LEADEN DUŠAN 2015

ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM

Jury: Markéta Zdebská, Marek Štěpán, Viktor Vlach, Jan Žalský

Nominated projects / individuals:
Tereza Kupková / Decompression Border - WINNER
Tereza Březovská, Tomáš Cirmaciu, Richard Pozdníček / Reconstruction of the Student House (Císler - Oth Atelier)
Kateřina Gloserová / Residential Building Na Zatlance (Kuzemenský - Synek Atelier)
Blanka Houštecká, Petra Moravcová / HolešoviceCity2050 (Jehlík - Klokočka Atelier)
Richard Kokeš / Cottage Nýčovy domky (Hradečný Atelier)
Thui Lien Nguyen / National Gallery Lannova (Hájek Atelier)
Filip Šefl / Mental Spa (Hradečný Atelier)
Zoran Trpčevski / ESC Museum (Redčenkov - Danda Atelier)
Štěpánka Úlehlová / Gallery with Depository (Novotný - Koňata - Zmek Atelier)
Jana Vichorcová, Filip Rašek, Michal Štěpař / New Mensa CTU (Císler - Oth Atelier)

Nominated studios:
Redčenkov - Danda Atelier / WINNER
Císler - Oth Atelier
Kuzemenský - Synek Atelier
Novotný - Koňata - Zmek Atelier

WORD OF THE JURY

“Friday evening, an unknown number on my phone screen. I'm anxiously waiting to see who’s on the other end, and it's a representative from SPA. Hmm?? They are asking if I would have time to serve on the jury for Olověný Dušan. Oh, in a month? Well, yes, thank you for the kind invitation…”
I was looking forward to it and was also curious how we would manage such a number of projects. The care of the students and other simple tricks kept us on our toes. We gradually uncovered the essence of the projects - together, independently, and to each other. It was to be expected that the presentations and studios would differ greatly, but what was surprising was how much this qualitative difference facilitated our selection.
The gentlemen elected me as chairwoman, which was a good joke at the start, but it subsequently turned out to hold some significance. The formal role, for example, gave me the courage to correct the need of the male part of the jury to emphasize architectural gestures infused with a high dose of testosterone. These straightforward matters undoubtedly have a large dose of energy, but I believe that the magic is lost when there is too much of it (the energy) or when other criteria are not considered.
I wish that at school, design is taught alongside the concept, with an idea for people and the real benefit of the proposed solution. Maybe in time, society will be convinced of the meaningfulness of our profession, the planning of private and public space.
And whatever working method or form is used, it should help eloquently defend and narrate this benefit. But please, not in the form of monologues. That can be afforded by a poet or someone lying in bed with a fever. We should be able to engage in an open dialogue. To talk with the landscape, with people, with the subjects that are part of our work. The solutions should then be articulated as real answers, and preferably as stories with good endings.

I accepted the membership in the jury of this year's Olověný Dušan not only out of a natural curiosity about the quality of the projects. The main draw was the prospect of sharing a beer with a former classmate and current co-juror Jan Žalský. We have been trying to arrange this for two years without success, and this was an opportunity that could not be disregarded.
Like the others, the day before the start, I fought with the onset of an unknown virus and trembled with reverent respect before the overwhelming amount of work we had to review while constantly sniffing and coughing. The distribution of studios over three floors and their number turned out to be quite friendly. Even though we wandered around the school about five times on the first day, no one collapsed from exhausting fatigue. One cannot overlook the heroic performances and selfless care from the organizers, without whom there might have been some collapse.
I secretly hoped for an incredible load of bombastic and daring projects, ideas that are fresh and feathered, concepts that are unshakeable and solid on their feet. I expected the school to give its sheep more room for a certain degree of experiment, to allow the imagination to run wild, to really let loose. In reality, I saw a huge amount of work and boundless diligence, but often asked myself why so much labor was devoted to things that are sometimes so annoyingly banal. As a result, the charmingly catastrophic scenario did not unfold, in which it would be impossible to responsibly select the nominees, let alone the winner due to the abundance of impressive entries. We almost unanimously agreed without arguments or sharp exchanges; mostly, it was sufficient to have unshakeable arguments, or just sullen silence and rolling eyes.
I had two quick Pilsners at the event. How else, but during a joint jury working debate over a broader selection and just before the last metro left. But that did not mark the end of Dušan. We will squeeze more out of it during the final gala evening.

