Does anyone know what Zumthor has been up to lately??? I haven't heard of seen anything about him lately. One would think that his office is still doing good work.
berghotel in tschlin switz. 2001
gallery w. residential space above in berlin 2003
the interview with him mentioned a house ( for himself) that he was working on . but even though the Casabella article was for Feb. 04, the interview ( w. barbara stec)took place a year earlier.
he doesn't have a website does he? there's a zumthor.ch link on the archi-europe site, but it doesn't work...
Peter Zumthor recently moved back to Los Angeles and has been teaching at SCI-Arc recently. He and Jeffrey Inaba have formed an architecture consultancy called valdes. He's a nice guy, once you get to know him, actually. No beard anymore either.
Shame to hear about the end of the museum. I was asking this question on here a few months back and was referred to the Domus feature - some kind of holocaust information archive as I recall. Love to see more of Zumthor.
And what is this confusion with Zumthor and Zellner? Zumthor is Swiss and Zellner is Australian! Know your industry, people! There was also some confusion with Peter Markli recently too. Reminds me of the time when a 4th year architecture student had to be told who Mies van der Rohe was... should have been pulled aside and severely beaten.
is theory so important? i appreciate it, but is it necessary? i think zumthor is more interested in materials, their detailing, and the spaces that he can create with them. i would take that any day over one who is theory based yet can't detail worth a crap.
He never finished his architecture studies... he was a designer in Basel -and studied cabinetry and the traditional crafts after a decade or so restoring vernacular buildings... he went then the US to study more design, arch and urbanism but never finished anything... then went back to his Swiss homeland and started working as an architect in his late 30's or so (switzerland is great because, apparently, its not necessary to have a degree to call yourself an architect.., though its difficult to enter competitions if you're not a swiss citizen).
No wonder he's not into theory if he's not even liscensed.. he has recognized being influenced by H&dM... but while sharing their art oriented architecture, Zumthor adds that baumeister touch to his buildings.. an exquisite craft and knowledge of materials.. while H&dM work more on their intellectual strengths and concepts...
Both Zumthor and H&dM are, IMO, the best swiss architects and they represent perfectly the two different ways to approach architecture, conceptual and artistic ...
(excuse my poor english)
Yeah, why would Zumthor need theory when he designs buildings like Vals? Often theory is a crutch. Name a theory architect that pays as much attention to the actual crafting of materials and detailing to acheive a qualitative, experiential effect (rather than the technologist like Grimshaw, Calatrava and Rogers...).
Wow, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Zumthor didn't even finish college. He may not be "book smart" but he must have some sort of internal strenght and determination to overcome the handicap of not having a proper education. I concede and give him some props, but still don't you think architecture needs to have a driving idea behind it for it to even be architecture and not just a building?
Please explain how any of Zumthor's buildings don't have ideas behind them. In every one of his works, there is a clear parti, and a clear intent to do more than play with materials. Whether a museum floats over ancient foundations, or a spa makes you feel like you're at the sourse of a spring, it's hard to say that his work is merely building.
I've never heard him speak, but I'll take your word and assume he doesn't present himself well. What really counts however, is that the work speaks so clearly to so many people. What I admire the most about his work is the variety. One project is a perfect wood frame, another a puzzle of thick slate walls, and yet another a delicate glass box. In each project there is an honest and unique solution.
That only places Zumthor in the same category as Ando, and to an extent Scarpa, Barragan etc. Also, there are a number of other Swiss architects interested in materiality as the driving concern such as Botta, Meili, Gigon Guyer et al in which Zumthor is comfortably placed. He may not have a centre of theory to operate from, but certainly devotes more time than usual to context, material and effect.
Zumthor is criticised along lones of not operating from a theoretical basis, or more relevantly, not instigating or reflecting a cultural dialogue within his buildings, but I think that the end products cannot be denied as a convincing piece of architecture.
I think theory is often used as justification for both the succeses and failures in a building, kind of like mitigating circumstances in the crime of building (I was drunk when I did it!). Eisenman, Lynn and other digital designers could be guilty of this kind of approach.
Architectural theory is the orthodox language of architecture, but like alot of orthodoxies, it revolves around the development, argument and protection (and limited distribution) of semantics within an elite minority. Its importance outside of this is highly debatable.
