the p.s.1 website says its opening today.

THE MUSEUM OF MODERN ART AND P.S.1 SELECT XEFIROTARCH, WINNER OF SIXTH ANNUAL YOUNG ARCHITECTS PROGRAM

SUR by Xefirotarch to be Unveiled June 26, 2005 in P.S.1’s Outdoor Courtyard

it ceases to amaze me just how cool the internet and it's search capabilities inform all of the world...

What about some pictueres of those who visit it!! Is teh whole thing really finished?? Unbelievable. I wonder how % Alonso was faithfull to his behining project on PS1 MOMA!!!

If anybody takes pictures please post them to the Event Photos section in the Image Gallery.

I'm gonna try to go next weekend.

Yep...the whole thing is getting built...(most of it by hand). The pools and benches were sent to the east coast last week (lots of sanding and painting left to do).

so i guess it's past the deadline? faux pas or fashionably late?

and of course...

http://archinect.com/features/article.php?id=17584_0_23_0_C
(for those that found this page from a search engine)

I just came back from the PS1, and uploaded some pictures to the event gallery, Hopefully they will be posted soon.

f david -
what are the zippy benches made out of? they look plasticy but you mentioned sanding - are they extruded polyproplene?

The rendering looks provocative, but bad. The photos of the real thing look worse. Can someone explain to me what this is all about, since it doesn't seem to be a fabrication thing as it looks like it was made by hand with so much bent conduit and boat wrap?

Not this shit again.

Cmon people.

Is it original? D
Is it sustainable? F
Is it functional? D
Is it at all relevant? (composite score) D-

But if you ask the profession how well it is doing patting itself on the back as it slowly fades into worthlessness..... A+

"it has to do with cartoons and amateur pornography"

well he got the amateur part down! LOL

i kinda like it.

Originality: B+
Sustainability: who cares, thats not the point
Functional: Its a folly - functionality is moot
Relevant: Debatable, but thats its function to an extent

Are people allowed to walk through it, or is it just to be gazed upon? I assume it will be fully accessible - I see there is a rope around it at the moment.

I quite like it, but initially I was thrown by the organic [shudder to use that word] forms.

I also quite like the fact that the human hand has been involved, instead of what you might expect from more fabrication-driven projects.

I meant that its function is as a starting point for a debate. I should preview more often...

Originality?

Hasnt this been done a million times over? Greg Lynn is going to be dead and gone and rookie architects are still going to be making this shit, thinking themselves the first. You dont even know if you can move through it! Yeah, thats architecture. "Sustainability.who cares." Exactly. somepeople will throw any number of toxins in the air to masterbate in front of their peers. And how deep does this debate go? "It looks cool. It looks organic....maybe" Heavy, man.

is it wrong to question the connection to the ground? i find that most of this kind of work aggressively avoids this point, it seems to me that it's arbitrary or not even considered. i actually liked the installation prior to being wrapped. i think i will need to go and see this though as i have missed all the others...

And what ever happend to riguor?
Doesnt this come off as a one-liner to anyone else?
Why repeat the same the red ant-eater shape ad nauseum?

I'm not too concerned about the connection to the ground aspect. I dont really consider this architecture, which is why I'm not concerned with the sustainability and functionality aspects. It is an element of architecture, not an architecture.

It is intended to produce and facilitate an environmental narrative. I would be interested to know whether there is going to be any kind of recording or monitoring how people react with this thing.

I dont think the intention or the aesthetics of the project is original, but certainly it has stepped into the region of architecture from the computer screen, and has to be commended and experienced.

It looks like a B horror movie set that ran out of money.
It looks like some juvenile video game scene.
It looks ugly.

For a person that is supposedly at the forefront of the digital age, this sure looks depressing. The bent tube with plastic looks absolutely sad- like dry flowers on their last leg. Is there no measure of artistry involved when punching Maya/ Rhino buttons? What happened to Architecture?

