XI. Bohuslav Fuchs Prize - Interview with the Expert Jury

Would you compare the projects and their processing (possibly the assignments themselves) here at the Faculty of Architecture of Brno University of Technology and at the Faculty of Architecture of Czech Technical University in Prague?

MgA. Ondřej Synek:
As a jury member, I went through the entire Brno school and immediately after that, for safety, also our school in Prague. The difference between the schools is significant.
The main difference lies in the feeling I have from the schools, from the submitted projects, their presentations, and the presentations of the studios. There is a strong ambition evident in the Prague submissions, both from the students and the teachers. There are several relatively new studios with various profiles, but always with a great eagerness to engage with Architecture, which pushes the standard of the school upwards. Most studios have a uniform way of presentation and it is clear that everything matters to them. Of course, there are studios where you don’t even want to stop after a glance, but for most, I thought, how would I select the best project here?
From the daily inspection of the Brno school, I come away with a different feeling. There is ambition at the school, but it seems to be held by only a few individuals.
For some of those individual students, ambition manifests in what seems to me as an unbearably grandiose presentation of the project, behind which often stands, it appears, little work from the architect – little thinking, discussion, complications, and opinions. It was a strong impression, and that is why I probably write about it first. At the same time, however, we as a jury found projects ambitious in what I consider to be the right sense. It was evident that students are really searching, working, and at the same time trying to explain their work well – to present. However, there were relatively few of them. And it seemed that those searching often lacked someone to guide them in their search and help them.
I perceived the ambition of some teachers in several cases, most notably with Petr Šmídk and Luboš Františák and their joint assignment "For Brno Higher!" Part of the presentation "For Brno Higher!" was dedicated to typology. I follow various school architectural research studies. I consider typological research to be a great source of inspiration. But if part of the assignment was supposed to be a proper typological research à la Christ und Gantenbein, this ambition remained unfulfilled, yet it is still important.
In the projects of the assignment Res Publica – "Civitas socialis" led by Pavla Jury and David Mikulášek, which all struck me as somewhat similar, and well thought out, I read the ambition to handle even small topics well, which I personally like. (It probably has to do with the fact that Michal Kuzemenský and I are dealing with these topics at CTU FA ourselves.) Similarly, I perceive the studio we evaluated, ZAN led by Jiří Palacký.
Overall, the Brno school seems to lack ambition. I don't want to talk only about the presentation, but it is precisely that ambition that shows a lot. I don't know whether the presentations of semester projects are standard at the FA VUT, or whether students were forced into this by SOFA, but I consider presenting works in the corridor to be one of the worst possible methods. In many other cases, we as a jury searched for projects among other studio clutter, almost unable to distinguish what to assess and what not to... At the same time, I am almost certain that when there is a lot of joyful work, almost anything can be put on display and that joy and work are evident in it. That feeling of joy and engagement seems to be missing.

In schools, experimentation usually takes place – boundaries are tested, new ones are discovered, and old ones are examined. There is discussion. Surely. It can mean various things, from Super Studio to Neobiedermeier, from Kraus through Šrámková to Florián. And that is probably the main thing that I missed this year in Brno, and I only realized it after a few weeks. I missed a project or studio that would have sparked me, unsettled me, angered me, or shown something new.

Please evaluate the individual pages of submitted works from the analysis and concept work to urbanism, the composition of the project's mass, the technical and construction part, and finally the graphical processing including visualizations.

Ing. arch. Radko Květ:
The jury chose from many dozens of student works. All aspects of each design are always considered. So now it would be up to someone else to assess whether we selected appropriately. As an example of the selection method, I will provide this: the vast majority of jurors disqualified the glass "high-rise" without hesitation due to the design of the layout.


Did you miss any themes here? What assignment would you, for example, propose to students?

Ing. arch. Peter Jurkovič:
That requires a longer reflection. I have long been attracted to the theme of prefabrication, especially in residential architecture. I did not notice this theme here.


How do you evaluate the overall level of the exhibited works?

Ing. arch. Peter Jurkovič:
I was satisfied with the level of work, I think the range was at a standard level, from average to very successful.

Ing. arch. Radko Květ:
As always, everywhere, high, medium, and low quality.


In what areas do students have weaknesses, and where do they excel?

Ing. arch. Radko Květ:
Weaknesses are not only held by students. Nowadays, a lot of energy is often devoted solely to the façade.


Did you find any projects during the evaluation that impressed you with their processing, idea, energy, or strength of concept? Please describe how they differed from others.

Ing. arch. Peter Jurkovič:
In some projects, there was a disproportion between the content and the final processing, which is a shame. Even very talented students often put everything on the result. In contrast, I like works that operate with a simple, readable idea. When it is subsequently supported by suggestive processing, it is a win.

Ing. arch. Radko Květ:
I liked two projects "Bridge in Portugal" and "Hotel in the Quarry". In my opinion, they had the fewest mistakes. The concept, mass solution, technical solution, and graphic processing including text were balanced. No part stood out above the others.


Can students perceive the context of the place and respond to it, or possibly draw from it?

Ing. arch. Peter Jurkovič:
Yes, especially the projects that programmatically dealt with the analysis of the site appealed to me the most. I would mention "Mikulov" and “Hranice,” which were among my top projects.

Ing. arch. Radko Květ:
Some can, some cannot.


Did you find any exhibited works that dealt with contemporary themes? Which ones and what topics do you think they are?

Ing. arch. Peter Jurkovič:
The project of the Brno "ghetto" resonated in the jury. That is definitely one of the current topics. We discussed for a long time the correctness of the solution and the reading of the problem at all. However, we appreciated the courage and daring to engage with this topic.

Ing. arch. Radko Květ:
We found it, especially regarding the project "Hranice." The author is treading on thin ice. The project should be more or less a sociological study. It addresses a serious social issue. Similar works exist worldwide today by the hundreds, and the results do not always correspond.