End of Me tutorials/Tuesday 30 May 2006

On Tuesday 30 May we will focus on your projects and interpretations of course themes via individual tutorials (30 mins per tutorial). Please sign up for a time via the "Comments" function with EITHER Ron OR Rolf.

Ron’s available times are:

09.00-9.30 Anders Johansson
09.30-10.00
11.00-11.30 Karin Nilsson
15.00-15.30 Kira Carpelan
15.30-16.00
16.30-17.00

Rolf’s available times are:

13.00-13.30
13.30-14.00 Felicitas Rohden
14.00-14.30
14.30-15.00
15.00-15.30 Helena Regius
15.30-16.00 Joshua Webber

This is your opportunity to rehearse and receive feedback on your response to course assignment #3 before Thursday, so please be prepared to discuss your final essay/presentation as outlined below. Where? Ron's office in IS for those seeing Ron and S5 for those seeing Rolf. We look forward to hearing your ideas.

Best wishes,

Rolf Hughes & Ronald Jones

3. The final essay/presentation (comprising 50% of course grade) should be an exploration of one or more of the course themes of innovation, authenticity, and/or exhaustion. Students should carefully research, write and/or present and discuss a hypothetical or real life dilemma concerning an aspect of one of these themes. For example, a case of architectural plagiarism is afoot in U.S. courts that could be used to examine questions of authenticity and originality: U.S. Federal Judge Michael B. Mukasey, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled in August 2005 that a lawsuit brought in the fall of 2004 by Thomas Shine against Skidmore, Owings & Merrill for copyright violations involving SOM's Freedom Tower design and Mr. Shine's 1999 student project at Yale (when David M. Childs, a partner at SOM, was his Professor) could proceed. Based on visual evidence alone, Judge Mukasey ordered that the case proceed leaving open the chance for Mr. Shine’s “originality” to be protected against Mr. Childs alledged appropriation of his design. Skidmore’s motion for dismissal was unsuccessful. Does Judge Mukasey’s decision lay the groundwork for deciding the existence of “originality” in the field of architecture, a field long known to be “collaborative” and “interdisciplinary?” If the courts determine ownership in this case, should that constitute a definition for “originality” in 2006? Should the courts be involved at all? And if not the courts, should professionals in the field create a governing body to protect the ideas of young artists, designers, craftspeople, and architects against poaching from larger firms and more successful practitioners? What are the implications for your practice if Mr. Shine does not prevail? Presentation due: Thursday 1 June.