"Daniel Libeskind is an international figure in architecture and urban design. His practice extends from building major cultural and commercial institutions to opera sets and object design. In 2003, he was selected as the master-plan designer for the World Trade Center site.
I think design is the foremost communicator of all, because without it, there would be no orientation about where we are, who we are, where the sky is, or where the earth is without a window or a door or a space. In some sense, architecture is the biggest communicator about what the world is, who human beings are and what their desires and dreams are.
Architecture uses its own means. It doesn't use words, and it doesn't use statements. It has to express itself with the means it has--with the earth, the sky, the light and the materials, and certainly through proportions and how forms are created in space.
If a door is really thought out for human use, then it's not just a hole in the wall, it's something special. I don't mean this as just a two-dimensional idea of a cut in the wall, instead it has to do with the overall organization of space, what the building is for, and of course how it sustains what was there before you opened the door. That's really an architectural means of expressing something more than just “here's a door, enter it.”
To me, architecture has always been much more than a machine to live in."
------- For me
-- Excerpted from an interview with David M. Ewalt on Oct. 11, 2005.
Now I don't blame if an architect are blind about the matter the very existance, of the wall with the hole the door, but I find this a very thin advise concerning design. Why is it architects allway's want to talk about what they know the least of, ---- realy architects produce wonders not splendid new building methods, but gee here is one that acturly could profit from a bit structure.
design is not about aesthetics per se. the architects purpose is to design and construct spaces for human habitation which are of value to the user/client. the primary interest for most designer is to concoct irrelevant and senseless forms, with no regard to concept, usefulness, value, or identity simply because they want to see them. such works fall outside the scope of the above definition and therefore are not architecture.
not sure what people are referring to....from that quote I gather that Libeskind is using a door as an example of something that is functional, foremost, but has the possibility to be much more.
Then, of course, we have Per's ramblings about structure....
Trace,
Yes -- the structure I present are there, is easily designed with a CAD program but is this "rambeling talk" when I in fact offer a brand new way to make the thing, something not seen before a new way to put things together. I offer a way to use CAD function different than in the tradisional architect application --- what would be build would be build with "today's" CAD applications . I am sure that any architect that is just looking for fact result shuld be pleased with something that acturly "make" the wall the floor or the roof, by the concept 3D-H work,- what I try persave today's designers is, that there are no door but something else and around it ,only then you can handle the thing called a door ,when you know where it leave from and to -- there are other perceptions and when you know the actural tool or understand the structural aspects of even such simple structures as 3D-H , then as a designer, you must wonder why architects are so bad with design.
Perhaps it would be a refreshing attitude if just a few architects or designers started understand the world's claim and tried to see, if safe houses maby could be projected smarter and if architecture as such, shuldn't rather deal with providing these houses, rather than spetacular architectural Icons.
All I ask is if you want a cabin at a third the cost if you want it 4 times stronger made with just sheet material.
I am not an architect my works are about develobing building methods not discussing fame. Today's architect applications, are just the old way's put in fast and reliable code 3D-H is a compleat other world a world where allmost anything is possible a third the cost four times stronger and in a very different form language, --- even a door as Liebskinds perception -- 3D-H acturly do exactly what you Romans want ,it acturly make the things and the things are better cheaper,simpler nice and made with today's tools.
It use the computer different than today's architect applications.
--- anyone shuld see that having just one general "building mass" a structure generated almost automatic but also shapen as you want. I know it is difficult to emagine, what future designers would have on hand ,then you will reconise that 3D-H is a very different way to put things together ,still it offer you to build your cabin at a third the cost, designed by you and designed different than in _any_ other way, but back to the complain ; when Liebskind describe this door, it is as if there are nothing but this door, then wall don't exist the building as a structure not either and then Liebskind tell that , he do not acturly himself "see" this door ,,,, but still he is sure it is there : For me the door exist without even being there, but I see only the door with the things that _make it a door ; a door in mid air make no sense. What I mean is that you can not envision a door, without this door placed in something Liebskind can but how can he then say it is a door , I can't but then, I am a designer not an architect ,for me it is not enough that the door ;
" has to express itself with the means it has--with the earth, the sky, the light and the materials, and certainly through proportions and how forms are created in space."
