I was reading a rather old article on the architect David Adjaye in The Guardian (UK newspaper).
below is an extract of what he said:
Adjaye is not a frustrated YBA; he does, though, call himself a "conceptual architect". "People usually say, 'Oh, that means bullshit'. I say it means the ability for me to use anything to express my ideas. The idea is the most important concept within the whole construction. Everything else is a means to an end."
I really like Adjayes work, you could say he's one of my favourite architects at the moment, but would you say what he has said there is a load of crap.
I'm in my first year of studying architecture, and yeah I guess I would say my work is quite coneptual, but I'm not sure if I would place myself so boldly in a catogary like Adjaye has above.
Can one really be a "conceptual architect"
"The idea is the most important concept within the whole construction..."
There is a difference between a "practicing architect" who is passionate about the conceptual stuff of a project being a strong as possible given all the constraints of building a usable and constructable project in an economy driven environment
and
a "conceptual architect" who is SO passionate about expressing an idea through that usability, constructability, economy, etc. become a hindrance to the concept. Therefore, most of their work exists in the digital environment or some other environment where the concept can be uninhibited.
I am not familiar with his work so i don't know which he belongs to. maybe both.
if you believe, however, that in order for work to be architecture it must exist in three dimensionsal, unsimulated space, then i guess there is no such thing as a conceptual architect as defined above.
i think the question comes down to whether you are seriously interested in act of building what you draw. i don't think lebbeus necessarily is. with some, it takes time to find a way [and a client] to help you realize your vision, but you are still interested in realizing your projects. i think of the struggle that people like hadid, denari, eisenman, and wes jones encountered in their youth. denari and jones still struggle.
The issues you have raised worry me slightly. I had a look at some of Lebbeus Wood's work and they seem to be more conceptual (and darker) than my ideas. The thing is, I dont want to lose this style I have. I think I have a certain style not seen in architecture yet, and believe can be realised (granted I am in my first year studying architecture). I feel my ideas are quite innovative and (dare I say it)original and has recieved a positive (if not controversial) overall response from the university staff thus far.
Nothing is new
Under the sun;
Into the sea
The waters run;
Back they are brought
Unto their sources,
Only again
To run their courses.
ÂÂ
Thought, as well,
Never is new;
Thoughts of our own
Are but a review
Of other thoughts
Of long ago,
That down through time
Like rivers flow.
ÂÂ
Over and over
The waters run;
Nothing is new
Under the sun.
Over and over,
Ages through,
Thought is rehearsed,
For nothing is new.
Everything has a set of parameters leading to its inception. There are fragments of those parameters in the framework of what is new. The visual cues, as in design may be lost by the end of the design process in design, but the process always is indicative of the past.
Examples: International Style, Cubism. Both were innovative, both have few exact precedents, but are made up of components of the past, products of their times; yet completely original.
It's interesting, there hasn't been much new since the two said design movement examples. It's about time that another major design movement occurs. We're due. We've been doing the same stuff for almost a century now, and I think that the current political environment of the world is one that may foster a new ideology. Thoughts?
Sol Lewitt (one of the cats that coined the term) was doing conceptual pieces where he would write up instructions and diagrams and having other people actually construct the painting or sculpture. This way he was making up concepts as art instead of objects. Often the instructions were set relative to the contingencies of the “site†so that the same “concept†would generate a different painting on different walls.
That sounds a lot like what we do. Maybe we’re all conceptual architects. I’ll have to try that one out next time I’m trying to mack on somebody.
evilplatypus--in response to your second post in this thread--that was sortof what I was going to add, but thought i would leave my comment to interpretation...
houman, that is the struggle for you. how to retain your ideas, but make them buildable. that is what architecture is about >> building. you may be more comfortable theorizing what that means and how we should approach it, and that's fine. if you want to build, you have to realize the many constraints that can sometimes be placed on ideas >> client, money, and technology. as i said, for some, it can take time to bring all of these aspects in line before they build, but i think the time pays off.
You are not a "Conceptual Architect," you are a student. If you get paid to envision concepts, then you are a "Conceptual Architect." If you are designing hypotheticals, then you are designing would-be buildings...would-be products. Concepts are more abstract.
Feb 25, 05 3:58 pm ·
·
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.
"I'm a conceptual architect"
I was reading a rather old article on the architect David Adjaye in The Guardian (UK newspaper).
below is an extract of what he said:
Adjaye is not a frustrated YBA; he does, though, call himself a "conceptual architect". "People usually say, 'Oh, that means bullshit'. I say it means the ability for me to use anything to express my ideas. The idea is the most important concept within the whole construction. Everything else is a means to an end."
