I know AMO has cropped up before as a topic but please bear with me . . .
"[Architecture should be] Liberated from the obligation to construct, it can become a way of thinking about anything . . . . The random sequence of commissions on which each architect depends is the opposite of an agenda. The birth, shortly after SMLXL, of OMA's mirror image AMO enabled us to create knowledge independent of chance and to pursue our own interests in parallel to those of our clients." Rem Koolhaas in Content
A good few years back Koolhaas split OMA in two. OMA will continue to design buildings and plan cities, while AMO will focus on what Koolhaas calls virtual architecture. To Koolhaas, virtual architecture means designs or redesigns of human environments that don't resort to the tools of the construction industry, AMO will yield to building only when it is shown to be absolutely necessary. Building only ideas if you will, as maybe Archigram and Superstudio did.
Im starting my third year dissertation at the University of Sheffield, England and I've chosen to focus on the structure of practices, particularly the movement of firms like OMA to include 'think tanks' and the exploration of the unbuilt world. Is it necessary to investigate the unbuilt world more as architects?
I'm keen to know if anyone has any good information or articles on Koolhaas, particularly AMO (no need to tell me about SMLXL or content!) and what people think about the structure of architectural practices and the creation of AMO. Is such a black and white response valid by RK? Should induviduals circulate between OMA and AMO or should AMO act more as a school for OMA's employees? Does the very presence of AMO sort of undermine the decisions made by OMA? How should one inform / be informed by the other?
Any ideas or criticism on the topic would be much appreciated. Do people think it will work as a dissertation?
Other firms which operate R+D sections which have a push/pull (some might say 'symbiotic') relationship with the firm: William McDonough's office. Kieran Timberlake (Refabricating Architecture and the recently exhibited 'Smart Wrap' product. Gehry's new software venture. Resolution 4: Architecture and Modern Modular (Dwell House firm). These aren't doing the same things as AMO, necessarily; they're each extensions of the preoccupations of the office principals.
It would be an interesting thing to study beyond OMA/AMO, e.g., how does what is learned in one branch of a firm influence the work of another branch. When does it work and when not? How separate do these ventures end up being?
get a hold of the harvard design magazine spring summer 2004. the article "Stocktaking 2004: Nine Questions About the Present and Future of Design" is very good particularly the questions raised about the future of practice and how stan allen addresses the question.
I think you might have enough info for a dissertation, but I'm just starting my MArch so I'm pretty clueless. But you'd certainly need to research many, many other firms that do/have done this kind of thing (or things completely opposite).
From what I gather, it's easy to get caught in the process of just making buildings when in practice, which is why so many people look back on their architecture schooling as the halcyon days. The "think tank" is probably a means of fostering the R+D atmosphere of school, but within a professional environment and with the hopes that R+D will somehow inform the reality of professional practice. And then the architecture gets pushed a little further than it might have before.
It's maybe sort of like a spectrum, with OMA on one end, AMO on the other, and reality somewhere in the middle. Maybe sort of like pushing an idea until it hits the restrictions of reality versus pushing an as far as it could possibly go and then letting reality reel it in.
something you may want to consider is how other industries treat such endeavors. If (as Rem's thinking goes) there is something primordaly architectural about the research they engage in; then how is that research different from that of other industries. another aspect of thsi you may want to consider would be the visual display of that information, check out Edward Tuffte for some good resources.
Actually OMA didn't split at all, think that is the first and generic analytical mistake one tends to make. I believe mirror is the concept. From their on the basic commitment of both AMO and OMA are clear.
Everything about concept, motives and reason to do so is explained in the Universal HQ - text in Content.
Some links to review on AMO's-work on the image of europe
i guess amo is just what they cal themselves when they are doing consulatation work...
architecture is (in Rem's view) about creating subsystems that act upon existing systems, subnetworks that grow on top of existing networks. like a building is a sub system that develops from the larger system of the city, and works with it and above it.
so wether you are designing a building, an ad campaign or a new flag, it's all the same to him. very very Deleuzian.
AMO might just have been a way of giving credibility to this aspect of their work, as maybe some people would not have trusted an Architecture firm to do such jobs.
I don't think the two entities are than separated, they couldn't be. Koolhaas is likely to be in charge of both, and even if he wasn't i couldn't imagine his work being so conditioned by someoneelse's decision.
try and hook up with GSD people, i think that's one of the fishing ponds for OMA/AMO's intern recruiting.
sounbd like an interesting subject, but wouldnm't it be more appropriate for part II? are you already that tangled up in professional practice?
