go to link Q. The TML observes a certain evaluation process to critically review projects and arrive at a ‘list’. As a finalist of The Merit List 2016-17 Cycle, what are your comments on the TML process?
I am not completely aware of the process, but the break-up of these 2 sections from a shortlist and then to finalist is a good methodology, considering your jurors may not have enough time. Also in case you do change jury from shortlist to final selection.
Though there are a growing number of awards that are being judged by the architecture fraternity on behalf of a sponsor, TML as in initiative as a solely peer run recognition is a great initiative- as a winner one does feel great. Not sure what the future plan is for TML, or how visible/ it is in the National/ International Architecture Fraternity.
go site Q. What was your response on the width of work you saw as part of the final list of 13 projects?
The work is well selected, not only this year but the previous year as well. A lot of course is dependent on the Jury and their direction. The selection does speak of interesting ideas executed.
Q. Any additional comments…
May be the Selected entries or Firms in the MeritList could participate in an annual lecture/ education series which could be tied into an academic program of a university or independent gallery or may be a travelling exhibition around a few cities – including tier 2cities of the panels to firms/ galleries who have the space and are willing to get the exhibition of the work.
It takes a great effort to compile and make the selections, and create the list, and it would be a shame that the work is not documented, or in some sort of a magazine/ booklet or exhibition. As of now it is only on the Matter website. If it is a collection of critically acclaimed works of architects, it should be used as a learning process for institutions / architecture firms.