Hey all, I am a Arch student and I'm having a real problem with theory and architectual stye. I don't understand how people critique other archi's theory today. For instance, I always here people saying they don't like Gehry's work because it's all the same. But Mies's work all looks the same, and nobody says that about him. I thought that was the point, you make a niche for yourself and you try and build on it. Then there is Rem Koolhaus , who people critisize for not following a set theory and creating all these completely different buildings. SO he does the opposite and gets hit for it. I don't get it!!! Can someone PLEASE clear this up for me, or at least give me a take on the issue!?
The way to judge a building is to look at the idea supporting this building. So no matter who they are, if you think the design idea is very clear and construtable, then that design is good.
Gery is indeed producing same building these days. But the reason behind this I think is he have created a successful buidling design model. He can use his idea over and over again for some specific building types. His company IS making money. And why his design model is successful? Because if you check his design carefully, you will find he always create some Mies components in some area of his building as the foundation of the building, he then create some curved roof/wall in the rest area for the focus. This strategy as a result creates a eye-catching building and also mingled with the site.
Rem did the same thing but with less obvious trace.
Hope my comments can be of some help to you. BTW, who is your studio professer? SHE/HE will and need to erase your doubts. If he/she isnot, how about changing to another one?
did you really just say that a building is good if the ideas are good? Holy shit, I know you are not alone, but wtf does that say about this profession. Ideas are bullshit, theory is bullshit, ITS ABOUT THE BUILDING
If you offer up a theory - someone will buy it and someone will 'hit' you for it. If you find a niche - same thing. If there were a bullet proof approach to design, there would no longer be a struggle to do better. The struggle to do better is what motivates all human endeavors. I don't think Man is generically predisposed to get it right. On the contrary, I think we were created to try like hell and still get it wrong.
- Because Great Design is a derivative of the real world. As such it can never be truly attained. It can only be seen in corner-of-the-eye glimpses that never stand the scrutiny of direct vision. An Idea that never makes it to reality but motivates like no other. Perverted and painfully wonderful. Just the same - wouldn't have it any other way.
When I was in grad school, our studio professor had us write what our 'theory of architecture' was in one brief paragraph. Hardest thing ever - and still ended up saying nothing. But great exercise.
I say - if you like it, ask yourself why and keep asking. The answer might never be attainable, but the question is the good part so who cares.
"Ideas are bullshit, theory is bullshit, ITS ABOUT THE BUILDING"
Why in hell would you think building and idea/theory are mutually exclusive? As a professor of mine in undergrad drilled into our heads:
Paraphrase: "You have a theory for how you approach architecture, even if it's that you have no theory. There is still some germ of idea that you are translating into a proposal for built form."
The difference is that those who don't have an intentional position, interest, or exploration in mind are often less likely to develop a compelling architecture.
"compelling architecture.", that is a divine word. I have trouble to expand my vocabulary and sentences in the architecture professional field. Do you guys know how to improve it?
Read a lot of novels and don't fixate on architectural vocabulary. The more words you have to describe what we do, and the more familiar they are to everyone (not just architects), then the more powerful your vocabulary will be in communicating ideas and intentions.
Architectural buzzwords are only good if your goal is to 1) talk above most of those you will meet and 2) further marginalize architectural discussion.
I find myself bouncing around among architectural books, popular novels, more 'literary' novels, and random nonfiction. (Right now the writing of Thomas Jefferson.)
It looks caste is from SCI-ARCH. When I meet somone at SOM chicago office, I heared a guy talking about his design style. He told us he is different. He is just want to make things beautiful. I think his past edu. GAVE him this technique. Caste might have a same opinion as him. I don't blame them. That is properly one reason why Thom Mayne did his building like that. He have an instinct to make things COMPELLING.
Anyone have more deeper thought please goto another thread I created for Thom Mayne.
I think Steven Ward makes a good point: spread out your education, but keep it thick...don't thin it out.
