learned how to make a flowchart. Flowchart is something that we can learn how we ca make an object. Bilge Hoca once said that ”it is like ikea catalog.” You can see the flowchart of my construct which is not very clear. I tried to draw some part also because I thougth it can be clear if I made it like that.
Actually for this assignment we also assigned to build up a loop with the help of the same flowchart by using lineer elements and it is below.
At the beginning of the session we assigns to build up a loop. We firstly questioned what is a loop after that we started. It was pretty interesting because we had to use a number of elements which have some certain dimensions (4,3 cm * 2,9 cm, 37 piece of elements) and it was also hard because we think that we should combine the beginning and end of the construct so that it can be a loop. I built up my construct with the same operations so that it easily combined. But the problem is that I couldn’t discover anything because all I used was the same. That’s why our instructors gave us a time to discover what will happen if some properties change.
You can see my construct is a loop but all elements have the same relations with the others.
In our 101 course we learned what a grid is and we assigned to produce polyrhythmic grids. This process was very important because for further assignments we should use that polyrhythmic grids.
For this assignment we used a complex and a simle grid that we produce before and our 1.3 assignment. We should explore the grid’s property very well and reproduce our 1.3 assignment. I have figure-ground problem in my 1.3 assignment so in order to solve it I used a lot of elements. And also, I notice that both my simple and complex grids have rectangles that are overlapping that’s why I wanted to use this property for both of them. I tried to make 3 unit because my previous assignment was like that. In some points, some elements lost their identity I think I could solve this problem but I couldn’t notice before the submission.
(Revise of ass.1.3 with complex polyrhythmic grid)
(Revise of ass.1.3 with simple polyrhytmic grid)
Polyrhythm: A combination of two or more rhythm and create a new rhythm. In general it is used for music.
Grid: A pattern or structure that is made from lines.
(Example of a grid)