This guy is great! I really like listening to him talk and critique students work. He is loveably pompus.
Can anyone explain his rise w/in the world of architectural intellects?
I know he has a Physics degree from Georgia State, then it is as if he just started teaching arch @ osu...5 yrs latter, head of grad studies @ the aa...bizzare...oh and he is pretty much the head of the wex.
Im a fan, but its pretty hard to find any of his writings at my school (U. Oregon), as we dont carry most of the journals in which he has written. Any recommendations/good essays?
he's an invaluable resource and changed the way i look at things....
yeah, PE had something to do with it. kipnis was involved in dealing art (while nursing an interest in architecture) when he came across PE and his circle. PE took him under his wing, trained him, and then negotiated a teaching position for him at a well known school. kipnis, with his unparallelled knowledge in everything, and acerbic pomp and arrogance took it from there.
He is quite pompous at the lectures he attends. We've read and viewed (A Constructive Madness, his film), a lot of his work and I have mixed feelings on it and him as a critic. He does have a passion for the discipline, that is for sure
like him or not, he's important as a critic because of his ability to help shape a lot of what was happening within the 'eisenman' circle, certainly within the 80's and 90's, and consequently helped to shape the perception of a generation of work. say what you want about his personality, but i happen to like his writings and don't seem to have caught his full pomposity with the lectures and reviews i've seen him in. now, i'm not the biggest fan of the gehry movie, but how many of us could have pulled off that story any better?
can someone give me a really good analysis or critique of why his work is bulls*&t and not just carp on his manner(isms)?
Kipness is full of shit dude. Next time he’s baking at someone try to cut through the fits of sniveling sadomasochistic pleasure that hearing someone getting yelled at induces in insecure architecture gimp-boys and listen to what he’s actually saying. In my experience it ranges from pretty pedestrian banalities to utter drivel.
None of those cats know jack about Derrida and they work to suppress the people who actually did work with him. Their project is one of co-option.
The last time I was hanging out with Wiggly he was chiding us architects for listening so attentively to the criticism of non-architects. He said that if a plumber criticized us we’d listen but I suppose the same goes for art dealers and or Physicists (not to mention that incipit, buck-toothed lawyer that follow them around).
Humility means being able to look outside our discipline and chose our own teachers. Insecurity is what leaves us vulnerable to opportunistic cretins who would come and take advantage of our desire to prop up our fragile egos and justify our own out-of touch arrogance but sucking up to an even greater asshole.
You don’t gotta play football for the coach, man.
Okay, so maybe that was a bit harsh. He’s a distinguished scholar I’m sure.
I just get so sick of this cyclical reasoning applied to those people. (We should listen to them because they’re important because we listen to them because there’re….). I bet they’ve been using that one since the beginning.
That whole “circle†is a intellectual train wreck. Luridly fascinating perhaps but come on guys, move along there’s nothing more to see there.
I mean, formalism, autonomy, a sad attempt to reanimate platonic idealism. Yawn!
- He is an arrogant douche bag, nothing more
- personally think he spews a lot of bull-crap
- Kipness is full of shit dude
i personally agree with this one: jeff kipnis (MAYBE) is arrogant because he is good! i have never personally met him, neither attended any of his lectures..
but i know what is work on and he is good about that! he is one of the initiators of all the discussions and researches about the use of new technologies and new media in architecture! maybe it is more clear outside the US, but try to think who are the most famous young architects in the world by now, what kind of work and researches they do, and, like it or not, where architecture is going.
jeff kipnis started to talk about these young architects and this theme about 10 years ago, when they were just coming on the scene.
and he was right..so who cares that he has a physics degree?!?!
first of all, critics and criticism are absolutely necessary to any artistic endeavor. its one of those fundamental relationships that have always existed, kinda like hot and cold and good or bad. mel brook's 'history of the world' nailed that idea in a funny way.
it seems those who are dismissing kipnis don't actually know his work or understand its impact. maybe you should before you say he's full of shit. there's a lot of important work that's come from people i don't like. just because i don't like their personality isn't grounds for not respecting their work.
