Milano 2020 – Lidija Gasperoni – triggers

The capacity of researchers to open up space emancipating it from the mere traditional conception of design as merely linked to construction. The researchers, presenters, and panelists discussed a wider agency of architecture. This agency was shown through the focus on design practices and not just discussing the content of the research. Even if some PhD-projects were missing a generative use of practices or were in a seminal stage of research, the discussions were often focused on design practices motivating the research to find an own practice. This focus was very clear in the keynotes presentations (Tattara, Krumwiede, Lehnerer) and in the related discussion.

Milano 2020 – Débora Domingo Calabuig – triggers

I attended a presentation as an observer (‘A Safe Space. Architecture and Preparedness in the Era of Uncertainty’) in which the comments of the panel members caught my attention: they all approached the role of design from different and complementary perspectives. Actually, everyone saw the role of design from their own experience and area of ??knowledge, and thus offered the candidate a very complete panoramic reflection.

Milano 2020 – John McLaughlin – triggers

The position papers from the partner institutions were an excellent idea though the quality varied, and I particularly enjoyed the opening session where epistemological questions were discussed. My own panel was excellent and helped me sharpen my focus. Seeing other presentations gave me insight into the range of research being carried out internationally.

Milano 2020 – Maria Margarida Maurício – triggers

The contact with many different lines of work gives a sense of security for developing my ongoing research. Its was very important for me to understand the amplitude of the works, from studies of the sun frequencies to the relationship with choreography, or a more technical analysis on architectural typologies and consequently HOW to built a doctoral discourse around them and also its graphical translation.

Trondheim 2020 – Peter Rauch – Triggers

The discussion after the 2.6 session and at the workshop with Johan Van Den Berghe. The two occasions provided the situation when an evaluator puts forward his own practice or opinion as an argument.

Trondheim 2020 – Marieke Behne – Triggers

Especially while I was listening to the phd proposal “Material map” I was inspired by the methodology and methods to deconstruct architecture projects and focusing on the materiality…

Ghent 2019 – Eva Beke – Triggers

Being able to talk about (& around) something which is actually present, instead of only represented, makes a lot of sense in our research community. Experiencing it around my own artefact and witnessing presentations of others, helped me to think more about how to communicate with and the autonomy of the research production.

Ghent 2019 – Jacoppo Leveratto – triggers

Rather than being a simple event, the last CA2RE+ conference represented an immersive learning environment, in which relational and behavioral factors counted more than specific content ones.

Ghent 2019 – Paul O Robinson – triggers

The impact was perceived the first day, when the conference was introduced by the “role-play” session. This was a sort of orientation and, perhaps more, was a calibration of expectations and tool for initial orientation and self-criticism. I would say that each presentation, given the quality of the reviewers, offered a portal to the character of “impact” and its synthesis into other aspects of the conference and presentations…in that way the conference positively built upon itself.