�

research PG 12

student journals PG 4

socio-political PG 8

superman PG 24

social responsibilities PG 12

1:1 PG 13

object to atmosphere PG 20

surface PG 22

still PG 18 clusters PG 11

cinema PG 16

augmented architectures PG 20

landscape PG 9

boudoir PG 22

node PG 23

problematic PG 22

london PG 24

AArchitecture

Architectural AssociationSchool of Architecture

Issue 1 Summer 2006

ColophonAArchitecture – Issue 1 � AArchitecture – Issue 1 Contents List �

AArchitectureIssue 1 / Summer 2006

©2006All rights reserved.Published by Architectural Association, 36 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3ES.

<contribute@aaschool.ac.uk>

EditoriAl tEAm Brett Steele, Editorial DirectorNicola Quinn, Managing EditorZak Kyes / Zak Group, Art DirectionAlex LorenteAlex Catterall

AcknowlEdgEmEntsValerie BennettRojia ForouharSandra SannaChris FennPeter ThomasCathi Du ToitMarilyn SparrowSimone Sagi

contributors

Brett Steele<director@aaschool.ac.uk>

Hugo Hinsley<hinsley@aaschool.ac.uk>

Larry Barth <barth@aaschool.ac.uk>

Andreas LangSusana Gonzalez <alternativepractices@aaschool.ac.uk>

Erlend Blakstad Haffner<ebh@fantasticnorway.no>

Hana Loftus <hana@hanaloftus.co.uk>

Markus Miessen<studiomiessen@gmx.net>

Chaifang Wu <mail@roewu.com>

Stephen Roe<mail@roewu.com>

Eugene Han<eugenehan@aaschool.ac.uk>

Fredrik Hellberg<fredrik.hellberg@aaschool.ac.uk>

Sarah AkigbogunBonnie ChuJenny Kagan<aasocialcinema@aaschool.ac.uk>

Henderson Downing<henderson@aaschool.ac.uk>

Edward Bottoms<edward@aaschool.ac.uk>

John Bell<johnbell@aaschool.ac.uk>

Nicky Wynne<development1@aaschool.ac.uk>

Paula Nascimento<contact@mediationnews.co.uk>

Front coVErGuess The Building: Taken from the AA Photo Library’s collection of over 150,000 slides of historical and contemporary architecture, each issue will show a detail of a famous building. All you have to do is guess from which building the detail is taken. Feel smug with your knowledge, or curse us for keeping you awake at night. Photograph by Peter Jeffree.Answer next issue.

* * * *

Headlines in this issue are set in AutoScape, designed by Cornel Windlin.

Body text is set in Wedding Sans, designed by Andrea Tinnes / Typecuts.

Architectural Association (Inc.), Registered Charity No. 311083. Company limited by guarantee. Registered in England No. 171402. Registered office as above.

aarchitecture issuE 1 summEr/2006

the purple patch to sexymachinery Pg 4 the fall ofbilbao Pg 8 working together Pg 11

fantastic norway Pg 12 rural studio Pg 13 first year studio Pg 14

cinematic architecture Pg 16

boudoir boys Pg 18 from object to atmospherere Pg 20 aa reviews Pg 23-25 aa news briefs Pg 26-27 recent aa publications Pg 27

–“empty studios and crowded bars where promising students consort with brilliant tutors in a mutual exorcism of the professional reality the first have not yet faced and the second never enjoyed…” Pg 4

thE AA According to ghost dAncE timEs 1974

Photo

s: A

A L

ibra

ry

AArchitecture – Issue 1 The Purple Patch to Sexymachinery: 100 years of AA Student Journals� �

The purple paTch Tosexymachinery: 100 years ofaa sTudenT journalsby edward boTToms

The AA library is in the process of rebinding and restor-

ing its collection of student journals. The earliest such

publication is The Purple Patch, or Tufton Street Tatler

(1905-9) which billed itself as ‘the only intentionally

humorous paper’ of the architectural press and paro-

died the internal AA politics of the day. The less colour-

ful Harlequinade (1923-6) followed, succeeded in turn

by the rather earnest Number 35 (1928-30) which

incorporated a number of striking woodcuts into each

issue. The last issue, published in the depth of the

Great Depression, contained the cry ‘gone is the clean

boyish fun – the vigorous ragging, the hectic dances,

the hard drinking and high thinking… the new system

making little pretence at teaching ‘architecture’ and

having passed through the mill we shall be fitted only

for Empire building…’ Of all the inter-war AA student

journals it was Focus (1938-9) that was by far the

most significant. The opening lines of the initial edito-

rial stated ‘We were born in the war… We were born in a

civilization whose leaders, whose ideals, whose culture

had failed. They are still in power to-day… They lead us

always deeper into reaction that we are convinced can

only end in disaster.’ This sense of impending conflict is

present throughout the four issues of this journal, the

last of which appeared in the summer of 1939. What

makes this journal outstanding, however, is the sheer

quality of writing and the calibre of contributors. Issue

one featured Le Corbusier’s article ‘If I had to teach

you architecture’ and issue two contained Moholy-

Nagy’s ‘Education and the Bauhaus’. Further contrib-

utors included such luminaries as Siegfried Gideon,

Arthur Korn and Naum Gabo. Quite who was the driv-

ing force behind Focus is unclear, but the last issue pays

tribute to one of the editors, Howard Cleminson, who

tragically committed suicide at the age of 21.

The late 1940s and 1950s saw a drought of student

publications but with the growth of student activ-

ism in the 1960s an increasing number emerged. One

of the most important, Clip-kit (1965-6), ran in six-

monthly phases with the subscriber receiving a distinc-

tive yellow clip binder into which all subsequent issues

could be filed. Its aim was to examine ‘aspects of

design and manufacture normally considered as outside

the scope of architectural education.’ Writers included

Cedric Price, Reyner Banham and Gustav Metzger,

whilst subjects ranged from the mass production of

cars to space capsule design and the possibilities of

‘plug-in’ prefabricated living units. A series of inventive

but short-lived journals followed in the 1970s, includ-

ing White Rabbit (1970-1) and Street Farmer (1971-

2). Of more longevity was the AA Newsheet (1971-74),

published through the AA Arts & History Department,

and whose content was restricted to brief essays,

letters and topical listings. Contrasting in style was the

Ghost Dance Times (opposite) broadsheet, 1974, 25 October

Focus No. 1 cover, 1938

Clip-kit 1965-6 -Yellow binder containing Clip-kit magazine.

NATO (opposite) cover, 1985Gamma City Issue, designed by Christina Norton and Johnny Rosza. This issue doubled as the catalogue for the Gamma City Exhibition held at the A.I.R. Gallery, London, 20 November – 15 December, 1985.

Sexymachinery No. 9, Winter 2003Inspired by the idea that free-dom and its opposite – alien-ation – are intimately related, Save me From What I Want looked at the desire for rules and the rules that govern desire.

Street Farmer No. 1 cover, 1971

� AArchitecture – Issue 1 The Purple Patch to Sexymachinery: 100 years of AA Student Journals �

sparkling irreverence of the Ghost Dance Times (1974-

5) which aimed to chronicle the world of ‘empty studios

and crowded bars where promising students consort

with brilliant tutors in a mutual exorcism of the profes-

sional reality the first have not yet faced and the second

never enjoyed…’ Funding was finally withdrawn in June

of 1975 with Martin Pawley’s editorial claiming that

Chairman, Alvin Boyarsky, facing the rising costs of ‘TV

studios, champagne breakfasts and foreign exhibitions’,

decided a more ‘responsible and altogether less intelli-

gible’ organ was needed.

Outstanding amongst the student publications of

the 1980s are those associated with the NATO group

(Narrative Architecture Today). Grouped around Diploma

10 tutor Nigel Coates, NATO is said to have had its

origins in a 1983 furore over the RIBA board of exam-

iners’ decision whether or not to pass Diploma 10 on

the basis of a ‘bunch of sketches with a few cartoons’.

The magazine contained a groundbreaking collage of

prose, images from contemporary fashion, photographs,

sketches and diagrams, all mapping NATO’s ‘pursu-

ance of current lifestyle as the sustaining parallel to

the design of cities’. 1984 saw the first issue of Across

Architecture, edited by Dimitri Vannas and Roland

Cowan. Across Architecture claimed a sense of stale-

ness and predictability had taken over the AA’s juries

and positioned itself as a forum for ‘the work that lies

hidden in sketchbooks … the work that is loved by each

student, the work that inspires them to keep working’.