If the goal of higher education is to teach a student 'how to think' and not 'what to think', the study of critical thought, the skills of dissertation, and the creation/execution/defense of an idea are all valid.
i was told once, its not about the "generation of your own theory, but the generations of theories before you". clever and accurate, i think. before you can ever dwell on your own zeitgeist, i think its valuable to educate yourself on how those designers before you interpretted their own.
In the end, its all action/reaction theory. Studying these throughout time really cements the idea that Architecture is about cultural interpretation and the true 'value' of each movement isn't found in surface comparitive study but in the individual rigor with which it was executed.
I think it is tough for students to deny the cosmetic allure of one style/species/movement for themselves. Someting in a certain style spoke to me on an emotional/critical level and that will always be with me in my 'design sensibilities'. The challenge lies in critically gleaning something from everything you study. Don't discount FOG or latch onto Rem because you like or dislike what they design or why...learn to see through the post-rationalization and the rhetoric...learn to be critical.
I say we take her under our wing, Steven. She seems like a good kid.
As for admission requirments, i think the 'flyover country' stop-gap is appropriate...and/or perhaps this one:
if and when you visit the east or west coast and introduce yourself to a 'local', and tell them where you are from....their immediate question is; oh, did you grow up on a farm? If this has happened to you, you are automatically eligible for admission into MoMMAs.
We welcome your presence...any and all dues can be made out to your local 4H chapter under the name "Steven Ward, MoMMA's Boy". ;-)
Architectural theory and criticism is much like the criticism for other arts. It is not an exact science and there is a high degree of subjectivity. Different critics can arrive at vastly different conclusions based upon their own personal tastes, what they have read, what their philosophy of architecture entails, etc. One critic might pan a building because it doesn't live up to his ideas of truth and integrity of materials, citing Ruskin and Khan, while another might disgard this notion as a 19th century anachronism, a Romantic fantasy that cannot hold up in our postmodern age.
Ultimately, though, criticism allows one to talk about buildings in a more informed way, rather than saying "it sucks" or "it's nice". You will typically find yourself aligning with certain critics, while being repulsed by others. Its the same with your professors. You will respect the criticism of some, while paying little attention to what others say. The important thing is to find out why you agree or disagree with what is being said. And just because someone says a certain project is the greatest building ever, and they can back it up with valid arguments, doesn't make it so. What one person thinks is an utterly sublime work, might make someone else vomit.
Oh Stephanie, that's priceless! Although Steven and i haven't conferred on this, i think you qualify. i'm proud to be a MoMMA's boy if you and Steven are my company!
the anecdote i mentioned above has happened to me twice on each coast. on the west coast, i was a farmer if i was from Ohio....While in New York, i was a sheep/pig farmer...shudder.
Of course, while working in Seattle, the locals there considered anything east of the Mississippi River to be 'east coast'....shudder x2....
idaho and ohio also get confused.
i didn't grow up in idaho, so i don't get asked if i was grown on the farm, however, my hometown is one that was born when nuclear weapons were being developed, so i generally get the response of "so do you grow in the dark?"
We're an army. We're taking over! MoMMA is in the house!
Pennsylvania is coastal, but if you say you're from an Alabama-ish kind of place, KKCB, you're in.
e - is that tobacco caressed by salty sea air, or moutain mists? North Carolina, southern or not, is still EAST COAST. Ditto VA, GA, SC. And now you're WEST COAST. Seems you flew over, hmmmm?
Stephanie- yes, we probably should have our own thread, if only to introduce ourselves. The problem is that, after that, I'm not sure we have anything substantial to talk about that we can't share with the Non-MoMMAs (those poor saps on the country's margins).
We can at least discuss our secret handshake. Wait. Are there private discussion groups here where we could keep things on the down low? And will I ever get to shake hands with any of you?
southern and just barely >> just on the other side of the mason-dixon and caressed by the potomac in the backwoods of southern maryland. and good point about me flying over states as i have made the shift from east to west. i would be honored if you would consider me even though i'm not from a fly-over state.
