is "reeanction" just an oblique term referring to various critical concepts that have been well argued before: typology, the readymade, and simulacrum specifically.
There have been architects that don't argue originality as an impetus for their work - specifically Rossi and typology, early Eisenman and John Hejduk's interest in the generic, which was an active exploration in Diller + Scofidio's early work.
And what about FOA and their argument that a practice should be treated as an ongoing tangent or research, so simillar ideas and forms demand to be worked through multiple local and material conditions?
I posit that Tom Shine would drop the SOM lawsuit immediately and without hesitation if Childs was to fairly credit the Shine design he saw at his review.
That Tom Shine has boldly and bravely gone through with this lawsuit serves only to help future young designers and architects to fairly get credit for their original contributions. No longer can a guest critic steal a students design and expect that the student will shudder in fear under the shadow of a famous firm name.
All design oriented professionals should be thankful that the law is actively protectng their original work.
fair enough, 'lying' was too strong. but i think 'stealing' is too.
From Arch Record:"We’re looking for fair recognition of Thomas’s contribution and fair compensation for his original work." (emphasis mine).
what exactly is the law supposed to be protecting, though?
If it was a patented system, then sure: the law can and should offer protection. A particular work, perhaps: it makes sense that you can copyright a particular book, and equally a particular building design. But a general design scheme, strategy, concept? I don't think so.
Shine's scheme is not highly distinctive, IMHO. I don't mean it isn't good, I just mean that there is insufficient distinctiveness to validate Shine's claim. This, of course, is what a judge will be ruling on.
shalak - i had the same experience and remember rip-offs of the same house. but what was the harm? maybe those who used that house as 'inspiration' for their own projects developed a more sophisticated understanding of design because of copping it. maybe it gave them a boost forward, ahead of the rest slogging it out trying to be new every time. (the crawford house had a lot to learn from, as i recall...)
Fair compensation. If one works for 8 hours then one should properly be paid for 8 hours of labour. SOM paid their PM for their services. Same can be said of their MEP consultants.
Why then should the person who conceives a design idea and documents that idea not be fairly paid for their efforts when others make use of (or worse steal) that work without permission?
Sure: that's the argument. Like I said, it comes down to cash.
I'm pretty sure the judge will (and should) find that Shine's design is insufficiently distinctive to verify his claim.
As for the monetary value of design: it isn't as simple as you make it sound. Imagine two people, working uncommissioned. How do you account for the difference in the value of time between the who designs something incredible in 10hrs and the one who designs something lame in 100hrs?
Aug 29, 05 11:37 pm ·
·
Just to clarify, the readymades of Duchamp pictured in "Readymade Reenactment" are not actual "original" readymades, rather specially made reenactments of the "original" readymades that no longer exist.
Yes, my idea is worthless, and that's why agfa8x is so eager to know what it is.
I think it's interesting that most human teeth reenact themselves.
Since our minds reenact our perceptions, is that an indication that the operation of mental reenactment is somehow already coded in our DNA?
No, Rita. I didn't say your idea was worthless. I said it was worthless so long as you were the only one allowed to talk about it. Stop looking for opportunities to take offence.
So far I understand reenactionary architecturism as a way to address an historical relationship between a latecomer and a precursor. You seem to be implying that even in the absence of a direct causal connection, reenactment might take place. This is an extremely interesting claim, but one that needs some elaboration.
Actually, if I were FOA, I might have a word with Shine about ripping off the Max Protetch Gallery WTC proposal. If you haven't seen it, go to FOA, click projects and click WTC1.
A federal judge ruled yesterday that there were enough similarities between David M. Childs's 2003 design for the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site and a 1999 student architectural project that a lawsuit against Mr. Childs for copyright violation could proceed.
Secondly, to better orient you as to timelines, the FOA project came out from a december 2002 competition. That is well after the Tom Shine project had been designed in 1999.
from the New York Times August 11, 2005 By DAVID W. DUNLAP:
Olympic Tower and Shine '99 emerged from a studio in skyscraper design taught by the architect Cesar Pelli. The object was to propose a skyscraper for the 2012 Olympics. On Dec. 9, 1999, Mr. Shine presented his designs for a twisting tower with a diagonal column grid to a panel including Mr. Childs, who was quoted in the architecture school magazine Retrospecta as having said to Mr. Shine, "It is a very beautiful shape." Mr. Shine registered his projects with the Copyright Office in 2004.
FURTHER ,
SOM had Richard Meier write up his understanding of the 'historical context' of the twisting tower, which obviously must not have convinced the judge.
from the New York Times August 11, 2005 By DAVID W. DUNLAP:
Supporting their motion, the architect Richard Meier said he found "no significant resemblance" between the designs, nor any basis for Mr. Shine's copyright.
people patenting and copyrighting anything they can get their hands on, and suing the pants off anyone and everyone they think they can get some money out of. only in america.
Thanks for setting me straight on my timeline. I guess my post wasn't so much to earnestly propose that FOA take issue with shine or childs, but rather that the structural concept is not that unique. I might buy the possibility that Childs borrowed from a student project. But, I would also question the basis of Shine's copyright. Especially since, Shine apparently registered his project with the copyright office a year after Childs designed the Freedom Tower.
Hi, Gorgeous. Haven't I Seen You Somewhere?
is "reeanction" just an oblique term referring to various critical concepts that have been well argued before: typology, the readymade, and simulacrum specifically.