The statement in issue one that ‘We believe that archi-

tecture is too uncertain to be left to chance, and too

difficult to be left to tutors’ meant that Across Archi-

tecture initially only featured work by current students

such as Jean Michel Crettaz, Ben Van Berkel and Makoto

Saito, although later issues were not ashamed to parade

projects by such alumni and teachers as Zaha Hadid and

Peter Sabara.

The post-Thatcher years witnessed a decline in

student journals with, in more recent years, the online

blog perhaps replacing the printed page as an outlet for

student concerns. However, the success of Sexymachin-

ery, a poetic collection of essays, letters, articles and

graphic work initiated in 2000 by Intermediate 9 tutor

Shumon Basar and edited by Dominik Kremerskothen,

Damar Radmacher and Åbäke challenges this trend.

Indeed, each issue of Sexymachinery, being housed in

its own innovative, often folded and intricately bound

format, perhaps points to the future of such publica-

tions, emphasising the possibilities of the printed page

in the age of the internet.

Edward Bottoms is the AA Library Web Administrator.

aaschool.ac.uk/library

→ The AA Library would be very interested

to hear from members and alumni who

have copies of AA student journals which

might fill gaps in its collection. Founded

in 1862, the AA Library currently holds in

excess of 30,000 volumes and subscribes

to over 100 journals and periodicals.

Photo

: AA L

ibra

ryPh

oto

: Sexymac

hine

ryPh

oto

: AA L

ibra

ry

The Fall of BilbaoAArchitecture – Issue 1 � AArchitecture – Issue 1 The Fall of Bilbao �

The fall of bilbao: ConTemporary arChiTeCTural praCTiCe and iTs re-posiTioning wiThin The soCio-poliTiCal landsCapeby markus miessen

School of Missing StudiesChallenging the conservative brain, workshop at Kunstverein Munich with participants from Belgrade, Munich, Rotterdam and Zagreb.

Arguably, the most dilettante reading of Stoicism is

that of figuring out where the world is going and, as a

result, to follow willingly. This, of course, raises a funda-

mental question: how does one lead a life of moral

agency if everything was right from the start? Look-

ing inwards while building resistance against the outside

world also lays bare the tendency to suppress issues of

crucial impact in favour of habit, one that consciously

avoids reality.

Within architecture, one can trace a similarly ther-

apeutic relationship, where practice cocoons itself in

reason that, within the bigger picture, seems meaning-

less. For centuries, formal debate has dominated a prac-

tice that creates physical envelopes and a discourse

that concentrates on the nurturing of the ego-cult as

opposed to participating in the socio-political environ-

ment.

Stoicism suggests an absence of interference. In

contrast, one could argue that conflict, suspension of

rational logic and amateurish triggers by external influ-

ences often generate the most creative ideas. Adopting

preconceived models of ethics based on absolute heri-

tage, architects often refuse to question what an ethical

practice actually is. Meanwhile, small-minded warriors

of limited vision have cried out that the world is lost.

And in desperation, like shipwrecked sailors grasping

at wreckage, they clung to the past. As a modus vitae,

twentieth century architects have often followed the

grand narratives of history, obeying the objects of their

predecessors while worshipping the architectural object

as a generator for change. Strangely, this happened at

a time when it was already evident that the city is being

conditioned by forces that supersede the formal and

aesthetic prerogatives of the architect.

It is often implied that modern materials and meth-

ods are dictating contemporary architecture’s expres-

sion of form (resulting from the state of mind typi-

cal of an epoch) and that architecture exists and takes

when a general evolution of mind is accomplished. But

rather than simply articulating a re-reading of material

processes, one can trace an emerging practice that illu-

minates the existence beyond a single truth in a radi-

cality that challenges space rather than controls it: an

emerging architectural sub-culture with a spatial under-

standing that suspends the traditional reading of archi-

tecture as simply the spatial manifestation of built

matter. It challenges the obeying of conventions and

institutions that defy the very creation of architecture

and its creators with their illusion of control. In contrast

to the self-referential object, which has been churned

out for centuries, recent protagonists attempt to under-

stand processes of uncertainty, conflict, borders and

geopolitics. This major change presents us with a read-

ing of the world that is based on re-evaluated judge-

ment according to specific situations, a world in need of

an optimistic and critical rendering of situational truths

as opposed to moral truism.

Where the Stoic understands the environment as

a world beyond control that can only be dealt with by

leading an introverted practice driven by virtue, these

actors equally appreciate the world as a place beyond

control, but one that refuses the modernist instrument

of the grand account. Here, the fundamental difference

is that a ‘world beyond control’ is understood as a qual-

ity. Today, these spaces of uncertainty are often under-

stood as places where subtle interaction creates infor-

mal, self-organisational forces that generate spatial

constructs on a local scale. Instead of creating spaces

of controlled physical representation and spectacle,

they expose an emerging understanding of architecture

based on the absent object.

Today’s spatial practice utilises architectural

research and applies (non-)physical components in

order to alter relevant situations. It presents both

the developed notion of experimental techniques and

the application of analytical thought, which transform

everyday ephemera and physical conditions. However,

taking such understanding into consideration, one has

to rethink the way in which discourse is being led in the

academies. Within the field of purely formal investiga-

tion, even most of the phenomenologically, sociologi-

cally or politically motivated academic studios are still

trading on the past: their internalised discourse is rarely

more than incestuous formal polemics.

The image of the architect has often been related

to the male heroic protagonist who introduces to the

outside an established lifestyle. It is precisely here that

one can locate the turning point in practice: the neglect

of egocentric narrative and self-referential ambition

in favour of catering for an individually identified, site-

specific audience. Such appreciation of what architec-

ture can possibly be opposes individualism and raises

the fundamental question of whether or not architec-

ture should be taken forward as an art practised by

and for the sake of a broader cultural landscape or

a commercial enterprise geared to the needs of the

market. The highly romanticised ideal of the archi-

tect – ‘general progress in architecture according to a

personal conception, usually of style, embodied in build-

ings and developed from architect to architect over the

course of history’ (Saint, The Image of the Architect,

1983), which essentially derived from Aristotelian ideal-

ism – seems no longer valid. Today, one has to appreci-

ate the difference between the ‘architecture of image’

and what one might call ‘post-Bilbao’ practice.

The starting point for this shift could arguably be

identified as the moment when Frank Gehry’s Guggen-

heim Museum in Bilbao opened in 1997. As one of the

Photo

: Ku

nstv

ere

in M

unic

h

Camp for Oppositional Architecture (Anarchitektur)International open congress searching for possibilities of resistance within the field of architecture and planning, featuring particular political and social aspects of architecture and the city under current capitalist conditions.

The Fall of BilbaoAArchitecture – Issue 1 10 AArchitecture – Issue 1 Working together: tendencies, clusters and other exchanges. 11

last twentieth century architectural superstars, Gehry

became the epitome of a generation that set out to be

part of an avant-garde and ended up as a conservative,

copy-paste establishment. One could argue that the

moment when Bilbao was born, an emerging generation

of architects started to critically engage with the lack

of twentieth century Western Modernism, and what the

course of Modernism and Postmodernism had avoided

dealing with: the manipulation of archetypical situa-

tions. In contrast to the process of pure image produc-

tion, these new practitioners no longer operate on the -

ism level. Although it is true that such anti-image is yet

another ideological position that creates an image, the

difference here is the way in which the protagonists

act, network and shift interests. Unburdened by the

weight of the twentieth century, they have rediscovered

a localism based on the belief that certain problems

need tailor-made solutions rather than philosophically

outsourced meta-agendas. This specific kind of problem

solving has abandoned an understanding of architecture

for the sake of the stylised object propelled by virtuous

vision. In contrast to the late twentieth-century project

of ‘the diagram’ – which was purely modern in the sense

that it attempted to deliver a personal, scientific solu-

tion to a problem that was being put forward by cancel-

ling out everything else – ‘post-Bilbao’ has started to

acknowledge political implications of space as some-

thing which needs to be dealt with urgently. As so many

other theories and practices in history, ’the diagram’

was a stoic cocoon. It dwelt on the image of the archi-

tect as the master of virtue. As a container of the heroic

tradition supported by self-image, ‘the diagram’ – in its

purely modern sense that it was playing with the age-

old, prevailing image of the architect as impeccable

master – was an intellectual claim only. But today, we

work under a different ideological system; one that is

contingent, informal, ephemeral and resists the notion

of pure object-lust. There is no longer any sympathy

with the stoic, self-referential and masturbatory notion

of ‘the diagram’ when, post internet and 9/11, everyone

has realised that the rest of the world is burning.