So you’re saying he’s the evolutionary link between PE and that Frank-Zappa-looking guy with the bad neckties whose name we don’t use.
Is he maybe initiated it not the Gnostic mysteries of the “calculus†from whence spring such wonders as that church in Queens?
Do you think that maybe he’s capable of berating and hectoring you until you, too can do things like that? Well, whatever it takes I guess.
i think most of you here on this post have read Jeff Kipnis' article in the Phylogenesis by Foa. Well, I personally like the guy as aggressive mid-west american drinking soda constantly. However, his recent essays are just not acceptable from my point of view. He seems too over confident about what he has to say, and his essay in Foa's was pedestrian, and his philosphical point of view into the big bang and 'architecture of human body' was just embarassing to read. He seems to be having a difficult time tyring to switch his theoretical focus from the post-modernism era, when he was into Phillip Johnson into more contenporary practices like Foa's.
he just needs to get into shape.
'So you’re saying he’s the evolutionary link between PE and that Frank-Zappa-looking guy with the bad neckties whose name we don’t use.'
no, i'm not saying that at all.
he moved on from that whole shool of blobs and maya monstrosities almost 10 years ago. and certainly don't hold him accountable for that trainwreck in brooklyn....
"the thing about Jeff is ... he's not a very good designer ... just take a bit and then walk away."
"the thing about jeff is, well, he always has to get his barbs in, but he's very intelligent.
I can really tell you who these quotes are from, but I will say, they weren't from lightweights.
FYI: Jeff on me:
"you're confident, I can see that. I've taught at all the schools GSD, Columbia, Princeton, the AA, and I've seen a lot of confident kids, but where are they now?"
If you have Kipnis for a crit or a seminar, if it seems like he's tearing you apart, he's really not; he's just trying to psychoanalyze you. He's very big into Freudian psychology (amongst many other things) and just trying to see what type of student you are. For the most part, he doesn't care what answer you have to give him, he just wants you to be opinionated, well-informed, and have some conviction behind your thoughts.
These sickos are very into oedipal conflict as the engine of history. Except they would presume to be our fathers. So struggling with them directly is only playing into their system. (see Return of the Jedi, “strike me down Luke! Feel the power of the Dark Side.â€Â)
Find out where all those confident kids are that Jeff has lost track of. A lot of them are doing cool stuff. Where are all the groupies and toadies who tried to kiss up to these jerks? (Besides teaching at UCLA)
As long as we are letting them tell us what kind of people we are we are never going to be anything other that bits of the paranoid-critical support structure that props up their small, dark world.
Politely ignoring them seems to hold the best hope at this point or if you must go see what the fuss is about try to talk to PE himself. At least he’s picked up a self-critical, Brandoesque tragic air to him in his old age and will engage with you a bit when you poke at the holes in his argument. But remember, it’s not an argument or a position. It’s a set of tactics for controlling people and dominating institutions.
And its in Queen’s. That shit would never fly in Brooklyn (at least not until fucking Ratnern rams a Gehery down our throats. Fight the Stadium!)
Kipnis is good at what he does because he can accurately put architecture into a much broader context in terms of culture, politics, science, etc.
I've had Kipnis on crits before and for a seminar. Sure, he is rough around the edges. Once you start to see where he is coming from and his thought process, his crits are actually some of the most constructive.
For example, you learn to rule out "I think" from your vocabulary and start to evolve into saying either "I know" or "I don't know". While what you say during a presentation may seem superficial in this regard, it actually is something more - confidence in your work, your knowledge base, and ability to talk on a level that Kipnis and his colleagues can start to contribute to.
Then again, maybe I was brainwashed to think all of this...
Anybody watch the lecture that he gave last night at Sci-arc? (That live webcast tool is pretty great, why don't more schools do that?)
