IV. Bohuslav Fuchs Prize - feedback from the jurors

Ing.arch. Markéta Cajthamlová

Which of the following aspects do you evaluate as the best in student projects at FA VUT Brno, and which are lacking? - conceptual aspect, elaboration, graphics, and visualization
It cannot be said which of these aspects is the best. All students, all assignments, all professors… everything is so different. Everyone has a stronger side in something. The comparison of individual studios and years is so complex that it cannot be said if one aspect prevails. Each has its representative there. It cannot even be said that in some studio it is this way and in some years it is that way. I think it is very individual. Even in the concept. At the Prague school, one perceives it more because the topics are more consolidated here. One does not know the studios here in Brno, so one cannot orientate in it. Whether some teacher teaches better? It seemed to me that this does not manifest, that it is very individual. From the first view, there was no strong personality here for me that would influence the studio enough to make all the work significantly better. When one knows their colleagues more, then they connect it more. For me, these are just individual works. There were great concepts, great ideas, and then there were a lot of silly ones. Nothing from that is really one way or the other. It is simply a whole spectrum.

Did you encounter any talents or projects during the evaluation that surprised you with their quality?
Probably not. I think I am not mistaken when I say that we did not sit back from anything. There were many nice and good works. Maybe that’s good. Or perhaps it is hidden somewhere, and one cannot uncover it.
What we discussed, what caught our attention, were paradoxically two urban analyses. Which were not at all creative work, but truly analyses of the urbanism of the city and the river. Very detailed, carefully, actually professionally processed. In the end, we evaluated them with a special award. It was processed on a huge scale and wonderfully graphically, sensitive, clear – very professional.

---

Ing.arch. Petr Hurník

Would you be able to compare the level of work at FA VUT in Brno and the University of Ostrava? Are the assignments of work differently focused compared to Brno, or are the students in the studios led in a different way? Is the quality of projects comparable in terms of elaboration, architecture, and urbanism at these two schools?
I would not be able to. These two schools are completely different. We are a department in Ostrava, so we are burdened with the whole apparatus of construction education. There is a huge amount of technical subjects in our curriculum. Due to this arrangement, for example, we have three studios in the fifth year in one semester. Then the students loosen up, etc. The coexistence of the Department of Architecture with the Faculty of Civil Engineering is not always ideal… In the end, that condition was like that in Brno before as well. Later, there was a specialization of the school…
The focus of the work is definitely more diverse in Brno. Not to mention the free assignments that we had the opportunity to see today. In the end, even among the awarded ones, there are quite interesting topics. In our case, it is, let’s say, slightly more rigid. After all, they are usually buildings, and “limit” assignments do not appear too often. But some conceptual studios like “scene” are already sticking their heads out there. I think that is good. It just has to stay within the framework of architecture. Even a bivouac can be documented with plans, sections, and elevations if it is done properly. Then I don’t have a problem with the size of the assignment. And regarding the elaboration of architecture and especially urbanism… when you have a certain view of urbanism, it is very complicated to comment on differently focused work. Surely you understand that I will not do that.

Did you notice any contemporary trends or fashionable elements among the evaluated projects? Do you perceive fashion as something negative? Do students have a sense for the timelessness of architecture as well?
It seems to me that technology has a significant influence on design. Because very often animations are made digitally. Sometimes from the very start. I have experiences with that in Ostrava as well, and not always entirely good.
It is clear from the works that they are supposed to take the form of a poster with a large perspective, often from afar.
But otherwise, fashion… I think it does not matter what the inspiration is when you are doing something. Fashion is also one of the possible inspirations. You can create good architecture when you are inspired by what is trendy. There are good buildings and bad buildings. Some are trending, and some are not.
But that does not imply whether the trend is good or fashionable. We need to discuss whether the building is good or bad. I am not interested at all in whether it is fashionable or not.
For example, organic architecture has once again emerged. Organic buildings used to exist during the Art Nouveau period and even earlier. Gothic architecture is in a way organic after all.
Timelessness is related to that. It’s good to focus on making a good house. In my opinion, good architecture can be created, as I believe Karfík once said, “in any style.” But I don’t mean it this way either – the style is not crucial to me for the quality of architecture.

---

Doc. Ing.arch. Zdeněk Jiran

Do you perceive student works as being applicable in practice? Are students thinking realistically?
The semester projects we evaluated today do not deviate from the scheme of academic tasks that are addressed at Czech schools. They are very similar to tasks assigned, for example, at CTU in Prague or at the school in Liberec. It largely depends on the creativity and expectation of a real output from the project leader. They create a counterpart for the student in the creative dialogue during the design process. They replace the investor, the construction company, and the real environment - society. Thus, their approach determines how realistic a project the student completes. This is primarily what the academic ground serves for. School projects do not have to be only realistic; they would often lose the critical creative search for the best solution. And that would be a pity.
It is also understandable from the projects in the hall when a student has already experienced some practice with designing, but I appreciate more those projects that have a freedom of creative searching in them. Something else would be probably the diploma projects, which must have a significant degree of realism. However, I was surprised by the unusually high number of diverse free assignments for semester projects ranging from serious tasks to humorously conceived designs.

A lot of new things have entered architecture in recent years – primarily work on the computer. There is less drawing now, and visualizations are created. How do you perceive this change in student projects? Positively or negatively?
For example, I forbid (do not recommend) my students to use the computer at all for half a semester. The transfer of spatial thinking into 2D or 3D on the computer cannot replace sketching and thinking by hand. The computer only facilitates routine drawing and measuring in millimeters, repeating the plan, drawing floors on top of each other, which is great. But you cannot think in it; as soon as you do that, you become extremely constrained. It doesn’t understand what the hand does and can never replace it.
With a well-chosen visualization, you can succeed well and purposefully, but not in projecting a well-functioning building. That is long-term, responsible, and patient work over time and conducted in dialogue with the client (teacher) and society. The external expression of the house is for me in these short-term tasks less important, but I understand that it decides in exhibitions and competitions. However, I certainly welcome the computer, and I evaluate its use only positively. I cannot imagine current practice without it.