Since we are arguably at a turning point in the

history of spatial practice, one should actively engage

with the current optimism. Rather than mourning the

passing of the old codes, it is time to venture out into

the snowstorm. This is the tragic moment of realisation,

in which the Stoic faces the deadlock of stable harmony

as the epitome of nihilism.

Markus Miessen is unit master of Intermediate Unit 7.

Photo

: an

archi

tekt

ur.c

om

→ Markus Miessen’s new book Did

Someone Say Participate? An Atlas of

Spatial Practice (MIT Press / Revolver,

co-edited by Shumon Basar) will be

published in June. As part of his PhD

at Goldsmiths Centre for Architecture

Research, the publication investigates

the front lines of cultural activism and

looks at spatial practitioners who actively

trespass into neighbouring or alien fields

of knowledge. It will be essential reading

not only for those involved in the future

of architectural research and practice,

but for anyone interested in navigating

through current forms of cultural debate.

The recent AA exhibition, Every

Little Helps (29 April 26 May 2006),

investigated, through a series of loose

associations, the architectural and

urban significance of the Tesco and NHS

estates by marking seemingly unmean-

ingful connections between the two that

reveal their urban presence and effect

on everyday life. Exhibition by Markus

Miessen and Matthew Murphy.

Last academic year the School had rich and detailed

debates about its structure and governance, and about

the AA model of education that has evolved over the

past thirty years. The most visible forum of debates was

the intensive two weeks of the Architectural Educa-

tion Symposium in November 2004. This generated

many ideas and questions, and one result was that two

open working groups were formed, one on Governance

and Constitution and the other on Educational Struc-

tures. An important issue that came up in all discussions

was the need to find better ways to cross-fertilise the

work of the different parts of the School. It was clear

that the autonomy of the undergraduate unit struc-

ture produces both intensity and a diversity of teach-

ing and research that is greatly valued – but also that

units can become rather hermetic. It was also clear that

the full potential of exchanges about work done in all

parts of the School – the service units and the graduate

programmes, as well as the undergraduate units – was

not being achieved.

There were many ideas for generating better collab-

orations and exchanges inside the AA, and for connect-

ing with debates outside. One of these was to develop

the Open Jury to become an event for all parts of the

School. Another proposal was to support ‘tendencies’

of research explicitly to stimulate collaboration. Each

of these might have a ‘distinguished visiting scholar’

to give them direction; could evolve to meet the inter-

ests of members of the School Community; and could

develop external collaborations. At any one time there

might be a range of ‘tendencies’ at different stages of

development, and with several visiting scholars stimu-

lating particular themes of research.

With Brett as the new Director, the School has

started to explore these ideas. The Open Jury included

all parts of the School, and it was a stimulating experi-

ence. In Term 1 Brett invited members of the School

to curate Research Clusters to help connect the work

of units, programmes and courses across the School,

and also to engage with the wider range of expertise

outside. On 30 November there was an open meet-

working together:tendencies, clusters and other exchangesby hugo hinsley

AA RESEARCH CLUSTERS LAUNCH, SCHOOL MEETING, 30 NOVEMBER 2005CLUSTER WEEK, 15-19 MAy 2006

ing for the curators to explain their topics and to invite

participation. Since then each Cluster has arranged

meetings and events, and the cluster topics were also

used to help organise thematic debates in the Open

Jury. This culminated in a week-long series of debates

during cluster week 15-19 May 2006.

Hugo Hinsley is a lecturer on the Housing and Urbanism

Programme in the AA’s Graduate School.

rEsEArch At thE AA

The AA has a long tradition of linking

teaching and research in the unit

structure of the School, and in the

Graduate School; individual faculties

have often obtained research funding

for occasional projects from disparate

sources. However, the School has not

enjoyed the status of other Higher

Education Institutions in relation to

the large government research-funding

agencies, and so was not in a position to

undertake multi-year research projects

with any regularity. Now this is changing.

The School’s Research Programme has

become an Affiliated Research Centre

of the Open University and is embarking

on the development of the School’s

research infrastructure. This will enhance

the School’s teaching resources, add to

our ability to purchase equipment, and

most importantly, allow us to develop

the research community associated with

the AA. In recent years, government

emphasis upon the establishment of

research networks has made the AA a

sought-after partner in a broad range

of initiatives led by other institutions. In

the coming years, the AA will increasingly

be in the position of initiating research

projects which more closely match the

School’s intellectual directions and

ambitions.

by larry barth who lectures on

urbanism in the AA’s graduate school.

Fantastic Norway Architects‘In the company of coffee and waffles, no idea is too small and no ambition is too big.’ Erlend Blakstad meets local residents outside the Fantastic Norway caravan.

The Purple Patch to Sexymachinery: 100 years of AA Student Journals

AArchitecture – Issue 1 12 AArchitecture – Issue 1 The Purple Patch to Sexymachinery: 100 years of AA Student Journals 13

AA reseArch cluster:AlternAtive prActices &reseArch initiAtivesby AndreAs lAng & susAnA gonzAlez

fantastic norway

The spirit of engagement with society is integral to

Erlend Blakstad Haffner and Hakon Matre Aasarod’s

work. Anxious to draw attention to architects’ social

responsibilities, they took to the road in a camper van

three years ago. They christened their project ‘Fantastic

Norway’ and set off with one conviction: that the archi-

tect must work at the local level, in close conversation

with people, and plan work around the identity and the

context of a place.

‘We live in a bright red camper van’ Erlend tells us.

‘The van functions as a combined office and workspace

in the towns we visit. It allows us to become tempo-

rary residents while offering an immediate interface to

the town’s inhabitants.’ When they drive into a new city

they get in touch with schools, politicians, organisa-

tions and the business sector, as well as with individu-

als. After completing an intensive study of the city, they

approach the local media to start a public dialogue and

debate.

A weekly column in the local newspaper then sets

the agenda for discussions held in the camper van: ‘In

the company of coffee and waffles, no idea is too small

and no ambition is too big. The threshold to enter an

open camper van is low and the van proves an ideal

forum for discussion. We collect ideas and suggestions

to build a resource bank for further work’. In addition

to the open van and the published articles, they arrange

workshops and public meetings, as well as walks around

the city. Each visit ends with a public presentation of

the work, and conclusions, proposals and suggestions

are published in a small brochure, which is handed out in

the local cafes and libraries.

Erlend Blakstad Haffner is a member of the Architectural

Association and contributed his experience at the

Alternative Practices and Research Cluster event on

architectural residencies March 2006.

fantasticnorway.no

rural studio

It is easy to categorise the experience of building a

live project according to the requirements of conven-

tional architectural education. It ticks every accredita-

tion box; students get out of the studio, learn how to

design buildable details, understand cost plans, commu-

nicate with clients and manage the whole process

from concept to completion. Another assumption is

often that the Rural Studio is about ‘doing good’. But,

as Andrew Freear said to me over a crackly phone line

before I arrived, ‘We’re architects not social workers,

and the purpose of the Studio is to create good archi-

tects. In doing so, the student is forced to question

every part of the architectural process and find a new

critical positioning order to sustain themselves.

The Rural Studio functions in real time and space,

at 1:1 scale. It doesn’t have many books in the library,

but it has a library of buildings, both the local vernacular

and the Rural Studio’s own, which students can dissect,

observe and analyse over time. There is no speeding up

how many seconds it takes to hammer a nail, or scaling

down how heavy a steel beam is. Students learn; they

do not study, and teachers barely teach in any conven-

tional didactic sense – they steer and advise, letting

students make mistakes and then helping to (often liter-

ally) pull them back to safety. The experience is unme-

diated by the complex processes that are familiar to

design students in conventional schools – the elab-

orate constructions of hypothesis, digital iterations

of obscure formulae, games or the use of tangential

means of representation in order to bring some unex-

pected result – and the result is a leap of faith into the

unknown.

Returning to London, I am often asked what impact

this experience has had on my practice in this very

different context. In my opinion, the most important

legacy from a year at the Rural Studio is to value the

immediate personal experience of sites, clients, materi-

als, hammers and nails. Architecture is not hypothetical

and cannot be created at a remove from the personal

experience, no matter how large the scale of project.

