Winter Lead Dušan 2013 - judges' feedback

Architecture

Petr Burian
I do not want to, like many of my leaden predecessors, confess to the weight of the responsibility that condensed competitive decision-making brings. I always feel embarrassed when I have to pass judgment on the quality of my colleagues' (students' and teachers') work if I do not know all the context. Good for you; you wanted it yourselves.
Rather than style - a few observations: A diligent and responsible jury. The selection of the president was postponed indefinitely. Yes, few things characterize a jury more than balance. Balance does not equate to uniformity.
On a pillar in the ground floor, a student graph of attendance during the exhausted pre-submission week of the FA NONSTOP, full of "post-it" glosses and messages. Finally. At least one battle won. In the war, however - according to glimpses from hearsay and visual impressions - institutions, order, and buildings continue to prevail for now. Divergent activities are vital, ergo necessary. Even better than visiting teachers at school is being visited by them at school. Students could tell long stories under Ještěd about how much they benefit intellectually from each other.
In the last few semesters, the faculty I have been watching clandestinely has at least trimmed the lower part of the performance sinusoid's amplitude (could it be that the teaching staff of the A-module FSv is finally complete?). The upper peaks remain constants (this already hints at a serious dullness, patting the same backs year after year). It is in the middle where there remains plenty of room for outburst.
The search for golden needles outside of proven haystacks did not occur. The jury's hunger for non-standard approaches was fulfilled by the awarded works with the depth of immersion (the works of Kuzemenský - Synek; Florián) as well as with the added lift of lightness (the quadrature of Kulaťák, jumping in the quarry).
A pair of suggestions directed towards the SPA participants, emerging from jury fatigue: procure a few rolling chairs for the fund and transport the jurors (my back is killing me by the evening); relocate studios according to their evaluations in the OD after each semester - let's say in ascending order, using the "top on top" system (the jury would fly less).
Oh, and: work. Work more. Work even more. It is freezing and blowing outside in a crowd.
The Saturday finals judging candidates for Dušan was won by Karel. Phew!

Věra Konečná
If most of the projects from this year's Lead Dušan could be realized, we would probably achieve decent architecture for the addressed locations, for which professional media would write praise reviews. However, I missed projects that would evoke strong emotions at first glance; I missed somewhat crazy student ideas. Perhaps this is due to a responsible approach and the effort not to strive for unrealistic fantasies, but perhaps also a lack of courage.
Evaluating over eight hundred projects in two days is practically impossible without a certain "superficial" view; only in a closer selection can the jury engage more thoroughly with the projects. Therefore, it is possible that high-quality projects did not make it to the nominations, that we overlooked some brilliant idea.
This is also related to the presentations of the projects. Most often, they try to showcase the final solution as best as possible, but they say little about the amount of energy invested in the work throughout the semester, about the path of searching and the way of thinking. For comparing the initial intention with the result and assessing the value of the project, it would be good to include the idea of the solution in the presentation as well. Perhaps in the form of simple conceptual sketches created somewhere at the beginning.
The projects from the Hájek - Hulín studio were well understandable. While we cannot find conceptual sketches here either, the quick understanding of the idea allowed for an unconventional approach to the assignment, division of the territory, and presentation of the entire studio.
Selecting the best studios was perhaps even harder than the winning project. Other than winning or nominated works also deserve recognition. I found the work in Šépka's studio fantastic, I liked the search for meaningful housing concepts in the Kohout - Tichý studio, sensitive approaches in Cikán's studio, or presentations in Šrámková's studio.

David Kubík
I should first introduce the peculiar weekend spent at school. On Friday afternoon, a friend from school, Jan Žalský, called me and said: “Hey, David, what are you doing tomorrow?” Silence for a moment, I thought about what to say, it was supposed to be Saturday, Rajniš in Iran… “I’m sick and I need someone to replace me at Lead Dušan, I’ve already arranged everything and now I'm calling you.”
Walking again and again through the new building was a celebration for me; I finally had time to fully experience it. Thank you.
I have never studied at ČVUT, I have probably only been there twice in my life. But as an architect, I have heard a lot about the school mainly from classmates. I do not remember any of them speaking positively about it.
I don't understand; I have the impression that it is now changing a lot for the better. The school has increasingly better teachers. Urbanism education makes sense, one could even live in it. Buildings look like buildings, so a city can indeed be made from them. I am sure it was worse. A lot of good work can be felt here. The new building writes. I felt like I was in a civilized cultural country.
The environment where thirty studios are gathered logically leads to an average. Throughout, I was looking for individualities, experiments, attempts, wild ideas, overlaps. After all, research belongs to university education. Computers give project presentations a unifying uniform expression, making you feel like you are at a real estate fair. I thought about what Emil Přikryl told me, that architecture is actually quite a boring field. Coming from him, it sounds very unreliable.

