It is admittedly hard to look at, but their work operates as a kind of satire that Britain needs desperately with so many earnest Prince Charles' types running around the island applying cottage fakery to sewage treatement plants. I don't think their work translates well in the states - it's hard to understand where they are winking if you don't know British popular culture well.
Suture... I guess I would like to hear why you think that they are "thin on ideas" any more than anyone else. In my view, they are far more thoughtful and offer a more critical take on architectural and popular culture in Britain than any other firm I can bring to mind. They aren't offering new modes of living, solutions to sprawl, computer generated formalism, or a reimagining of retail/museums/libraries/housing in the 21st century, but I also don't think those are the only things that constitute richness of thought in architectural practice.
I totally agree that their formalism is kind of horrific, but I also think you can't dismiss what they do based on aesthetics, since they seem to treat form as a consequence of their main interests, not the focus.
i think their blue house is phenomenal. the literal 'cookie cutter' house, beautifully detailed with (what appears to be) vinyl siding with a razor sharp steel edge acting. that as a thin veneer to the ubiquitous 4-6 story industrial box, with the wonderful variety of parapet 'cookies' on the side. and the interior... the best of the promises of modernism: sweeping, breathtaking spaces crafted from a minumum of material and actual space (take, for example, the wonderful atrium/circulation well... excellent). the entirely open connection between the kitchen and the yard, with its little trees and shed, is spectacular. and who wouldn't want a bedroom like that??!!! i'm sorry that my archi-crit jargon is a little watered-down today, but, i have to say, this is fantastic work, some of the freshest stuff i've seen in a while. thanks!
to call this project 'post-modern' is only accurate in the literal sense; it IS after-the-main-swing-of-the-modernist-movement, but i don't think it's very fair to apply all of the implications of the pomo brand to this house. if you want to use generalities that disguise actual meaning, it is then okay to say that the house is both 'post-modern' and 'formalistic'.
in actuality, this house doesn't settle for the knee-jerk 'more-is-more' attitude of venturi and johnson. it weaves between 'minimalism' and 'maximalism' without batting a lash. and anybody that would argue that the mental impact of a building's form (that is to say, the visual perception of the exterior of the building) is unimportant in architecture is a fool. it is, in fact, the only way to communicate any idea about architecture to people on the street, walking by, of whom there are thousands more than there are people who actually inhabit the house. in order for the brand 'formalistic' to have any teeth, you would have to argue that the house is somehow relying exclusively on its form for architectural merit, that it is, as some of you have mentioned, a 'one-liner' that 'gets dull pretty fast'. in fact, the house does exactly what it says was meant to do: uses the exterior as a sort of billboard, and uses the interior as a place to live in work. from the six tiny images on their crazy website i can say that this small building has more nuance than any building i've ever seen designed by venturi or johnson.
pomo has always been dead, just as architecture that concerns itself with meaning rather than categorization has always been alive.
I like the way they think. I enjoy the satire and their obvious background in art and philosophy. Love it or hate their work, this firm is far more thoughtful than a good majority of firms in existence.
I disagree with some points of their attitude, but truly believe in their seemingly rebellious nature; this is where innovation comes from. My mentality would probably align well with theirs.
I can't see why one would say that these people are thin on ideas.
janosh, de coster - im with you 100%
Historians and thinkers have explored ideas of architecture through mass media, mass culture fairly thoroughly, Colomina, zizek, Wigley as well I believe, but this is the first time i've seen an office take it this far.
"thin on ideas" couldn't be further from the truth
will none of you detractors step up and provide a retort to my posts? i think you guys are judging this firm way to quickly; their work deserves a close look. i promise you won't be disappointed (and if you are, let me know why!).
this house is wonderful. here's an article to get you started:
inside the museuem infinity goes up on trial
voices echo this must be what salvations like after awhile
but mona lisa must have had the highway blues
you can tell by the way she smiles
hear the primitive wall flower freeze
as the jelly faced women all sneeze.
hear the one with the mustache say jeez
i cant find my knees.
jewels and binoculars hang from the head of a mule
but these visions of johanna make it all seem so cruel.
bob dylan visions of johanna
these fellows seem to be saying that architects are a bunch of stuffed shirts who take them selves so seriously when in fact its about play and advertising and billboards and mass media and that it may be. but while they ask you to kill the modernist within, they strive to be media darlings. whats wrong with that picture?
i have to say, i don't really understand that dylan quote. can you explain your interpretation?
their beef with modernism, if i have it right, is its the over-simplification of program that came along with the free plan. the 'pure' space of many modernist masterpieces ignore the inherent complexity of the domestic program and the way that people actually live. in this sense, there is nothing wrong with them attempting to be 'media darlings'; to the contrary, media is playing an ever-increasingly-large role in domestic life, and they (and their architecture) want to be a part of it.