Being a former devotee of a religious sect nestled in the Utah mountains, dedicated to keeping the identity of the four secret handshakes needed to get into heaven away from humanity, I might be able to help with the handshake. But my MoMMA credentials are somewhat thin, and I'd rather a solid midwesterner make such an important decision. Besides, I secretly want to move to New York, which I fear disqualifies me all together from consideration.
Sorry Kakacabeza, any New York dreamers need not apply, but i too have had such fleeting desires. It doesn't make you a bad person, just someone who hasn't lived long enough in new york to make them hard enough to ignore your hatred for it. its a cycle.
e, no offense, but i don't think i want to shake hands with anyone 'caressed by the potomac'. That said, i do sense a tinge of regret as to your birthright/residence. That isn't what MoMMA is about. MoMMA is about a pride in where you come from, the who and what that made you the designer you are today.
...MoMMA was founded in defense of those designers who often feel snubbed by high dollar 'ivy league blobitects', or degraded by the 'hipster So-Cal Shard-itects'. We fight for what we know. We reinforce no single manifesto, nor cling to the latest and greatest western europe school of thought of the week. We have had to be patient for intellectual recognition, our public univeristy alma-maters spat upon by the non-landlocked. In defense of these designers, of sound mind and open vision, MoMMA remains steadfast.
Be it from the dirty south, a high plains drifter, the mountain men or the redneck 'hollers...say it loud and say it proud...I'm an Architect and gosh darnit, people like me!
I think iOa is very capably (and in short, easily digested installments) authoring our humble manifesto, our declaration of independence from the coastal architectural establishments!
Just hold back on the big words, iOa. +/- 52% of our constituency might lose patience and think we've gone all 'intellectual elite' on them.
A question we can ask ourselves, now that we're here, is whether there are any identifiable differences in MoM practice. Not that we should start a movement or anything, but is there something about this environment that leads us to a different way of working?
I've seen my share of blobs and shards in heartland schools, but it's kind of understood that it's borrowed. Nothing wrong with testing someone else's technique against your ideas, as long as you keep yourself moving forward. But what has the Midwest itself brought into architectural culture?
We used to have Saarinens, Harry Weese, etc., predominantly from the upper Midwest. Some of our biggest influences in the 20th C drifted down from Chicago (Mies, Chicago Bauhaus/Moholy-Nagy) and Michigan (Saarinens/Cranbrook).
But what about those of us out here in the middle? The biggest name I know from Louisville is Jasper Ward (no relation), a brilliant designer widely published during his career but now unknown outside this area. We have lots of projects by the not-from-here stars (Mies, SOM, Graves, Hargreaves, Stern, McDonough, Olmsted...) that have influenced our work, but nothing rooted here.
What's the story in Cincinnati? I know Ohio has a big Eisenman connection, but he's still East Coast. How about Idaho? Iowa?
i'm working on that question too. this is good dialogue.
to answer part of your question though:
-within a few hours of Cincinnati, we have a multitude of coastal starchitect projects. We've got a Zaha, three Eisenmans, three FOG, Morphosis, Gwathmey, Henry Cobb, Leers Winzapfel, Moore Rubbel Yudel, PJ, Meier, and the list goes on....but as for home grown? There are several architects that have settled in the Cincinnati area who i believe deserve regional if not larger recognition....Michael Mcinturf, David Niland, Jose Garcia to name a few.
I've noticed here that there is a fondness for the barn, especially of the tobacco variety, as a metaphor. If this were examined spatially and formally that would be great but, unfortunately, it's often simply an image reference.
KY also holds fast to colonial architecture, albeit with various ill-advised attempts to make it 'contemporary'. I've had to participate in this kind of work myself on occasion.
One opportunity that some of our better locals have grasped is in learning from the 19th C warehouses, very simple narrow buildings lined up in rows and suitable for any use. In Cincinnati you'd see these on Main in the vicinity of Jefferson Hall. The simple elegance of these structures can provide some inspiration in urban environments.