There have been architects that don't argue originality as an impetus for their work - specifically Rossi and typology, early Eisenman and John Hejduk's interest in the generic, which was an active exploration in Diller + Scofidio's early work.
And what about FOA and their argument that a practice should be treated as an ongoing tangent or research, so simillar ideas and forms demand to be worked through multiple local and material conditions?
Agfa8x,
I posit that Tom Shine would drop the SOM lawsuit immediately and without hesitation if Childs was to fairly credit the Shine design he saw at his review.
That Tom Shine has boldly and bravely gone through with this lawsuit serves only to help future young designers and architects to fairly get credit for their original contributions. No longer can a guest critic steal a students design and expect that the student will shudder in fear under the shadow of a famous firm name.
All design oriented professionals should be thankful that the law is actively protectng their original work.
fair enough, 'lying' was too strong. but i think 'stealing' is too.
From Arch Record:"We’re looking for fair recognition of Thomas’s contribution and fair compensation for his original work." (emphasis mine).
what exactly is the law supposed to be protecting, though?
If it was a patented system, then sure: the law can and should offer protection. A particular work, perhaps: it makes sense that you can copyright a particular book, and equally a particular building design. But a general design scheme, strategy, concept? I don't think so.
Shine's scheme is not highly distinctive, IMHO. I don't mean it isn't good, I just mean that there is insufficient distinctiveness to validate Shine's claim. This, of course, is what a judge will be ruling on.
shalak - i had the same experience and remember rip-offs of the same house. but what was the harm? maybe those who used that house as 'inspiration' for their own projects developed a more sophisticated understanding of design because of copping it. maybe it gave them a boost forward, ahead of the rest slogging it out trying to be new every time. (the crawford house had a lot to learn from, as i recall...)
agfa8x,
Fair compensation. If one works for 8 hours then one should properly be paid for 8 hours of labour. SOM paid their PM for their services. Same can be said of their MEP consultants.
Why then should the person who conceives a design idea and documents that idea not be fairly paid for their efforts when others make use of (or worse steal) that work without permission?
Sure: that's the argument. Like I said, it comes down to cash.
I'm pretty sure the judge will (and should) find that Shine's design is insufficiently distinctive to verify his claim.
As for the monetary value of design: it isn't as simple as you make it sound. Imagine two people, working uncommissioned. How do you account for the difference in the value of time between the who designs something incredible in 10hrs and the one who designs something lame in 100hrs?
Just to clarify, the readymades of Duchamp pictured in "Readymade Reenactment" are not actual "original" readymades, rather specially made reenactments of the "original" readymades that no longer exist.
Yes, my idea is worthless, and that's why agfa8x is so eager to know what it is.
I think it's interesting that most human teeth reenact themselves.
Since our minds reenact our perceptions, is that an indication that the operation of mental reenactment is somehow already coded in our DNA?
No, Rita. I didn't say your idea was worthless. I said it was worthless so long as you were the only one allowed to talk about it. Stop looking for opportunities to take offence.
So far I understand reenactionary architecturism as a way to address an historical relationship between a latecomer and a precursor. You seem to be implying that even in the absence of a direct causal connection, reenactment might take place. This is an extremely interesting claim, but one that needs some elaboration.
Actually, if I were FOA, I might have a word with Shine about ripping off the Max Protetch Gallery WTC proposal. If you haven't seen it, go to FOA, click projects and click WTC1.
We are all idea pirates sailing the Sea of Form. Shiver me heavy timbers!
arr.
The Public,
First, this is now an actual lawsuit.
from the New York Times August 11, 2005 By DAVID W. DUNLAP:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00C10FB3F5A0C728DDDA10894DD40448
A federal judge ruled yesterday that there were enough similarities between David M. Childs's 2003 design for the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site and a 1999 student architectural project that a lawsuit against Mr. Childs for copyright violation could proceed.
Secondly, to better orient you as to timelines, the FOA project came out from a december 2002 competition. That is well after the Tom Shine project had been designed in 1999.
from the New York Times August 11, 2005 By DAVID W. DUNLAP:
Olympic Tower and Shine '99 emerged from a studio in skyscraper design taught by the architect Cesar Pelli. The object was to propose a skyscraper for the 2012 Olympics. On Dec. 9, 1999, Mr. Shine presented his designs for a twisting tower with a diagonal column grid to a panel including Mr. Childs, who was quoted in the architecture school magazine Retrospecta as having said to Mr. Shine, "It is a very beautiful shape." Mr. Shine registered his projects with the Copyright Office in 2004.
FURTHER ,
SOM had Richard Meier write up his understanding of the 'historical context' of the twisting tower, which obviously must not have convinced the judge.
from the New York Times August 11, 2005 By DAVID W. DUNLAP:
Supporting their motion, the architect Richard Meier said he found "no significant resemblance" between the designs, nor any basis for Mr. Shine's copyright.
OIA
care to elaborate on your 3 letters?
only in america
Thanks but could you further expound on your comment. What? Tall buildings dont get built anywhere outsde America?
people patenting and copyrighting anything they can get their hands on, and suing the pants off anyone and everyone they think they can get some money out of. only in america.
Suture,
Thanks for setting me straight on my timeline. I guess my post wasn't so much to earnestly propose that FOA take issue with shine or childs, but rather that the structural concept is not that unique. I might buy the possibility that Childs borrowed from a student project. But, I would also question the basis of Shine's copyright. Especially since, Shine apparently registered his project with the copyright office a year after Childs designed the Freedom Tower.
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.