Finally, I think it takes courage to develop a project without a driving theory, although I believe that Jazz is the best structure to follow in this regard - you have to know every note, every chord structure, what your ancestors have done and what your contemporaries are doing. Only then can you throw the rules out the window. Theoryless architecture shouldnt be dumb architecture.
And Zumthor isn't bad at expressing his thoughts. He just seems like a pretty ordinary guy. That might be the "wrong" thing about his person. Still, I've heard he's a monster in his studio (towards the workers, that is). A star architect after all!
Do you know of what's going on now in Berlin? Zumthor is in the paper here almost daily, in regards to his Topography of Terror building. The cost of it has been causing big disagreements.
dillup.,
any news on the Topography of Terror project you could share? I saw the site on Sunday and was amazed at how little had been built. I have heard the project was in trouble, but don't know quite to what extent. Are they going to complete it, or start over...?
i disagree with the general consensus (and i'm just picking your comments out as the last in line here) that zumthor "... may not have a centre of theory to operate from..." why is this commonly believed? solely because he choses not to place his work within a very distinct and narrow linage of cultural 'theory' that has been hijacked by a small cadre of architects and writers?
according to webster's, 'theory' is defined as: ' 1. systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. 2. such knowledge or a system distinguished from experiment or practice.'
so, according to the first definition, i would argue that zumthor clearly operates within and from a 'theoretical' position. if you doubt this, read his book entitled 'thinking architecture'. he has a framework of ideas within which he develops his work; that framework is abstract enough to be applied to a variety of situations, and can (although he might object) be analyzed apart from the work itself.
is he reading decerteau, debord, dave hickey, or rem koolhaas? is his work as hip or ironically self-aware as his neighbors to the north? who cares? it is amazing, amazing work. (especially vals). go visit it and visit some aalto and you won't care what the old white guys in new york ever say again...
Speaking of the “tower of terrorâ€, here's some images of what they've built so far (I can’t remember how to post images, so I hope this works…):
The yellow crane thing was constructed specially to build this project. Though you can't see much as there's not much too see. Also I was taking a picture of the crane more than Zumthor’s concrete...
I have heard him lecture, though it was in German... but was being translated into Italian... neither of which do I speak... so I have absolutely no idea what he said...
We spoke with the project architect briefly about the Holocaust museum and their explanation was... disappointing.... the building was basically a series of vertical louvers with this crazy hidden connection, so it seemed like it was more about an effect, a quality of light and space, as well (of course) as fine crafting and innovative construction. Anyway the idea (supposedly) was as you're walking along side it you can only see in if you crane your neck, "like democracy, this building requires your active engagement, democracy is not acquired passively..." or something to that effect.
Sounded more like they felt pressured politically to have some sort of poetic connection to the holocaust (which seems like a reasonable goal for a holocaust museum…) but this seemed like a bit of a stretch.
I am definitely pro-Zumthor and agree with you in regards to his work operating from a definite theoretical structure. I guess I should have clarified my comments to something like "He may not have a centre of "fashionable" theory to operate from" instead.
Basically, the comments and discussions I have had about Zumthor's work often include criticism about the lack of cultural dialogue in his buildings in the way that Venturi, Mockbee or ARM operate/d. But the relevance of this is highly debatable - unless we are Swiss we know very little about Swiss culture aside from the stereotype - and given that all of his buildings to this point are located in Switzerland then I dont think this criticsim has much merit.
I commend the man and I think that he lacks nothing in terms of a methodology or theoretical language of building, its just that is more traditional than the current focus on the digital and I think this kind of approach is deemed less relevant these days (and almost deficient)which is a shame. But like I said, courage is often missing and replaced with archispeak in the design approaches of our elites these days.
You just need to take a look at the picture below to appreciate Zumthors work.
As for me, I have never read Deleuze et al and never probably will - I am a contrarian to an extent.
sorry if it seemed like my comments sounded more defensive (it's all bush's fault). i did pick up on your pro-zumthor tone and didn't mean to sound like that was being taken for granted.
conversely, i don't mean to say that writers, such as deluze or any of the others i mentioned, have no value to us as architects. my frustration, which is more general in nature, is that notions of what constitutes 'theory' have been so thoroughly corrupted and focused into a very narrow range of thought. we've lost the ability to accept other starting points for creating work, be it someone like zumthor or murcutt or bruce goff or oscar niemeyer or whomever. i think we agree that this kind of loss isn't good or healthy. (any ecosystem need a wide proliferation of species to survive...).
fashionable theory is fine, for what it is. i just hate the fact that, especially in school, we tend to marginalize the value of everything else (and i'm speaking as a professor - it's our fault you know).
