Re - Our Presentation regarding the proposed layout for the Museum in Valletta

 Following our final presentation, these are mainly my remarks:

On a positive note:

• Presentation was well prepared and well presented.
• A development process can be seen following our first two presentations. (probably it was one of the few projects which saw a continuation from the first presentation.)
• The concept idea has been evolved into a practical solution within the museum.
• The original idea of having an 'exhibit within an exhibit" have been achieved by creating an interesting installation within the building to exhibit the Artifacts.
• Continuation of the concept idea in all the rooms with some variations in the hall shows harmony in the project.
• The illusion underneath the transparent pathway contributes to the design such that it engages curiosity and enthusiasm which makes the project all the more exciting.
• Chaos, confusion and distractions which are present in the today's setup have been more than minimized by the fact that the installation wall has been kept to one side of room where possible whilst the glass displays have been grouped together to give them the attention they deserve. I actually think we achieved an orderly setting in an nonuniform  way.
• Use of volume in the hall and the introduction of a picture gallery on an upper level will have a positive attribute to the overall setting.
• Elimination of information boards offers relief to the visitor.
• Other options have been suggested and discarded leaving only the strong ideas to survive. 
• I do believe that the passage way will give the viewer the sensation of passing through a time-machine which is what is desired for the viewer to interact with the exhibits. It is quite an interesting fact to be able to create something new that can give that feeling without getting in the way at any time and in any way with the actual historical artifacts.  For example, I would never do a kind of setup that looks like the original setup environment but isn't, especially when exhibiting world heritage artifacts. Where would the line be drawn between the true and the false.

Things which should not be overlooked:

• Teachers' Comments

1.  Losing the excitement of the elevated pathway.

2.  Poor visualization of our ideas across the board.

3.  Lacking behind to finish the job on time.

Conclusion:

I must agree that the visualization of our ideas in all the rooms  were lacking,  but the use of 3DsMax has impeded us from completing the task in such a short time.  Unfortunately I find that we are trying to do something which we are not yet competent enough to do at this stage.  Alternatively, perhaps we should have focused in doing a physical model rather that waste so much energy in trying to use this kind of software.

Regarding losing the excitement of the illusion under the pathway (or was it the continuity of the design?) was very worrying indeed.  

Deep down, I don't think it's really the case because I believe in all the positive factors mentioned above, however this might be the result of the 'the poor visualization of the idea'  in our presentation. 

Now having the time to think about it, perhaps the phyical model that was presented could have been more in detail thus it would have given a better idea of what we had in mind. We knew we had simplified the physical model because its intention was just to show the cutting through of the passageway within the panels rather than the actual pattern they would possess. Our intention was not to smooth the curves beneath the pathway and make them uniform.  These are still intended to be dis-layered to give a seemingly moving effect below the transparent flooring, just it was not displayed in the model and neither was it in the computerized images.

Kindly comment.