Our legacy of larger industrial structures also provides useful models. From grain silos to machinery halls, the sublime volumes and textures of these places provides great inspiration.
Yes, LA and NY have their own industrial aesthetics. But here it is somehow translated differently. I'd aver that where the coastal approach is additive - collections of metal collisions added together to define a project - what I see here is usually more unified and defined by a 'shell' in which things can happen.
What I learned in LA is that construction there is so much different than here. Transplant Schindler's Kings Road house to Louisville and you'd have a leaky, moldy mess. At least Gehry has had to test his structures in Minnesota (Weisman Art Museum), though he had a local figure out how to do it.
Among other things special to KY from which we can learn: horse farms and tracks, rolling bluegrass landscape on foggy mornings, white or black three-rail fences wandering across the fields, the artistry of dry-laid limestone walls, our extensive district of cast iron storefronts (second only to Soho), the curvy Ohio River flanked by steep bluffs, the limestone Falls of the Ohio, some of the country's northernmost shotgun neighborhoods, Louisville Slugger's beautiful ash bats, a local community of glass artists (blown and flamework'd), the easy teamwork of unamplified bluegrass music and the comic tragedy of its lyrics...
Steven, all good visual and cultural references to dwell on. i'm working on a response to the issue as we speak...trying to whittle down a rambling mess...i'll post soon.
Jefferson Hall??? i'm all weepy. My buddy Billy tends bar down there...a great little bar indeed...and Over The Rhine does offer a spectacular alternative to the by-gone days of NYC tenement housing. another world. another time. talk about disenfranchisement!
Oh well, I'm from the middle of nowhere but right now I'm in Paris. So I guess I don' fit. I'll try again when I leave my freakin metropolis for the quiet hills of my hometown, or wherever I go...
southern maryland has been losing it's tobacco barn image through govt buy out programs and the dc sprawl. sad indeed. last year, they made it on a national list of one of the most endangered places in the u.s. yesterday, the area was in the news for what they believe were possible eco-terrorists burning down 12 homes in a sub-division of expensive homes that were under construction.
in seattle, we have a bunch of log builders for architects. we are very fond of cabins in the woods where no one can disturb us. we also have 1 gerhy, 1 koolhas, 2 holls, and 1 venturi. the gerhy and the venturi are pretty bad.
Northern Virginia, where my brother used to live, was experiencing the same thing. Loudon County better start building its moat and stringing its concertina wire right now.
The cabin-in-the-woods thing was big in Minnesota and Wisconsin, too, when I lived up there. Some of the more interesting archs were putting an interesting pristine, clean-lined Nordic spin on it though.
Style/Theory Critics
Hey all, I am a Arch student and I'm having a real problem with theory and architectual stye. I don't understand how people critique other archi's theory today. For instance, I always here people saying they don't like Gehry's work because it's all the same. But Mies's work all looks the same, and nobody says that about him. I thought that was the point, you make a niche for yourself and you try and build on it. Then there is Rem Koolhaus , who people critisize for not following a set theory and creating all these completely different buildings. SO he does the opposite and gets hit for it. I don't get it!!! Can someone PLEASE clear this up for me, or at least give me a take on the issue!?
The way to judge a building is to look at the idea supporting this building. So no matter who they are, if you think the design idea is very clear and construtable, then that design is good.
Gery is indeed producing same building these days. But the reason behind this I think is he have created a successful buidling design model. He can use his idea over and over again for some specific building types. His company IS making money. And why his design model is successful? Because if you check his design carefully, you will find he always create some Mies components in some area of his building as the foundation of the building, he then create some curved roof/wall in the rest area for the focus. This strategy as a result creates a eye-catching building and also mingled with the site.
Rem did the same thing but with less obvious trace.