The Rural Studio not only teaches very practical skills

that create good architects, but reinforces a human-

ist ethic towards our environment, that stands at odds

to orthodoxies of rationalist, systems-driven planning.

This makes it democratic and humble, as well as valuing

boldness, beauty and skill.

Andrew Freear, Associate Professor and Co-Director

of Rural Studio (ruralstudio.com), lectured at the AA on

17 February 2006.

By Hana Loftus, deputy director of General Public

Agency, a creative consultancy working in regeneration

and planning. Hana spent 2004-5 working with the

Rural Studio and is currently studying architecture at

London Metropolitan University.

Andreas Lang is unit master of Intermediate Unit 10

and a Cluster curator for the Future Practices and

Research Initiatives Cluster.

Susana Gonzalez is an alumna of the AA Graduate

School and a Cluster Curator for Future Practices &

Research Initiatives Cluster.

alternative practices & research initiatives

Alternative Practices & Research Initiatives touches

upon modes of studying, teaching and working in archi-

tecture.

Currently, the Professional Studies Part III semi-

nars are the only courses at the AA dealing with the

step from learning to practising architecture, and repre-

sent a somewhat limited range of what shape an archi-

tecture practice could take. We believe that there are

many models of what might follow on from a 5-year

architectural education at the AA, and different alter-

natives to entering an established architectural office.

These might include setting up practices in the form of

multi-disciplinary collectives, becoming part of inter-

national networks, or embarking on practice-based or

academic research, to name just a few. At the same

time, we believe that there are possibilities of looking at

alternative models linking education to practice over the

course of the 5-year period.

This research cluster will provide an opportunity

to expose such alternative routes for an architectural

education and practice and synergies between them.

We have outlined lines of work and investigation, which

we are taking forward through several events: Residen-

cies, Live projects / school-based project and consul-

tancy work, Multi-disciplinary networks and collectives,

Research: academic and practice-based, year-out alter-

natives and web-based “showcase” to share experi-

ences of alternative practices and research initiatives by

members of the AA community.

Our aim is to provide a platform to engage staff,

students, recent graduates and external colleagues in

a dialogue to examine possibilities and identify alterna-

tives. We propose looking outwards at existing models

being explored in other institutions, practices, or in

other areas, and building on internal interests and

potentials. The purpose of these events is to provide

the groundwork to develop a set of initiatives, which will

be put back to the school.

→ This summer Fantastic Norway have

two exhibitions, in Oslo and Berlin. They

will tour some of the architecture schools

in Sweden, Denmark and Germany,

baking waffles and giving lectures on

their way down to Berlin.

Photo

: Fa

ntas

tic N

orw

ay

I have been a student here for four terms and one of

many things I have learned during this time is that this

school is not afraid to make changes; in fact it is even

famous for it.

I have as a student recently been affected by one

of these changes. One year ago I was a student in the

one-year Foundation course, hoping I would pass on

to the First year. I felt early that this was the perfect

school for me and although working hard in Foundation

I always kept an eye on the four first-year units. By the

time my portfolio was up for review I had already made

up my mind about which one I wanted. Everything went

well; I got in and got the financial help I desperately

needed.

When I came back in September something had

changed. No more units, one big class, one big room. I

was really exited because I always imagined being in a

unit would be a bit like having strict parents who want

you to carry on the family tradition. In the First year

Studio I would be able to work with everyone, get more

opinions on my projects and perhaps get influenced in a

healthier way. I was very happy about the rather radical

change and thought it was a really good idea, and I still

do after these four months. However one always has to

be prepared for unpredicted side effects.

What I felt in Foundation was that the connection

between us and the tutors was close and personal. I

took that for granted and benefited immensely from it

both as a student and as a person.

In the First year Studio there are 36 students and

6 tutors. We have a huge room and we all have our

own desk which is really a luxury. However there is one

thing that I have a hard time getting used to; the fact

that it is difficult as one of so many students to have a

good relationship with the tutors, which I feel is very

important. I think that we as rookies in our architec-

tural education need care and attention, perhaps more

then students in the later part of the School. We need

guides upon whom we can depend to take us through

these first confusing steps, and that is hard to get in

a big group like ours. Blaming the tutors for this would

first impressions: foundation to first year by fredrik hellberg

nEw school sPAcEs

Two major changes in spacial

organisation accompanied the start of

this Academic year at the AA. First year

has changed from a unit-based system

into a single studio at the heart of the

main Bedford Square building.

The aquisition of a long-term lease for 4

Morwell Street, immediately behind the

main AA building, has provided additional

studio and teaching space, including a

dedicated presentation gallery on the

ground floor.

be ignorant. Our tutors are very competent and give us

interesting and well designed briefs as well as outside

lectures exclusively for our studio. I am only saying

that there is a risk of all that valuable competence not

getting through to us due to communication problems,

as in many other cases in the School, I must add.

As a final and concluding word from me as a student

in the new First year Studio, I can say that we are doing

just fine, and you will see that in time we will do way

more than fine. We all have the energy within ourselves.

We just need some more time to get to know each other

so that we can share it.

Fredrik Hellberg is a first year AA student.

First year StudioAArchitecture – Issue 1 14 AArchitecture – Issue 1 First year Studio 15

AA Then and NowFirst Year Studio in 2005 (Top). Laptops have replaced drawing-boards as the rear second floor reverts to an open-plan studio design this year. Compare its previous open-plan incarnation in the 1950s (Bottom). The space had for several years been divided into the Soft Room and individual First Year units.

Photo

s: A

A P

hoto

Lib

rary

Photo

s: C

hris

Fenn

Cinematic ArchitectureAArchitecture – Issue 1 16 AArchitecture – Issue 1 Cinematic Architecture 17

The GreaT escapecinemaTic archiTecTure exhibiTion by pascal schöninGby peTer kellyaa exhibition, 14 january – 17 february 2006

Cinematic InstallationInstallation photographs of Pascal Schöning’s exhibition at the AA School.

Manifesto for a Cinematic Architecture (opposite)by Pascal Schöning, AA Publications 2006.£7.50 – ISBN 1 902902 483aaschool.info/publications

The need and desire to escape has been a central

theme of Pascal Schöning’s life and work. It is impos-

sible to understand the architect’s recent Cinematic

Architecture installation at the AA – a large glass box

that is bathed in continually changing projections –

without knowing about his extraordinary upbringing.

By the time Schöning was born, his parents had

moved from Berlin to the north German island of Rügen

to escape the Nazis. Four years later, the German Army

declared the island a military zone and his father was

sentenced to death for his opposition to the Nazis. He

escaped, but was perpetually on the run.

At the height of the Second World War Schöning and

his mother moved to his grandparents’ house in Berlin,

but this new home was soon bombed, with a young

Schöning witnessing the destruction. The family then

moved to the house of Schöning’s other grandparents

in Hanover, which was also destroyed soon after – once

again he saw the bombing. Eventually the Schönings

ended up being housed by local farmers in cowsheds.

‘My life was defined by moving around with rare

moments of rest. But besides having experienced that

nothing lasts, I learned that matter changes into energy

if it is hit by an external agent. This resulted in a specta-

cle of fire and light during the bombings. As a child I did

not perceive the tragic dimension, and excitedly enjoyed

the show,’ he explains.

After the war Schöning moved back to Berlin with-

out his parents: ‘I became obsessed with the idea of

housing and its relation to stability and temporality.’

The memory of the Nazis’ architecture as imposing and

inhumane made him suspicious of the ideas of perma-

nence in the design of buildings – a suspicion that has

prevented him from keeping any images or materi-

als from his built houses and public projects in France,

Germany and Austria.

Alongside this ambitious attitude towards the past

is Schöning’s intense love of cinema from the Forties

and Fifties – a period of escapism in films which had an

intense impact on contemporary audiences.

Cinematic Architecture is the result of these two

powerful influences, a structure that shows architec-

ture can be shifting, intense and immediate as cinema.

Schöning also believes it can be humble, elusive and

deferential to the natural environment. Changes are

caused not by the movements of visitors, but by projec-

tions that make the glass box appear to change shape

or disappear entirely. This is a forward-looking project

deeply rooted in the past.

Peter Kelly is a Senior staff writer at Blueprint magazine.