We begin on Friday morning at Archicafé. Markéta becomes the chair of the jury. A swap of badges featuring portraits of famous architects takes place. It can say a lot about the preferences of the jurors. I pin the likeness of Le Corbusier and Rem Koolhaas to my chest. The first introductory round does not yield anything significant. The uniform presentation of projects aids our orientation. We become pilgrims. We wander around three halls. Some of us keep getting lost. The second round is completed individually. I personally search for courage in the projects. Quite regardless of unmastered aesthetics and presentation. Later, some projects from my selection bring a smile to my colleagues' faces. However, I do not want to overlook anyone. The purpose of the subsequent rounds is merely selection. For each excluded project, we strive for full agreement, even though it sometimes hurts. We try to avoid voting as a method of selection. By the end of Friday, we are significantly below the possible maximum of projects for Saturday's contest. On Saturday, we continue our journey around the atriums, despite the custom of selecting the winner in one room with the help of a projector. The choice narrows down, the debates sharpen, and the feeling that the fifth juror will be missed grows increasingly intense. Over lunch, conversely, we easily agree on nominations for studios. And this is despite the fact that for older observers, the eclecticism in the projects of Císler's studio can be tiring, and the method brought in from ETH applied in the studio of Kuzemenský and Synek is exhausted. The energy that both studios are charged with is, however, undeniable. Here, the projects have long been among the best produced at the school. Hence, they raise the overall level of the school. The third nominated studio is a different case. The freshness and lightness of the newcomers are entirely evident in Redčenkov's studio. May it last! With effort, we select ten projects for the finals. We strive for an overview. We reassure ourselves that the selection is representative. The discussions about the winner conclude around the evening hours, at the earliest with a stalemate. An hour of heated debates and the project overflowing with optimism wins. A happy ending.

INDUSTRIAL DESIGN

Jury: Anna Marešová, Jan Dědek, Martin Imrich

Nominated projects / individuals:
Adam Řehák / Prague Spring - WINNER
Gabriele Bajdichová / w-EAR (Karel - Šafařík Atelier)
Jana Bubáková / Gas Stove V (Jaroš - Gonzalez Atelier)
Zlatomíra Cirhanová / Radiator Linea (Tvarůžek - Fiala)
Mária Müllerová / Rocking Chairs (Fišer - Nezpěváková Atelier)

Nominated studios:
Jaroš - Gonzalez Atelier / WINNER
Karel - Šafařík Atelier


WORD OF THE JURY

I do not like sitting on juries and I do not like judging, but in the end, I gave in. I was curious to see how the "new" school stands in competition with many other schools in our country. I believe that sometimes less is more (I imply the increasing number of schools in the Czech Republic and thus the declining quality), and that it would be better if students first learned the craft and then gradually moved on to designing. Overall, I feel that working with hands pushes forward and "cleans" the mind. I am not sure if this is because we looked mainly at the lower years or because students have so many options during their studies (I mean the option to choose a studio and educator each year). I feel that working with hands pushes forward and "cleans" the mind. I am not sure if this is because we looked mainly at the lower years, but overall I missed exaggeration, student playfulness, enthusiasm, and humor in all studios. From the outputs, I cannot assess whether this is influenced by the educators or the students’ approach - not putting more into it than is necessary and “just getting by.”
Uncertain outputs may also be due to students being able to change their studio and educator each year. I cannot imagine that I would devote myself to something completely different every half-year and expect that by the end of the third year I will have clarity about what I want to focus on in the future. I think a student should explore all possible forms of design, but I also think that the sequence of these forms should be directed by the school (or a verified methodology), not the student's judgement.


In my opinion, the quality of student work and the school as a whole is very weak compared to abroad. I don’t see this as a bad initiative from students, but rather in their leadership. The school is a very nice building that offers plenty of space and a modern appearance.
Five studios may be unnecessarily too much. Two or three would suffice, but well-led. Students lack proper teaching of sketching, not of painting, but sketches! In today's absence of any version of digital sketching and rendering education, it is a very lamentable testament! Every designer should be able to do that!!
Modeling with technical clay also needs improvement. It is a great pity to use such a good material in a completely wrong method! On the other hand, there are also better aspects; some studios that had good assignments and connectivity with reality and specific companies emerged very positively and professionally within the context of the rest of the school. My recommendation is to focus more on quality, not on the quantity of students!


The principle that students can sign up for a different studio every semester and can choose according to announced themes is interesting at first glance. It creates competition between studios and educators. The question is how frequent fluctuations between studios, on the other hand, affect finding specialization and what I actually want to do and deeply comprehend.
In most studios, there is a clear emphasis on manual skills, knowledge of products, technology, and manufacturability. This is a positive shift, as it was not the case in recent years. Graduates of design from most schools often had zero knowledge of production methods, so they became producers of "pretty pictures" for advertising and computer games instead.
The opposite extreme, which we need to be careful about, is that we do not produce merely design workers without an artistic opinion. I feel that students are not really aware of what is happening in the world and what contemporary design is about. I have this experience from practice, where graduates often come to our studio, and when asked which designers they like, can only remember one or two (generally well-known) names. And unfortunately, the lack of knowledge and overview is quite evident in most of their works. Generally, there is a lack of inventiveness, wit, and courage. I dare to say that several works did not even have high school level. Fortunately, they were in the minority. I feel that concentration and mutual influence among studios with differing approaches, from purely craft-based to conceptual, can create a good, healthy atmosphere at school. I’m keeping my fingers crossed!