metamechanic, i still cannot see the reason why Volume existed in the first place, especially in the form of a magazine, since as you point out, and I have noticed, they are not interested in acknowledging the magazine industry. the magazine clearly does not "agitate" me. If the whole point was to "de-territorialize" as you pointed out, perhaps their efforts is better spent lobbying for the dis-banding of NCARB ? or the AIA ??

Huh ?? metamechanics, what makes you think that you or the Volume people wants us to make magazines?? i'm making you tube videos !

Isn't one reason to put a collection of ideas into a "magazine" simply so that there is a physical artifact in the world? I'm not yet completely divorced from physical material, I think most of us aren't. Stephen, the influence of Quondam notwithstanding, there is still a certain power in the physical object.

Relevant to the notion of acknowledging the magazine industry, Ole Bouman said "Most architecture magazines show images which idealize our world to such a degree that it almost becomes unrecognizable. This imagery has a politics that isolates architecture from the rest of the world." And Mark Wigley: Criticism is in such bad shape these days. Saying nice things alongside perfect images from perfect angles of the latest product is such a waste of time and paper. The discipline acts as if buildings are so sensitive that any less than soothing or flattering words in their vicinity will make them come out in a rash and spoil the photographs.

So perhaps not taking on the magazine industry as a whole but only the architecture glossies.

An excerpt touching base with architectural writing in glossies.

"...Instead of eating lunch, I had a dissatisfied reader. That is, somebody who recognized me and started to corner me about "how narrow minded I was when I didn't say anything too great about so and so, in one of my previous 'essays' and how I am nothing but a hound dog who bites the hand that feeds him". Auch! Like what, sir? Do you mean architectural writing degree xoxox , like saying amore to a three legged red dishwasher enough times to match the number of photos per page? Nope. "It ain't me..." is followed by two calmer-downers Tina put in my pillbox. No lunch but I am calm.

from AIA06 Diary : An Architect Goes Towards the Edge June,2006

i always assume magazine is for the leisure and enjoyment... i do not normally theorize/contemplate nor any kind of thought struggle before my subscription. if i'm in doubt, i usually borrow it.

i read a few issues on Volume, i admit that i do enjoy on dog training, neil denari's article and a few others, especially the thai transsexual dancer at hongkong on volume 2, which i'm very surprise Volume had mentioned this since even the mainstream local media had ignored.

I finally managed to read BLDGBLOG's interview with Inaba here.

I think I feel much more sympathetic to Volume's goals now. Not that I wasn't before, but it felt a bit overly academic; the interview makes i seem like a human endeavor. Helpful reading.

because lb linked it, i also just read the inaba interview. that's one smart guy.

i almost wish that he wasn't in architecture but could talk about architecture and urbanism in the way that he does, but from outside it. i can buy into most of what was said in the interview, even the parts that are probably more about provocation than anything - but i bet most of us architect-types could. it's fun to think about how we can find urban models and architectural connections out in the world and in other disciplines and we have shared experiences that allow us to respond similarly. we can read about saddam's palaces as mcmansions and nod and smile.

but one of the smartest observations inaba made, and one which i wish we could all find a way to address, is the acknowledgement that there is a whole host of people - his example being financial management-types - that he (and i - and probably most of the rest of us here) don't know, won't know, and therefore, don't understand. and that they might have as much impact on urban development as designers.

so back to my question from earlier, worded a little differently: what is the vehicle for connecting with urban stakeholders with whom we have no experience? it's not an internal architectural conversation like this or like volume. it's not something schools have time to foster. and the kind of connection/conversation that would have to happen is not likely to happen over lunch or after church service if i were to join rotary, kiwanis, chamber of commerce, or a church.

maybe a way to infiltrate the newspapers?! if jeffrey were to get hired on at gannett, maybe get a column in usa today, i would subscribe in a minute. then i would know that i'm reading the same 'news' point-of-view as the guys in ties on planes and the start-up ceos in the warehouse district.

