In no particular order....
Chinatsu
Key strength of the scheme:
Nicely detailed landscape, well lit, beautifully composed and captivating images. You have used the hypotheses to inform the design of your assemblage, and have provided images that show it from afar and from eye-height in order to convey the full experience. You have also thought creatively about intersecting solid and void blocks and have produced a submission which is both communicative as a massing model and buildable.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
You could have thought about using detail elements to enhance this scheme further. Please start working towards your final submission earlier so we can discuss it and eliminate misunderstandings.
Fariza
Key strength of the scheme:
The composition of blocks and location of labs are well explained, and the landform is customised to fit the structure. You have identified the key part of this Experiment – the massing model's existence in the landscape - and have made a good attempt at a harmonious solution. Good images and thorough reasoning.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The scheme's weakness is in the details – the model looks uniformly textured and with the amount of text and thought in your submission, your Electroliquid Aggregation is very simplistic. You could have used detail elements to enhance this scheme.
Tyler
Key strength of the scheme:
A very good selection of images to show different views of your scheme. Good use of textures and improvement in your hand drawings.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
If your ideas are based on 'imbalance' and 'torturous projections' this could have been more dramatically illustrated in an imbalanced and projecting composition.
There is no Electroliquid Aggregation and the meeting place has not received any significant thought.
Josh J
Key strength of the scheme:
Interesting carving of the landscape. Well-executed and intricate axonometrics.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
While you have attempted to make a distinctive landscape, the combination of blocks could have been better fitted to the 'double' island you have created – they sit on the mudbank a little awkwardly. The floating 'meeting place' that you have designed doesn't relate formally to the rest of your scheme.
Both hypotheses you have chosen - the numbers in dreams and equal and opposite reaction – could have been greatly enhanced by detail elements, but you have not taken advantage of this aspect of the project.
Jock
Key strength of the scheme:
The environment and the massing model within it are delicately detailed and resolved. You have embraced the detail elements and have created a robust submission that answers every question in the brief, with the forms of the labs firmly connected to the scientists' hypotheses.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The scheme is still restrained by realism – it fits the scale and proportions of a conventional house, and the applied textures mimic the scale and appearance of conventional building materials. While this is not necessarily a fault, there was scope to be more inventive with these aspects of the assignment. The meeting place could also have been more adventurous than the logical midpoint of the composition.
Josh Y
Key strength of the scheme:
You have made some attempts to embed the assemblage of blocks in the environment through manipulating the landform and vegetation. Also, most of your views of the model are from eye-height. These things make the scheme more believable as an inhabited structure.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
It would have been useful to have an image from further away, to see the overall composition / intersection of blocks.There is insufficient explanatory text and no Electroliquid Aggregation. Almost none of your model is textured with your custom textures. Your hand drawings need improvement.
Brian
Key strength of the scheme:
Your ideas about languages and connection are good and well explained. You have chosen your images well to show your scheme from all angles, and the way the model surrounds a central meeting space in a garden is a sensitive touch.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The composition looks like a fairly conventional multi-storey building. You could have thought of ways to use the detail elements to convey multilingualism and communication. The rest of the environment on the island could have been developed further.
Ara
Key strength of the scheme:
The sketch axonometrics are diverse and interesting, and your draft Crysis composition of blocks showed promise.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The axo in your draft Crysis model would have been a better one to develop than the planar one in your final submission. You could have explored the possibilities of intersecting the blocks in more interesting ways and you have not taken advantage of the 'detail element' component. You have made a good attempt at carving the landscape but this could have been developed much more.
Natalie
Key strength of the scheme:
The textures are excellent. It can be seen from your draft Crysis model that you have tried to experiment with the landscape.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Because you have upoladed only two of the five final images, you have an incomplete submission in the most important category of this project. There is no Electroliquid Aggregation and no information about how your scheme relates to either white light or dreaming. “Sketch Axonometrics” should not be printouts from SketchUp that you have traced over.
Jennifer
Key strength of the scheme:
The general execution and texturing of the project is good, and you have thought about the location of the meeting place.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The model is inserted into the landscape without real thought to customising either the landscape of the model to provide an interesting interface. The text is a little confusing and it's difficult to see how the comments relate to the scheme.
Sunhwa
Key strength of the scheme:
Evocative final images and well-composed assemblage of blocks suggesting balance, weight and counter-weight.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
You have not been clear about whose these labs are and the reasons for your design decisions. There is no assigned meeting place and no way for the client at the end of the 'jetty' to get to and from the landform. It is hard to tell if the project fits the hypotheses as there is no Electroliquid Aggregation. You need to spell these things out – it should not be difficult for me to understand what you're trying to achieve.
Uma
Key strength of the scheme:
This is an interesting take on the Experiment brief. The textures work well with the elements. It is unclear how you arrived at the Electroliquid Aggregation from your two hypotheses, but your composition of blocks illustrates it well.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
You have not assigned a lab to each scientist and have used too many blocks (if each red cube is to be counted as one). Consider some variety with lighting.
Patti
Key strength of the scheme:
Good choice of images to show your model in the landscape and well-considered views from the labs. You have made a good attempt to use lights, detail elements, textures and sculpted landform to enhance your project.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
There is insufficient text and no Electroliquid Aggregation to sum up the full idea. The meeting place should have been somewhere in the landscape. The scheme is proportioned like a conventional multi-storey house, so loses the abstractness of a massing model.
Jessica D
Key strength of the scheme:
There are some good arguments for the design of this scheme, and a good mix of distance views and closeups. The presentation of your process work has improved.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
The composition of blocks is very simplistic and there is little manipulation of the landform.
Jessica L
Key strength of the scheme:
You have made an interesting and distinctive environment with good texturing and lighting.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
There has been no attempt to fit the model to the landscape (or vice versa), and no explanation for the location of the labs and why they are appropriate for the clients you have chosen. The hand drawings need improvement.
Jeffrey
Key strength of the scheme:
Your placement of the blocks on the island is highly considered and well composed. You have nicely allocated textures on the model and an interesting feature block that is dark in the daytime and illuminated at night. The landform and the assembly of blocks are complementary and take on equal emphasis in your scheme. You have also addressed circulation on the island.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
It is a real shame that you have not done all parts of this Experiment to the same standard. There is insufficient explanation and no Electroliquid Aggregation. Your textures should have been done with much more care. Be careful about uploading too many images as too much repetition detracts from your submission.
Demetra
Key strength of the scheme:
The images are well selected, showing both how one inhabits the structure, and the logic of the arrangement from a distance. The way the model descends the slope shows communication between it and the landform.
Most significant weakness of the scheme:
Technically your composition isn't interconnected, not even by absent blocks. There is no real explanation of the hypotheses, and for why you have assigned the two labs the way that you did. I hope you can fix the texture tiling problem for Ex.3.
