For week 6, I had to produce two styles, gridded hatching and interruptions of parallel straight lines, to see and experiment the disturbances of human movement within spaces.
I’ve taken the Kutaisi ‘King David the Builder’ International Airport’ plan as my reference drawing (also my reference drawing in week 4), please see attachment. From the project itself, the most obvious Architecture elements are the curtain wall and the main structure at the centre. Thus, I’ve taken them as the architecture elements in my drawings/thumbnails. To develop from my previous works, I started with applying the same idea of my drawing concept to more detailed drawing in accordance to the project’s plan:
From the drawings above, the plan has 4 groups of spaces, 2 curved pathways to indicate the most used circulations, and with the main structure at the centre.
The departure and arrival space is the most raised space, and private spaces (offices etc) are the lowest (sunk in) spaces. I started experimenting with gridded hatching style.
The different intensities of the grid hatching are showing the movements of travelers/non travelers/workers.
The bigger the grid hatching, the lesser the movement is and spacious; the smaller the hatching, the more the movement is, crowded and most used.
By comparing the two concepts, Concept 2, without the lines indicating the spaces, gives clearer idea on my drawing concept in showing the disturbances and differences in movement.
Therefore, I proceed to Concept 2 and developed the drawings with the chosen architecture elements; curtain walls for open spaces and break-up walls (to reveal the unseen views) for private spaces.
The difference between the two developments are the intensities of the grid hatching, Development 1 is the same as the one I’ve mentioned from the above explanation, whereas development 2 with; the bigger the grid hatching, the more the movement is and crowded; the smaller the hatching, the lesser the movement is and spacious.
Development 3 is then tested with the second style, interruptions of parallel straight lines. The differences of the parallel lines are to indicate the different levels of the spaces.
These two styles, gridded hatching andinterruptions of parallel straight lines, show their respective disturbances, indicating the differences in movement. As my opinion, gridded hatching shows both intensities and differences in movement, but as for interruptions of parallel straight lines only shows the differences in movement.
Using the Iveria Hotel as the skeletal substructure to our drawing, we have created multiple doppelgangers through the manipulation of the Iveria’s opposing façades. With one elevation reflecting the original elements of the Iveria during the Soviet/ Post-Soviet regime, through its morphing states, this façade becomes a doppleganger of its former self.
The opposing face will represent the Iveria of the future using only traditional Georgian architectural elements, found on the Batumi Clock Tower. In this way, this façade continues to create a doppleganger of its former self but through different perception while imitating the pastiche element of the Batumi Tower as a doppelganger of San Marco in Venice.
Jude: ‘The Monster’ composites all three of our groups themes into one hybrid interpretation of an architectural monster. Using the transformation of the Iveria and its consequential continuation of life through other architectural ventures, my interpretation of ‘the monster’ is the projection of elements extrapolated onto a landscape void of scale or location. This projection creates a field of these elements as opposed to a singular building. These elements would represent significant parts of the Iveria, Shavnabada Monastery, Deserters Bazaar and Collective Centres that all form an interplay within the story of the Iveria Hotel. The elements specific in detail will dictate the field around them that is itself composed of the debris behind the operations needed to construct and reconstruct its multiple fates.
This extrapolated monster furthers my interest in Fishers’ The Weird & Eerie as Weirdness exists largely at the edge between worlds; Eeriness radiates from the ruins of lost ones. In this way, my elements when looked at individually make no claim to anything but when looked at together, form a narrative of elaborate operations.
Continuing on from the previous weeks, I finally began to look into each of the elements of each building separately and how these elements are used differently, comparing San Marco (Venice) to the Tower in the Batumi Piazza.
The drawing is a representation of an unseen view of the act of pastiche. Using the San Marco as an “original” I am exploding from this form, the elements that have been copied while in the middle layer there will be the elements that are now representing the Georgian architecture that make the new tower “different”, in other words a “bad” representation of tracing the original.
The elements are exploded onto an undefined ground that is assumed to be there, however the elements seem to be floating. The elements are void of scale, proving that the act of pastiching and copying/ tracing has nothing to do with the scale of the elements but the act itself.
I have identified three key elements of Leonidov’s Magnitogorsk proposal, namely the living/leisure space which I will interpret as garden (specifically walled garden), the agricultural zone and the industrial zone.
I want to show a relationship between these three elements. The landscape/agriculture providing for the industry that in turn provides for the garden. The garden absorbing the landscape around, bringing in elements, yet mediated through industry and spectacle.
Current composition / drawing proposal
The agricultural end has become all encompassing, absorbing the landscape around. The garden sits as a strip in the landscape, distorting the land around. Absorbing the land, the garden becomes raised sitting on a plinth of landscape. Atop this plinth sits an industrialised Magnitogorsk within the garden.
Distorted by the landscape the industry sits on a plinth of it’s destruction. “As broad as the sky” (Aben and de Wit, 1999, p.10) the garden influences all that is around, while only looking in on itself, the garden manipulates and distorts the landscape as far as the eye can see. Yet the garden only looks in on itself, detached from the landscape it sees only the products of industry, the natural world mediated by spectacle.
By distorting the grid of the landscape, the drawing makes reference to the Fukasas MyZeil shopping centre and the idea of neoliberal super surface.
To explain this concept I have sketched the proposal in a rough axo, however I think it may be interesting to develop in plan, potentially with elements projecting out of ‘the garden’ as in Leonidov’s original plans for Magnitogorsk.