Appeared in Blueprint March 2006. Reproduced

courtesy of Blueprint.

Manifesto for a CineMatiC

arChiteCture, PAscAl schöning

Schöning’s manifesto has a certain rhetorical

verve that makes it both an enjoyable and

thought-provoking read. Clearly indebted to the

French philosopher Gilles Deleuze’s influential

books on cinema from the 1980s, the text

outlines a rather vague, but seductive proposal

for new forms of architectural praxis that would

draw inspiration from cinematic form. This is

less about built form in any conventional sense

than about a vision of an architecture whose

existence would as AA chair Brett Steele puts

it, lie ‘purely at the plane of image, effect and

memory’.

The most obvious aspect of cinema as a cultural

form is that it is composed of moving images,

a complex production of ‘time spatiality’. For

Deleuze, after the Second World War, cinema

came to grapple with a profoundly new

structure and experience of time and space,

reflecting the uprooting of traditional forms of

life under consumer capitalism. This also defines

the context for Schöning’s account of cinematic

architecture, given substance by his own child-

hood experiences of urban destruction.

The inspiration he finds in it is one of a solid

matter transformed into constantly open

processes of energy. In many ways this entails

a now standard arrangement for the priority

of process and change over finished object,

common to a wide variety of contemporary art

and architectural theorists.

yet it is given a new spin by Schöning’s analogy

to the cinema, and by his passionate denuncia-

tion of any form of architecture that would

limit the possibilities for ‘sensual, mental and

psychological movement’. In the end his central

plea is a fairly old one, and none the worse for

that – a plea for the rediscovery of architectural

imagination itself.

by david cunningham, extract from building

design, 3 February 2006. reproduced courtesy

of building design.

Photo

s: V

aleri

e B

enn

ett

→ The AA film archive is an important

collection of 1,000 recordings of

lectures, conferences, symposia and

other events presented at the AA from

1973 to the present. The film archive

is for the use of AA Students, Staff and

Members only. Opening hours 10.00 am

to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday (latest time

for viewing films 4.30 pm).

A Brief History of the Boudoir BoysAArchitecture – Issue 1 18 AArchitecture – Issue 1 A Brief History of the Boudoir Boys 19

A Brief History of tHe Boudoir Boys: AA And Art net on filmBy Henderson downingaa photo library exhibition ‘still’, 30 january – 24 march 2006

Images from Still exhibitionScreen-grabs from mid 1970s architectural lectures. From top: Rem Koolhaas, Richard Meier, Ivan Illich, Colin Rowe.

The AA Photo Library exhibition still: images from the

aa film archive consisted of screen-grabs captured

from mid-1970s architectural lectures. Each image was

coupled to a short citation from the relevant recording.

Many of the images were taken from a series of events

organised by Peter Cook at Art Net. Located on West

Central Street in Bloomsbury, and funded by Alistair

McAlpine, during the few years of its effervescent exis-

tence Art Net was part art gallery, part project exhibi-

tion space and part tribal gathering for architectural

‘scenes’. Alongside the publication of the magazine Net,

major events included several conferences, plus exhibi-

tions of work by numerous Bedford Square alumni and

other ‘groups or non-groups’ such as Superstudio and

the New york Five.

Peter Cook described Art Net as ‘a kind of ad hoc

institution where we hope that the people who are talk-

ing will knock up against one another’. This hope was

repeatedly fulfilled in the lively and lengthy Question and

Answer sessions that were archived on video by Dennis

Crompton. For twenty-first-century eyes, the mise-en-

scène retains certain antiquated, but colourful psyche-

delic traces in spite of the black-and-white footage.

When a fully amplified ten-piece jazz-funk combo called

Gonzales, squashed together on the mezzanine high

above the circulating crowds of students and architects,

attempt to conclude the New york Five event, they are

upstaged by a fully-loaded chip van driving through the

double doors to dispense free fish suppers to every-

one. As a mischievous surprise orchestrated by Peter

Cook to both satisfy and sabotage the appetites of

Peter Eisenman et al, it was in some weird way a fitting

finale, emblematic of Art Net’s approach to encourag-

ing serious architectural debate without eliminating any

welcome eruptions of local humour.

Inevitably, the viewer is struck by the fashions that

parade across the screen. As a prog-rock band noodle

their way towards a climax at the opening of The Rally,

a ten-day marathon attended by architects from across

the globe, that coincided with the record-breaking heat

wave of the summer of 1976, Reyner Banham arrives at

the lectern in a Superman t-shirt and an ex-army jacket

studded with badges, to deliver the opening talk. A few

days later Arata Isozaki appears in a white safari suit

and announces that he’s going to show the same slides

as he did a few months earlier ‘but in a different order’.

Meanwhile, curlicues of smoke rise like question-marks

in the air above long-haired audiences adjusting their

kaftans or fine-tuning their beards while they lounge

in a grid of deck-chairs. To limit these already suspect

stereotypes, let’s just note that in between lectures, the

space sometimes becomes a sartorial wind tunnel of

flares and lapels where Cedric Price, possessing a voice

capable of the kind of projection that even the most

barrel-chested of actors would envy, is almost always in

the eye of the hurricane, perpetually ready to demolish

any discussion betraying signs of excessive self-impor-

tance.

An off-the-striped-cheesecloth-cuff remark by

Robert Maxwell during a lecture he gave on Manfredo

Tafuri entitled ‘Cries and Struggles in the Boudoir’

reveals something of the milieu:

‘I don’t think it’s a secret that Art Net is supported

by friends from a certain capitalist coffer and that it

dispenses cheap wine with the bravura of the chief

steward on the Titanic. Not much of what happens here

would escape Tafuri’s bleak judgment on architecture as

art. Are we all then boudoir boys?’

‘Boudoir Boys’ was considered but quickly rejected

as a potential exhibition title (partly because a quick

search online exposed an adult magazine of that name

that showcased scantily-clad male models and claimed

to be aimed at ‘sophisticated women’). Instead, we

chose still. From Alvin Boyarsky explaining his chair-

manship of the AA as the development of a ‘place in

England where the general culture of architecture could

be opened up to allow each area of investigation to be

as close to the frontiers of knowledge of that partic-

ular discipline or area of study’, to Tom Heneghan’s

witty critique of the rise of the celebrity and ‘architec-

tural superstars’, the speakers and topics included in

the exhibition provide a sectional view of what others

sometimes referred to as the avant-garde of that

period. Although frozen in their pixilated frames, the

stills powerfully illustrate both the continuities and the

discontinuities between then and now.

Henderson Downing works in the AA Photo Library.

aaschool.ac.uk/photolib

Photo

s: A

A V

ideo L

ibra

ry

20 AArchitecture – Issue 1 Ambient + Augmented Architectures 21

Ambient: From objectto Atmospheresymposium ‘ambient & augmented architectures’, 24-25 november 2005

SmartslabTom Barker’s installation in the AA Lecture Hall.

AmbiEnt: From objEct to AtmosPhErE

The Ambient + Augmented Architectures symposium at

the AA was a welcome opportunity for us to reassess

a series of projects we had done over the preceding

few years, exploring what we called Ambient Comput-

ing – computers which surround you, infiltrating the

surfaces and tectonics of a newly intelligent architec-

ture. It was also a valuable opportunity to compare

notes with others in this field who had assembled at the

AA to discuss their work. We wanted to take this oppor-

tunity to discuss what may seem like conventional archi-

tectural issues, such as scale, tectonics and use, which

are radically being reconsidered through the increas-

ing inclusion of information technology within the very

fabric of buildings, as we transition from seeing them as

Objects to conceiving them as Atmospheres.

We introduced these issues through an early proj-

ect that explored the integration of information tech-

nology; a speculative project which incorporated TCP/

IP-based Building Management Systems, smart façade

technologies and pneumatics in an integrated spatial

system. This ‘blue-sky’ research project was impor-

tant in framing the research work of the office over the

next few years. When the building becomes mutable it

in fact loses its objective quality – users, material and

network occupy a continuum. It becomes interactive.

The task of the architect becomes to define specific

relationships, rather than permanently to fix condi-

tions. For instance: interaction can be visual and tactile

(varying from a purely visual relationship, to a tactile

control over primarily visual qualities, to direct physi-

cal manipulation); one-way or two-way; confined to one

set of options or open-ended. The house we designed

for two engineers in Dublin explores this issue of inter-

activity, its impact on the programme and spatial quali-

ties of a single family house. Using interactive façade

technology based on programmable glass interlayers,

we developed a solution which allows occupants to vary

spatial conditions with the fluidity of a weather system.