Jan Mléčka
A lot of work. More than eight hundred during two days. Tons of documented activity. Thousands of colorful pictures.
Villages, squares, houses, maybe even spaces. Repeatedly and repeatedly, over and over again. Learned, more or less brilliantly interpreted. Adopted, modified by invention.
(it wasn't that pathetically bad, but the romanticizing desire to throw oneself over the railing down and dramatically shatter oneself on the stairs in a Werther-esque gesture was strong!)
Personally, I missed specific authorial individuality. The experienced journey of searching for one's own architectural expression. Joyful to the point of tears, painful to the point of ecstasy. Behind none of the projects did I find one specific author with a unique life perspective; the works were professional, aloof, so safely wrapped in universal architectural newspeak.
Bad projects have disappeared; supposedly a sign of the improving quality of the faculty. Along with them, however, genius has vanished. Educational architectural interruption for quality education swept away not only genetic waste but also the seeds of individual searches for one's own creative expression.
Laboratory architectural breeding, while fulfilling the necessary reproduction conditions for preserving continuity, can never replace the euphoric excitement of stuttering words, sparkling eyes, tingling in the belly, and tears from touching infinity.
It makes no sense to wait for a messiah. Impulses from outside, brilliant leaders. Everything we need to be is deeply embedded within us. Not to be what we think we should be in the expectation of others, but to learn to primarily be ourselves. Life is too short to live the expectations of others.
We do not need maintainers, but creators. Builders of temples.

Vladimír Vašut
Nine years ago, I graduated from FA. Five years ago, I had a short but intense role as an assistant to Professor Bočan. Then a few contacts while writing opposing reviews. Otherwise nothing. I was curious about the current state of my school…
The building is better; finally architecture! Morning tea works (progress). Afternoon beer doesn't anymore. Where do students meet? In our time, this deficiency was compensated by the Strahov dormitory, and then the Carbon club at the Faculty of Chemical Technology. I do not understand why there was no space found for a student bar in the new building! I have always had the most passionate, most enriching, and actually all stimulating discussions about architecture in a pub. With classmates and teachers. Where is this happening in our new school? Where do they meet and discuss across studios? Why is it not at school? I am really sorry about that.
I was horrified by how projects are displayed in this 21st century. Moments when you stand 30cm from a tarp and lean your back against another are catastrophic. I sometimes felt sorry for the students' hard work in relation to the presentation of their projects.
Overall impression - definitely better! I am glad that I felt comfortable. I feel that a certain rivalry has arisen, and all studios are trying. There are fewer outright failures. And that is not a small amount!
I am glad that new architects with experience, who know what they are doing, are teaching, and I appreciate them. I could choose.

---

Design

Marcel Mochal

The evaluation criteria correspond to our nature and the common values we seek in student projects - strong concept, courage, invention and innovation, quality of graphic presentation, and ability for reflection.

During the evaluation, we recorded great differences between studios. This fact is most noticeable in the form of presentations and the quality of graphic designs. We recorded many visually below-average designs that stand on very interesting concepts. This deficiency was most apparent in the 2nd year of René Šulce's studio. However, we believe this is not the fault of the management, but rather a lack of knowledge among students. (We recommend strengthening typography lessons). We understand that we are not evaluating graphic design students, but quality presentation is, in a certain sense, the foundation of success for designers. The opposite extreme is students from the 3rd year of Prof. Jan Fischer's studio. The students produced excellent models and visualizations of kitchens, but they left us cold for their content. We highly commend the pedagogical work of René Šulce with 3rd-year students. The photo documentation of the design process showed how much work the students did. And the stylistically clean presentation of the chair prototypes emphasizes everything.