Hope my comments can be of some help to you. BTW, who is your studio professer? SHE/HE will and need to erase your doubts. If he/she isnot, how about changing to another one?
did you really just say that a building is good if the ideas are good? Holy shit, I know you are not alone, but wtf does that say about this profession. Ideas are bullshit, theory is bullshit, ITS ABOUT THE BUILDING
caste:
I dont' get it. Name a building to support your sayings. I mean it!
"Ideas are bullshit, theory is bullshit" - add this world is bull shit and you have yourself a fiona apple quote :)
If you offer up a theory - someone will buy it and someone will 'hit' you for it. If you find a niche - same thing. If there were a bullet proof approach to design, there would no longer be a struggle to do better. The struggle to do better is what motivates all human endeavors. I don't think Man is generically predisposed to get it right. On the contrary, I think we were created to try like hell and still get it wrong.
- Because Great Design is a derivative of the real world. As such it can never be truly attained. It can only be seen in corner-of-the-eye glimpses that never stand the scrutiny of direct vision. An Idea that never makes it to reality but motivates like no other. Perverted and painfully wonderful. Just the same - wouldn't have it any other way.
When I was in grad school, our studio professor had us write what our 'theory of architecture' was in one brief paragraph. Hardest thing ever - and still ended up saying nothing. But great exercise.
I say - if you like it, ask yourself why and keep asking. The answer might never be attainable, but the question is the good part so who cares.
"Ideas are bullshit, theory is bullshit, ITS ABOUT THE BUILDING"
Why in hell would you think building and idea/theory are mutually exclusive? As a professor of mine in undergrad drilled into our heads:
Paraphrase: "You have a theory for how you approach architecture, even if it's that you have no theory. There is still some germ of idea that you are translating into a proposal for built form."
The difference is that those who don't have an intentional position, interest, or exploration in mind are often less likely to develop a compelling architecture.
"compelling architecture.", that is a divine word. I have trouble to expand my vocabulary and sentences in the architecture professional field. Do you guys know how to improve it?
Read a lot of novels and don't fixate on architectural vocabulary. The more words you have to describe what we do, and the more familiar they are to everyone (not just architects), then the more powerful your vocabulary will be in communicating ideas and intentions.
Architectural buzzwords are only good if your goal is to 1) talk above most of those you will meet and 2) further marginalize architectural discussion.
I find myself bouncing around among architectural books, popular novels, more 'literary' novels, and random nonfiction. (Right now the writing of Thomas Jefferson.)
Read as broadly as possible.
I offer you the concept Silence/No Word.
It looks caste is from SCI-ARCH. When I meet somone at SOM chicago office, I heared a guy talking about his design style. He told us he is different. He is just want to make things beautiful. I think his past edu. GAVE him this technique. Caste might have a same opinion as him. I don't blame them. That is properly one reason why Thom Mayne did his building like that. He have an instinct to make things COMPELLING.
Anyone have more deeper thought please goto another thread I created for Thom Mayne.
I think Steven Ward makes a good point: spread out your education, but keep it thick...don't thin it out.
If the goal of higher education is to teach a student 'how to think' and not 'what to think', the study of critical thought, the skills of dissertation, and the creation/execution/defense of an idea are all valid.
i was told once, its not about the "generation of your own theory, but the generations of theories before you". clever and accurate, i think. before you can ever dwell on your own zeitgeist, i think its valuable to educate yourself on how those designers before you interpretted their own.
In the end, its all action/reaction theory. Studying these throughout time really cements the idea that Architecture is about cultural interpretation and the true 'value' of each movement isn't found in surface comparitive study but in the individual rigor with which it was executed.
I think it is tough for students to deny the cosmetic allure of one style/species/movement for themselves. Someting in a certain style spoke to me on an emotional/critical level and that will always be with me in my 'design sensibilities'. The challenge lies in critically gleaning something from everything you study. Don't discount FOG or latch onto Rem because you like or dislike what they design or why...learn to see through the post-rationalization and the rhetoric...learn to be critical.
Beautiful. I think we could form our own Middle of the Midwest Mutual Admiration Society, iOA.
MoMMA(S)...i like it. somebody's got to take care of these kids, right Steven?
