the event of the summer term of the AAD program took place in the wood auditorium last Friday 080505. Interesting conversation, once two figures like Eisenman and Wigley are in it; not so interesting that even if Eisenman would really like to answer questions, yet we didn't have the chance to ask him the whole conversation was on the last volume of “Volume” entitled “Doing almost nothing”; the conversation also turned out to be almost nothing, from my point of view I have to say that there was no actual debate: how could it be one? I would really like some comments on this debate, I hope that some of the people that were present at the debate are also reading the archinect's posts... so I'm looking forward to that.
.JPG)
6 Comments
wasnt there, but eisenman would be the last person i would invite to a "debate" on the subject of "doing nothing."
...as if eisenman even knows how to do nothing. (and i mean that as a bad thing)
and to be honest, i dont know if columbia is the right setting for that topic either, considering the modus operandi there seems more to be doing everthing or the appearance of everything at once. the event should have been in holland - where they practically invented doing nothing.
Wasn't there either, but heard about it. Sounded interesting, though from what I understand, it sounded like a lot of the same old stuff.
Peter Eisenman is misunderstood. Read the essays in Blurred Zones or his latest exhibition catalog - they do the man and his work justice and do a good job of exploring Eisenman's work for what its worth (a ton in my opinion).
If I heard correctly, Eisenman said this at the conferece, making reference to only three great living architects - one being himself and another, Koolhaas - does anyone know who he considered the third? This one has been racking my brain for a few days...
sorry...last paragraph is totally unclear. Basically, I just want to know who the other great living architect was.
via the gutter, via gridskipper (i think):
At the Peter Eisenman Mark Wigley debate up at Columbia this week, Eisenman beginning a long stem-winder of a paragraph about logocentrism, the spectacular, and maximalism—that third item somehow being what connected Himself and Daniel Libeskind. Eisenman launches into this paragraph with a rhetorical question, "What's the difference between Rem and Danny?" Wigley, who apparently can't help it, immmediately answers, "About two feet."
the real answer is the number of completed buildings and public perception
The point that Eisenman was probably trying to make is that he is not logocentric, spectacular, or a maximalist - both Koolhaas and Liebeskind can be found guilty of the above.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.