yes bartlett is more impressive graphically, but it lacks innovation and the studio structure is way too rigid. some tutors have been teaching in their own little studio for 20+ years, and we see the same stuff year after year. There's a reason the AA has brought out more promenent architects than the bartlett throughout history. AA looks at stuff from a critical angle, and doesn't just do flashy stuff for the styles.
To be fair did not understand your criterion for choosing which one js better. Perhaps the qs itself is wrong. I dont know about you but I found the AA ones more evocative and layered while the ucl ones seemed more superficial to me. Maybe its just me
yes bartlett is more impressive graphically, but it lacks innovation and the studio structure is way too rigid. some tutors have been teaching in their own little studio for 20+ years, and we see the same stuff year after year. There's a reason the AA has brought out more promenent architects than the bartlett throughout history. AA looks at stuff from a critical angle, and doesn't just do flashy stuff for the styles.
To be fair did not understand your criterion for choosing which one js better. Perhaps the qs itself is wrong. I dont know about you but I found the AA ones more evocative and layered while the ucl ones seemed more superficial to me. Maybe its just me
Bartlett student here - very pleased by your conclusion =)
I was really amazed by the quality of work at the Bartlett! Did you exhibit as well?
Nice vlog
AA felt more architectural and realistic, Bartlett was too abstract
yeh it seems more artistic and less functional