So, finally I have a oppurtunity to post about my project, talk about the point I have come so far. Last week, Tuesday, I presented my project to the jury members. Let me briefly represent my project to you, before explaining the responses of the jury member.
My design aims to empower directionality towards horizon, while enriching the visualise acquired at day time and at night. The watercolor is explaining my strategy briefly. I didn’t want to abandon from one, the different visualizes acquired through the day, there for I am using both to enrich the visual experiences. .
Before detailing the design, as I did my previous posts, I should briefly explain the experiences I acquired in Kapadokya and Salt Lake. Salt Lake was one of the biggest sites I have ever been. It was gigantic and I felt very free. Besides all this, in day time in Salt Lake, horizon was urging us to walk more. There was a mystery there. Mostly, everybody was orienting towards horizon. However, while the sun was setting, the beauty of the mountains were catching our attention. The redness was fascinating. In addition to all, Kapadokya had very interesting space variations. There were both fragmented spaces and blocked spaces which was working individually. Also, in Kapadokya different from Salt Lake, the level difference was very clear. It was more readable. There were lots of different spaces that can be integrated further in the protect. Let’s hop back on the details of the project. To empower the directionality toward horizon, I started placing my spaces from the hill. Because the location of the spaces on the hill were higher in my design, now I was able to experience a wider variety of the vista. This approach helped me to enrich the visually. Relating to the notes taken by my jury body, their response to my basic approach to the given problem was positive.
After presenting the project of mine, the jury members asked me how I decided the distance between the two group of spaces located on the hill. I just couldn’t give the reasons clearly why I did it, but the reason behind separating them is, I don’t want my visitors to be bored with the condition of dense spaces. The distance between the groups are decided how dense that group was. And just imagine yourself, who would want to be in enclosed space for a very long time? You would also want to walk on the land not only in the spaces produced by the designer. One more really important critic about my jury was, how I was going to combine the spaces on the hill and spaces on the lake and how they were going to relate to each other. I’m still working on that, but rather than producing a pit for the road, I am planning to produce a path that goes over the road, therefore there would be no interruption caused by traffic. We couldn’t talk a lot about my spaces, however I am also revising the spaces. I’ll post the images as soon as I finish them.
At the jury, I was very nervous, and I tried to control it. At one point one of my jury members told me to be calm, because I was going well. Also, one of my jury member corrected me and told me that, briefly, I shouldn’t be using “must”, because all I do in my design is my decision and my project is shaped according to my thoughts. They liked my visual presentation. Especially, the watercolor I produced took their attention very much. But I still have to work on the section presentation and plan drawings.
By then I thanked a lot to my jury members and again I want to tell that I appreciate very much. I was aware that my jury was good, but I wasn’t accepting it to be this good. I had very helpful critics about my design and all is shaping my ideas. I feel more relaxed without any doubt. 🙂