we don't have walter cronkite any more. the 3 legacy networks are now splintered into 100s. the culture that we share is in the non-space of 'american idol', 'dancing with the stars', and seattle grace hospital. the shared consensus in how we receive information about the world we're making outside has been lost. or we never had it. i don't know.

well, that kind of goes to the opposite extreme. i neither think they're less intelligent than us nor more intelligent. but we certainly have things to learn from each other.

the problem i see is that the conversation that i might like to have with an investment banker is never likely to happen because we don't have a shared language or a shared perspective. and that could only come over a longish relationship. (maybe it's not merely discrimination or cronyism that keeps the old gray haired guys successful, it's that they've built these relationships during which they've developed a range of shared experiences, but that's a different subject.)

the shared perspective MIGHT be something that could be fostered through a more universal media outlet, but then there would be a loss of diverse points-of-view. there are both benefits and liabilities to our culture having become so scattered.

physically architecture is territorial. territorial in the sense that there are these things called plats of survey. that there are these things called area restrictions, floor area ratio, building height limitations etc that force buildings to be territorial. now the territory of the mind is a another beast. you don't want to go there.

you can do architecture on/for a boat. (not just hypothetical, because i have.)
architects can design prefab housing for erection at any location. some design furniture at what can be an architectural scale.
shigeru ban's post-disaster shelters can be used in a variety of places based on the 'territory' of catastrophic events, not political or social environs.
herman miller and haworth have predesigned rooms that can be sort of 'plugged in' to a spec ofc at any location.

we'll have to be more specific about "territory".

This is a "well, duh" moment for me, but vado's post makes me think the reason the form of favelas etc. - their ad hoc-ness, I suppose - is why they are so fascinating. Form made entirely outside of any "territorial" i.e. governmental OR educational (I won't say social) restrictions. Although Houston has no zoning, right? And its form definitely doesn't fascinate me.

it has been awhile since i read it, but i believe bernard cache's earth moves has a nice "definition"/explanation of "territory". i'll look what i got at home and see if i have a few lines on the puter

No object can be tied down to any one sort of reality: a stone may be part of a wall, a piece of sculpture, a lethal weapon, a pebble on a beach, or anything else you like, just as this file in my hand can be metamorphosed into a shoe horn or a spoon, according to the way in which i use it... so when you ask me whether a particular form in one of my paintings depicts a woman's head, a fish, a vase, a bird, or all four at once, i can't give you a categorical answere, for this metamorphic, confusion is fundamental to what i am out of express... and then i occasionally introduce forms which have no literal meaning whatsoever. sometimes these are accidents which hpapen to suit my purpose, sometimes rhymes which echo other forms, and sometimes rhythmical motifs which help to integrate a composition and give it movement...objects don't exist for me except insofar as a rapport exist between them or between them and myself.

its willem dekooning.jeesh

mea culpa it was georges braque i misread the citation number. but here is a de kooning quote: I am working for weeks and weeks on end on a large picture and have to keep the paint wet so that i can change it over and over, I mean , do the same thing over and over."

sorry to re-territorialize the discussion, but found some interviews that 'C-Lab' did for Volume, with Francois Roche, Hernan Diaz-Alonso, Peter Cook:

http://c-lab.columbia.edu

interesting discussions, especially the F Roche, which is very 'deterritorialized' (you'll see what i mean...)

i guess they do in fact do more than a magazine, even if the content is not unlike what you would read in print (ie a limited number of sources/voices determining the composition), there is some attempt at addressing the question of media by multiplying the forms that the interview might imply.

new question:
if someone came to you with a small amount of money and some technical expertise and asked you to start a magazine, what would you do?

