You’re completely missing the point (and in fact sort of making it for them). The entire argument that’s being made here (I’m not the most articulate so g-love and diabase feel free to chime in to clarify/correct me) is that phenomenology and experiential approaches to architecture; that is an understanding of dwelling and engaging spaces are perfectly legitimate methods of working. However they are somewhat counter to popular teachings (theories) today which imply logic and reason, and are therein often not understood, and people tend to dismiss and marginalize things which they do not understand. As a product of this method of teaching, that is if you really believe that “Architecture needs to engage current critical theory or else it is not architecture.” Then of course your going to dismiss anything dealing with phenomenological, experiential approaches to architecture. While it’s contrary to popular theory, it’s just as legitimate of a theoretical basis.

It’s very difficult to teach, harder to produce and near impossible to explain. I mean it’s sort of antithetical to explain it at all, that’s not what it’s about. I don’t know that I can do a better job of putting in to words than to say it can’t be put into words. It’s like an emotion. It’s not logic or rational, it can’t explain it. I only know it’s there. I can tell you how I feel, but I might not be able to tell you why.

When your dismissing work you’ve never even heard of before, you’re not making a very strong argument. In fact I think the opposite could be said. Also you're ignorance of Serra's ellipses is no excuse. One; Look them up, you obviously have a internet connection. Two; You can still infer what he's talking about without a specific understanding of the project, the idea being that you need to be there, walk around them, experience them, and have the fear that one of the bastards might fall over and kill you, to fully understand what it’s like. Talking about skydiving and understanding it on an intellectual level is vastly different than jumping out of an airplane at 200mph from 10,000 feet in the air. Yes you can understand it the idea but you don’t have a clue as to what it’s actually like to experience it.

I can see that we’re not going to convince you with a few posts on a message board. And that’s fine. I’m trying not to be inflammatory here, but what’s the most troubling (and the only reason I’m bothering to respond your comments) is your instant dismissal of anything that doesn’t fit within your narrow view of what architecture is. Try and be a little more open minded. Or at the very least try and be a little more informed of the subject matter you’re trying to engage.

Great discussion,

I think Sam Sung is looking for generic ideas, expressed in a generic way and to be inderstood generically. It is simple for someone with even only a passing knowledge of diagrammatic/programmatic/"folding" theory to design a building that is -evidence- for these kind of simple concerns. The most that can be achieved by this way is a cleverness and wit in the use of language, and more often than not, a pretty rendering. Aside from the pretty rendering, this kind of result verges on accountancy.

And, as g-love points out, you dont want students [or practitioners] spewing stuff out with no justification, weak theory or undeveloped ideas. I remember studying and dealing with huge phenomenological, existential and metaphysical questions that literally kept me up at night for weeks on end, because in essence, they were unsolvable. Whatever I produced was only scratching the surface, but I think it added more to my understanding of architecture than 'the fold' ever did.

I must temper my comments with the opinion that 'poetic' concerns in architecture [a la norberg-schulz, et al] can have the same shallowness. I value rigour over any other quality when it comes to architecture.

And as for Sam Sung not knowing who Serra is [and I hope he is kidding too], I sincerely hope he is only a 1st/2nd year student because there are some things you MUST know when you study architecture, and Serra is defintiely one of them - even if you are only a blobmeister.

true true p-m, if sam sung doesn't know serra, then he doesn't know about a massive part of the discourse that he is criticizing zumthor for not participating in. I'm a little curious how an architecture student can not be interested in "geometry" also...

but I'm almost more interested in zumthor as architect/celebrity than his work. I haven't been to any of his projects, and from what I've heard, he's right- you can't really appreciate them without going. but what is interesting is his marketing strategy of "my work can only be appreciated by experiencing it"... which didn't seem to work in boston (weirdly enough, sam sung's "fold" did). he has international status as an architect, but the geographic range of his work is limited, combined with a "you have to go there approach", seems to create a really interesting problem. I actually admire his approach to self promotion, despite it's, apparently, completely nausiating effect, because it's so true to his work in its execution, that it actually hurts him. in fact, it is so true to his work, he ends up promoting his persona... kind of interesting. but then again, from what I hear he's not short on work at all, so it seems to be working.

also, add plexus r+d to the list of cool firms in georgia...

Just to clarify, I dont want to unfarily criticise and single out Norberg-Schulz and others classified as metaphysicists and poets, its just that I've seen shallow and indulgent work produced in his/their name and it only belittles the great questions of architecture, such as, what is a building?

does anyone know of project zumthors has worked on/completed in moab, ut? i've seen it listed as one of his works but fail to find images, etc. no suprise there, i guess any response would be helpful...

webb

it helps your marketing (and Zumthor's) when a half-naked Janet Jackson swims through your spa in her video

i couldn't agree more with diabase about seeing shoddy work 'justified' under the phenomenological tag line. bad work is bad work, no matter what the rationalization.

ultimately, all i'm really trying to argue for here is the primacy of the experience of a building/space/object over the 'ideas' that generate it. for me, the kinds of intellectual frameworks that we all generate, no matter how sophisticated or overt, need to be a support for the work, not a substitute for them. the moment they become prescriptive is the moment that it all falls apart.

If everyone could visit every building, there wouldnt be so much writted abut architecture

you can hear zumthor speak and get a very detailed walkthrough of his vals spa on DVD - Architectures vol. 2

netflix and amazon have it

or search for zumthor in any german newspaper...and you will find some info

26. Mai 2004 Peter Zumthor ist nicht mehr der Architekt der Berliner Gedenkstätte "Topographie des Terrors". Bund und Land haben den Schweizer, wie gemeldet, am Dienstag von seinem Auftrag entbunden, eine Dokumentations- und Ausstellungshalle zu bauen, nachdem eine Studie des Bundesbauministeriums zu dem Ergebnis gekommen war, das Projekt berge trotz mehrfacher Preiserhöhungen und mancher Überarbeitung immer noch erhebliche Kostenrisiken.

I don't know mdler, I had janet swimming around in my bathtub the other day and all I got was a summons from the FCC...

a friend of mine is going to be auctioning an original copy of zumthor's 'thinking architecture'(little red book) on ebay in a week or two... i tried to convince him to sell it to me, but the price wasnt right. anyone interested should check it out.