If it about organic form and fabrication then Hernan could learn a few things from Hector:

this is bullshit

im going to get raped for this...but i am going to put Hernan's work (not he himself, i think he a nice person per se) as one of the most overrated items in architecture

the connection to the groun is absolutely relevent.
That it bothers us is telling.
I suspect it is a symptom of architecture without phenomenological significance. We cant walk through it. It is shove-it-in-your-face synthetic. It denies any relationship to earth or sky. What less could this "thing" offer?

doc,

i think several people will "have" your back...

...this is truly a shitty looking installation. They coulnt even blow dry the wrinkles out of the plastic covering the plumbing tubes.

truly overrated!

peace77 - this is not a building.

sooner or later kids are going to learn: You have to learn to build it right or it aint worth doing.
But what did we expect from a guy so casual about slouching through a career of unbuilt work....

got that right.
So I guess its a dishrack built way out of scale.
And Im not joking. If he cant complete the project well at this scale, then it should have been done at the scale of a model.

Um, its not finished yet:

Francisco David Boira
06/26/05 12:45
Yep...the whole thing is getting built...(most of it by hand). The pools and benches were sent to the east coast last week (lots of sanding and painting left to do).

as a matter of fact, I think that is just the problem here. This is clearly a model which has been studied in plan over and over again.
There is no connectin to the ground because it was only ever considered in "model space," not on any horizon. This also explains why any one part (like the repeating red anteaters) feels like a one-liner, when they probably add up to much more in the site plan. The plan actually is cool. Just wish it could have been more evolved/significant at this scale.

I dont think the ground is a significant factor here. Whether the links between the ground are the result of a flat virtuality, or just a flat site, we will never know.

You have to judge this work within the context of the intention. This is not a building, its not a house, a cafe or a gallery. At the end of the day, this is a temporary installation. I dont think its pretty, and it goes against what I would consider my personal aesthetic, but it is interesting and has some potential. It needs to be experienced to be judged.

Wow a lot of people here are getting truly hurt by a simple project.
Greg Lynn????? Does this means that any project that has some topological, software driven aspect has to be linked to Greg Lynn?
Greg is really embedded with ideas of technique and geometry, the whole discussion about software is long gone. Software is just another tool just like a pencil and paper.

Herman’s work is more in relation to the effects its produces (what he calls the beautiful and the grotesque) in its surrounding space and also its users. (Seems like that part is working quite well on this blog)
These “ant eaters” as they have been called around here, are benches…and yes you can sit play, pee, puke whatever you want all over it…my personal opinion, I think its going to be too hot to rub yourself naked all over it!
We have to remember that the intended user is people drinking; enjoying music, dj’s, trendy kids…it’s about fun.
You should here the reaction of neighbors around PS1. People actually love it…specially kids. (that is another aspect of it…it has an added value since this space can be used throughout the whole week, rather than just Saturdays when warm-up takes place.
Yes this is a toxic project…no recyclables (except the aluminum ;)

if he is after the grotesque then this here is ass ugly right on the money.

Say what you want, Hernan pulled it off. When you saw the renderings you all expected it to get really watered down when built, right? (Thought so myself) My opinion; it looks great. I also think those that are not in favor of the design never opened MAYA or took a studio under a professor that pushes the digital process. Keep on (only) preaching sustainability…….bla, bla bla

why cant it be created in Maya AND be sustainable?
why cant it be created in Maya AND be relevant?
why does one have to have opened a software package to appreciate this? thats a pretty small circle jerk if you ask me......

Keep on preaching sustainability?? Hmmm


While I am certainly think everything has to be driven by enviromental concerns (God knows my best designs wouldn't be labeled 'practical'), however, to dismiss it casually, especially when advocating the usage of 'high technology' is just shallow, imo.

About this design, I don't hate it but I don't like it. It's a folly and nothing more, so it's fine. Ugly, which is a good discussion in of itself (can someone tell me why someone would consciously chose to make a public piece ugly? I know, it's done all the time...but why?).

The 'digital process' is bs, imho, at least as something different, then say, the 'crumpled paper process'. It's just a choice, nothing more. What you get from the process is what matters. This is why GL keeps coming up. He had/has great ideas, pioneered technology, but just never did anything beyond the process (ie the 'test' failed). If anyone is to be looked at for successful 'digital process', it's Gehry and Mayne. Different approaches, but each pushes the process to a final resolution (ie they 'tested' it in reality).

