John James Marshall thesis.pdf - OpenAIR @ RGU - Robert Gordon ...

The architects initially proposed these panels be shown in front of a wall painted
red and gray. To prevent painting the space or building a temporary wall in the
exhibition they were shown lit by a series of spotlights with red filters. The
architects were satisfied with this change. However, the architects were far
from satisfied they were not expressly invited to the exhibition opening and
informed the partners of this in their self-evaluation report at the end of the
project. It had been assumed that since there was no additional funding
available to bring the architects to Lancaster from Rotterdam for this event they
would not want to be out-of-pocket. Although they had been made aware of the
opening dates they were not sent an invitation. This was a regrettable mistake.
Figure 57: ‘Watermark’ installation view (left) detail (right), 2006. NIO
Architecten
‘Watermark’ was the only work in the exhibition not to be referenced by the
press. From the audience surveys received one visitor indicated that
‘Watermark’ was their most popular work in the exhibition. It was indicated as
one of the works that least fit folly’s artistic vision in the exhibition. NIO had
been selected based on their ‘Amazing Whale Jaw’ project for Hoofddorp and
the curatorial team had expected the work proposed for the exhibition might be
a model of something similar. They would have liked to see some designs for
buildings not just designs for surfaces. This work received a considerable
amount of in-kind support from the Heerhugowaard-based rapid prototyping
company Gravotech-Holland.
Commission 4. ‘Wifi Camera Obscura’ (2006) by Adam Somlai-Fischer, Bengt
Sjölén and Usman Haque consisted of two antennas fabricated from empty cans
of wasabi-covered peas. These were mounted on mechanised tripods in CityLab
and scanned the space for wireless network signals. Real-time images of these
- 190 -