O'Donnell Tuomey

Marvellous lecture. Slow to start but opened up with a timely discourse about the design process. It was refreshing to hear from those who have really continued their early focus in form, vision, approach and interest and now have the strength to say ‘I liked that [form, petal, shape etc.] and so I started using it and built according to that’. It is a refreshing feeling in the context of architectural education now where, I feel, everything has to be so justified that the core of a design is rationalised away from that individual approach and the starting inspiration into a common ground of ‘design by consensus’. The personality of one soul is eclipsed by an egalitarian need for it to be accessible from all souls. I’m not advocating a ‘stararchitect’ veneration of a lone genius but, rather, the appreciation and value of personal taste, desire and curiousity that shapes our integrity as designers and grants a unique voice.  Ultimately, they knew HOW they designed, how they wanted to approach the source of their inspiration and how they would develop it; what materials they would turn to, what techniques they wanted to employ (although, not always as the vision of a large cantilever heralds a wider, more inventive solution…) and the overall atmosphere they wished to create. In short, it was the peace that came from the straight-taking humanity that showed the architecture for the natural progression it was and should be – a collaborative undertaking that is filled with response, intrigue and playfulness.

Marvellous lecture. Slow to start but opened up with a timely discourse about the design process. It was refreshing to hear from those who have really continued their early focus in form, vision, approach and interest and now have the strength to say ‘I liked that [form, petal, shape etc.] and so I started using it and built according to that’. It is a refreshing feeling in the context of architectural education now where, I feel, everything has to be so justified that the core of a design is rationalised away from that individual approach and the starting inspiration into a common ground of ‘design by consensus’. The personality of one soul is eclipsed by an egalitarian need for it to be accessible from all souls. I’m not advocating a ‘stararchitect’ veneration of a lone genius but, rather, the appreciation and value of personal taste, desire and curiousity that shapes our integrity as designers and grants a unique voice.

Ultimately, they knew HOW they designed, how they wanted to approach the source of their inspiration and how they would develop it; what materials they would turn to, what techniques they wanted to employ (although, not always as the vision of a large cantilever heralds a wider, more inventive solution…) and the overall atmosphere they wished to create. In short, it was the peace that came from the straight-taking humanity that showed the architecture for the natural progression it was and should be – a collaborative undertaking that is filled with response, intrigue and playfulness.

Photo 27-10-2018, 20 14 40.jpg