I think he had some very provoking thoughts regarding his explanation of the shift from process driven results in architecture to result driven results.
Anybody have any thoughts as to Kipnis' place in the architecture world. Does he just represent a conceited academic minority, or do his musings carry real weight in your view of the field?
so what was the thesis? you could get a taste of that in the gsd eisenman-herzog debate from a few months ago, where he points out that eisenman is still on indexicality and process but hdm are about results, and not the legibility of process.
That was about the gist of it, of course in way more words. I should have taken notes, but it was a long day at work...
In the sense that evanc says, kipnis was positioning himself more with hdm in the sense of appreciating the work that was an end in itself. So he may have read Eisenman's coattails in reviewing his work, but he doesn't posit "Peter's" work as the conveyor of contemporary style.
i heard he robbed a bank, maybe he defrauded a bank there. i've heard he suffers from bi-polar disorder in a pretty extreme way.
at least that's the story i've heard. but i might be wrong.
i don't know the guy and do believe he is extremely intelligent. i've heard great things and extreme horror stories about him. i love that he's often been called "eisenman's lawyer".
Jeff Kipnis
This guy is great! I really like listening to him talk and critique students work. He is loveably pompus.
Can anyone explain his rise w/in the world of architectural intellects?
I know he has a Physics degree from Georgia State, then it is as if he just started teaching arch @ osu...5 yrs latter, head of grad studies @ the aa...bizzare...oh and he is pretty much the head of the wex.
Yeah, I know. Go figure.
I guess all it really takes is being a huge asshole and you’re in. I’m sure PE is behind this somehow.
not a fan ...
(I'm probably in the minority on this one)
Im a fan, but its pretty hard to find any of his writings at my school (U. Oregon), as we dont carry most of the journals in which he has written. Any recommendations/good essays?
He is an arrogant douche bag, nothing more.
he's an invaluable resource and changed the way i look at things....
yeah, PE had something to do with it. kipnis was involved in dealing art (while nursing an interest in architecture) when he came across PE and his circle. PE took him under his wing, trained him, and then negotiated a teaching position for him at a well known school. kipnis, with his unparallelled knowledge in everything, and acerbic pomp and arrogance took it from there.
jeff kipnis is arrogant because he is so good. like him or not, he's one of the most important critics of our generation.
jeff is an expert in derrida's work and helped PE back in the day.
you should hear him play piano !!
jeff kipnis is arrogant because he is so good.
so good at what?
would anyone like to comment here?
revealing the mysteries of art/architecture/et al :o
so happy to not be in academia except for the chicks of course
He is quite pompous at the lectures he attends. We've read and viewed (A Constructive Madness, his film), a lot of his work and I have mixed feelings on it and him as a critic. He does have a passion for the discipline, that is for sure
raji, you must have had a bad crit with him. don't take it personally. its just a technique he uses... kinda like tough love.
i personally think he spews a lot of bull-crap
wow, the venom out there...
like him or not, he's important as a critic because of his ability to help shape a lot of what was happening within the 'eisenman' circle, certainly within the 80's and 90's, and consequently helped to shape the perception of a generation of work. say what you want about his personality, but i happen to like his writings and don't seem to have caught his full pomposity with the lectures and reviews i've seen him in. now, i'm not the biggest fan of the gehry movie, but how many of us could have pulled off that story any better?
can someone give me a really good analysis or critique of why his work is bulls*&t and not just carp on his manner(isms)?
Kipness is full of shit dude. Next time he’s baking at someone try to cut through the fits of sniveling sadomasochistic pleasure that hearing someone getting yelled at induces in insecure architecture gimp-boys and listen to what he’s actually saying. In my experience it ranges from pretty pedestrian banalities to utter drivel.
None of those cats know jack about Derrida and they work to suppress the people who actually did work with him. Their project is one of co-option.