If anyone is interested in a bit more info on the 'topography of terror' project in Berlin by Zumthor, here is a link i found with a few images of the model and a short video of the proposal.
[url=http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/bauen/grosse_projekte/en/topographie_des_terrors.shtml]
well the link didn't quite fit but i am sure you all can find your way there, the website in general has some great info on large scale projects in Berlin, perhaps a bit dated but worth while.
here's an overall shot of the model - wow, i knew that this project was old news but i didn't think it was this old, a competition won way back in 1993... http://www.topographie.de/en/neubau.htm
zumthor does have a theoretical base: martin heidegger's building dwelling thinking is key to his work, and he both quotes heidegger and reflects on the meaning of dwelling in his monograph.
i heard zumthor talk once as one of four architects picked for boston's ica [which diller & scofidio eventually won]. he basically said he was swiss, loved switzerland, loved skiing, and once in a while he did buildings. he refused to show pictures of his buildings other than a shot of his office, saying 'you really have to be there to appreciate them.' and you know, he is sort of right, although at the time he sounded a bit obnoxious and made all the other architects look a little shallow [they had all showed gorgeous photographs].
i did think it was a little hypocritical [sp?] of him since he has the gorgeously photographed monograph out.
nontheless, i do appreciate his craft and detailing... but do not be fooled: the vals bath has awful brass fittings and some bizarre blue neon lights that almost never show in the photographs. if someone tells me how to post pictures, i may have a couple that could be dissapointing.
just bought that book of his 'Pensare architettura' couldn't find it in english, but can read italian slowly - will put up a post once i've read it- anyone else out there read it?
Well, it almost seems some times that in order to create from a basis similar to Zumthors, or as AML states, a Heideggeran (is that a word?) is to tempt fate in the studio - dare one say "I designed it because I like it?". I didnt, but I always kept that opinion to myself and relied on my talent in argument and persuasion to get across.
I myself own a copy of Heidegger's works and can see that its metaphysical language will fall on flat ears in the current mode of quasi-scientific, diagrammatic and programmatic methodologies despite its relevance (in my mind at least)
The end product is the measure of the success of any methodology, and Zumthor succeeds.
The thing is just about anybody can design a cool building. All it takes is a budget and a good client. This is especially the case in Switzerland where Zumthor works. The level of craft is so high architects don't even need to draw details, the contractor figures all the messy stuff out. The soul of architecture is in the idea, and sorry I need proof that one exists. If you can't tell me what the idea is I don't believe it is there.
the idea is being in the warm water of the 'echo chamber' in Vals, while a woman is chanting in some unknown language. It's all about phenomonology (I know I spelled that one wrong)
And what goes for the detail-work... Every doorknob and fixture is designed/worked out/thought out at Zumthor's office, and he works with a small staff, overseeing everything himself.
The idea of a building just MIGHT be only completely communicable using the language of architecture itself (or this is what I believe to be the main reason of difficulties in understanding between phenomenologists and most other types of theory-oriented people.)
In my opinion, Zumthor excels in this language of architecture, and even many of his lectures give you more food for thought than a pile of cut/paste theorybabble and a couple of renderings. He has been known to give crap lectures also, but oh well...
again, i think we agree. it does become difficult, as a professor, to allow too much of an ' i did it because it feels right' kind of justification, but mostly that's because (at least in my case) of a suspicion that the student doesn't really grasp what the nature or potential of a spatial experience really is. chalk it up to a lack of time or experience. what i try very hard to do is to get them to trust their intuition first and then rationalize afterwards. you can always refine something potent, but it's damn hard to come up with a really convincing initial experience. i think zumthor is very good at capturing that overall mood and resolving it through to the end.