A big surprise for us was the installation from the studio led by Prof. Marian Karl. The exhibition format complemented by video portraits of students greatly assists the presentation. In Prof. Alex Appla's studio, we appreciate the pedagogical approach with a clear concept. The work of his students radiates clear character, start, and goal. The graphic presentations of students in this studio, with few exceptions, have a very high level both in content and form. An unwelcome coincidence with the last year of the competition is our awkward impression of the results of the works of the students of Prof. Patrik Kotasa's studio. The fact that none of the students from this studio made it to the nominations is certainly telling. In conclusion, we would like to mention that in most studios we miss a greater connection of the assignments with a real client. Abstract academic themes prevail at the school and we would like students to have more contact with practice. Thus they could hear feedback not only from their designers - teachers but also from the client's perspective.

Jan Fabián
I usually try to have a look in a broader context. Around mid-January 2013, snow fell alternately on the new building of architecture and no evident leaking was visible, so everything seemed alright, but it was not entirely thus under the roof… The Institute of Design is a living organism for me; I admire everyone who collaborates with it, fights with it, or leaves it.
As always, it mainly depends on the leadership and thus the subsequent preparation for the assignment, in both the conceptual and practical aspects, on the number of students and their collective will. I would recommend dealing with general themes over a longer time horizon, while functional and specific topics could be addressed in a shorter time frame.
Using one of the competitions being announced at that time for assignments can work well, provided, however, that no more than two competitions are happening at once and that they are not of unduly beneficial level, as was the case in Prof. Jan Fišer's studio. In my opinion, this is a little irresponsible solution. When these "ideas" end up wrapped in graphically super well-executed presentations, the energy of the content of the message is lost. I feel sorry for the students who are shackled to the assignment of kitchens from this or that material, Hi Mexx or Hi Mac, etc., even in the 3rd year. Compared to the assignment of "food" for the 2nd year in René Šulce's studio, it is highly friendly regardless of the results, and the scope of processing in my imagination is sympathetically open.
The assignment for spatial staircases, urban furniture, and hotel rooms in the master's program in Prof. Jan Fišer's studio is certainly traditional but can allow for a distinctive work with space, the potential of which most participants utilized. For hotel rooms, however, this was notably less utilized, and rather in an absurd position - I ask here - why such mythologization of television and its perception as the center of both the conceptual and physical space? Again in garb of successfully executed graphic presentation. Some projects for urban furniture appear to be designed and consulted twenty years ago, which is sad in such a progressive contemporary period.
In the studio led by René Šulce, I was surprised by the thoroughness of the assignment "chair/wood/metal" for the 3rd year. I have personally sought a more conceptual approach in the past but in vain. I rate very positively the students' opportunity to work at a 1:1 scale and solve it in material.
The assignment in Prof. Alex Appla's studio which combines the current and future development of some classic products offers an interesting insight. I was surprised by the frequency of choosing solutions for personal transport over other themes. I found graphically successful presentations not only with master's students but also with bachelor students.
The outputs of the students in this studio are very diverse, both in themes and variability in quality. I feel like I am flying from mud across a playground all the way to outer space, from where everything is clearly visible.
In the case of Prof. Marian Karl's studio, I feel like I'm at an exhibition reminiscent of MUJI somewhere under the Antwerp viaduct. A topic like "organization" is entirely current, free, and perhaps necessary. Everything I wrote in regard to previous studios, especially regarding graphically over-refined presentations and sometimes unnecessarily fierce assignments, is not present here. The time spent not behind the computer is visible as is the energy dedicated to the core essence of the issue. They are not treading a consumer path but making steps off and into the unknown.

Jakub Berdych
From my perspective, the approach of students in Prof. Marian Karl’s studio is significantly beneficial. It brings to this institution a not entirely usual, but all the more refreshing feeling of some "freer thinking." Alongside René Šulce's studio, where clear progression from assignment to well-crafted processing of the topic is visible, I want to mention Prof. Appla's studio with its well-formed futuristic visions. In other studios, I remain reserved; I cannot shake off the feeling of a certain mediocrity.