Photo: GORK
Geo: Moscow, RU
The architecture and art objects around us are subjects for discussion. Feedback is similar to agreeing on a visualization: you send a batch of renders and anxiously await what comments will delight you this time. Feedback is divided into two components: objective and subjective.
I categorize the first as everything related to technical aspects: geometry, content, materials, and basic quality standards in the market. The studio’s task here is to strictly adhere to the terms of reference. This block is tangible and easily adjustable.
The second component is more complex. I relate it to atmosphere, post, mood, selection of objects that are marked as "at the discretion of the performer" (people, transport, and other elements). The success of hitting the mark largely depends on the client’s perception, while risk minimization relies solely on the artists' experience. Sometimes we manage to defend our version, and sometimes we struggle with trivial details for a long time. Compromises come to the rescue.
If we take a broader view and consider architecture as a whole, any viewer acts as a client. Feedback is formed both at the level of sensations and in the form of discussion. It is particularly interesting to read opinions in the format of "things were better before," architects are destroying historical heritage, etc. A significant part of the audience on Zen after an article with Sergey Olegovich made me resort to bans) It seems that the authors of comments either have a short memory or a complete lack of culture in every sense. In everything, we must seek compromises and not look at problems superficially. Architecture is a living organism, and it is subject to the flow of time. Eras change—this is an inevitable process.
@gorkjournal
Geo: Moscow, RU
The architecture and art objects around us are subjects for discussion. Feedback is similar to agreeing on a visualization: you send a batch of renders and anxiously await what comments will delight you this time. Feedback is divided into two components: objective and subjective.
I categorize the first as everything related to technical aspects: geometry, content, materials, and basic quality standards in the market. The studio’s task here is to strictly adhere to the terms of reference. This block is tangible and easily adjustable.
The second component is more complex. I relate it to atmosphere, post, mood, selection of objects that are marked as "at the discretion of the performer" (people, transport, and other elements). The success of hitting the mark largely depends on the client’s perception, while risk minimization relies solely on the artists' experience. Sometimes we manage to defend our version, and sometimes we struggle with trivial details for a long time. Compromises come to the rescue.
If we take a broader view and consider architecture as a whole, any viewer acts as a client. Feedback is formed both at the level of sensations and in the form of discussion. It is particularly interesting to read opinions in the format of "things were better before," architects are destroying historical heritage, etc. A significant part of the audience on Zen after an article with Sergey Olegovich made me resort to bans) It seems that the authors of comments either have a short memory or a complete lack of culture in every sense. In everything, we must seek compromises and not look at problems superficially. Architecture is a living organism, and it is subject to the flow of time. Eras change—this is an inevitable process.
@gorkjournal