sam sung - what kind of 'idea' are you looking for? one that rests outside the work itself or that can be discerned easily or in terms outside the building's own construction? are you looking for metaphor, similie, a trope, or some other convention to 'read' the work through? there are plenty of ideas in there - ranging from a brutal commentary on what defines our material existence to a sublime take on the expression of construction technique (which is not at all transparent in his work). i'm not sure what you're trying to define as the 'idea'. let's go a step further, though. can you define precisely what the 'idea' is in richard serra's torqued ellipse or spiral series for example? will it change your experience of those pieces in person, or will it allow you to digest the work from afar, take away something and spare you from actually having to engage the object itself? will it allow you to compartmentalize and classify the experience and dismiss it more easily? i hope not...
funny you should mention serra. i like to show my students a comparison i did of serra and zumthor's work through krauss' sculpture in the expanded field. i feel they share many things in common in terms of understanding place and landscape [i am referring to serra's site specific landscape work].
i'd say zumthor's understanding of place is what makes his work so powerful, and is often forgotten to focus on his craft and detailing. this is what ties him to heidegger, an intent focus on dwelling.
I'm looking for some ideas with substance, that can be talked about and written about. Things like "understanding of space" etc. are as vauge as can be. Architecture needs to engage current critical theory or else it is not architecture. When does Zumthor ever talk about the fold?
i really, really hope that you are kidding. you definitely sound like it.
look, i don't disagree that generic phrases can be a cover for a lack of real substance, but i'm also, in my old age, more highly dubious of the words we use to describe experience. we're so anxious to use language and description to susbstitute for a genuine aesthetic experience. i love ideas as much as anyone, but they aren't a substitute for the real thing. also, you've still sidesteped my question about serra's ellipses. are you bored by them?
awl - interesting comparison. i give the same krauss article to my students as well.
i'm not sure sam sung is kidding, but his fold comment is funny. he also side stepped my question >> could you please post some of the 'cool building[s]' you've designed [and built] since you believe that 'just about anybody can' do it?
I'm not trying to sidestep anything. I don't know what "serra's ellipses" are, but from the sound of it it has something to do with geometry which, if that is the case, no thank you I'm not interested. Been there, done that. As for pictures of cool buildings of mine, I'm still in school, plus I said anyone can do a cool building in Switzerland where there is an awesome support system. Nobody is doing cool buildings in Georgia.
please, sam sung, please. you said >>
"The thing is just about anybody can design a cool building. All it takes is a budget and a good client. This is especially the case in Switzerland where Zumthor works."
you then say >>
"The level of craft is so high architects don't even need to draw details, the contractor figures all the messy stuff out."
as if zumthor and his crew don't need to draw details and that there drawing set is so not thought out that they leave it up to the contractors to figure out. while, a great contractor is critical in developing a great piece of architecture, they do not and can not take the place of the designer. zumthor's work is the result of a great team lead by a great designer.
if you are not into geometry, what do your buildings look like??? Im not saying that they have to be either a circle or a square, but at some point there has to be some geometrical form to them.
'Nobody is doing cool buildings in Georgia' - obviously you are not a John Portman fan (http://www.portmanusa.com/index_home.html)
Peter Zumthor
Does anyone know what Zumthor has been up to lately??? I haven't heard of seen anything about him lately. One would think that his office is still doing good work.
not quite sure either - casabella magazine had a good interview with him about 2 months ago. showed a few projects in development.
berghotel in tschlin switz. 2001
gallery w. residential space above in berlin 2003
the interview with him mentioned a house ( for himself) that he was working on . but even though the Casabella article was for Feb. 04, the interview ( w. barbara stec)took place a year earlier.
he doesn't have a website does he? there's a zumthor.ch link on the archi-europe site, but it doesn't work...
Peter Zumthor recently moved back to Los Angeles and has been teaching at SCI-Arc recently. He and Jeffrey Inaba have formed an architecture consultancy called valdes. He's a nice guy, once you get to know him, actually. No beard anymore either.
i think Inaba did ValDes with Peter Zellner
see copied caption:
Peter Zellner is an architect, writer and curator, and a Studio Faculty member at the Southern California Institute of Architecture. He is the author of Hybrid Space: New Forms in Digital Architecture and along with Jeffrey Inaba, co-founder of ValDes, a non-profit organization dedicated to researching suburban conditions. His architectural projects have been published and exhibited internationally - most recently as a part of Experimental Architectures 1950-2000, in Orléans, France.
no, i know peter zellner, it's peter zumthor you're thinking of.
i saw a pic recently in Domus of a museum he was doing but haven't seen anything on it since. it looked really good- anyone have any info on it?