(all answers are welcome, including those that violate the question (eg 'take the money and start a blog'), but think about it seriously, as if it were happening)

but without the 'hard object', Wigley's comment about 'deterritorialization' of the magazine in the discussion above would have never happened, and would never have occasioned this discussion...

so i don't see the point... the magazine is one thing (a 'hard thing', at that), and the discussion around it is another, but they are related.

but check out Hernan Diaz-Alonso's interview
'being famous in architecture, what does that mean, that a bunch of people will know you at a school. i flew once with David Bowie- that's famous, when you take up the whole first class of an airplane for you and your entourage. all of us, we're just idiots, posing like we're famous...'

wise words on the question of the 'elite' that was brought up earlier here.

who knows, maybe this will be published in the next issue. (not that it would matter, it happens here after all, and would be redundant...)

(the conversation with Francois Roche printed in the last issue and produced as video for the net was very much about the question of territories, but granted only initially included a limited number of discussants)

my point is that, of course, different formats have different potentials and different possibilities they preclude, or at least make difficult. it would be the same to say that archinect is generally incapable of delivering a single, sustained, intelligent argument from a single perspective. it isn't a condemnation, just an awareness of the equal value of different approaches.

if Volume wants to print a hard magazine, do real-time/real-space events, produce videos, etc, while focusing only very partially on the internet, i think it is good that someone pushes the potential of the those other media. 'spontaneous conversations' about architecture on the internet are a given, in no small part thanks to Archinect, but that isn't necessarily the only form of knowledge that can be produced (even now...), nor the only format for that knowledge.

in short, yes, it is great that this conversation happens, and no, it could not happen in a hard copy of Volume, or any other magazine. so it is good that they aren't the only game in town, and that they don't only do magazines, and that participation can find many channels, only one of which is internet forums.

there is a sense of the contradictory in advertising agitation, making a neat clearance for it and then placing billboards that beckon as much towards the polite manufacturing of ideas that, in the sequential flow of interests, whims and deliberately random unarchitectural tangents ("see how cleverly trivial we are and yet, herein the architectural anchor") with no common ground other than to 'agitate' are rendered implicitly bland in the momentary, monthly,
collaged ensemble,as it does to their stated intention to agitate and "deterritorialize". endowing agitation, subversion, with self centred solipsism renders the golem more real than its maker, the agitation more real, more significant, much more of a currency, than the reason for agitation and its consequence.

the culture/s of discourse that unite/s the in-bold participants, the plateau on which they operate is just so characteristic that it can hardly not be territory much less be aterritory. its nothing less than the highbrow mainstream and thats fine. though it might seem like a proliferation of words (expressing oneself, or in this case magazine-self) is a good thing in an open society, i would say that the in-bold discussion above was completely unnecessary. a magazine amongst other magazines, in its logical extreme, all magazines can be compiled in one, or in the other logical extreme, all magazines are composites of variant pages, topics and issues that repel each other; or must every other architectural magazine allude to the self-acknowledgement of a manifesto, a centralizing voice, or exactly the opposite of that (that is to say, yet another manifesto)

what is agitation and why? it seems to me that its nothing less than to alleviate intellectual boredom. thats fine, but must we accompany that with the sombre tones of necessity, determinism and the unpoken, but strongly hinted at, good of humankind/architectural thery/practice...etc

i have been agitatingchristie-brinkley-is-divorcing-husband-peter-cook-because-of-his-affair-with-his-18-year-old-personal-assistant discussion since last summer. an update.

It's difficult to enter the discution at this point, but I'd say that th "repeat ad infinitum is probably not the way to go.
The problem of this phrase is that the problable purpose of Volume is not to look at things to use them as a retroactive manifesto the way koolhas advocated it with Delirious New York but to raise awareness on the way cities are being built as events not adressed by architects, in a teorethical (probable spelling mistake) nor professional point of view.
The way one can started a practice: a friend's brother is a finance concellor for wealthy people that makes lots of money and suddenly have to pay enormous taxes: he helps them pay less by apropriatly investing their money.
So he knows a lot of very wealthy people; he offers his borther to work for one of his client 's friend and he would get to build this city built by investor, while still keeping the necessary distance with them.
That's a possible solution for everyone, but it's mostly based on chance...
I'll theorize it once I figure out how it turns out (example based on real facts)...
Sorry for bad spelling and grammar, I don't participate to this forum as often as I used to...