Don't mess with the MoMMA.
If MoMMA ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.
will MoMMAS adopt me?
I don't know. iOa, do we have a dues structure worked out? I'm not sure Idaho is in the Middle of the Midwest, anyway.
OK, Stephanie, here's the deal. You admit that Idaho, despite being Almost West Coast, is still largely considered flyover country, and you're in.
You OK with that, iOa? I mean, we have to maintain some standards, right?
surrogate child?
I say we take her under our wing, Steven. She seems like a good kid.
As for admission requirments, i think the 'flyover country' stop-gap is appropriate...and/or perhaps this one:
if and when you visit the east or west coast and introduce yourself to a 'local', and tell them where you are from....their immediate question is; oh, did you grow up on a farm? If this has happened to you, you are automatically eligible for admission into MoMMAs.
We welcome your presence...any and all dues can be made out to your local 4H chapter under the name "Steven Ward, MoMMA's Boy". ;-)
How does that sound, Steven?
Architectural theory and criticism is much like the criticism for other arts. It is not an exact science and there is a high degree of subjectivity. Different critics can arrive at vastly different conclusions based upon their own personal tastes, what they have read, what their philosophy of architecture entails, etc. One critic might pan a building because it doesn't live up to his ideas of truth and integrity of materials, citing Ruskin and Khan, while another might disgard this notion as a 19th century anachronism, a Romantic fantasy that cannot hold up in our postmodern age.
Ultimately, though, criticism allows one to talk about buildings in a more informed way, rather than saying "it sucks" or "it's nice". You will typically find yourself aligning with certain critics, while being repulsed by others. Its the same with your professors. You will respect the criticism of some, while paying little attention to what others say. The important thing is to find out why you agree or disagree with what is being said. And just because someone says a certain project is the greatest building ever, and they can back it up with valid arguments, doesn't make it so. What one person thinks is an utterly sublime work, might make someone else vomit.
steve & iOa
when i went to san francisco and said i was from idaho i got the response "oh, iowa, i've never met anymone from there"
Oh Stephanie, that's priceless! Although Steven and i haven't conferred on this, i think you qualify. i'm proud to be a MoMMA's boy if you and Steven are my company!
the anecdote i mentioned above has happened to me twice on each coast. on the west coast, i was a farmer if i was from Ohio....While in New York, i was a sheep/pig farmer...shudder.
Of course, while working in Seattle, the locals there considered anything east of the Mississippi River to be 'east coast'....shudder x2....
idaho and ohio also get confused.
i didn't grow up in idaho, so i don't get asked if i was grown on the farm, however, my hometown is one that was born when nuclear weapons were being developed, so i generally get the response of "so do you grow in the dark?"
oh city people....
MoMMA's got three! Anyone else out there 'on the farm'? St. Louis? Kansas City? Indy? I KNOW I drove past lots of cornfields visiting Miami of Ohio.
Sorry, kakacabeza, it looks like you were trying to rescue this thread, but MoMMA needed to get things straightened out. Pardon the interruption.
maybe we should make our own MoMMA thread?
I am from Iowa and people say "They grow potatoes there don't they?"
or this ones good too "That's the capital of Canada right?" (Ottowa)
Well, anyways, I am in "fly-over"country. I grew up in a cornfield too. I qualify.
i didn't grow up in a cornfield, but i did grow up in a tobacco field. i don't smoke tobacco though. do i qualify?
Well, I guess I'll get with the new topic of the thread. I grew up on an asparagus farm in the "Alabama" part of Pennsylvania. Do I qualify.
We're an army. We're taking over! MoMMA is in the house!
Pennsylvania is coastal, but if you say you're from an Alabama-ish kind of place, KKCB, you're in.
e - is that tobacco caressed by salty sea air, or moutain mists? North Carolina, southern or not, is still EAST COAST. Ditto VA, GA, SC. And now you're WEST COAST. Seems you flew over, hmmmm?