some other thing sto look at and think about. AMO was essentially a collaboration between 2x4 (Michael Rock's graphic design studio) and Rem's elite of OMA. This is still basically (i believe) the situation. the aspect of AMO's workplace which differentiated itself from OMA's was the multidisciplinarity of it. Essentially Koolhaas was acknowledging the necessity of non-architectural aiims at the heart of any critical positioning within the field of architecture. the interesting thing is that i heard a year or so ago (maybe it was 2) that AMO was in a state of crisis. Although it did open up the possibility of acting as paid consultants to gather research to drive architectural endeavours, the necessity of the client for the research created another dilemma. basically just as a critical stance on architecture is difficult to take while under contract to a client...critical research is not always able to occur when one is presenting the research as critique. basically no-one wants to pay anyone to say something bad about them. one other thing to think about...in all the R+D situations talked about previously (to which I would also add Kennedy Violich ) there is the aspect of using focused research in the form of consultancy to drive or become involved in projects beyond the realm which that firm could typically involve itself in. how does this critique or challenge the concept of the "architect" as singular visionary. one could see this R+D situation also occuring in glass design (James Carpenter, Dewhurst McFarlane, etc.) engineering (Buro Happold), etc...
i think this is a fascinating topic.
on a parallel track, i once heard jacques herzog bitterly acknowledge [this was at a gsd round table thing on material research] he should have organized his material research as a separate company. apparently he felt lots of companies have profited from the research h&dm have made for different projects. i think he was going to go ahead and have a separate department in the firm in charge of material research, but i don't know if that happened.
Many thanks to everyone so far. Some really good points and plenty of avenues I hadn't considered.
As regards the multi disciplinary aspect, Koolhaas of course put himself through school writing movie scripts (does anyone know of any?) and he worked for a while as a journalist with a dutch newspaper. Therefore he has, i supose, always mixed architecture and media. Is he leading by example? Ricardo Boffil, in Spain had poets and musicians as part of the original "Taller de Arquitectura", to me the notion of cross breeding ideas between the arts seems quite compelling. Another example is Pentagram in the UK. This firm has always been to me a fascinating example of interdisciplinary collaboration. Examining the way the things architects do relate to what they hear, they read, they see or they know hopefully may prove enlightening.
Im keen not to get too bogged down with AMO and Koolhaas and produce yet another essay on him and how wonderful he may or may not be. But I am certainly intrigued by the concept of AMO. Although It does seem to be increasingly more mysterious the more i investigate.
Thanks again
Nov 18, 04 7:31 am ·
·
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.
OMA|AMO
I know AMO has cropped up before as a topic but please bear with me . . .
"[Architecture should be] Liberated from the obligation to construct, it can become a way of thinking about anything . . . . The random sequence of commissions on which each architect depends is the opposite of an agenda. The birth, shortly after SMLXL, of OMA's mirror image AMO enabled us to create knowledge independent of chance and to pursue our own interests in parallel to those of our clients." Rem Koolhaas in Content
A good few years back Koolhaas split OMA in two. OMA will continue to design buildings and plan cities, while AMO will focus on what Koolhaas calls virtual architecture. To Koolhaas, virtual architecture means designs or redesigns of human environments that don't resort to the tools of the construction industry, AMO will yield to building only when it is shown to be absolutely necessary. Building only ideas if you will, as maybe Archigram and Superstudio did.
Im starting my third year dissertation at the University of Sheffield, England and I've chosen to focus on the structure of practices, particularly the movement of firms like OMA to include 'think tanks' and the exploration of the unbuilt world. Is it necessary to investigate the unbuilt world more as architects?
I'm keen to know if anyone has any good information or articles on Koolhaas, particularly AMO (no need to tell me about SMLXL or content!) and what people think about the structure of architectural practices and the creation of AMO. Is such a black and white response valid by RK? Should induviduals circulate between OMA and AMO or should AMO act more as a school for OMA's employees? Does the very presence of AMO sort of undermine the decisions made by OMA? How should one inform / be informed by the other?
Any ideas or criticism on the topic would be much appreciated. Do people think it will work as a dissertation?
Many thanks in anticipation
Adam Towle
Other firms which operate R+D sections which have a push/pull (some might say 'symbiotic') relationship with the firm: William McDonough's office. Kieran Timberlake (Refabricating Architecture and the recently exhibited 'Smart Wrap' product. Gehry's new software venture. Resolution 4: Architecture and Modern Modular (Dwell House firm). These aren't doing the same things as AMO, necessarily; they're each extensions of the preoccupations of the office principals.
It would be an interesting thing to study beyond OMA/AMO, e.g., how does what is learned in one branch of a firm influence the work of another branch. When does it work and when not? How separate do these ventures end up being?
get a hold of the harvard design magazine spring summer 2004. the article "Stocktaking 2004: Nine Questions About the Present and Future of Design" is very good particularly the questions raised about the future of practice and how stan allen addresses the question.
does anybody know how to get in touch with AMO?
I would start with the OMA website: www.oma.nl/
I think you might have enough info for a dissertation, but I'm just starting my MArch so I'm pretty clueless. But you'd certainly need to research many, many other firms that do/have done this kind of thing (or things completely opposite).
