Interview with Kamila Venclíková about this year's Lead Dušan

JK: Were you surprised by the invitation to the jury of this year's Dušan? Did you ever wish to sit on a jury?
KV: I have long considered the Lead Dušan competition to be a prestigious event at the Faculty of Architecture. Therefore, the invitation to the jury was a very pleasant surprise for me, especially now, when I am on maternity leave and architecture has become more of a hobby for me.

JK: In your opinion, what is Dušan's main contribution?
KV: The most valuable aspect of Dušan, in my opinion, is the external perspective, meaning that the jury is composed of practitioners currently not involved at the faculty. I believe this is an important and perhaps the only "metric" that the school has. Of course, it does not represent universal objectivity; the selection always depends on the composition of the jury, and that is precisely what makes it interesting.

JK: Do you think the time allocated for selecting the best projects is sufficient? Could it happen that you overlooked some interesting projects?
KV: One and a half days to choose from nearly a thousand projects is indeed very limiting, and I personally had a significant problem with it at first. I went back several times to see what we had "overlooked." It is clear that projects with strong presentations and striking forms have a greater chance. However, in the end, I do feel good about our selection; I think we did not get caught off guard, and we discovered even those high-quality, less "visible" designs.

JK: You yourself were nominated as a student in 1997. Did it have any impact on your subsequent career?
KV: I wouldn't say so. At that time, I was already working in the duma studio, and my "career" was primarily unfolding there. Perhaps it influenced my invitation to this year's jury?

JK: Who knows? What value does the award hold for the students themselves?
KV: The students themselves probably know this best; each person sets their own value within themselves. For me, as a student, being nominated by people I respect was an honor.

JK: Have you noticed any significant changes at the school during the jury assessment compared to when you studied here?
KV: Unfortunately, I must say that there have been almost none, which was disheartening for me. I imagined that the level of the school would develop and, of course, improve. The overall quality of studio work, in my opinion, has not changed at all. While new, fresh studios have emerged, I was not captivated by others that used to be of high quality. As for chronically poor studios, I believe that improvement in this area is a matter of new and strong leadership at the school.

JK: Were there any contemporary trends or fashionable elements observable among the evaluated projects?
KV: I noticed inspirations from Dutch architecture in the form of Koolhaasian collages, enchantment with futuristic constructions, or a preference for crystalline forms. Often, these were more of fashionable elements, formal applications without a clear concept, rather than contemporary trends. I found projects that could not be temporally categorized much closer. 

JK: Which studio impressed you the most, and which one disappointed you?
KV: I was most positively impressed by studios that operated compactly, meaning they either had a single assignment for everyone - Šépka/Hájek, or worked collectively on a single theme with a deliberate suppression of individuality - Koucký. In a model where students and educators work as one team, I see a reflection of real practice. I appreciated the excellent working environment in architect Kroupa's studio. Conversely, I was perplexed by previously quality studios that I believe are now stagnating; perhaps they are waiting for a new breath of life - architect Lábus, Šrámková.

JK: Do you think that based on the jury's report, changes could occur at the school? Has this ever happened?
KV: I am skeptical in this regard. After all, how is it possible that the nominated projects come from the same circle of studios and those "non-nominated" have still not noticed anything? 

JK: Are you an advocate of academic experimentation, or should the school instead focus on teaching quality craftsmanship?
KV: There is a Chinese proverb that says, "He who wants to run must first learn to walk." I am definitely an advocate of a classic craftsmanship school. I think that experimentation without quality foundations and quality guidance can permanently harm the student.

JK: Do you agree with the jury's statement about the awarded works, or did you find other interesting projects among the works that deserved highlighting?
KV: Each juror had their "favorite picks." Mine made it into the nomination selection, which pleases me. There were certainly many other interesting projects, but during the nomination process, we followed a sort of common blood type of selected works. I believe the selection reflects the opinion of the jury, which surprisingly struck me as harmonious.

JK: Thank you for the interview

---

Ing. arch. Kamila Venclíková
1992-1999 FA ČVUT PRAHA
1997 nominee for Lead Dušan - Reconstruction of G. Mahler's birthplace in Kaliště
1999 diploma project with architect Krátký - Crematorium in Prague Ďáblice
1996-2004 worked in the office DUM ARCHITEKTI (collaborative designs for the Tower in Čimelice, Pavilion of the Czech Republic Expo 2000 Hannover, Therapeutic community Karlov, Metro vestibule Kolbenova and awarded projects: 1999 competition for the Pavilion of the Czech Republic Expo 2000 in Hannover - 1st prize, 2004 Nomination for the International Mies van der Rohe Award, 2004 competition for the new building of FA ČVUT - 2nd prize)
since 2005, own practice