They are going to tear down the museum in berlin, which is not even finished yet due to costoverrun.... in the range of 20 million
a new competition should be held for the museum to find a new project
Shame to hear about the end of the museum. I was asking this question on here a few months back and was referred to the Domus feature - some kind of holocaust information archive as I recall. Love to see more of Zumthor.
And what is this confusion with Zumthor and Zellner? Zumthor is Swiss and Zellner is Australian! Know your industry, people! There was also some confusion with Peter Markli recently too. Reminds me of the time when a 4th year architecture student had to be told who Mies van der Rohe was... should have been pulled aside and severely beaten.
At my school, we call Zumthor "Dumthor." Have you ever heard him speak? Not an ounce of theory.
is theory so important? i appreciate it, but is it necessary? i think zumthor is more interested in materials, their detailing, and the spaces that he can create with them. i would take that any day over one who is theory based yet can't detail worth a crap.
Vals is the best building I have ever been in; it hit everyone of my senses. I went to school in an Eisenman building: piece of shit.
As for your theory...
He never finished his architecture studies... he was a designer in Basel -and studied cabinetry and the traditional crafts after a decade or so restoring vernacular buildings... he went then the US to study more design, arch and urbanism but never finished anything... then went back to his Swiss homeland and started working as an architect in his late 30's or so (switzerland is great because, apparently, its not necessary to have a degree to call yourself an architect.., though its difficult to enter competitions if you're not a swiss citizen).
No wonder he's not into theory if he's not even liscensed.. he has recognized being influenced by H&dM... but while sharing their art oriented architecture, Zumthor adds that baumeister touch to his buildings.. an exquisite craft and knowledge of materials.. while H&dM work more on their intellectual strengths and concepts...
Both Zumthor and H&dM are, IMO, the best swiss architects and they represent perfectly the two different ways to approach architecture, conceptual and artistic ...
(excuse my poor english)
Yeah, why would Zumthor need theory when he designs buildings like Vals? Often theory is a crutch. Name a theory architect that pays as much attention to the actual crafting of materials and detailing to acheive a qualitative, experiential effect (rather than the technologist like Grimshaw, Calatrava and Rogers...).
Theory is overrated.
Wow, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Zumthor didn't even finish college. He may not be "book smart" but he must have some sort of internal strenght and determination to overcome the handicap of not having a proper education. I concede and give him some props, but still don't you think architecture needs to have a driving idea behind it for it to even be architecture and not just a building?
sam sung,
Please explain how any of Zumthor's buildings don't have ideas behind them. In every one of his works, there is a clear parti, and a clear intent to do more than play with materials. Whether a museum floats over ancient foundations, or a spa makes you feel like you're at the sourse of a spring, it's hard to say that his work is merely building.
I've never heard him speak, but I'll take your word and assume he doesn't present himself well. What really counts however, is that the work speaks so clearly to so many people. What I admire the most about his work is the variety. One project is a perfect wood frame, another a puzzle of thick slate walls, and yet another a delicate glass box. In each project there is an honest and unique solution.
That only places Zumthor in the same category as Ando, and to an extent Scarpa, Barragan etc. Also, there are a number of other Swiss architects interested in materiality as the driving concern such as Botta, Meili, Gigon Guyer et al in which Zumthor is comfortably placed. He may not have a centre of theory to operate from, but certainly devotes more time than usual to context, material and effect.
Zumthor is criticised along lones of not operating from a theoretical basis, or more relevantly, not instigating or reflecting a cultural dialogue within his buildings, but I think that the end products cannot be denied as a convincing piece of architecture.
I think theory is often used as justification for both the succeses and failures in a building, kind of like mitigating circumstances in the crime of building (I was drunk when I did it!). Eisenman, Lynn and other digital designers could be guilty of this kind of approach.
Architectural theory is the orthodox language of architecture, but like alot of orthodoxies, it revolves around the development, argument and protection (and limited distribution) of semantics within an elite minority. Its importance outside of this is highly debatable.
Finally, I think it takes courage to develop a project without a driving theory, although I believe that Jazz is the best structure to follow in this regard - you have to know every note, every chord structure, what your ancestors have done and what your contemporaries are doing. Only then can you throw the rules out the window. Theoryless architecture shouldnt be dumb architecture.
