Re: Jury Reviews

- - The original note follows - -

Path:
psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.
edu!yasser
From: yasser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Yasser Elsheshtawy)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: Jury Reviews
Date: 22 Sep 1993 14:06:58 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 24
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <27pm62INNdv1@xxxxxxx>
References: <27ou4s$19j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4


An excellent book that deals with this issue is "Design Juries on Trial"
by Kathryn Anthony. As can be guessed from the title there is an
inherent assumption that design juries are "bad." She offers some
alternatives (e.g. group pin-ups in which next to each project a student
puts an envelope where jurors put their comments; another solution is to
ask each juror after the crit to put down their comments in written
form). My own assesment is that there is nothing wrong with juries per
se, it is only the lack of theory in architecture -- i.e. what is
good/bad architecture -- which contributes to this massive confusion one
finds in juries.
y a s s e r


P.S.: Someone mentioned that school presentations prepare students for
professional presentation in front of clients etc. This is a worthy goal,
unfortunately most design juries have nothing to do with the kind of
communication skills required in professional practice (see e.g. Dana
Cuff's "Architecture, the story of practice).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
yasser elsheshtawy phd student
Dept. of Architecture University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Partial thread listing: