what was billed as a 'not to miss' debate of two big gods of the planet was to most a non-event. peter went on too much about what the differences between him and rem were which flat lined the conversation - how do you respond to that?
interesting how both saw very little value in 'studio' verses research.
and for you zaha fans; she sat dead center in the front row and proceeded to give herself a manicure the whole time -- looking very board. but oh how the flashes snapped when her presence were felt in the room! i waited anixously for her to politely take her left shoe off and delicately trim that ingrown small left nail that i know bothers her greatly.
rem looked clearly as if he wanted to be somewhere else. he scribbled the whole night away and continued to figet the papers back and forth -- i thought he was marking down point he was going to make but when i looked at the sheets at the end of the event it was as if he was in a different place -- somewhat like autistic childlike scribbles....
yes, I especially liked when rem played with the laser pointer. I kept thinking to myself . . . are all of us Americans as frank as Peter? He seemed to be trying to outline a certain position, but was unwilling to take the position until rem clarified his, which he never really did. I mean, non-passive/passive vs neutrality? Come on! I felt it was a classic issue of physics, the displacing of an object with one of the same size . . . neither will budge, unless enough energy is exacted, and I think Peter did not have enough energy to move rem, even though he was blowing a lot of hot air. One of the first things Rem did was spill his Hoegaarden, which I think distracted him the rest of the time. They kept talking about the spectacle and it was just as unspectacular as ever. But what did we expect?
It sounds like the real spectacle was Zaha doing her nails, what nail polish color did she use?
Jan 31, 06 11:26 am ·
·
Looks like it was a reenactment to me...
To: design-l
Re: delirium enacted
Date: 2001.09.30
I just looked up the words delirious and delirium in the dictionary, and many aspects of the definitions do in fact describe Rem Koolhaas' behavior in New York last night. He did display aspects of a wandering mind at times. He didn't so much seem confused, but the moving podium he spoke from did provide a sense of disorientation. His 'speech' was kind of disordered, but not as much as his notes seemed to be. There was a definite restlessness (and when he deliberately moved his seat away from Venturi and more towards the center stage, maybe that was a beginning sign of delusion of hallucination). As to excitement, if it was there, then it was much subdued.
--Stephen Lauf, A Quondam Banquet of Virtual Sachlichkeit: Part II, p. 268.
non-passive passivity is the correct term and i think the term neutral was eiseman comparing his work to rems work; not from rem.
partly as you heard, it was a re-union of the ANYgroup boys but supposedly in a one-on-one format could evade the so-called niceities... but probably had more to do with brett putting his nay-sayers to rest by showing [via the whole density of the this terms lecture cir-cus] that he means business. i understand the 'transcript' [aka babble] will be part of the new aa journal 'word'....
i think we will be told exactly what it was about via the somol/kipnis show scheduled for wed night. [someone has to sort out what that was]
dont know if you went to the cynthia davidson event - she start the conversation asking the same question.
i wonder, has anyone really been to a panel discussion where the premise was : lets debate ideology? and the gloves came off as they went to their seperate corners [please exclude little fractal danny's performance events]
at some level, the davidson event did say it all: do we have the ability to be 'critical' - constructive - of others work? did last nights debate reflect the difficulty of personal respect v. stating your own feeling? particularly when we as a profession believe cities + architecture, by their nature can support diverse ideas and clearly both do respect the others work. she was speaking of the premise of "Log"; her publication [which is actually quite good if you havent had a chance to pick one up] did the immediacy of the moment dampen the true feelings?
who the hell knows what it non-passive passivity means = i can guess. but it doesnt come across in PE's work at all - at least from what i can tell.
this lecture, as you could guess was ticketed for aa student [and members i am guessing]. i think it was managed pretty well with video links to 4 rooms .
i know a few others that came and got in - but as i understood, 100 or so non-ticketed folks were turned away at the door.
formally, all the lectures are for 'aa students and members only' but generally i havent seen them check [perhaps they know the happy student faces by heart - they always have someone at the door]
i would anticipate some of the other lectures will be controled and perhaps ticketed [like the goddess herself later this term].
as you know most of the lecture places in london such as riba and clubs charge $$$$$ for entry = and as long as the student body gets in i will guess [pure speculation on my part] that the aa will try as much as possible to allow entry when space available. however, you could just join the aa as a member [i think 40 sterling] which would get you in and lib access. not a bad deal -- when you look at the events listing. [i get no commision] it is a private institution and unlike government funded schools like the bartlett, relies soley on student / member fees for its programs. and i think your membership is deductiable.
Jan 31, 06 5:43 pm ·
·
...do we have the ability to be 'critical' - constructive - of others work?
The lectures at the AA are generally free to attend. I have been as a student at the Bartlett. On this 'big guns' occasion I called and was told that all reservations were taken.
It was even plugged in London daily e-feed Urban Junkies:
Rem Koolhaas is in talk at the Architecture Association. 6:30pm. 36 Bedford Sq WC1 Free, book. 020 7887 4000.
Another good lecture series that is free, but needs booking, is the RCA's Group Theor(ap)y.