Now that don't give me CNC codes to produce the wall for the door. The door or the wall -------- now that's not "rambling" talk not mine that's putting things where they belong,
definitions limit the sublimity that inspire architecture.
a beautiful definition is that which universally evolves with each iteration...
without holding back at the limits of word.s.
definitions limit the sublimity that inspire architecture.
a beautiful definition is that which universally evolves with each iteration...
without holding back at the limits of word.s.
definitions limit the sublimities that inspire architecture.
a beautiful definition is the universal evolution of experience that is realized through each iteration...
without holding back at the limit of word.s.
definitions limit the sublimities that inspire architecture.
a beautiful definition is the universal evolution of experience that is realized through each iteration...
without holding back at the limit of word.s.
is that a definition of a definition or a definition of architecture?
i think its problematic either way: if architecture then what makes this statement specific to architecture?
architecture is the universal evolution of experience that is realized through each iteration...
a car is the universal evolution of experience that is realized through each iteration...
life is the universal evolution of experience that is realized through each iteration...
sex is the universal evolution of experience that is realized through each iteration...
all possibly true, but all completely meaningless.
the problem being that the statement contains none of the specific charteristics that allow the separation of 'A' from 'B', the evolution of experience in each iteration is not a definition, the decision, however that is reached, of what to include as an 'iteration' is.
which is where the problem in defining architecture lies, because there are differning opinions on what to include.
how do you define an architectural 'iteration' anyway? i can understand it in the context of an individual project, but is each new building, idea, drawing etc an iteration of architecture? wouldnt that lead us down the path of total subjectivism.
you're onto something upside down. something of which i always try to be aware: some pronouncements are so brief and pithy and elegant that they seem like they must be true - if only because they sound beautiful.
every time i encounter such a statement, i have to dig in to figure out what it's really about. is it meaningful or is it merely clever? not that clever's bad, it's just a different thing.
also, beware of statements that can mean different things to different people, i.e., the audience can interpret them to mean what they want to hear.
Architects complain about Design
"Daniel Libeskind is an international figure in architecture and urban design. His practice extends from building major cultural and commercial institutions to opera sets and object design. In 2003, he was selected as the master-plan designer for the World Trade Center site.
I think design is the foremost communicator of all, because without it, there would be no orientation about where we are, who we are, where the sky is, or where the earth is without a window or a door or a space. In some sense, architecture is the biggest communicator about what the world is, who human beings are and what their desires and dreams are.
Architecture uses its own means. It doesn't use words, and it doesn't use statements. It has to express itself with the means it has--with the earth, the sky, the light and the materials, and certainly through proportions and how forms are created in space.
If a door is really thought out for human use, then it's not just a hole in the wall, it's something special. I don't mean this as just a two-dimensional idea of a cut in the wall, instead it has to do with the overall organization of space, what the building is for, and of course how it sustains what was there before you opened the door. That's really an architectural means of expressing something more than just “here's a door, enter it.”
To me, architecture has always been much more than a machine to live in."
------- For me
-- Excerpted from an interview with David M. Ewalt on Oct. 11, 2005.
Now I don't blame if an architect are blind about the matter the very existance, of the wall with the hole the door, but I find this a very thin advise concerning design. Why is it architects allway's want to talk about what they know the least of, ---- realy architects produce wonders not splendid new building methods, but gee here is one that acturly could profit from a bit structure.
well said per
architects just plain complain.
design is not about aesthetics per se. the architects purpose is to design and construct spaces for human habitation which are of value to the user/client. the primary interest for most designer is to concoct irrelevant and senseless forms, with no regard to concept, usefulness, value, or identity simply because they want to see them. such works fall outside the scope of the above definition and therefore are not architecture.
True these are btw. allready explained in Liebskinds words about doors.
not sure what people are referring to....from that quote I gather that Libeskind is using a door as an example of something that is functional, foremost, but has the possibility to be much more.
Then, of course, we have Per's ramblings about structure....
am I missing something?
