Up
Down

AM: Perhaps it's never. Perhaps the theory and the architecture maybe never meet. But it is this sort of...

 

MT: ...it doesn't mean that you give up...

 

AM: I know. But it's the pursuit of getting to that point and it's how well you manage the duality between the fantasy of the thesis and the architecture - the real.

 

Because after this is all done when you have to present it again or when you have it in a book form, the text isn't there, your discussion isn't there and the ideas are probably written down. What holds true is the image on the page.

 

MT: Things are not always so clear or logical. It comes from a deeper understanding of the material you're dealing with. And that can never be quantified. If it was someone would have done it already. And it might not have been very interesting. You might not have given much to it. Some things are, if that's what we did I don't think we'd want to be architects exactly. I don't think it's so rote.

 

DM: You don't just take that step once which has always been a problem of mine in past years. I had a professor who was able to make me try to design a building and then you go back. You repeat and do it again and do it again.

 

You have all of these ideas, you have plenty of ideas, and you are never going to know which of them is important until you have tried to design a building.

 

I realized I had just played it safe with every move that I was making and it really watered down what had a lot more potential.

 

CR: It didn't have anything to do with intellectualizing it. It had to do with, like Dan said, doing something and then that gives you clues about what you need to do or what is important.

 

My studio professor had to say to me, just do something. When I come back you need to have done something. That was probably the best advice that anyone could have given me at that point because I probably would have sat there and continued in circles but by doing something it...then you make a decision and then you have to figure that out.

 

TH: Every Monday was like an office meeting. Every Monday was a full studio critique. So basically your Monday studio...those hours were gone. You weren't going to get to work during those four hours. Those four hours were about learning about each other's projects and how you could apply those ideas to your own and helping each other out. They were not about personal gain and putting your headphones on and just drawing.

 

We would be like, okay, this week there should be some focus by this time on the building itself and at this week there should be some focus on actual selecting the systems, how they integrate your construction method, your structure. And so along the course there were benchmarks that he had set up. But it was hard to always meet those benchmarks.

< back

< click here to download full PDF TRANSCRIPT

(get Acrobat Reader)

 

< click here if you are a 56K modem user