One of the most common problems in almost every person is the clearly defined boundary. We all thought about conversation, conservation and rest should be in three separated spaces, which made our models uninteresting. I remember what Amy, Rebecca, and Margo said about transition between each space, it doesn’t have to be something between spaces to define the space, but the conditions, such as lighting and surface can change the feeling of the space.
Secondly, the used of material should be more concise. Mainly I used nylon as a decoration, but what nylon should be is as a material. I know nylon can dissolve light by layering nylons together, but if layering the museum boards also have the same effect, using nylon becomes unnecessary. Nylon is stretchable, and different tension creates various conditions of light and layering. Exploring the properties of nylon and applying it thoughtfully to the models are also important for model making.
Another point made in the critic is the chronological order of the three spaces, I always think about the three spaces as a transition of public to private. Conversation for me is like an open public space, conservation is like a semi-private space between conversation and rest, and rest is a totally private space. However, one of Jeanell’s models used conversation to separate the space of concentration and rest, which seems interesting to me. People can choose from public to private or public to semi-private, they don’t have to go through from semi-private then to private, which gives the chance for people to choose their own path in the space.
As the result, I think it would be better if I can play around with the spaces, not thinking too rigid of the spaces. Space shouldn’t be defined too clear. My light and volume model define the three spaces too obvious, and the spaces are in order, there’s no interest for people to walk in my order of space. I should think of engage the space with people.
No comments:
Post a Comment