their other slogan, 'taste not space', appeals to the cultural significance of architecture, and is a plea to architects to drop the elitist (and, ultimately, defeatist) sensai-of-pure-geometry mantle. i think that this is a very insightful (and hopefully incite-ful) comment on why the architect's role in society has increasingly been marginalized; if we, as designers, choose to deal in the wholesale abstraction of 'pure' geometrical exercies without appealing to larger cultural, often taste-based modes, how can we expect the world at large to understand, much less value, what we provide?
i felt bad after bitching out venturi earlier, so i read his writings and studied the drawings and photos of the vanna venturi house in 'complexity and contradiction in architecture,' and, i have to say, i actually really dig the house. my opinions of his work up until this point have been based entirely upon my mode of thinking while a student at washington university in st. louis, which is to say, not nearly as inquisitive as i am now at columbia. viva diversity.
i don't see why being truly rebellious, or truly anything, grants critical immunity, and am doubly unconvinced that innovation is earmarked for earnest rebels. in fact it's exactly the surplus of thought gone in this direction that makes the building so pointless. it might have been excusable if they'd just confined it to the joinery.
if fat is plumbing for inherent complexity of the domestic they're doing a good job confining it to throw away visual statements in white and pastel.
i remember one of the projects they presented at a lecture, a club incongruously programmed in strips, another grotesquely "ironic" theme park, best all round project though.
FAT were formed originally by Kevin Rhowbotham, recently sacked from London's Architectural Association (school). He fell out with the remaining members of FAT including Sam Jacobs a long time before.
FAT Sam appears at a lot of pseudo-academic semi-fashionable presentations and lectures. He is mildly entertaining to listen to, though nothing like the firebrand that is Kevin R.
Kevin R's new group is the field organisation: http://www.fieldorganisation.co.uk/
They have a talent for flash animation and a heavy programmatic leaning.
I spent some time in the FAT offices, working with their office squatter. Their offices are cool. No doubt.
The website doesn't really show the talent with Flash of KR's disciples/students, you will have to take my word for it that some of the most impressive graphic montages I have seen came from him.
The work that I saw KR present, from his AA students, rivalled that of Neutral (Zaha Hadid's imagineers) http://www.neutral.gs
I said he was heavily programmatic - i.e. concerned with the programme of the building (nothing to do with computing ability), which stands him apart from the Blobmeisters of the Bartlett (Cook & Fournier), and after discussion, the remaining members of FAT.
I don't know if KR has ever built a building that works, which FAT have, yet he is on a sustainable, humble, pragmatic pedagogic mission which I respect hugely. If he was more business savvy (wear a suit fella) he would fall into similar categories to Ken Shuttleworth (MAKE) since his split with Fosters.
sorry for misunderstanding you programmatic comment. when it was lumped in with flash animation, i understood it as part of that.
i still stand by my point that i think it is impossible to sell yourself as having a talent for flash animation with a site like that. i also think it's really tough to sell any architectural work with a site like that.
e: I guess this is what I was talking about in other thread; some architects think they can do everything. They should have hired, or at least consulted, graphic designer to do their website.
True, the website that i cited bears little relation to the inspirational (subversive perhaps?) qualities of its originator. However, Kevin Rhowbotham is enviable as a paper architect, and a great rabble rouser. A voice in the wind ? Who knows. Where was Libeskind ten years ago.
(that sounds embarrassingly sentimental, but publish and be damned)
Sorry, but when I see work that I think is ugly and superficial, that's enough for me. And yeah, I really, really, really don't like Venturi's architecture, either.
As for where Libeskind was ten years ago, he was doing fine. It was 9 years ago, I believe, that I bought his El Croquis.
what do you think of FAT?
for those who dont know them, it's a young-ish firm in london, finally slowly starting to build stuff...
what do you guys think of their attitude, work? po-mo heading for a come back?
horrific. po mo is dead, and should remain so!
are these guys for real?
Some of the interior shots actually look quite nice, but what they're doing is a one liner, a joke that wears thin awful fast.
boring, but not in a good way.