Another form of purely visual interaction was explored

in our Solar Grass Field project – a massive field of flex-

ible photo-voltaic blades designed for the Department

of Energy in Washington DC, which interacted directly

with the microclimate of the site, sensitively responding

to small differentials in wind-pressure and making them

visible.

In each of these projects the whole is made up of

parts: many parts which in themselves may be quite

simple but which, in combination, produce complex

effects. In this context the design of individual parts is

often less important for us than how to assemble them.

This depends on a precise determination of the degree

of complexity actually required and the scale at which

it operates. Scale may in fact be the critical issue; scale

defined by the size of the individual components rela-

tive to the overall size of the project and to the scale of

the user. In this sense, architecture, like the computer,

can be said to have its own issues of resolution. Archi-

tecture, through its sheer size, quantity of compo-

nents and variations in their arrangements can produce

fluid effects through low-resolution means. Relatively

simple – or even crude – parts, if combined effectively

can make up complex wholes just as pixels combine

into complex images. This understanding of scale was

used in the last project we showed: an ‘Events Platform’

for the Athens Olympics – an interactive surface which

can adjust its morphology to accommodate different

programmes using a new structural tectonic – what we

call the Network Structure. Consisting of rigid members

and semi-rigid members which push and pull according

to the information they receive.

With the diffusion of information throughout the 3-

dimensional field of material, the individual object is

reduced in importance. The accumulation of compo-

nents generates atmospheres rather than identifiable

objects. Clouds of matter interact in fields of changing

intensities. Objects are superseded by the pure effect of

space, ambience, atmosphere.

surFAcE intElligEncE

Surface Intelligence: Ambient & Augmented Archi-

tectures was a Two-Day International Design Sympo-

sium held at the Architectural Association on 24 and 25

November last year. The symposium brought together

a wide variety of architects, artists, theorists and engi-

neers who have been exploring the impact of the inte-

gration of newly intelligent materials and components

into our built environment.

Presentations could be divided along the lines

of visual vs. physical interaction. The work of Jason

Bruges, Tom Barker’s Smartslab and many of Christian

Moeller’s projects explore the impact of the visual, as

defined by light, on our experience of space. Smartslab

indeed represents a new and highly innovative possibil-

ity, where building materials themselves contain visual

information. Others, particularly the stunningly inge-

nious Chuck Hoberman, explored the potentials of a

practice based on physical adjustments of the built

fabric, while Stuart Veech explores the integration

of image and material. A similar division can be made

between high-tech and low-tech solutions. Crispin

Jones, Stefan Doepner and others play on this distinc-

tion by deliberately combining high-tech softwares with

low-tech material solutions that are just adequate to

their tasks, and in the process, question our reliance on

high-tech solutions.

The way in which this work is produced is a devel-

opment that is having an impact on both practice and

ParticiPants:Brett steelejason Brugeschiafang wu + stePhen roemarie o’ mahonytom Barkerteresa hoskynsstefano mirtichristian moellercrisPin jonessoPhie le Bourvastuart ceechmarta male-alemanystefan doePnerchuck hoBerman Ph

oto

s: V

aleri

e B

enn

ett

by Chiafang Wu &Stephen Roe

HeavenSymposium Speaker Christian Moeller’s light installation at the Fredrieke Taylor Gallery, 2005.

ROEWUNetwork Structure for the Athens Olympics

Photo

: Chr

isti

an M

oelle

rPh

oto

s: C

hifa

ng W

u &

Ste

phe

n Roe

Ambient + Augmented ArchitecturesAArchitecture – Issue 1 22 AA ReviewsAArchitecture – Issue 1 2323

ROEWUSolar Grass Field, Washington DC

TransformabilitySymposium Speaker Chuck Hoberman, keynote lecture.

SmartSlabWatching Tom Barker’s Smartslab presentation.

diPlomA 9 At thrEshold ‘06

John Bell, Adam Covell and students

from Diploma Unit 9 will be working

with selected media artists to produce

collaborative installations as a part of the

Node London season of Media Arts.

The collaborations are part of

Threshold, a series of thematically linked

events, performances and discussions

which provide a platform for the explora-

tion of contemporary sound art, and

examine areas of practice that intersect

with architecture. The programme is

looking specifically at the relationship

between sound and space (physical,

structural, virtual, animated, performative

and technological.) A conceptual thread

will be set around ideas of threshold,

topology, landscape and borders.

These themes, developed throughout

March by means of a series of informal

artist showcases, exhibitions and

performances at E:vent Gallery will be

further expanded through broadcast

discussions on Resonance fm 104.4.

The first of these, on Thursday 2 March

at 8.00pm had John Bell in discussion

with Usman Haque, Janek Schaefer and

Flow Motion. During April Threshold

focused on the experimental residency

in which a group of sound artists worked

with Diploma 9, to create a site-specific

sound/architecture installation in E:

vent Gallery. The Threshold season will

come to a reverberating finale with a

presentation of the work produced in

the residency, and a coinciding evening

of live performances by renowned sound

artists and musicians.

by john bell, unit master of diploma

unit 9. more information at nodel.org

aa reviews:diploma 9 at threshold ’06architects in residence

ArchitEcts in rEsidEncE

Diploma Unit 14 started this year with an

active network installation in the Back

Members’ Room, which ran from 7-11

November 2005. Working in and around

the proposed Thames Gateway bridge,

four student groups produced four

interdependent installations revealing

networks and accessing reciprocities

between major themes: politics and

planning, environment, local communities

and bridge design.

Hosting the first day, the politics

and planning group designed a physical

assembly of the political bodies involved

in the process. These were represented

physically, within the forum, and

virtually, through an online interface.

Visitors interacted with this assembly by

responding to a questionnaire concern-

ing their opinions of the bridge project,

and in accordance with the responses,

the opposing viewpoint was then given.

The intention of this design was to allow

a more informed opinion, through the

presentation of the arguments, on a level

playing field for and against the bridge.

Transforming Links, the bridge

design group’s installation negotiated

component based construction, and

was made using materials sourced

from Thames Gateway manufacturers.

The installation of cardboard tubes

was complemented by an exploded

drawing of the logistical network that

was implemented during the design and

fabrication of the installation.

Re-active-Lab, the environment

installation, consisted of three microcli-

mates which could be affected directly

by human interaction and indirectly

by the surrounding environment. Turf,

water and metal were the materials used

to test the reactions of living systems

to different climate conditions and

unpredictable human interferences. Four

spray nozzles allowed the visitors to

squirt different solutions into the micro-

climates, and automatically directed

them to read a postcard or think about a

topic, as a form of immediate feedback.

The last day was hosted by the local

communities group, whowhatwhere.

org.uk, who designed a local media

centre. The installation consisted of a

series of screens – installed in the Back

Members’ Room, and at two sites in

the Thames Gateway area: John Roan

School and Plumstead High Street.

These displayed films about the Thames

Gateway bridge proposal, and a series

of interviews and events held before

and during the forum. Working as a link

between the AA (Diploma 14) and the

Thames Gateway local communities,

whowhatwhere.org design, were also

involved in a series of workshops and

talks done in collaboration with the other

groups at two high schools, as a means

to engage specific groups in a debate

about the Thames Gateway bridge.

The week-long Forum allowed

the students to work continuously

in the room, interacting with visi-

tors and logging daily changes in

the installations. This was comple-

mented by seminars given by

experts and invited guests. The

result of a four-week group project,

Forum 1, also acted as a catalyst for

the development of each student’s

personal agenda for the rest of the

year.by Paula nascimento, a 5th year AA

student. this project was followed up by

an exhibition in the AA gallery from 29

April untill 26 may 2006. more details

on individual installations can be found

at whowhatwhere.org.uk

pedagogies. Brett Steele, director of the AA presented

the work of his students at the DRL exploring Open

Source Research; a fascinating experiment in the use of

networking technologies to share ideas that has led to

an explosion of creativity in a very short period of time.

These new means of interaction are important; speakers

repeatedly emphasised the importance of collaboration

to their practice. The work of Stefano Mirti’s students at

the Interactive institute of Ivrea and Marta Male Alema-

ny’s students at the University of Pennsylvania explored

different design pedagogies which incorporate the

newest technologies in playful and creative ways.

