2006.07.30 12:27
A Sketch of London
Just keep in mind, the older you get, the more future you've actually seen.
2007.01.01 21:40
philip johnson was a whore. rem koolhaas is a porn star.
philip johnson was a bore.
rem koolhaas is a car horn.
steven holl has a fetish...
2007.01.24 12:08
The age of technological revolution is 100 years dead
"In the future, your whole life will be a phone call."
2007.02.19 13:19
what is today's movement?
Client: "How do you package your architecture? Can you package an architecture just for me?"
Architect: "To stage or not to stage? That is the question."
2007.02.19 13:34
what is today's movement?
Client: "Can you design me an architecture that reenacts Duchamp's Large Glass? I want something in facets."
Architect: "Madam, that would be a crime. And besides, you don't look good in the nude."
Client: "Well then, can you design me an architecture that is regional and relates to fashion."
Architect: "Of course, Madam. It will look something like this...
| |
2007.02.19 13:52
what is today's movement?
Client: "I would like you to design for me a powerless architecture."
Architect: "Madam, I have to be honest with you. You're looking for Dime-a-Dozen Architects. They have offices everywhere."
2007.02.19 14:39
what is today's movement?
Client: "I would like you to design for me an architecture that cracks me up like Duchamp's Large Glass."
Architect: "Madam, you are in luck. That architecture does indeed come in the acropolitan style."
Client: "Wonderful. Now, can you add to that an architecture that hurts like the truth?"
Architect: "Well, I already know what the back door looks like, but, are you sure you can handle it?"
2007.02.19 16:57
what is today's movement?
Client: "Can you design for me a confused architecture?"
Architect: "I can try."
=====
confuse
1. to perplex or bewilder
2. to make unclear or indistinct
3. to fail to distinguish between; associate by mistake; confound: to confuse dates
4. to disconcert or abash
5. to combine without order; jumble; disorder
6. Archaic. to bring to ruin or naught.
| |
2007.03.26 11:11
Theory Part II - Doing What I Said I Would Do...
Of course "productive misreading" is different than lying. But in our crazy modern reality "productive misreading" and lying are sometimes the same thing.
2007.03.26 11:18
Theory Part II - Doing What I Said I Would Do...
"So what would Deleuze do?"
"Well, let's reenact him and find out."
2007.03.26 11:56
...and speaking of random tangents
"The history of architecture is replete with successful projects that are the result of novelity found within false history and, more recently, outmoded science.
Historian Rudolf Wittkower, in Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism, gives as an example Andrea Palladio's historical error attributing superimposed pediments to the Pantheon giving erroneous historical legitimacy to his unsurpassed Venetian churches."
--Reiser + Umemoto, Atlas of Novel Tectonics, p. 170.
Go read pages 89 to 97 of Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism to see what examples Wittkower really gave.
Do you think Reiser + Umemoto purposefully wrote historical error within their passage about historical error in order to more strongly make the point about the modus operandi of historical error in design itself?
2007.03.28 13:21
Theory Part II - Doing What I Said I Would Do...
You know there really is no proof that personal fantasy automatically translates into bad design/architecture. Nor is there proof that personal fantasies automatically lack any theoretical foundation.
| |
2007.04.03 14:20
AN ARCHITECTURE OF REMOVEMENT
All I did was look to see what was 'winning' in the architecture magazines while Matta-Clark was in architecture schools.
As to holes is walls, note the PMP to Mikveh Israel connection.
2007.04.23 20:46
Featured Discussion: Volume
"It turns out that humpback whales riff off each other, remixing one another's songs, and developing trends and fashions in their singing over time." Who told them about composition?!?
2007.04.25 10:24
Featured Discussion: Volume
"...a 'hard copy' tool that brings in more architectural clients..." -- Was Le Corbusier subliminally advertising? Did the publication of SMLXL coinciding with an exhibit at MoMA bring Koolhaas/OMA more clients? I'll say probably and probably.
(I assume) clients look for someone they can trust, and they probably do that by seeing what architects are already trusted.
But your answer is viable, nonetheless. Just also be aware that the architectural field is repleat with (subliminal) copy-cats.
The client asks:
Are you an architectural brand or are you an architectural knockoff?
The architect responds:
That depends, are you a brand client or are you a knockoff client?
How many clients do you think I'd attract with "hardcopy" entitled Volume and Congestion?
2007.06.19
Eikonic precursors
2005.12.08
2005.12.08
2005.12.09
2005.12.09
2005.12.09
 
2005.12.11
2005.12.16
| |
2007.06.22 14:52
Anti-Starchitecture Chic
Here's what's going on:
1. The star system is shrouded with lots of myth. The reality has more to do with PR, paying a publicist, designer labeling business, etc.
2. What you are really "longing" for is to be "published" without having to be a starchitect.
2a. By all means do not self-publish! That will render 'publishing' obsolete and all standards would be lost in the process--so much for the reality of relativity. [But don't be fooled, it's more just that the powers-that-be want to keep holding the power--the devil wears Prada and takes best care of itself.]
3. If you really want to make a change within the field of architecture, make sure you bring lots of money to the table first.
2007.06.22 15:03
Anti-Starchitecture Chic
Haven't you heard, Zeitgeist is so yesterday!
2007.06.23 11:33
Anti-Starchitecture Chic
There is a lot of structural and spatial and design innovation going on that makes 'signature buildings' more than only a commercial backdrop. Many 'signature buildings' actually make significant contributions to architectural history. Perhaps a more real issue it that the distinction betweeen hype and history is completely ignored to the point where the hype is what becomes a much distorted history.
2007.06.23 12:56
Anti-Starchitecture Chic
So, within the 'star system' who then are the "stars" and what form-buildings got the press? As large as the realm of architecture is, it's still a finite set, so we can actually be specific rather that general. Gehry, Koolhaas, Eisenman, Hadid--are these at least on the list of 'who is a starchitect'?
How buildings get press is what should be much more studied. For example, having "Guggenheim" attached to any building design will get lots of press because the Guggenheim already has a whole staff department devoted to generating press, besides the fact that the major mission of the institution itself is to exhibit. Ironically, the "Virtual Guggenheim" by Asymptote was pretty much literally just press.
If starchitects are really just pseudo celebrities, is that then already a sign of just how relative starchitect status is?
Is "a style" really such a bad thing? I actually see a lot of diversity from architect to architect, and even with a specific architect's oeuvre there is often diversity at least via nuance, if not actually just plain diversity. I thus question the full validity of "same bag of (increasingly superficial) formal tricks."
One could also argue that there is now-a-days a whole lot more critical architectural criticism going on, but it all right away falls into various camps--New Urbanism, Bilbao effect, anti-starchitect, etc.(?)
Most people I know know absolute nothing about architectural style. I'd go so far as to say that even most architects don't know all that is really going on design-wise now-a-days.
"Lesser known architects follow the public's new tastes."--that sounds very subjective to me.
"Architecture" loses yet another battle." --Is an imaginary battle really a battle? Can an imaginary battle really be lost?
I'll leave it at that, but I think the second set of points of regarding Archigram and backlash casts much too large a net, with big holes. Somewhat insular itself even.
parting shot:
Architects can well design buildings, put I don't think they'll ever be able to design clients.
|