#arch school

I recently attended lectures by two candidates for professorship at the new M. Arch program starting at my university.

The first was a highly acclaimed PhD candidate from Harvard GSD, who had gotten his M. Arch at Harvard and his B.Arch at Rice, had been awarded an extravagant array of architectural prizes, had worked for Renzo Piano, and now specialized in architectural history and theory.

The second had gone to USF for a degree in philosophy before graduating from UF with a M. Arch. Since then, he had worked in industry.

The first identified the key tenets of architecture as generalism, synthesis, and complexity- all descriptors with which I strongly agree. He discussed how architecture has to juxtapose domains that are not always compatible: for example the legal and the aesthetic. He highlighted his interest in architecture as conceptual response to the social, cultural, technical, and political forces of the day.

He structured his presentation into three sections: a sample of his work in practice, a sample of his work in academia, and a sample of his experience in teaching. The latter was most interesting to me as a prospective student. Having recently become more curious about architectural academia, his description of experimental work also helped me conceptualize some possibilities in the field.

The second showed examples of practical work and competition entries. The latter was clearly used as a tool to illuminate his thought process during design. The former was a showcase of the development of his ideas over time. A topic he emphasized was the play between the analog and the digital in modern architecture. He discussed iterations of his projects between sketches, ceramic models, and computerized walk-throughs.

I'm very glad I got to see both of these presentations, because their combination gave me a good deal of perspective. The first candidate was certainly more qualified and lauded. Having him on the faculty could be a strong asset, as he could bring in grants with his reputation and research.

That said, I jived more with the speaking style of the second candidate. He was cheery and engaging, and seemed more approachable. There was an eagerness about his speaking style and the range of projects he described (and his suggestions for our program) that was less evident in the first candidate.

it’s currently 4:57 am

I had to deliver my final project (the equivalent of my design exam) today until 1pm- not that it matters, unless math is a myth and grades don’t matter, I’m definitely going to fail, this isn’t me being pessimistic, I’m just facing the facts.

The good news: the time was moved and now I have until 5pm

The bad news: among the million things I had to deliver there was a scale model that I wasn’t going to have the time to do, so I enlisted the help of my well-intentioned sister who... apparently can’t handle a ruler and a cutter that well?

The status: My mom’s staring at the scale model, sighing every few seconds, thinking of a way to make it look not awful

Old Sketchbook: A Break a Cube

At the very first year of my study in architecture school, second half spent negotiating three dimensional composition and understanding of 3D forms.

On process we got a very interesting project: ‘To Break a Cube’; how we interpret this platonic solid (a 9x9x9 inch3), in terms of breaking it; media or material were free to think. The output among our classmates were interesting and diverse:…