Stephanie- yes, we probably should have our own thread, if only to introduce ourselves. The problem is that, after that, I'm not sure we have anything substantial to talk about that we can't share with the Non-MoMMAs (those poor saps on the country's margins).
We can at least discuss our secret handshake. Wait. Are there private discussion groups here where we could keep things on the down low? And will I ever get to shake hands with any of you?
southern and just barely >> just on the other side of the mason-dixon and caressed by the potomac in the backwoods of southern maryland. and good point about me flying over states as i have made the shift from east to west. i would be honored if you would consider me even though i'm not from a fly-over state.
strawbeary,
are you saying that iowa gets confused for idaho?
because idaho is the state with "famous potatoes"
Being a former devotee of a religious sect nestled in the Utah mountains, dedicated to keeping the identity of the four secret handshakes needed to get into heaven away from humanity, I might be able to help with the handshake. But my MoMMA credentials are somewhat thin, and I'd rather a solid midwesterner make such an important decision. Besides, I secretly want to move to New York, which I fear disqualifies me all together from consideration.
steph, yes that's what I'm saying.
I was born in Greenland and people ask me if it's green there.
Sorry Kakacabeza, any New York dreamers need not apply, but i too have had such fleeting desires. It doesn't make you a bad person, just someone who hasn't lived long enough in new york to make them hard enough to ignore your hatred for it. its a cycle.
e, no offense, but i don't think i want to shake hands with anyone 'caressed by the potomac'. That said, i do sense a tinge of regret as to your birthright/residence. That isn't what MoMMA is about. MoMMA is about a pride in where you come from, the who and what that made you the designer you are today.
...MoMMA was founded in defense of those designers who often feel snubbed by high dollar 'ivy league blobitects', or degraded by the 'hipster So-Cal Shard-itects'. We fight for what we know. We reinforce no single manifesto, nor cling to the latest and greatest western europe school of thought of the week. We have had to be patient for intellectual recognition, our public univeristy alma-maters spat upon by the non-landlocked. In defense of these designers, of sound mind and open vision, MoMMA remains steadfast.
Be it from the dirty south, a high plains drifter, the mountain men or the redneck 'hollers...say it loud and say it proud...I'm an Architect and gosh darnit, people like me!
instrument, don't take statement of fact for regret. no regret here my friend.
e, glad to hear it my friend...beautiful country you live in.
I think iOa is very capably (and in short, easily digested installments) authoring our humble manifesto, our declaration of independence from the coastal architectural establishments!
Just hold back on the big words, iOa. +/- 52% of our constituency might lose patience and think we've gone all 'intellectual elite' on them.
Sorry Steven, I tend to ramble as it is... please add and improve! I find this a healthy collective!
A question we can ask ourselves, now that we're here, is whether there are any identifiable differences in MoM practice. Not that we should start a movement or anything, but is there something about this environment that leads us to a different way of working?
I've seen my share of blobs and shards in heartland schools, but it's kind of understood that it's borrowed. Nothing wrong with testing someone else's technique against your ideas, as long as you keep yourself moving forward. But what has the Midwest itself brought into architectural culture?
We used to have Saarinens, Harry Weese, etc., predominantly from the upper Midwest. Some of our biggest influences in the 20th C drifted down from Chicago (Mies, Chicago Bauhaus/Moholy-Nagy) and Michigan (Saarinens/Cranbrook).
But what about those of us out here in the middle? The biggest name I know from Louisville is Jasper Ward (no relation), a brilliant designer widely published during his career but now unknown outside this area. We have lots of projects by the not-from-here stars (Mies, SOM, Graves, Hargreaves, Stern, McDonough, Olmsted...) that have influenced our work, but nothing rooted here.