My main worry is that publications like Volume deepen the crevasse between theory and practice.

there has to be a distance between theory and practice though.
Theory and criticism are not there to be directly aplicable in practice, but to define the discipline in a different and parallel way.
Practice and theory never merge completely, but they can "feed" each other with common directions.
I think that is the purpose of this magazine.
I actually haven't read it, so I can only give my opinion from this discussion; but I've read others theoritical US publications, and I always find them interesting. We're lucky that the US have this kind of magazine, because they are probably the only ones in the world; here the only thing left are magazine talking about built projects, and nobody has find the energy to keep on publishing theoretical magazine, probably because our education system can't afford to support such big budget while US school have a lot more monzy to spend on that, which is a good thing.

squaresquared- what do you mean exactly by 'theory and practice'?
what's this supposed crevasse?
how do publications like Volume operate within it, as you suggest?
is Volume a 'theoretical' publication?

i tend to agree with French, that the two are entangled and can't be discussed in a 'pure' form, and i would guess that is also Volume's position. it seems that only a very limited idea of 'practice' would exclude writing, thinking, arguing about architecture.

but what were you suggesting?

"We're lucky that the US have this kind of magazine, because they are probably the only ones in the world; here the only thing left are magazine talking about built projects."

very interesting, french. literary theory was brought to the u.s. architectural scene post-1968 from europe, prodominently france. it's funny how it still has hold (in an evolved/bastardized form) in the u.s., while europe has moved on. (or was it ever adopted in europe? while eisenman and crew were grappling with theory, european architects were more engaged with issues of construction.) i'm not sure if the americans are pushing critical thought or simply behind the eight ball.

I don't think being "avant garde" or behind makes much sense nowadyas. Asking question is always good. Asking them from the distance given by theory doesn't solve much problem, but it widens the perspective and that's good imho.
The fact is, the magazines in Frnace for instance, just give photographs of built projects, or competiton held, without any critical position toward the architectur behind designed.
There was even recently one of this magazines that translated an article of Oroussof about the Denver rpoject of Libeskind that was almost too critical to be written by a french critic.
I don't think it's good. Maybe the architectural scene is in an ok shape in Europe (not particularly in France though) but the critical scene is inexistent and I think it's wrong.

Volume has got European origins, as it continues ARCHIS and its predecessors since 1929. In 2005 it was founded by Ole Bouman (ARCHIS, Amsterdam), Rem Koolhaas (Rotterdam) and C-Lab (NY). The very character of Volume is precisely the fact, that it is a collaboration between people and that it is going beyond borders, creating communities rather than presenting a community - "going beyond" also in terms of production and affiliation with a specific country, culture, client, trend...
the latest issue is out now, presenting again a completely different part of the community, namely the communities in Lebanon, Caucasus, Kosovo, Europe etc...

oh I didn't knwo that. So is it financed in Europe?

i'm looking at an issue, and it looks like it gets $$$ from dutch foundations, but probably something from Columbia, too, and maybe some loot from OMA?

how any of these publications stay afloat is a mystery, but i'm sure it has nothing to do with the market for these books.

i doubt the financial contributions from OMA came for some reason...it could just be me being cynical

from abra's link

I also heard that Volume Magazine is doing a big expose on architects on the verge of nervous breakdown due to not getting laid often enough << reason enough to buy/contribute?

in response to NiloufarTajeri's influanced cotton candy praise above;


"going beyond" also in terms of production and affiliation with a specific country, culture, client, trend...
the latest issue is out now, presenting again a completely different part of the community, namely the communities in Lebanon, Caucasus, Kosovo, Europe etc...

it is certainly not going to grozny is it?

perhaps to some other sunny exposured window dwelling on the edge of an ivied wall, say manicured finger fuck?

come on now friend...
do you think central libraries of chechnya can afford to look into theories like this?
ha?