And Zumthor isn't bad at expressing his thoughts. He just seems like a pretty ordinary guy. That might be the "wrong" thing about his person. Still, I've heard he's a monster in his studio (towards the workers, that is). A star architect after all!
Do you know of what's going on now in Berlin? Zumthor is in the paper here almost daily, in regards to his Topography of Terror building. The cost of it has been causing big disagreements.
dillup.,
any news on the Topography of Terror project you could share? I saw the site on Sunday and was amazed at how little had been built. I have heard the project was in trouble, but don't know quite to what extent. Are they going to complete it, or start over...?
mdler-
don't be such a pessimist. I love that eisenman building! although, that is the only one.
also mdler, are you still jealous that I got his out of print mono. I will sell it to you? if you still don't have it............
oh wait, that was a joke. darn
aeaa,
I have the mono, just jealous that I didnt get the mono, and for that sake, mono, from the girl you got it from.
ps- I know what you did last summer
diabase -
i disagree with the general consensus (and i'm just picking your comments out as the last in line here) that zumthor "... may not have a centre of theory to operate from..." why is this commonly believed? solely because he choses not to place his work within a very distinct and narrow linage of cultural 'theory' that has been hijacked by a small cadre of architects and writers?
according to webster's, 'theory' is defined as: ' 1. systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. 2. such knowledge or a system distinguished from experiment or practice.'
so, according to the first definition, i would argue that zumthor clearly operates within and from a 'theoretical' position. if you doubt this, read his book entitled 'thinking architecture'. he has a framework of ideas within which he develops his work; that framework is abstract enough to be applied to a variety of situations, and can (although he might object) be analyzed apart from the work itself.
is he reading decerteau, debord, dave hickey, or rem koolhaas? is his work as hip or ironically self-aware as his neighbors to the north? who cares? it is amazing, amazing work. (especially vals). go visit it and visit some aalto and you won't care what the old white guys in new york ever say again...
Speaking of the “tower of terrorâ€, here's some images of what they've built so far (I can’t remember how to post images, so I hope this works…):
<img src=http://www.surphasia.com/images/temp/DSCN0449_small.jpg>
<img src=http://www.surphasia.com/images/temp/DSCN0445_small.jpg>
The yellow crane thing was constructed specially to build this project. Though you can't see much as there's not much too see. Also I was taking a picture of the crane more than Zumthor’s concrete...
I have heard him lecture, though it was in German... but was being translated into Italian... neither of which do I speak... so I have absolutely no idea what he said...
We spoke with the project architect briefly about the Holocaust museum and their explanation was... disappointing.... the building was basically a series of vertical louvers with this crazy hidden connection, so it seemed like it was more about an effect, a quality of light and space, as well (of course) as fine crafting and innovative construction. Anyway the idea (supposedly) was as you're walking along side it you can only see in if you crane your neck, "like democracy, this building requires your active engagement, democracy is not acquired passively..." or something to that effect.
Sounded more like they felt pressured politically to have some sort of poetic connection to the holocaust (which seems like a reasonable goal for a holocaust museum…) but this seemed like a bit of a stretch.
Apparently it works like all other discussion forums... how convenient!
G-Love,
I am definitely pro-Zumthor and agree with you in regards to his work operating from a definite theoretical structure. I guess I should have clarified my comments to something like "He may not have a centre of "fashionable" theory to operate from" instead.
Basically, the comments and discussions I have had about Zumthor's work often include criticism about the lack of cultural dialogue in his buildings in the way that Venturi, Mockbee or ARM operate/d. But the relevance of this is highly debatable - unless we are Swiss we know very little about Swiss culture aside from the stereotype - and given that all of his buildings to this point are located in Switzerland then I dont think this criticsim has much merit.
I commend the man and I think that he lacks nothing in terms of a methodology or theoretical language of building, its just that is more traditional than the current focus on the digital and I think this kind of approach is deemed less relevant these days (and almost deficient)which is a shame. But like I said, courage is often missing and replaced with archispeak in the design approaches of our elites these days.
You just need to take a look at the picture below to appreciate Zumthors work.