The last time I was hanging out with Wiggly he was chiding us architects for listening so attentively to the criticism of non-architects. He said that if a plumber criticized us we’d listen but I suppose the same goes for art dealers and or Physicists (not to mention that incipit, buck-toothed lawyer that follow them around).
Humility means being able to look outside our discipline and chose our own teachers. Insecurity is what leaves us vulnerable to opportunistic cretins who would come and take advantage of our desire to prop up our fragile egos and justify our own out-of touch arrogance but sucking up to an even greater asshole.
You don’t gotta play football for the coach, man.
Okay, so maybe that was a bit harsh. He’s a distinguished scholar I’m sure.
I just get so sick of this cyclical reasoning applied to those people. (We should listen to them because they’re important because we listen to them because there’re….). I bet they’ve been using that one since the beginning.
That whole “circle†is a intellectual train wreck. Luridly fascinating perhaps but come on guys, move along there’s nothing more to see there.
I mean, formalism, autonomy, a sad attempt to reanimate platonic idealism. Yawn!
There’s work to do.
- He is an arrogant douche bag, nothing more
- personally think he spews a lot of bull-crap
- Kipness is full of shit dude
i personally agree with this one: jeff kipnis (MAYBE) is arrogant because he is good! i have never personally met him, neither attended any of his lectures..
but i know what is work on and he is good about that! he is one of the initiators of all the discussions and researches about the use of new technologies and new media in architecture! maybe it is more clear outside the US, but try to think who are the most famous young architects in the world by now, what kind of work and researches they do, and, like it or not, where architecture is going.
jeff kipnis started to talk about these young architects and this theme about 10 years ago, when they were just coming on the scene.
and he was right..so who cares that he has a physics degree?!?!
"but i know what is work on and he is good about that!"
brilliant
first of all, critics and criticism are absolutely necessary to any artistic endeavor. its one of those fundamental relationships that have always existed, kinda like hot and cold and good or bad. mel brook's 'history of the world' nailed that idea in a funny way.
it seems those who are dismissing kipnis don't actually know his work or understand its impact. maybe you should before you say he's full of shit. there's a lot of important work that's come from people i don't like. just because i don't like their personality isn't grounds for not respecting their work.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0470092181/qid=1114292550/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-8594393-0573609?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
So you’re saying he’s the evolutionary link between PE and that Frank-Zappa-looking guy with the bad neckties whose name we don’t use.
Is he maybe initiated it not the Gnostic mysteries of the “calculus†from whence spring such wonders as that church in Queens?
Do you think that maybe he’s capable of berating and hectoring you until you, too can do things like that? Well, whatever it takes I guess.
i think most of you here on this post have read Jeff Kipnis' article in the Phylogenesis by Foa. Well, I personally like the guy as aggressive mid-west american drinking soda constantly. However, his recent essays are just not acceptable from my point of view. He seems too over confident about what he has to say, and his essay in Foa's was pedestrian, and his philosphical point of view into the big bang and 'architecture of human body' was just embarassing to read. He seems to be having a difficult time tyring to switch his theoretical focus from the post-modernism era, when he was into Phillip Johnson into more contenporary practices like Foa's.
he just needs to get into shape.
'So you’re saying he’s the evolutionary link between PE and that Frank-Zappa-looking guy with the bad neckties whose name we don’t use.'
no, i'm not saying that at all.
he moved on from that whole shool of blobs and maya monstrosities almost 10 years ago. and certainly don't hold him accountable for that trainwreck in brooklyn....
People on Jeff Kipnis:
"the thing about Jeff is ... he's not a very good designer ... just take a bit and then walk away."
"the thing about jeff is, well, he always has to get his barbs in, but he's very intelligent.
I can really tell you who these quotes are from, but I will say, they weren't from lightweights.
FYI: Jeff on me:
"you're confident, I can see that. I've taught at all the schools GSD, Columbia, Princeton, the AA, and I've seen a lot of confident kids, but where are they now?"
