00:10 The Chair (Suzie Attiwill) introduces the examiners: Stephen Loo, Peter McNeil and Jenny Lowe and explains the proceedings
02:22 Examination begins by explaining the exhibits (Structuring)
04:05 Anna explains how she will proceed through the presentation (Structuring)
04:28 PhD Summary Statement (Structuring)
07:03 First Mapping Process explained (Methodology / structuring)
10:18 First Project ‘Traverse’ in detail (Project narrative)
16:31 A new relational map – a series of trajectories (Practice methods / methodology)
19:03 The Abbotsford convent – used ‘to interrogate an architecture of reciprocity’ (Methodology)
19:45 Second ‘map’ explained (Methodology)
24:14 Sydney Nolan project (Project narrative)
27:56 A shift in the way Anna views architecture (Practice narrative / structuring)
29:37 Various publications described (Practice narrative)
32:57 A trajectory explained: the loaded plan / narrative beginnings (Practice narrative / methodology)
35:20 A series of cross-sectional images from different projects (Practice narrative)
37:03 The next trajectory: Openings and Entrances explained (Methodology)
40:50 The seven ‘lamp’ design propositions (Project narrative)
54:40 Conclusion including the contribution of the PhD (Contributing)
57:28 The presentation ends. Applause
57:56 Peter McNeil (PM) A question about the difference, in her work, between writing and criticism
1:01:26 (PM) Do you reflect on your subject position? And is it relevant or not that you are a writer and a woman?
1:03:02 Stephen Loo (SL) What’s your research question? And what’s the difference between writing and drawing that allows a translation to occur?
1:08:02 (SL) Something about criticality in writing and drawing. Does one remain mute or a hand-maiden to the other?
1:10:38 Jenny Lowe (JL) expresses a frustration that she felt she could not pin down the various points as they ranged (like a butterfly) up and down the wall exhibit. Then asks a specific question about image and caption in the Seven Lamps section – does one support the other or do they exist independently?
1:16:40 (SL) Is the last section of the presentation (Seven Lamps) an opening up or closing down of the trajectories described in the presentation?
1:20:33 (PM) Q: You mention your admiration for Conrad Hayman and mention the ‘latency’ of his writing, can you talk to that?
1:22:32 (PM) Has the PhD enabled you to develop strategies to: push, subvert, shift, nudge architectural writing in this country?
1:24:51 (SL) Has your teaching shifted your writing and drawing?
1:31:06 (JL) If you were to start a book now what would it be about?
1:35:10 Examination concludes
View images from the event
This PhD is a critical examination of Anna Johnson’s practice as expressed across a 12-year period through her design, writing and teaching. Defining the mode of that practice are Johnson’s three distinct roles: her position as a full time lecturer within the architecture department at the RMIT School of Architecture and Design; architectural critic and freelance writer with more than 10 published books and over 100 journal articles; and thirdly, her own architectural design work. This PhD process has enabled a defining of Johnson’s procedural working methodologies. From this was established Johnson’s position of Architect Writer, her writing – like her drawing – has generative affectual consequence for her design and teaching work. The reciprocal relationship she evolved between words and form – text and drawing – define the parameters within which architectural content (meaning, representation and form) are manifested, tested and then resolved. The acts of observation, critique and narrative development – activities central to her written practice – have a generative and consequential relationship for her design and design teaching. What has emerged is the generative exchange between writing and drawing, one is not produced without the other and a certain interdependency exists between them.