As for me, I have never read Deleuze et al and never probably will - I am a contrarian to an extent.
diabase -
sorry if it seemed like my comments sounded more defensive (it's all bush's fault). i did pick up on your pro-zumthor tone and didn't mean to sound like that was being taken for granted.
conversely, i don't mean to say that writers, such as deluze or any of the others i mentioned, have no value to us as architects. my frustration, which is more general in nature, is that notions of what constitutes 'theory' have been so thoroughly corrupted and focused into a very narrow range of thought. we've lost the ability to accept other starting points for creating work, be it someone like zumthor or murcutt or bruce goff or oscar niemeyer or whomever. i think we agree that this kind of loss isn't good or healthy. (any ecosystem need a wide proliferation of species to survive...).
fashionable theory is fine, for what it is. i just hate the fact that, especially in school, we tend to marginalize the value of everything else (and i'm speaking as a professor - it's our fault you know).
If anyone is interested in a bit more info on the 'topography of terror' project in Berlin by Zumthor, here is a link i found with a few images of the model and a short video of the proposal.
[url=http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/bauen/grosse_projekte/en/topographie_des_terrors.shtml]
well the link didn't quite fit but i am sure you all can find your way there, the website in general has some great info on large scale projects in Berlin, perhaps a bit dated but worth while.
Here's that link for above...
Topography of Terror
too bad to hear the project is in trouble.
here's an overall shot of the model - wow, i knew that this project was old news but i didn't think it was this old, a competition won way back in 1993...
http://www.topographie.de/en/neubau.htm
zumthor does have a theoretical base: martin heidegger's building dwelling thinking is key to his work, and he both quotes heidegger and reflects on the meaning of dwelling in his monograph.
i heard zumthor talk once as one of four architects picked for boston's ica [which diller & scofidio eventually won]. he basically said he was swiss, loved switzerland, loved skiing, and once in a while he did buildings. he refused to show pictures of his buildings other than a shot of his office, saying 'you really have to be there to appreciate them.' and you know, he is sort of right, although at the time he sounded a bit obnoxious and made all the other architects look a little shallow [they had all showed gorgeous photographs].
i did think it was a little hypocritical [sp?] of him since he has the gorgeously photographed monograph out.
nontheless, i do appreciate his craft and detailing... but do not be fooled: the vals bath has awful brass fittings and some bizarre blue neon lights that almost never show in the photographs. if someone tells me how to post pictures, i may have a couple that could be dissapointing.
In regards to the topography of terror project; I think it had almost that much built (as seen in above images) when I was there 4 years ago.
just bought that book of his 'Pensare architettura' couldn't find it in english, but can read italian slowly - will put up a post once i've read it- anyone else out there read it?
G-Love,
Well, it almost seems some times that in order to create from a basis similar to Zumthors, or as AML states, a Heideggeran (is that a word?) is to tempt fate in the studio - dare one say "I designed it because I like it?". I didnt, but I always kept that opinion to myself and relied on my talent in argument and persuasion to get across.
I myself own a copy of Heidegger's works and can see that its metaphysical language will fall on flat ears in the current mode of quasi-scientific, diagrammatic and programmatic methodologies despite its relevance (in my mind at least)
The end product is the measure of the success of any methodology, and Zumthor succeeds.
The thing is just about anybody can design a cool building. All it takes is a budget and a good client. This is especially the case in Switzerland where Zumthor works. The level of craft is so high architects don't even need to draw details, the contractor figures all the messy stuff out. The soul of architecture is in the idea, and sorry I need proof that one exists. If you can't tell me what the idea is I don't believe it is there.
the idea is being in the warm water of the 'echo chamber' in Vals, while a woman is chanting in some unknown language. It's all about phenomonology (I know I spelled that one wrong)
sam sung, could you please post some of your 'cool building[s]' you've designed [and built] since 'just about anybody can' do it?
obviusly sam sung has never been to switzerland nor worked there....
as long as you have no idea what you are talking about, just don't say anything
And what goes for the detail-work... Every doorknob and fixture is designed/worked out/thought out at Zumthor's office, and he works with a small staff, overseeing everything himself.
The idea of a building just MIGHT be only completely communicable using the language of architecture itself (or this is what I believe to be the main reason of difficulties in understanding between phenomenologists and most other types of theory-oriented people.)