If you have Kipnis for a crit or a seminar, if it seems like he's tearing you apart, he's really not; he's just trying to psychoanalyze you. He's very big into Freudian psychology (amongst many other things) and just trying to see what type of student you are. For the most part, he doesn't care what answer you have to give him, he just wants you to be opinionated, well-informed, and have some conviction behind your thoughts.
These sickos are very into oedipal conflict as the engine of history. Except they would presume to be our fathers. So struggling with them directly is only playing into their system. (see Return of the Jedi, “strike me down Luke! Feel the power of the Dark Side.â€Â)
Find out where all those confident kids are that Jeff has lost track of. A lot of them are doing cool stuff. Where are all the groupies and toadies who tried to kiss up to these jerks? (Besides teaching at UCLA)
As long as we are letting them tell us what kind of people we are we are never going to be anything other that bits of the paranoid-critical support structure that props up their small, dark world.
Politely ignoring them seems to hold the best hope at this point or if you must go see what the fuss is about try to talk to PE himself. At least he’s picked up a self-critical, Brandoesque tragic air to him in his old age and will engage with you a bit when you poke at the holes in his argument. But remember, it’s not an argument or a position. It’s a set of tactics for controlling people and dominating institutions.
And its in Queen’s. That shit would never fly in Brooklyn (at least not until fucking Ratnern rams a Gehery down our throats. Fight the Stadium!)
Kipnis is good at what he does because he can accurately put architecture into a much broader context in terms of culture, politics, science, etc.
I've had Kipnis on crits before and for a seminar. Sure, he is rough around the edges. Once you start to see where he is coming from and his thought process, his crits are actually some of the most constructive.
For example, you learn to rule out "I think" from your vocabulary and start to evolve into saying either "I know" or "I don't know". While what you say during a presentation may seem superficial in this regard, it actually is something more - confidence in your work, your knowledge base, and ability to talk on a level that Kipnis and his colleagues can start to contribute to.
Then again, maybe I was brainwashed to think all of this...
listen to newstreamlinedmodel.
we can do without all the patriarchy and egotism. this inheritance bullshit gets in the way of original thought and work.
He's into perfume and Jeff Koons and making everything curvy and pink (theres something Freud should have something to say about)....
Anybody watch the lecture that he gave last night at Sci-arc? (That live webcast tool is pretty great, why don't more schools do that?)
I think he had some very provoking thoughts regarding his explanation of the shift from process driven results in architecture to result driven results.
Anybody have any thoughts as to Kipnis' place in the architecture world. Does he just represent a conceited academic minority, or do his musings carry real weight in your view of the field?
is there a link to the lecture at Sci-Arc?
i went to the sci-arc archive section with high hopes
only live streaming video :(
i do like kipnis - he had a blog what happened to it?
so what was the thesis? you could get a taste of that in the gsd eisenman-herzog debate from a few months ago, where he points out that eisenman is still on indexicality and process but hdm are about results, and not the legibility of process.
he rode eisenman's coattails to fame, so comfortable fits into the conceited academic minority niche
That was about the gist of it, of course in way more words. I should have taken notes, but it was a long day at work...
In the sense that evanc says, kipnis was positioning himself more with hdm in the sense of appreciating the work that was an end in itself. So he may have read Eisenman's coattails in reviewing his work, but he doesn't posit "Peter's" work as the conveyor of contemporary style.
I used to not like him, but then he liked my project so I like him now.
Wasn't he in jail at some point?
the story goes that he got convicted for a felony in georgia or some other southern state. I believe it was for fraud or something similar.
i heard he robbed a bank, maybe he defrauded a bank there. i've heard he suffers from bi-polar disorder in a pretty extreme way.
at least that's the story i've heard. but i might be wrong.
i don't know the guy and do believe he is extremely intelligent. i've heard great things and extreme horror stories about him. i love that he's often been called "eisenman's lawyer".
he changed my life
I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that he's the Philip Johnson of the academic world.
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.