This project is too small and insignificant as anything more than sculpture, imho. It's not a real test as architecture, more as art. So, in that light, I am fine with it. I hate the anteaters, but the rest is 'ok'. I just thank God that the anteaters are the small parts! Them things are damn ugly!

I hate blobs probably more than most and I really hate when the 'digital process' negates things like ground, site, environmental issues, etc. From my point of view, the only disappointment is that this looks like a sketch model from 1998. Other than that, it's a funky canopy with weird benches.


Oh, TTinM, how long you been usin' Maya? If I were to guess, I'd say you were still in high school when some of us first opened Maya and had classes with the blob gang.

one cannot understand the beautiful and the grotesque without understanding the NURBS.

Post-rationalism: every architects guide to filling up the article with bullshit quotes to go along with the pretty pictures.......

i wish it were at least this cute

ROTFL.

Seriously though. In the purest aesthetic & sculptural criticism, those forms are amateurish. They have no realtion to one another, lack any decent proportion, silly edges like cartoony Nickelodan drops.....

Whay take something so irregular and just repeat it in a row? Wheres the morphing? Animation? anything?

ROTFL.

Seriously though. In the purest aesthetic & sculptural criticism, those forms are amateurish. They have no realtion to one another, lack any decent proportion, silly edges like cartoony Nickelodan drops.....

Whay take something so irregular and just repeat it in a row? Wheres the morphing? Animation? anything?

ROTFL.

Seriously though. In the purest aesthetic & sculptural criticism, those forms are amateurish. They have no realtion to one another, lack any decent proportion, silly edges like cartoony Nickelodan drops.....

Whay take something so irregular and just repeat it in a row? Wheres the morphing? Animation? anything?

ROTFL.

Seriously though. In the purest aesthetic & sculptural criticism, those forms are amateurish. They have no realtion to one another, lack any decent proportion, silly edges like cartoony Nickelodan drops.....

Whay take something so irregular and just repeat it in a row? Wheres the morphing? Animation? anything?

ouch. sorry guys. that was not intentional.
though ironic......

peace77, have you read Hernan's description of the project? You seem to be missing the point...

pieces. same "license to experiment" we get from most everyone that is on the computer these days. THAT in and of itself is valid. There always has to be an experiment. My problem is that I dont think he really got anywhere with the experiment. Gaudi was doing better than this w/o a computer!

diabase, if someone thinks that one needs to read the description of the whole thing, hernan should attach a piece of paper that explains it near the installation....but is that what architecture, or art, or installation art can be reduced to??

its good that this is generating so much discussion, but does one expect this from a pretty senior faculty at one of the most importatn schools of architecture???

same old. true.

If I walk into Greg Lynn's church. I get it. I dont need to be told why or how he did it. At the end of the day he did it, and he did it well. His benches are what they are: benches and yet they work as part of the composition. Genious. hermans Benches struggle to be that. I can sit on a log too, but that doesnt make it a bench. Until he starts including the anthropomorphic in his assesment of what 'beautiful' is, he should keep it on the computer, and let the rest of us do the building.....

sameold: I dont necessarily think that the success of a project relies on the viewer to be able to "get it" just by looking at it. Some explanation is usually warranted, and certainly, aesthetically complex projects like this do need more information, or at least, more investigation on the part of a viewer.

peace77's questions revolving around the duplication of forms can be easily answered from reading some of Hernan and other have said. Having a basic understanding of skeletal systems would quickly explain this feature of the project.

Are you opposers all classicists or something? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc, etc. And last time I looked, there was'nt one formula for a bench.

why is it that every time someone's work is up for discussion on archinect, the majority of the responses are so negative? criticism is very easy, which is why talented designers don't become critics.

we all know hernan and his work.
who are you guys?
what have you done?

i've probably said this before, but architects are more full of shit than any group i've come across. (although, i'm obviously amused, so keep it up.)