In my opinion, Zumthor excels in this language of architecture, and even many of his lectures give you more food for thought than a pile of cut/paste theorybabble and a couple of renderings. He has been known to give crap lectures also, but oh well...
diabase -
again, i think we agree. it does become difficult, as a professor, to allow too much of an ' i did it because it feels right' kind of justification, but mostly that's because (at least in my case) of a suspicion that the student doesn't really grasp what the nature or potential of a spatial experience really is. chalk it up to a lack of time or experience. what i try very hard to do is to get them to trust their intuition first and then rationalize afterwards. you can always refine something potent, but it's damn hard to come up with a really convincing initial experience. i think zumthor is very good at capturing that overall mood and resolving it through to the end.
sam sung - what kind of 'idea' are you looking for? one that rests outside the work itself or that can be discerned easily or in terms outside the building's own construction? are you looking for metaphor, similie, a trope, or some other convention to 'read' the work through? there are plenty of ideas in there - ranging from a brutal commentary on what defines our material existence to a sublime take on the expression of construction technique (which is not at all transparent in his work). i'm not sure what you're trying to define as the 'idea'. let's go a step further, though. can you define precisely what the 'idea' is in richard serra's torqued ellipse or spiral series for example? will it change your experience of those pieces in person, or will it allow you to digest the work from afar, take away something and spare you from actually having to engage the object itself? will it allow you to compartmentalize and classify the experience and dismiss it more easily? i hope not...
if you need Zumthor's theory, go read 'Thinking Architecture'. Its a small, but profound piece.
g-love -
funny you should mention serra. i like to show my students a comparison i did of serra and zumthor's work through krauss' sculpture in the expanded field. i feel they share many things in common in terms of understanding place and landscape [i am referring to serra's site specific landscape work].
i'd say zumthor's understanding of place is what makes his work so powerful, and is often forgotten to focus on his craft and detailing. this is what ties him to heidegger, an intent focus on dwelling.
LA-Architekt -
You wrote this:
<They are going to tear down the museum in berlin, which is not even finished yet due to costoverrun.... in the range of 20 million
a new competition should be held for the museum to find a new project>
Where did you get this information? Is it correct? Nothing is mentioned on the Topographie.de website.
Thank you -
I'm looking for some ideas with substance, that can be talked about and written about. Things like "understanding of space" etc. are as vauge as can be. Architecture needs to engage current critical theory or else it is not architecture. When does Zumthor ever talk about the fold?
sam sung -
i really, really hope that you are kidding. you definitely sound like it.
look, i don't disagree that generic phrases can be a cover for a lack of real substance, but i'm also, in my old age, more highly dubious of the words we use to describe experience. we're so anxious to use language and description to susbstitute for a genuine aesthetic experience. i love ideas as much as anyone, but they aren't a substitute for the real thing. also, you've still sidesteped my question about serra's ellipses. are you bored by them?
awl - interesting comparison. i give the same krauss article to my students as well.
i'm not sure sam sung is kidding, but his fold comment is funny. he also side stepped my question >> could you please post some of the 'cool building[s]' you've designed [and built] since you believe that 'just about anybody can' do it?
I'm not trying to sidestep anything. I don't know what "serra's ellipses" are, but from the sound of it it has something to do with geometry which, if that is the case, no thank you I'm not interested. Been there, done that. As for pictures of cool buildings of mine, I'm still in school, plus I said anyone can do a cool building in Switzerland where there is an awesome support system. Nobody is doing cool buildings in Georgia.
please, sam sung, please. you said >>
"The thing is just about anybody can design a cool building. All it takes is a budget and a good client. This is especially the case in Switzerland where Zumthor works."
you then say >>
"The level of craft is so high architects don't even need to draw details, the contractor figures all the messy stuff out."
as if zumthor and his crew don't need to draw details and that there drawing set is so not thought out that they leave it up to the contractors to figure out. while, a great contractor is critical in developing a great piece of architecture, they do not and can not take the place of the designer. zumthor's work is the result of a great team lead by a great designer.
sam sung,
if you are not into geometry, what do your buildings look like??? Im not saying that they have to be either a circle or a square, but at some point there has to be some geometrical form to them.
'Nobody is doing cool buildings in Georgia' - obviously you are not a John Portman fan (http://www.portmanusa.com/index_home.html)
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.