In response to our review,
I feel that everyone has made some valid points about the Boston analysis, site
analysis, and overall direction/future of the studio. I think everyone is doing
a great job, but my biggest critique is we all underestimated the importance of
having everyone on the same page, in order to create a cohesive comprehensive
production. As far as the individual producing work, I also feel that the work needs to speak
for itself to limit the confusion levels, and to make it clear to present and
understand. If we're going to continue on the path of Total [Co]llaboration we
need to be on top of our game. Yes we did have a bit of a time crunch, but if
there was better communication among us, we would have recognized the obvious
holes in our presentation. There is no doubt that we have the knowledge regarding
site and context needed to start producing quality designs, but in future, we
need make sure we display that understanding.
I think everybody is willing to say that review went well. I think one of the things that hurt the overall presentation was that at the last minute we decided to present other people's work that we were not necessarily familiar with. Between the scrambling and note-taking to hit the key points, I think it cast a bit of uncertainty in each presenter and I think the critics picked up on this, and may have prematurely pounced. I think that the Boston analysis needs to show how this guided us to a localized area, and then the site analysis can examine the local conditions that will inform decisions we make down the road. I am sad to say that I think the weakest part of our collective presentation was the powerpoint, which I am partially responsible for, and hope to improve in the future. I felt like the other components were put together and meshed well, while the powerpoint was choppy and a little unguided.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that we will have the opportunity to continue working on the collective, and I am even more glad that we were able to get this behind us on Monday.