I really like Adjayes work, you could say he's one of my favourite architects at the moment, but would you say what he has said there is a load of crap.
I'm in my first year of studying architecture, and yeah I guess I would say my work is quite coneptual, but I'm not sure if I would place myself so boldly in a catogary like Adjaye has above.
Can one really be a "conceptual architect"
If you make a snowman out of a pile of shit, you still have a pile of shit.
libeskind was for a long time, and look where that got him.
Where is that exactly, bending over for SOM?
"The idea is the most important concept within the whole construction..."
There is a difference between a "practicing architect" who is passionate about the conceptual stuff of a project being a strong as possible given all the constraints of building a usable and constructable project in an economy driven environment
and
a "conceptual architect" who is SO passionate about expressing an idea through that usability, constructability, economy, etc. become a hindrance to the concept. Therefore, most of their work exists in the digital environment or some other environment where the concept can be uninhibited.
I am not familiar with his work so i don't know which he belongs to. maybe both.
if you believe, however, that in order for work to be architecture it must exist in three dimensionsal, unsimulated space, then i guess there is no such thing as a conceptual architect as defined above.
what if the construction is the concept???
to the things themselves-husserl
I am a [blur]BLURRY[/blur] architect.
Lebbeus Woods is a prime example of this. Is he an architect or an artist?
i think the question comes down to whether you are seriously interested in act of building what you draw. i don't think lebbeus necessarily is. with some, it takes time to find a way [and a client] to help you realize your vision, but you are still interested in realizing your projects. i think of the struggle that people like hadid, denari, eisenman, and wes jones encountered in their youth. denari and jones still struggle.
e,
The issues you have raised worry me slightly. I had a look at some of Lebbeus Wood's work and they seem to be more conceptual (and darker) than my ideas. The thing is, I dont want to lose this style I have. I think I have a certain style not seen in architecture yet, and believe can be realised (granted I am in my first year studying architecture). I feel my ideas are quite innovative and (dare I say it)original and has recieved a positive (if not controversial) overall response from the university staff thus far.
Nothing Is New
Nothing is new
Under the sun;
Into the sea
The waters run;
Back they are brought
Unto their sources,
Only again
To run their courses.
ÂÂ
Thought, as well,
Never is new;
Thoughts of our own
Are but a review
Of other thoughts
Of long ago,
That down through time
Like rivers flow.
ÂÂ
Over and over
The waters run;
Nothing is new
Under the sun.
Over and over,
Ages through,
Thought is rehearsed,
For nothing is new.
-John Edward Everett
Nothing is new. Innovative? Yes.
Everything has a set of parameters leading to its inception. There are fragments of those parameters in the framework of what is new. The visual cues, as in design may be lost by the end of the design process in design, but the process always is indicative of the past.
Examples: International Style, Cubism. Both were innovative, both have few exact precedents, but are made up of components of the past, products of their times; yet completely original.
It's interesting, there hasn't been much new since the two said design movement examples. It's about time that another major design movement occurs. We're due. We've been doing the same stuff for almost a century now, and I think that the current political environment of the world is one that may foster a new ideology. Thoughts?
Sol Lewitt (one of the cats that coined the term) was doing conceptual pieces where he would write up instructions and diagrams and having other people actually construct the painting or sculpture. This way he was making up concepts as art instead of objects. Often the instructions were set relative to the contingencies of the “site†so that the same “concept†would generate a different painting on different walls.
That sounds a lot like what we do. Maybe we’re all conceptual architects. I’ll have to try that one out next time I’m trying to mack on somebody.
i'm a contraceptual architect masself...
Right, exactly. It’s like poststructuralist ya know. Resisting the seminal conception.
evilplatypus--in response to your second post in this thread--that was sortof what I was going to add, but thought i would leave my comment to interpretation...
houman, that is the struggle for you. how to retain your ideas, but make them buildable. that is what architecture is about >> building. you may be more comfortable theorizing what that means and how we should approach it, and that's fine. if you want to build, you have to realize the many constraints that can sometimes be placed on ideas >> client, money, and technology. as i said, for some, it can take time to bring all of these aspects in line before they build, but i think the time pays off.
You are not a "Conceptual Architect," you are a student. If you get paid to envision concepts, then you are a "Conceptual Architect." If you are designing hypotheticals, then you are designing would-be buildings...would-be products. Concepts are more abstract.
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.