I met with Antonino on Thursday of last week for my first supervision meeting of the year. I had shared my research design via google docs in the run up to the xmas break and he had taken time to read over my proposal.
I was able to show him the additional progress I had made over the xmas break including my attempt at explaining the research design through demonstration. I had cut elements of my trial conversation with Henry Gordon-Smith (HGS) and my analysis of this conversation into the research design – in order to show how I intend to work with data. On reflection I put together something a bit like a user journey for the data, and – as I write this I think – maybe a user journey for the data is actually a nice clear way to communicate what happens to data in my research.
Antonino pointed out to me that it wasn’t clear how the research design will draw out an architectural perspective (if this is what I desire). He asked me to reiterate what I mean by agritecture.
For me at the moment I see agritecture as where architecture seeks to recreate, replicate or replace agricultural landscape and processes…
So what does that mean in terms of agritectural elements? Antonino suggests light, ventilation and engineering and I want to cut him off because I have a strong sense of what agritecture is… from my experience trying to bring a permaculture approach to indoor agriculture with Bristol Fish Project. Yet he is right – the point he is making is that – the generation of this type of data isn’t a clear aim of my research design. I would say in this conversation I really found greater clarity that this is an aim of my research.
Our conversation widens – He asks of me – what are the architectural problems here? and – the agritectural element – is it just a box? We discuss how architecture has increasingly shifted towards variants of the box – but it wasn’t always like this.
I’m conscious that in my conversation with HGS, that he did mention agritectural elements – pointing at rooftops, gardens etc – I want to go back to the conversation and draw these out. I pretty much sidelined them – which is revealing of my way of ‘reading’ the conversation. I need to shed some biases if I’m going to do this properly.
I have the urge off the back of our meeting to go through the agritectural elements of the Bristol Fish Project farm – to help develop my sensitivity to elements as they are described and perhaps to begin working on a typology. I have some concern that this will pull my research towards my own biases – and yet – it seems a good way to record what I think.