Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Final Critique: Third Years

I visited the third years final critique, their presentation was very interesting. When i first arrived monday morning, it looked as though they had created a whole different hallway to display their work. This sectioning tool made the separation between the two third year groups more distinct. 
In the group i was assigned, they were presenting two different projects to be critiqued. The first was the child and adolescent unit of the Central Regional Hospital, out of the twelve or so students my two favorite presentations were Gonzalez and Preston. Gonzalez's idea of an ecosphere was well represented throughout his whole project. I enjoyed how he represented all the elements (earth, wind, water) and incorporated them into one central idea. Preston's "inside out" idea was intriguing because it wasn't like anyone else's theme. Both designers presented well over all and had by my standards well represented presentations, not only were their displays easy to read and follow but we eye coughing but not to busy. It was also interesting to hear that the students had also presented their designs to the hospital and some aspects of some of the students designs were to be used in the remodel. 
The second project was a team effort, groups of two or three designers teamed up to redesign 106 W. Parrish St. of downtown Durham. This building was originally a dilapidated old building which the students visited and were assed to design a two part piece that incorporated a wine bar and resident establishment. This project was obviously more extensive a project for the quality of work was much higher. Although I enjoyed the displays of all of the designs much more than the other project, there were two designers how stood out beyond the rest. Stiles and Preston, "The Lantern" and Dean, Loloci and Smith, "The Horn". The Horn design was far more engaging to the viewers and not only did the designers add more to the presentation but worked more fluidly while presenting and had more of a story to tell rather than reading a project statement. 
One major problem over all was that each of the designers rushed through the critique and didn't leave much room for questions to be asked, most presented generically and had dull presentations. I think this could have been fixed if their presentations, speaking wise, was more engaging and had more of a story like feel. All-in-all I enjoyed this critique and it was interesting to sit in on something as different as the third year's presentations. 

No comments:

Post a Comment