![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So this is why coursework blows.
Jun. 1st, 2008 02:37 amWhat Part of this makes any sense?
1 - reasearch find 10 varied examples that clearly represent the job of "architect" - everything in that sentence makes my brain twitch
2 - create a mixed media moodboard - bullshit. moodboards are so fucking 1980
3 - Planning - decide locations, equipment,lighting,requirements, who is your audience? where will your images be seen and who by? - who looks at pictures of buildings? just about everyone at some point, its not like you can aim them at one specific type of person is it? this bit is pissing me right off. not only that I work backwards, I take the photos off the cuff and pretend I planned them which bites your arse plus how can you plan for photos outdoors when you have no idea about whether its going to piss down with rain or not?
4 - write an essay minumin of 200 words on your specific job type, how did you make the work visually interesting personally and proffessionally *bangs head repeatedly off keyboard*
I think I went blind about two hours ago. I keep writing and I don't know if its me but it all reads as such pretentious bollocks its unfunny, I have never ever read such brainless twatwaffle about a proffession I know nothing about. read this if you can stay awake for the first two paragraphs.
"The original ideas outlined for this piece was to focus solely on the prime works of two very different architects and compare and contrast their works based on controversy, technique and usage within the city of London and what defines the idea of what good architecture is, as I began to research Firstly Austrian born Erno Goldfinger and his slant on the 1960's "Brutalist" style of building I realised that London is home to many buildings of intense diversity Brutalism and Modern glass structured architecture for example in the vein of Baron Foster [my secondary choice for comparison] only account for an average percentage of the skyline.
London has no set style, old meets new on every corner, brash modernism and steel frames against brutal concrete, ecologically designed family homes, Georgian terraces, new build yellow brick and flashes of European boldness in every possible colour of rendering now stain the walls of what will eventually become known as "Modern" 21st century living.
These images were never meant to be viewed as separate entities, each has a back history only crucial to the city within which it survives, these images are one joint profile and idea on how within the space of a few journeys travelling on Public Transport you can intake the silent history it has in some examples taken centuries to achieve.
By no means does this even begin to cover the vast expanse of terrain and diversity within it, this is and only will ever be a small slice of how history and forethought of the many has changed the way we now live, how London has lived in the past and how we may come to live in the future."
Yeah man. wanna buy a house off me?
1 - reasearch find 10 varied examples that clearly represent the job of "architect" - everything in that sentence makes my brain twitch
2 - create a mixed media moodboard - bullshit. moodboards are so fucking 1980
3 - Planning - decide locations, equipment,lighting,requirements, who is your audience? where will your images be seen and who by? - who looks at pictures of buildings? just about everyone at some point, its not like you can aim them at one specific type of person is it? this bit is pissing me right off. not only that I work backwards, I take the photos off the cuff and pretend I planned them which bites your arse plus how can you plan for photos outdoors when you have no idea about whether its going to piss down with rain or not?
4 - write an essay minumin of 200 words on your specific job type, how did you make the work visually interesting personally and proffessionally *bangs head repeatedly off keyboard*
I think I went blind about two hours ago. I keep writing and I don't know if its me but it all reads as such pretentious bollocks its unfunny, I have never ever read such brainless twatwaffle about a proffession I know nothing about. read this if you can stay awake for the first two paragraphs.
"The original ideas outlined for this piece was to focus solely on the prime works of two very different architects and compare and contrast their works based on controversy, technique and usage within the city of London and what defines the idea of what good architecture is, as I began to research Firstly Austrian born Erno Goldfinger and his slant on the 1960's "Brutalist" style of building I realised that London is home to many buildings of intense diversity Brutalism and Modern glass structured architecture for example in the vein of Baron Foster [my secondary choice for comparison] only account for an average percentage of the skyline.
London has no set style, old meets new on every corner, brash modernism and steel frames against brutal concrete, ecologically designed family homes, Georgian terraces, new build yellow brick and flashes of European boldness in every possible colour of rendering now stain the walls of what will eventually become known as "Modern" 21st century living.
These images were never meant to be viewed as separate entities, each has a back history only crucial to the city within which it survives, these images are one joint profile and idea on how within the space of a few journeys travelling on Public Transport you can intake the silent history it has in some examples taken centuries to achieve.
By no means does this even begin to cover the vast expanse of terrain and diversity within it, this is and only will ever be a small slice of how history and forethought of the many has changed the way we now live, how London has lived in the past and how we may come to live in the future."
Yeah man. wanna buy a house off me?