From what I gather, it's easy to get caught in the process of just making buildings when in practice, which is why so many people look back on their architecture schooling as the halcyon days. The "think tank" is probably a means of fostering the R+D atmosphere of school, but within a professional environment and with the hopes that R+D will somehow inform the reality of professional practice. And then the architecture gets pushed a little further than it might have before.
It's maybe sort of like a spectrum, with OMA on one end, AMO on the other, and reality somewhere in the middle. Maybe sort of like pushing an idea until it hits the restrictions of reality versus pushing an as far as it could possibly go and then letting reality reel it in.
something you may want to consider is how other industries treat such endeavors. If (as Rem's thinking goes) there is something primordaly architectural about the research they engage in; then how is that research different from that of other industries. another aspect of thsi you may want to consider would be the visual display of that information, check out Edward Tuffte for some good resources.
talk to jeffrey inaba at sciarc. he was part of AMO.
I believe that AMO could once upon a time be contacted via this info:
http://www.oma-ny.com/
unbuilding precedents
http://www.quondam.com/01/0018.htm
Actually OMA didn't split at all, think that is the first and generic analytical mistake one tends to make. I believe mirror is the concept. From their on the basic commitment of both AMO and OMA are clear.
Everything about concept, motives and reason to do so is explained in the Universal HQ - text in Content.
Some links to review on AMO's-work on the image of europe
http://www.archined.nl/archined/3506.0.html
http://fpc.org.uk/articles/243
http://www.europaconcorsi.com/db/rec/inbox.php?id=3792
http://www.artdaily.com/section/news/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=11159
i guess amo is just what they cal themselves when they are doing consulatation work...
architecture is (in Rem's view) about creating subsystems that act upon existing systems, subnetworks that grow on top of existing networks. like a building is a sub system that develops from the larger system of the city, and works with it and above it.
so wether you are designing a building, an ad campaign or a new flag, it's all the same to him. very very Deleuzian.
AMO might just have been a way of giving credibility to this aspect of their work, as maybe some people would not have trusted an Architecture firm to do such jobs.
I don't think the two entities are than separated, they couldn't be. Koolhaas is likely to be in charge of both, and even if he wasn't i couldn't imagine his work being so conditioned by someoneelse's decision.
try and hook up with GSD people, i think that's one of the fishing ponds for OMA/AMO's intern recruiting.
sounbd like an interesting subject, but wouldnm't it be more appropriate for part II? are you already that tangled up in professional practice?
some other thing sto look at and think about. AMO was essentially a collaboration between 2x4 (Michael Rock's graphic design studio) and Rem's elite of OMA. This is still basically (i believe) the situation. the aspect of AMO's workplace which differentiated itself from OMA's was the multidisciplinarity of it. Essentially Koolhaas was acknowledging the necessity of non-architectural aiims at the heart of any critical positioning within the field of architecture. the interesting thing is that i heard a year or so ago (maybe it was 2) that AMO was in a state of crisis. Although it did open up the possibility of acting as paid consultants to gather research to drive architectural endeavours, the necessity of the client for the research created another dilemma. basically just as a critical stance on architecture is difficult to take while under contract to a client...critical research is not always able to occur when one is presenting the research as critique. basically no-one wants to pay anyone to say something bad about them. one other thing to think about...in all the R+D situations talked about previously (to which I would also add Kennedy Violich ) there is the aspect of using focused research in the form of consultancy to drive or become involved in projects beyond the realm which that firm could typically involve itself in. how does this critique or challenge the concept of the "architect" as singular visionary. one could see this R+D situation also occuring in glass design (James Carpenter, Dewhurst McFarlane, etc.) engineering (Buro Happold), etc...
i think this is a fascinating topic.
on a parallel track, i once heard jacques herzog bitterly acknowledge [this was at a gsd round table thing on material research] he should have organized his material research as a separate company. apparently he felt lots of companies have profited from the research h&dm have made for different projects. i think he was going to go ahead and have a separate department in the firm in charge of material research, but i don't know if that happened.
Many thanks to everyone so far. Some really good points and plenty of avenues I hadn't considered.
As regards the multi disciplinary aspect, Koolhaas of course put himself through school writing movie scripts (does anyone know of any?) and he worked for a while as a journalist with a dutch newspaper. Therefore he has, i supose, always mixed architecture and media. Is he leading by example? Ricardo Boffil, in Spain had poets and musicians as part of the original "Taller de Arquitectura", to me the notion of cross breeding ideas between the arts seems quite compelling. Another example is Pentagram in the UK. This firm has always been to me a fascinating example of interdisciplinary collaboration. Examining the way the things architects do relate to what they hear, they read, they see or they know hopefully may prove enlightening.
Im keen not to get too bogged down with AMO and Koolhaas and produce yet another essay on him and how wonderful he may or may not be. But I am certainly intrigued by the concept of AMO. Although It does seem to be increasingly more mysterious the more i investigate.
Thanks again
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.