Trace,
Yes -- the structure I present are there, is easily designed with a CAD program but is this "rambeling talk" when I in fact offer a brand new way to make the thing, something not seen before a new way to put things together. I offer a way to use CAD function different than in the tradisional architect application --- what would be build would be build with "today's" CAD applications . I am sure that any architect that is just looking for fact result shuld be pleased with something that acturly "make" the wall the floor or the roof, by the concept 3D-H work,- what I try persave today's designers is, that there are no door but something else and around it ,only then you can handle the thing called a door ,when you know where it leave from and to -- there are other perceptions and when you know the actural tool or understand the structural aspects of even such simple structures as 3D-H , then as a designer, you must wonder why architects are so bad with design.
Perhaps it would be a refreshing attitude if just a few architects or designers started understand the world's claim and tried to see, if safe houses maby could be projected smarter and if architecture as such, shuldn't rather deal with providing these houses, rather than spetacular architectural Icons.
All I ask is if you want a cabin at a third the cost if you want it 4 times stronger made with just sheet material.
I am not an architect my works are about develobing building methods not discussing fame. Today's architect applications, are just the old way's put in fast and reliable code 3D-H is a compleat other world a world where allmost anything is possible a third the cost four times stronger and in a very different form language, --- even a door as Liebskinds perception -- 3D-H acturly do exactly what you Romans want ,it acturly make the things and the things are better cheaper,simpler nice and made with today's tools.
It use the computer different than today's architect applications.
--- anyone shuld see that having just one general "building mass" a structure generated almost automatic but also shapen as you want. I know it is difficult to emagine, what future designers would have on hand ,then you will reconise that 3D-H is a very different way to put things together ,still it offer you to build your cabin at a third the cost, designed by you and designed different than in _any_ other way, but back to the complain ; when Liebskind describe this door, it is as if there are nothing but this door, then wall don't exist the building as a structure not either and then Liebskind tell that , he do not acturly himself "see" this door ,,,, but still he is sure it is there : For me the door exist without even being there, but I see only the door with the things that _make it a door ; a door in mid air make no sense. What I mean is that you can not envision a door, without this door placed in something Liebskind can but how can he then say it is a door , I can't but then, I am a designer not an architect ,for me it is not enough that the door ;
" has to express itself with the means it has--with the earth, the sky, the light and the materials, and certainly through proportions and how forms are created in space."
Now that don't give me CNC codes to produce the wall for the door. The door or the wall -------- now that's not "rambling" talk not mine that's putting things where they belong,
definitions limit the sublimity that inspire architecture.
a beautiful definition is that which universally evolves with each iteration...
without holding back at the limits of word.s.
definitions limit the sublimity that inspire architecture.
a beautiful definition is that which universally evolves with each iteration...
without holding back at the limits of word.s.
definitions limit the sublimities that inspire architecture.
a beautiful definition is the universal evolution of experience that is realized through each iteration...
without holding back at the limit of word.s.
definitions limit the sublimities that inspire architecture.
a beautiful definition is the universal evolution of experience that is realized through each iteration...
without holding back at the limit of word.s.
hmmm
is that a definition of a definition or a definition of architecture?
i think its problematic either way: if architecture then what makes this statement specific to architecture?
architecture is the universal evolution of experience that is realized through each iteration...
a car is the universal evolution of experience that is realized through each iteration...
life is the universal evolution of experience that is realized through each iteration...
sex is the universal evolution of experience that is realized through each iteration...
all possibly true, but all completely meaningless.
the problem being that the statement contains none of the specific charteristics that allow the separation of 'A' from 'B', the evolution of experience in each iteration is not a definition, the decision, however that is reached, of what to include as an 'iteration' is.
which is where the problem in defining architecture lies, because there are differning opinions on what to include.
how do you define an architectural 'iteration' anyway? i can understand it in the context of an individual project, but is each new building, idea, drawing etc an iteration of architecture? wouldnt that lead us down the path of total subjectivism.
you're onto something upside down. something of which i always try to be aware: some pronouncements are so brief and pithy and elegant that they seem like they must be true - if only because they sound beautiful.
every time i encounter such a statement, i have to dig in to figure out what it's really about. is it meaningful or is it merely clever? not that clever's bad, it's just a different thing.
also, beware of statements that can mean different things to different people, i.e., the audience can interpret them to mean what they want to hear.
objects in equilibrium are much more limiting than words.
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.