I am asking this because I have seen many of his buildings, and some of them doesn't support the Deconstructivism definition. Since, they have rectilinear shapes. So, it would be good to know a good answer to this question.
well, he takes classic mid-century masterpieces and sticks 'em in a blender and voilà you get a constructed construction that is deconstructed. sometimes the blender is set on 'rough chop' so some rectilinear shapes remain a.k.a. chunky-purée/tivism so there you go @'~ hey! you're welcome!
Deconstruction theory embraces the precept that meaning is always uncertain and that it is not the task of the critic to illuminate meaning of a given work.
Thus deconstructivism is above and beyond criticism, making it the ideal architectural philosophy.
Hi Piero, the Deconstructivist label is something Koolhaas has never chosen himself rather something the Critics have, dating to the famous Moma exhibition curated by Phillip Johnson where OMA found itself to share room with offices that have made of the Deconstructivism "Style" their signature.
Even though I wouldn't have put it that way, I do agree to a certain extent with Frac and Miles.
If you have the chance, read Delirous New York and you will understand a lot of OMA manipulations and find out a lot about hidden Dali's techniques applied.
It would take more lines to reply to you properly as there is also a critic to Modernism and one can find also Dada operations and interesting language permutations, and still I think there would be something more to add which isn't always easy to grasp.
Once a critic (sorry I can't recall his name now, if I do I will post it to you) described Koolhaas as an aeroplane fighter who, during a dog fight combat is constantly changing his trajectory.
Once we think we understood OMA, they have moved further in other directions. We have always a jetlag.
his early work at least is straight from paranoid critical theory (huge influence by dali and surrealisme).
much of that remains today, but decon is not really something that i would apply to OMA. roberto gargiani wrote a pretty good summary of the theory and history of oma practice that is worth reading if you are into oma from point of view of academic. doesn't take you far in understanding his buildings as outcome of the theoretical side though. it doesn't really line up that way.
How is the style of Rem Koolhaas Deconstructivism?
I am asking this because I have seen many of his buildings, and some of them doesn't support the Deconstructivism definition. Since, they have rectilinear shapes. So, it would be good to know a good answer to this question.
well, he takes classic mid-century masterpieces and sticks 'em in a blender and voilà you get a constructed construction that is deconstructed. sometimes the blender is set on 'rough chop' so some rectilinear shapes remain a.k.a. chunky-purée/tivism so there you go @'~ hey! you're welcome!
Deconstruction theory embraces the precept that meaning is always uncertain and that it is not the task of the critic to illuminate meaning of a given work.
Thus deconstructivism is above and beyond criticism, making it the ideal architectural philosophy.
Hi Piero, the Deconstructivist label is something Koolhaas has never chosen himself rather something the Critics have, dating to the famous Moma exhibition curated by Phillip Johnson where OMA found itself to share room with offices that have made of the Deconstructivism "Style" their signature.
Even though I wouldn't have put it that way, I do agree to a certain extent with Frac and Miles.
If you have the chance, read Delirous New York and you will understand a lot of OMA manipulations and find out a lot about hidden Dali's techniques applied.
It would take more lines to reply to you properly as there is also a critic to Modernism and one can find also Dada operations and interesting language permutations, and still I think there would be something more to add which isn't always easy to grasp.
Once a critic (sorry I can't recall his name now, if I do I will post it to you) described Koolhaas as an aeroplane fighter who, during a dog fight combat is constantly changing his trajectory.
Once we think we understood OMA, they have moved further in other directions. We have always a jetlag.
Bye!
Akin
his early work at least is straight from paranoid critical theory (huge influence by dali and surrealisme).
much of that remains today, but decon is not really something that i would apply to OMA. roberto gargiani wrote a pretty good summary of the theory and history of oma practice that is worth reading if you are into oma from point of view of academic. doesn't take you far in understanding his buildings as outcome of the theoretical side though. it doesn't really line up that way.
they are all built like shit and falling apart
Koolhaas a deconstructivist? Nah... he's a Post-Structuralist, there's more logic to his work than critical re-reading.
hey mdler!
Are they falling apart because they were built like shit or because they were designed like shit and there was no way to properly build them?
Miles, its usually a combination of both
what up tumbles?
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.