Brett Steele also addressed the more problematic

ramifications of a networked built environment. Taking

the example of a quaint English village inundated with

surveillance cameras, he asked how prepared we are

to have every surface of our cities or homes become a

potential recording device. Issues of ethics, the body

and the politics of exclusion were covered more explic-

itly by both Marie O’Mahony and Teresa Hoskyns.

Overall the conference laid the groundwork for

a fascinating series of discussions that will surely

continue over the next few years, as we begin to under-

stand and grapple with the issues brought up by an

augmented and newly interactive architecture.

Chaifang Wu and Stephen Roe are unit masters of

Diploma Unit 8 and practise as ROEWU.

roewu.com

Photo

s: V

aleri

e B

enn

ett

Photo

s: C

hifa

ng W

u &

Ste

phe

n Roe

AArchitecture – Issue 1 AA Reviews 24 AA ReviewsAArchitecture – Issue 1 2524 25

sociAl cinEmA

The second London Architecture

Biennale will take place this summer, on

the 16-25 June. Following the success

of the previous Biennale, the route now

extends beyond Clerkenwell – from

Southwark to Kings Cross. This year also

sees the introduction of the Student

Festival, inviting students from schools

of architecture throughout the UK, to

take part and design interventions along

the Biennale Route. The theme of the

Biennale is Change.

The Social Cinema project is a

collaboration between architects (and

AA alumni) Peter Thomas and Catherine

du Toit, and artists Neil Cummings and

Marysia Lewandowska. It consists of a

series of temporary cinemas installed

amongst the existing urban fabric of the

Biennale route, projecting films about,

set in or commenting on London.

A group of AA students and recent

graduates are working with Peter,

Catherine, Neil and Marysia to design

and curate The AA Social, which will

be a node of the Social Cinema project

itself and their (student) intervention at

the Biennale. Our event takes place on

Tuesday 20 June in the Scoop.

The Scoop is an open-air sunken

amphitheatre, located within the large

riverside public spaces adjacent to the

GLA building. The AA event takes as a

starting point, the history, location and

architectural context of the site, and

its integration into the City. At the very

heart of the site is the river, and so it

is our relationship with the river that

has become the central theme: River as

source, River as flow, River as change.

The aspects of change which

relate to a river are multifarious; there

is its own daily tide, which creates a

rhythm, and there are the relatively slow

changes which occur as a result of urban

social cinemadesign vanguard award 2005riba president’s medals

reorganisation and resulting architec-

tural intervention. Within the environ-

ment created by these dual forces there

exist several layers of human activity, we

propose to explore these layers within a

series of short films.

The Thames has an iconic presence

within the City of London. To many, it

is a focal point and acts as a draw for

the transient tourist population, but of

what significance is it to Londoners?

Often cast in a supporting role within

the cinema, and occasionally as the

main subject, the river’s picturesque

image appears repeatedly in films, from

Waterloo Bridge in the 1940s through

to Hitchcock’s Frenzy in the 1970s, on

to more recent manifestations. We are

familiar with images of the massive body

of tidal water with its statuesque bridges

such as Tower Bridge, but what exists

beneath the celluloid surface? What

does the film director’s camera miss?

We propose to engage in conversation

with current users of the river and

surrounding sites, the transient and

the more permanent, in order to build

a speculation about how the site will

continue to evolve.

We will introduce a purpose-built,

billowing, horizontal screen to make the

audience lie and look up from within the

Scoop, as if floating in an imaginary river.

On this horizontal screen we will project

a selection of films drawn from feature

films and documentaries, exploring

fiction and fact, incorporate archive

footage and introduce our own new

filmic material in order to represent the

changing face of London, which can be

seen from above or below, from inside or

outside. We will invent a new cinematic

experience which will invite audiences to

go beyond their traditional passive state

of watching, to continue their journey

along the riverbank, themselves becom-

ing part of the cinema as they move.

We welcome interest from technical

specialists and other forms of sponsor-

ship. More details about this one-night

event will be available closer to the time.

For more information please contact

us at aasocialcinema@aaschool.ac.uk.

by sarah Akigbogun, AA alumna.

bonnie chu, third year AA student and

jenny kagan, second year AA student.

dEsign VAnguArd AwArd 2005

Chris Lee, Diploma 6 Unit Master is one

of the recipients, with Kapil Gupta of

the Urban Design Research Institute

in Mumbai, of the Architectural Record

Design Vanguard Award for 2005,

proving that distance is no barrier to

successful collaboration. ‘We like to

think we operate between these two

extremes; neither taking the position

of the catch-all brand, nor being the

paralysed, sensitive local architect.

After all, architecture operates in messy

conditions’ The two met at the AA, where

Lee was a Diploma Honours student in

1998 and Gupta studied in the Graduate

School. Current projects include the

C House in Bangalore (2007) and Fort

School, Mumbai. (2007).

For more information see chris-lee.net

and aaschool.ac.uk/dip6

ribA PrEsidEnt’s mEdAls

Benjamin Koren (Intermediate 2) and

Adam Furman (Intermediate 5) have

been awarded Commendations in the

RIBA President’s Medals 2005. Koren

was also awarded the Iguzzini Travel

Award and the SOM Foundation’s Travel-

ling Fellowship for his project Harmonic

Proportion in Amorphic Form: A Music

Pavilion.

The software he wrote to generate

the pavilion is based on a mechanical

device that visualises musical harmony

bd public space winnerees competitionopen workshop hooke parkst john’s mews housedevelopment update

giAnni botsFord

st john’s mEws housE

Alumnus and former staff member

Gianni Botsford has been getting a lot

of media coverage for his first major

commission, St John’s Mews House.

An article by Jonathan Glancey in the

Guardian in November has been followed

up by a spread in Building Design by

Graham Bizley in February. Glancey is

very impressed by the project, admiring

the ‘intelligent planning, generous rooms,

ingenious internal views’ and the use

of light and air, as well as the discreet

exterior, which got it past the planning

authorities. Building Design’s Graham

Bizley, however, is less enthusiastic.

Whilst he admires the craftsmanship he

is not convinced that he would enjoy

living in such an environment, likening it

to a public art gallery or genetic research

laboratory, although he does concede

that the family for whom it was built are

very happy with it.

Glancey’s article can be viewed at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/critic/

feature/0,1169,1636257,00.html

and Bizley’s piece appeared in the

February 17 issue of Building Design.

dEVEloPmEnt uPdAtE

The AA receives no statutory funding for

either the development of the School

or for its public programme of events,

lectures and exhibitions. Consequently,

it relies upon the generous support of

its members, alumni and friends to help

maintain its status as one of the most

influential schools of architecture today.

We are therefore very grateful for the

vision and belief of all of our supporters

and for their invaluable contribution to

School activities.

In the academic year 2005/06 to

date we would like to give special thanks

to the following organisations:

through apparently spatial graphs.

Adam Furman’s project, The B’s, uses

narrative to create a time-based relation-

ship between structure and occupant,

whose imaginations create space so

that their habits and routines become

inextricable from the physical fabric.

bd Public sPAcE winnEr

Minseok Kim (Diploma Unit 6, Fifth

year) has won the second annual

KPF/Architecture Foundation ‘Public

Space’ student travel award with his

designs for converting Olympic stadiums

into a spaghetti-junction-style road

system once the games have finished.

His winning project, Adaptive Typology,

was completed as part of his Fourth year

work in Diploma 6 last year, with tutors

Chris Lee and Sam Jacoby. The jury,

including BD critic Ellis Woodman, David

Leventhal of KPF and Rowan Moore of

the Architecture Foundation, selected

Minseok’s design because it ‘combined

building types that usually have

destructive urban qualities to create a

positive hybrid’. Minseok wins £1000 to

spend on travel.

EEs comPEtition

The Architectural Association and the

Environments, Ecology and Sustain-

ability Cluster are partnering in an open

international competition in search

of pioneering ideas, design projects,

research initiatives, inventive practice

and completed works that highlight

insights into the contemporary direction

of architecture research and design

relative to environments, ecology and

sustainability.

The goal is to promote and reveal

the potency of new conceptual and

experimental work within architecture

in relation to environments, ecology and

sustainability today. The competition

is open to all architects, designers,

students, engineers, scientists and other

related professions that express interest

in the relationship between the natural

and built environments.

Submissions will be grouped by

related themes at the discretion of the

technical jury prior to final judging.

