Degree Project Final Review, Spring 2015

I began this year indulging in what I referred to as our plastic relationship with the world, where and when, and who yields first. Then, the delineation of space, a disputatious affair of line and material – will they ever agree? I am now thinking about architecture as participatory and incomplete, and every expression interrogates the author, the configuration of material, and the imagined future. After this, I see architects as spatial orators: primitive forms in this hand and mystical ingenuity in the other, watching them collide.  
 
This thesis interrogates representation as a generative model in the production of architecture. The work revels in the craft and impulsiveness of an available material palette, historical precedents, and an archive of fragments. The thesis does not intend to explore the capacity of drawing in the creation of form, but the latent, real, and speculative relationships related to inhabiting the indeterminacy of a drawing. Therefore, the work seeks to identity indexical attributes of an architectural proposition that shapes a spatiotemporal reality of incompleteness: an architecture that keeps the possibilities for settlement faint.
 
Simultaneous workings, seeking to construct the simultaneity of space: empirical inhabitation and documentation…The table is an architectural proposal that holds many.
 
I believe this work positions architects as drawing characteristics from storytellers, cultural geographers, acupuncturists, and taxidermists: conspirators with a predilection of augmenting a collection of the petrified past.
The temporal conclusion that I can draw at this moment is found not only in the work, but a list of aphorisms that I have been writing all year. In a way, through describing the impetus and outcome in these statements I have been able to construct a lens at which through to problematize and ask new questions.  
 
[1]
 
How do you excavate a drawing? For instance, we have an embodied knowledge of digging a hole, and inhabiting the hole we’ve dug, but also the pile left behind.
 
[2]
 
I believe architecture to be characters: what does it mean disciplinarily to move away from an architecture that relies on definitions, and now is constructed of identities?
 
[3]
 
Ideas have no typology. As architects, what role does context play in determining the hierarchy of the realities we employ: for example when and where does the reality of the drawing supersede the realities of site, program, and formal efficiency. 
1    Drawing [in] Space
2    Devil’s Slide Observatory, 1
3    Devil’s Slide Observatory, 2-7
4    In Search of a Stable Center
5    Devil’s Slide Observatory, 8
6    Works from Japan
7    37 Aphorisms
8    Retreating Model
9    Digging, Excavating, Piling
10    Six Books from Japan
11    Degree Project Books
12    Early Drawings
13    Relics
14    Constructs, 1, 2, 3
15    Relief Drawing
16    Indexical Construct, 1, 2
17    Indexical Construct, 3,4
18    Indexical Construct, 5
19    Haikus and Tile from Japan
Critics:
 
Silvia Acosta (Advisor), Professor, RISD Architecture
Chelsea Limbird (Advisor), Lecturer, Parsons The New School
Jason Wood, Founder, from [in] form
Amy Kulper, Professor, University of Michigan
Lynette Widder, Professor, Columbia University
Christine Zavesky, Designer, Arquitectonica
Lauren Crahan, Founder, FreeCell Architecture
Cheryl Wolfe, Associate, LAB Architecture Group
Jonathan Knowles, Professor, RISD Architecture
Laura Briggs, Department Head, RISD Architecture
Enrique Martinez (Coordinator) Professor, RISD Architecture
Back to Top