It is admittedly hard to look at, but their work operates as a kind of satire that Britain needs desperately with so many earnest Prince Charles' types running around the island applying cottage fakery to sewage treatement plants. I don't think their work translates well in the states - it's hard to understand where they are winking if you don't know British popular culture well.
thin on ideas
Suture... I guess I would like to hear why you think that they are "thin on ideas" any more than anyone else. In my view, they are far more thoughtful and offer a more critical take on architectural and popular culture in Britain than any other firm I can bring to mind. They aren't offering new modes of living, solutions to sprawl, computer generated formalism, or a reimagining of retail/museums/libraries/housing in the 21st century, but I also don't think those are the only things that constitute richness of thought in architectural practice.
the not-too subtle metaphors in their "building" get pretty dull pretty fast
I totally agree that their formalism is kind of horrific, but I also think you can't dismiss what they do based on aesthetics, since they seem to treat form as a consequence of their main interests, not the focus.
i think their blue house is phenomenal. the literal 'cookie cutter' house, beautifully detailed with (what appears to be) vinyl siding with a razor sharp steel edge acting. that as a thin veneer to the ubiquitous 4-6 story industrial box, with the wonderful variety of parapet 'cookies' on the side. and the interior... the best of the promises of modernism: sweeping, breathtaking spaces crafted from a minumum of material and actual space (take, for example, the wonderful atrium/circulation well... excellent). the entirely open connection between the kitchen and the yard, with its little trees and shed, is spectacular. and who wouldn't want a bedroom like that??!!! i'm sorry that my archi-crit jargon is a little watered-down today, but, i have to say, this is fantastic work, some of the freshest stuff i've seen in a while. thanks!
to call this project 'post-modern' is only accurate in the literal sense; it IS after-the-main-swing-of-the-modernist-movement, but i don't think it's very fair to apply all of the implications of the pomo brand to this house. if you want to use generalities that disguise actual meaning, it is then okay to say that the house is both 'post-modern' and 'formalistic'.
in actuality, this house doesn't settle for the knee-jerk 'more-is-more' attitude of venturi and johnson. it weaves between 'minimalism' and 'maximalism' without batting a lash. and anybody that would argue that the mental impact of a building's form (that is to say, the visual perception of the exterior of the building) is unimportant in architecture is a fool. it is, in fact, the only way to communicate any idea about architecture to people on the street, walking by, of whom there are thousands more than there are people who actually inhabit the house. in order for the brand 'formalistic' to have any teeth, you would have to argue that the house is somehow relying exclusively on its form for architectural merit, that it is, as some of you have mentioned, a 'one-liner' that 'gets dull pretty fast'. in fact, the house does exactly what it says was meant to do: uses the exterior as a sort of billboard, and uses the interior as a place to live in work. from the six tiny images on their crazy website i can say that this small building has more nuance than any building i've ever seen designed by venturi or johnson.
pomo has always been dead, just as architecture that concerns itself with meaning rather than categorization has always been alive.
er, 'live and work in'.
where do i start?
Wherever you like... :)
well, i think you said it janosh >> " It is admittedly hard to look at..."
personally i am a premodernist
which i guess makes me a past modernist.
I think their work is engaging because it is so strange. I don't like it, but I like to look at it.
I like the way they think. I enjoy the satire and their obvious background in art and philosophy. Love it or hate their work, this firm is far more thoughtful than a good majority of firms in existence.
I disagree with some points of their attitude, but truly believe in their seemingly rebellious nature; this is where innovation comes from. My mentality would probably align well with theirs.
I can't see why one would say that these people are thin on ideas.
janosh, de coster - im with you 100%
Historians and thinkers have explored ideas of architecture through mass media, mass culture fairly thoroughly, Colomina, zizek, Wigley as well I believe, but this is the first time i've seen an office take it this far.
"thin on ideas" couldn't be further from the truth
FAT has played these ideas quite cleverly.
pomo? wasn't that a 50's deal?
isn't she? yes, i'm sure she is. she's offering her lovely neck to my canines.
someday I will have been known as a future past participlist, but for now I'm content being a premeditadinist.
they misspelled rod
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:www.fat.co.uk+rod
will none of you detractors step up and provide a retort to my posts? i think you guys are judging this firm way to quickly; their work deserves a close look. i promise you won't be disappointed (and if you are, let me know why!).
this house is wonderful. here's an article to get you started:
clickers beware
i think bob dylan said it best about "fat"
inside the museuem infinity goes up on trial
voices echo this must be what salvations like after awhile
but mona lisa must have had the highway blues
you can tell by the way she smiles
hear the primitive wall flower freeze
as the jelly faced women all sneeze.
hear the one with the mustache say jeez
i cant find my knees.
jewels and binoculars hang from the head of a mule
but these visions of johanna make it all seem so cruel.
bob dylan visions of johanna
these fellows seem to be saying that architects are a bunch of stuffed shirts who take them selves so seriously when in fact its about play and advertising and billboards and mass media and that it may be. but while they ask you to kill the modernist within, they strive to be media darlings. whats wrong with that picture?
i have to say, i don't really understand that dylan quote. can you explain your interpretation?