Archinecters, thanks a lot for getting involved in Volume. As always there are different discussions going on in one thread. Basically I see four of them.
Some people want to explore the assumed philosophy behind it: deterritorialization. (Better just do it...)
Others question the productivity of doing a magazine, leaving open so many more (and sometimes obvious) roads to success. (Working on it...)
Again other submit some new ideas for future issues. (Noted, please contact us...)
And finally, some express their suspicion about the real motivation for our work, which is nothing but an attempt to alleviate intellectual boredom.

Not yet discussed:
- Is it helpful to expand the domain of architecture and its discourse to completely new fields and still call it architecture?
- Is it possible to discuss this not as a frivolous theoretical escapism, but as an act of existential necessity for our beloved discipline?
- Can architecture in those new fields come into existence without one or more of its cornerstones: a client, a budget, a site, a program?
- Can we conceive of an architectural project which is truly transatlantic?
- Can we build up a momentum in which the question of a magazine’s productivity becomes obsolete?
- Can everybody find Volume or are we debating a phantom magazine?
- Would you be ready to submit ideas not somewhere hidden in a Archinect thread, but via e-mail to [email protected]?
- Would you go to Ulan Baator or Beirut to reclaim architecture’s power? (And yes Orhan Ayyüce, also to Grozny.)
- These kind of things...
(For all factual data I suggest to visit www.volumeproject.org)

no thanks Ole Bouman. but, i might be allivate myself to it when i am little more bored and manicured though, let's keep it open...
pitty the poor intellectual...

I must again reiterate that i am grateful for Orhan's continued irreverence regarding what seems like a force feeding of marketable bullshit.

And i'm playing good cop here...

mr bouman's asking questions not unlike those that we used to talk about around a table with beer after studio - both when i was IN studio and when i taught it. so what's different now, guys? why not riff on this stuff a little?

brings me back to the relevance issue a little. most of the questions above relate to how we talk about architecture intellectually which, for many practitioners, has little to do with how they're allowed to run a practice on a daily basis. i'd like to say, sure, it's 'helpful to expand the domain of architecture and its discourse to completely new fields and still call it architecture'.

but EVEN MORE, i'd like to expand the domain of architecture and its discourse to not only include both what architects learn to love about architecture AND what the general public looks for in architecture BUT to allow those two very divergent courses for architecture to have some real dialog. which means looking outside architecture and getting outside people talking about architecture.

as goofy as i thought the aia150 favorite buildings survey was, i'm beginning to see how truly valuable it was for architects. 'wake up and start figuring out how to engage people's lives and emotions' it said.

[/i]include both what architects learn to love about architecture AND what the general public looks for in architecture [/i]

Amen to that, Steven. It seems to me green issues/sustainability are the shining white horseon which architects can ride in and save the world.

And once sustainability comes up, so do social justice issues like improving the built environent for the worl'ds poorest, which may be where Volume in a roundabout way is heading? From fascination to solution?

Aw, screwed up the italics - sorry.

one of the problems that i think people are having with these questions is that capital A Architecture riding in on a shining white horse seems like a dated idea. there is no one galvanizing theory, utopia, what-have-you, to bring the profession together. i think each architect does what he or she can within his or her own sphere of influence, but to create broad theoretical generalizations, i'm not sure amounts to much in practice.

does that mean that publications like volume do not have a place? absolutely not. i love reading these journals. they stimulate ideas that i find inspirational to my own small sphere of practice. but instead of an over-generalized theoritical reading (and from the previous converation it does not sound like volume is doing too much of this), i feel that these journals are most relevant when discussing specific forms of architectural practice. eyal weizman's mapping of the israeli-palestinian west bank has been hugely influential as has the work of one of the mentor's, rahul mehrotra, on the kinetic city in mumbai. i'm less interested in the tangents and no, not everything is architecture.

also to answer your question on availability: i have never seen a paper copy of volume, but i also have not looked very hard.