The competition winner will be publicly

announced in the Autumn of 2006 during

the opening of the competition exhibition

that will be hosted at the Architecture

Association. The exhibition will host a

forum discussion between the members

of the multidisciplinary jury.

Registration Deadline: August 2006

Submission Deadline: September 2006

For more information or to register,

contact: EES Cluster Coordinator

ees_curator@aaschool.ac.uk

www.aaschool.ac.uk/clusters/ees.shtm

oPEn workshoP hookE PArk

The AA’s 2006 Custerson Award Open

Workshop, ‘Crossings’ has been set up to

offer an opportunity for students from

across the School to temporarily step

outside their course of study and explore

their interests in developing applicable

designs for timber construction with

tutors Valentin Bontjes van Beek and

Nathalie Rozencwajg.

The eventual outcome of the

Workshop is to design and construct two

new compelling bridge-like structures

for Hooke Park, complementing and

improving the existing public pathway.

With designs that challenge architec-

tural expectations of ‘crossings’, the

structures will push the boundaries of

wood construction. The workshop will

comprise a group of 14 students with a

range of different interests and skills.

The Crossings Workshop will be the

subject of an AA exhibition in the Autumn

Term 2006/07.

26 27AA ReviewsAArchitecture – Issue 1 26 AArchitecture – Issue 1 AA Publications 27

aa exhibitions updatenew aa publicationsnicholas boas travel awardaa news briefs

KPF for their continued investment in

the AA’s lecture programme.

HOK who continue to generously support

both our academic and cultural life.

Davis Langdon with whom we enjoy

a support relationship, and through

whom our students are enabled to have

involvement in the young Architect of

the year Award.

AKT for their continued support of

the AA’s Scholarship and Bursary

programme, and their contribution to

the cultural life of the school.

Finn Forest & Arup both of whom will

be instrumental in assisting Intermedi-

ate Unit 2 with their Summer Pavilion

project.

We would also like to give thanks

to the Legacy Executors of the late Mr

Anthony Custerson, who have agreed,

in line with his interests, to fund the AV

Custerson Award for Hooke Park, provid-

ing substantial funding for the future

development of our Dorset campus site.

Meaningful and mutually beneficial

relationships continue to be forged

for various areas of School activities

including our Scholarships & Bursary

Programme, research work being carried

out, exhibitions, student projects and

the development of School facilities.

Forthcoming fundraising activities

include The Cedric Price Bursary

Campaign and our annual giving

campaign for Projects Review 2005/06.

If you are interested in learning

more about supporting the Architectural

Association please contact Nicky Wynne,

Development Director, on 020 7887 4090

or email development1@aaschool.ac.uk

AA Exhibitions uPdAtE

Our lives as Exhibitions Organisers

would be far simpler if the architects we

worked with said ‘here’s a picture of my

building for the wall; nothing fancy, a

drawing pin should do it’. In reality, they

come armed with elaborate sketches

of raised floors, false ceilings and the

gallery transformed into Japanese

bathhouses and German Science

Centres. High hopes and low budgets

necessitate seeking support from the

outside world to realise intentions. The

generous support of our sponsors make

the ambitious nature of the Exhibitions

programme possible. Can Buildings

Curate received £10,000 from The Arts

Council, The Elephant Trust, The Swiss

Embassy and Pro Helvetia, and went

on to tour internationally. Other AA

Exhibitions’ benefactors have included

the Gulbenkian Foundation, Silken Hotels,

Virgin Airlines and The Concrete Centre.

Blueprint and Icon magazines, the best

of the contemporary design press, have

added invaluable support with Media

sponsorship, insuring that our shows

are seen by a wide and appreciative

audience.

nicholAs boAs trAVEl AwArd

The winners of the Nicholas Boas Travel

Award 2006 are Stefania Batoeva

(Diploma 3), Hiromichi Hata (Intermedi-

ate 10) and Jonathan Smith (Diploma

16). The award allows AA students to

spend three weeks in Rome during July,

working on projects that they have

proposed, and is funded by the Nicholas

Boas Trust. It was established in memory

of former AA student Nicholas Boas who

died in 1998, and has been awarded

every year since 1999. Students are

based at the British School at Rome

where Italian history, archaeology, art

and architecture have been researched

for over 100 years.

AA nEws briEFs

Sonja Stummerer (AA DRL 2001),

practising architect and designer in

Vienna, has co-authored Food Design,

Springer Books 2005. The book inves-

tigates the design, colour, odour, taste

and consistency of provisions as well as

their history and development over time.

www.honeyandbunny.com

Nili Portugali (AADipl 1973), lecturer at

the Bezalel Academy of Art and Design

and practising architect in Jerusalem,

is about to publish a book entitled The

Act of Creation and the Spirit of a Place.

A Holistic-Phenomenological Approach

to Architecture Edition Axel Menges,

Stuttgart, April 2006.

Dr Gordana Korolija Fontana-Giusti,

(GradDipl(AA) in History and Theory

1987) former AA tutor, was selected to

show her project in the programme of

the 2005 UIA Congress in Istanbul. The

project, which has been funded through

the EU Urban Design and Research

Scheme, related to the agora, and is

based on the connections between

public and the theatre.

Daniele Geltrudi, architect in Italy and AA

Member since 2004, has been awarded

the Premio di architettura MAESTRI

COMACINI for his Casa Rossa, a commu-

nity building in the outskirts of Como.

The independent architecture magazine

UME is celebrating 10 years of

publication! Published and edited by

former AA tutors Jackie Cooper and Haig

Beck (AADipl 1973), the magazine has

featured numerous AA notables through

the years. www.umemagazine.com

Siamak Shahneshin (AA E&E 2000),

architect urbanist and author, has

co-established the Shahneshin

Foundation, a not-for-profit independent

organisation for the promotion of design,

education, research and theory, based

in Zurich. The Foundation has recently

announced the Shrinkage Worldwide

Competition. Entries must be submitted

by 15 September 2006. For more info:

www.shahneshinfoundation.org

Jonathan Moorhouse (AADipl 1962)

has recently published a book entitled

Drawings by Jonathan Moorhouse, SKS

(Finnish Literature Society) 2006. An

illustrated book, presenting drawings

of the SKS interiors and surrounds,

the publication celebrates the 175th

anniversary of the Society.

Eyal Weizman (AADipl 1998) has been

appointed the director of the new Centre

for Research Architecture at Goldsmiths

College: goldsmiths.ac.uk/architecture

recent aa publications:structure as space + bodyline

struCture as spaCe: engineering

and arChiteCture in the Works of

Jürg Conzett and his partners

A companion to the AA’s highly success-

ful volume on Peter Märkli (2002), this

publication focuses on the work of the

Swiss engineer Jürg Conzett, who has

contributed more than most to redefin-

ing the role of structural engineering and

its relation to architecture.

Since setting up his own practice,

Conzett has worked with many of

Switzerland’s leading architects. Struc-

ture as Space includes many notable

collaborative works, from the Hanover

Expo pavilion with Peter Zumthor to the

Zurich Stadium with Meili & Peter. It

also presents Conzett’s beautiful bridge

designs, such as the granite stress-

ribbon Pùnt da Suransuns and the timber

Traversina footbridge.

Texts by Mohsen Mostafavi and Bruno

Reichlin explore in depth the relation of

engineering and architecture and the

impact of engineering infrastructures on

our natural environment.

current Practices 3

£40.00 – isbn 1 902902 01 7

Bodyline: the end of our

Meta-MeChaniCal Body

Bodyline, a visual essay on the human

body, approaches its subject in a spirit

both playful and seriously experimental.

Organised by themes in turn figurative

and abstract, organic and mechanical,

immaterial and ultra-material, Bodyline

contains not one predictable image of

the body. Instead it uses diffracted

views to conjure seven alternative visions

of the flesh in the age of meta-mechani-

cal reproduction, reconstructing the

human physique by means of synthetic

images, clothing patterns and technical

blueprints. As such, Bodyline is as much

about perception and delineation as it is

about the body.

The book is drawn from work of the

AA’s Diploma Unit 5 under the guidance of

George L-Legendre and Lluís Viu Rebés.

Edited by george l-legendre

£10.00 – isbn 1 902902 46 7

recent AA Publications are currently

available at aaschool.info/publications

28AArchitecture

Architectural AssociationSchool of Architecture

Issue 1 Summer 2006