their beef with modernism, if i have it right, is its the over-simplification of program that came along with the free plan. the 'pure' space of many modernist masterpieces ignore the inherent complexity of the domestic program and the way that people actually live. in this sense, there is nothing wrong with them attempting to be 'media darlings'; to the contrary, media is playing an ever-increasingly-large role in domestic life, and they (and their architecture) want to be a part of it.
their other slogan, 'taste not space', appeals to the cultural significance of architecture, and is a plea to architects to drop the elitist (and, ultimately, defeatist) sensai-of-pure-geometry mantle. i think that this is a very insightful (and hopefully incite-ful) comment on why the architect's role in society has increasingly been marginalized; if we, as designers, choose to deal in the wholesale abstraction of 'pure' geometrical exercies without appealing to larger cultural, often taste-based modes, how can we expect the world at large to understand, much less value, what we provide?
oh, and:
i felt bad after bitching out venturi earlier, so i read his writings and studied the drawings and photos of the vanna venturi house in 'complexity and contradiction in architecture,' and, i have to say, i actually really dig the house. my opinions of his work up until this point have been based entirely upon my mode of thinking while a student at washington university in st. louis, which is to say, not nearly as inquisitive as i am now at columbia. viva diversity.
how do you feel about "thin on [good] ideas?"
i don't see why being truly rebellious, or truly anything, grants critical immunity, and am doubly unconvinced that innovation is earmarked for earnest rebels. in fact it's exactly the surplus of thought gone in this direction that makes the building so pointless. it might have been excusable if they'd just confined it to the joinery.
if fat is plumbing for inherent complexity of the domestic they're doing a good job confining it to throw away visual statements in white and pastel.
i remember one of the projects they presented at a lecture, a club incongruously programmed in strips, another grotesquely "ironic" theme park, best all round project though.
FAT were formed originally by Kevin Rhowbotham, recently sacked from London's Architectural Association (school). He fell out with the remaining members of FAT including Sam Jacobs a long time before.
FAT Sam appears at a lot of pseudo-academic semi-fashionable presentations and lectures. He is mildly entertaining to listen to, though nothing like the firebrand that is Kevin R.
Kevin R's new group is the field organisation: http://www.fieldorganisation.co.uk/
They have a talent for flash animation and a heavy programmatic leaning.
I spent some time in the FAT offices, working with their office squatter. Their offices are cool. No doubt.
well, i don't think their flash site is very good at all and the images are too small to see anything. am i missing something here?
The website doesn't really show the talent with Flash of KR's disciples/students, you will have to take my word for it that some of the most impressive graphic montages I have seen came from him.
For some words (no images) check:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/the_camp/
though old, and you wil need to scroll down a little to find the manifesto etc., it shows the other forms that grew out of the FAT camp...
i think it's impossible to sell yourself as having a talent for flash animation and heavy programming with an amatuerish site like that.
as a client, the first question/concern i would have would be to wonder, why the guy can't even do a nice site for himself.
The work that I saw KR present, from his AA students, rivalled that of Neutral (Zaha Hadid's imagineers) http://www.neutral.gs
I said he was heavily programmatic - i.e. concerned with the programme of the building (nothing to do with computing ability), which stands him apart from the Blobmeisters of the Bartlett (Cook & Fournier), and after discussion, the remaining members of FAT.
I don't know if KR has ever built a building that works, which FAT have, yet he is on a sustainable, humble, pragmatic pedagogic mission which I respect hugely. If he was more business savvy (wear a suit fella) he would fall into similar categories to Ken Shuttleworth (MAKE) since his split with Fosters.
sorry for misunderstanding you programmatic comment. when it was lumped in with flash animation, i understood it as part of that.
i still stand by my point that i think it is impossible to sell yourself as having a talent for flash animation with a site like that. i also think it's really tough to sell any architectural work with a site like that.
e: I guess this is what I was talking about in other thread; some architects think they can do everything. They should have hired, or at least consulted, graphic designer to do their website.
True, the website that i cited bears little relation to the inspirational (subversive perhaps?) qualities of its originator. However, Kevin Rhowbotham is enviable as a paper architect, and a great rabble rouser. A voice in the wind ? Who knows. Where was Libeskind ten years ago.
(that sounds embarrassingly sentimental, but publish and be damned)
I think I just got a tweened-headache!
Sorry, but when I see work that I think is ugly and superficial, that's enough for me. And yeah, I really, really, really don't like Venturi's architecture, either.
As for where Libeskind was ten years ago, he was doing fine. It was 9 years ago, I believe, that I bought his El Croquis.
There you go, he was half way through 11 years of the Jewish museum, aged 49.
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.