What's the story in Cincinnati? I know Ohio has a big Eisenman connection, but he's still East Coast. How about Idaho? Iowa?
idaho gots nothing but art troutner, the inventor/founder of truss-joist for fame. and non architecturally, the hometown of matthew barney.
i want to write more in response to the "different way of working" question...but i actually do need to do some work.
i'm working on that question too. this is good dialogue.
to answer part of your question though:
-within a few hours of Cincinnati, we have a multitude of coastal starchitect projects. We've got a Zaha, three Eisenmans, three FOG, Morphosis, Gwathmey, Henry Cobb, Leers Winzapfel, Moore Rubbel Yudel, PJ, Meier, and the list goes on....but as for home grown? There are several architects that have settled in the Cincinnati area who i believe deserve regional if not larger recognition....Michael Mcinturf, David Niland, Jose Garcia to name a few.
Hey do you accept international registration?
I've noticed here that there is a fondness for the barn, especially of the tobacco variety, as a metaphor. If this were examined spatially and formally that would be great but, unfortunately, it's often simply an image reference.
KY also holds fast to colonial architecture, albeit with various ill-advised attempts to make it 'contemporary'. I've had to participate in this kind of work myself on occasion.
One opportunity that some of our better locals have grasped is in learning from the 19th C warehouses, very simple narrow buildings lined up in rows and suitable for any use. In Cincinnati you'd see these on Main in the vicinity of Jefferson Hall. The simple elegance of these structures can provide some inspiration in urban environments.
Our legacy of larger industrial structures also provides useful models. From grain silos to machinery halls, the sublime volumes and textures of these places provides great inspiration.
Yes, LA and NY have their own industrial aesthetics. But here it is somehow translated differently. I'd aver that where the coastal approach is additive - collections of metal collisions added together to define a project - what I see here is usually more unified and defined by a 'shell' in which things can happen.
What I learned in LA is that construction there is so much different than here. Transplant Schindler's Kings Road house to Louisville and you'd have a leaky, moldy mess. At least Gehry has had to test his structures in Minnesota (Weisman Art Museum), though he had a local figure out how to do it.
Among other things special to KY from which we can learn: horse farms and tracks, rolling bluegrass landscape on foggy mornings, white or black three-rail fences wandering across the fields, the artistry of dry-laid limestone walls, our extensive district of cast iron storefronts (second only to Soho), the curvy Ohio River flanked by steep bluffs, the limestone Falls of the Ohio, some of the country's northernmost shotgun neighborhoods, Louisville Slugger's beautiful ash bats, a local community of glass artists (blown and flamework'd), the easy teamwork of unamplified bluegrass music and the comic tragedy of its lyrics...
French - A hayseed is a hayseed. Describe your location and the nature of your disenfranchisement.
Steven, all good visual and cultural references to dwell on. i'm working on a response to the issue as we speak...trying to whittle down a rambling mess...i'll post soon.
Jefferson Hall??? i'm all weepy. My buddy Billy tends bar down there...a great little bar indeed...and Over The Rhine does offer a spectacular alternative to the by-gone days of NYC tenement housing. another world. another time. talk about disenfranchisement!
Oh well, I'm from the middle of nowhere but right now I'm in Paris. So I guess I don' fit. I'll try again when I leave my freakin metropolis for the quiet hills of my hometown, or wherever I go...
southern maryland has been losing it's tobacco barn image through govt buy out programs and the dc sprawl. sad indeed. last year, they made it on a national list of one of the most endangered places in the u.s. yesterday, the area was in the news for what they believe were possible eco-terrorists burning down 12 homes in a sub-division of expensive homes that were under construction.
in seattle, we have a bunch of log builders for architects. we are very fond of cabins in the woods where no one can disturb us. we also have 1 gerhy, 1 koolhas, 2 holls, and 1 venturi. the gerhy and the venturi are pretty bad.
I hear ya, e, re: dc's creeping crud.
Northern Virginia, where my brother used to live, was experiencing the same thing. Loudon County better start building its moat and stringing its concertina wire right now.
The cabin-in-the-woods thing was big in Minnesota and Wisconsin, too, when I lived up there. Some of the more interesting archs were putting an interesting pristine, clean-lined Nordic spin on it though.
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.