The Bartlett (by way of balance) has what used to be the Lowe International Series, but is now just Lectures
RIBA does very reasonable student entry for their lectures
Also see the Winter nights series from the Architecture Foundation, with free booze. Finishes tomorrow night
For more like this sign up to the Bartlett's weekly feed here
Ted, you're mistaken about AA lectures - they are generally all open to the public as well as AA students and members. Obviously, when it's thought (like Peter and Rem) that they're going to be mega-popular, they're ticketed events and priority obviously goes to students and members. The one exception this term is the Toyo Ito talk which is definitely STUDENTS ONLY.
Passive aggression = doing nothing as an aggressive act
thus
non-passive passivity = doing something, but by doing that thing, being passive.
An active lack of efficacy. Much like those who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. They only talk the talk (i.e. act in a non-passive manner) so as not to appear to be passive. In fact, they are passive conformists.
So if someone is (apparently) exerting their influence to change the world (sounds non-passive), but actually, underneath the hyperbole, their agenda is not to upset the applecart, maintain the status quo, passively leave things as they are, that would be non-passive passivity.
yep . . . many remarks were made about Ohio State where they both presumably teach? Also, I think Bob Somol directly attacked the DRL, design research lab, by saying that Architects are disolusioned if they think they are scientists. Maybe he was not directly attacking the DRL, but he was certainly saying something directed at research based practices. Kipnis . . . I dunno about that guy. Seems funny enough, and had some interesting things to say, but then he went to a self gratifying level that I did not understand.
hey luis, i dont think he was attaching the drl directly - the whole grad program is research based.
there are many practitioners/academics speaking around the world around town and at the aa about the big 'e' word [yes, emergence] who are directly nicking the symantics and words in parrell fields of study of catasphy theory -- it generally goes like this: some guy, starting off by claiming its 'responsive' architecture, showing various 'iterations' of a scheme or design and then claiming its 'optimized' --- i sense there is an underlying permis here to imply an idea of 'science as truth' just a bob suggested. "well god damn -- its just gotta be right if you've gone and done the optimizing / iteration thing and who the hell cares about program!".....what is responsive about it, iterations and who is it optimized for. bob gets a gold star for this.....i think the 'e' word is quit the fashion thing now adays. not all are misusing it -- just a few.
however....lets also remember somol is[or supports?] 'new urbanism' in some form [i dont think most in that crowd have a clue what that is--but CABE is also sanction the CNU mission statement] jeff was dead right - gated communities, has and has not greater seperation and lots of other comments - it would have been a good theme in the augmented symposium to debate last december- it fits well with the patriot act. i think a will pop a line to one of the research lines for an idea.
bob is now definitely OFF my christmas card list.
i was torn between asking a question about this[knowing few AA'ers have a clue what CNU is or just to ask that burning question - so what the hell is a buckeye anyway - i bet i would have stumped the panel with the later
the rem/peter debate has grown on me a bit. the suttleties in the manor which they address each other i think spoke louder than what they actually said. what a difference in how both define or understand 'politics' or political.
i thought peter threw out a potential[actually many] carrot to rem to debate to [and probably peter was far more cunning in trying to get rem to bite at lots of bits than rem challenging peter]
peter said he really wanted to design a prison. i know oma has done an 'new model' of a prison early but i wonder if rem would now think prisons as the result of social control, or some other issue. rem didnt bite - he only doodled. it would have been a good subject for both to raise issues on as its not built work -- nothing personal, just idea.
where was cabe and the cnu addressed in the somol/kipnis discussion? the cnu and it's hubris read a lot like the smithsons (or the kriers lineage) and their garden-city urbanism - which didn't work at all. is this something i missed?
i just don't fully engage with any organization whose charter members include zyberk and duany.
i recently re-read rowe's collage city and then looked at the canary wharf condos by koetter, his protegee. it's interesting where theory and practice break. ie robin hood estate
CIAM, however, is remakably alive and well in latin america
kipnis brought it up [torward the end] that New urbanism was somols answer and response to the 'projective practice'. and i believe bob carried on a bit about it - then jeff said the reference to gated communities and class seperation - i think he brought it up to raise what were differences between them.
the cabe connection thing is mine - i remember about 18-24 months ago some cabe press release about cabe 'embracing' many of the ideas of the CNU -
duany is real scare. read the core papers and you want to vomit.
the howard garden city social control is spot on = new urbanism.
i highly doubt bob somol is a supporter of new urbanism now. both he and kipnis were orginally in the eisenman camp and have seemingly shifted somewhat over the years to the koolhaas camp; and a bit of skepticism over the 'emergence' thing is probably healthy, but new urb must've just been brought up by bob to make a point rather than give any props to it...
yeah - was surprised myself but am pretty certain what heard as i am so much against the cnu i was a bit shocked. will have to head to the lib this week and will listen again to those statements.
its so funny how what was one set of rhetoric last year is now all repacked into emergence by all. get on the gravy train. corner lectured this week and ....did you know plant environments are emergent? we move from field conditions to thick.
the REM / Peter show at the AA
what was billed as a 'not to miss' debate of two big gods of the planet was to most a non-event. peter went on too much about what the differences between him and rem were which flat lined the conversation - how do you respond to that?
interesting how both saw very little value in 'studio' verses research.
and for you zaha fans; she sat dead center in the front row and proceeded to give herself a manicure the whole time -- looking very board. but oh how the flashes snapped when her presence were felt in the room! i waited anixously for her to politely take her left shoe off and delicately trim that ingrown small left nail that i know bothers her greatly.
rem looked clearly as if he wanted to be somewhere else. he scribbled the whole night away and continued to figet the papers back and forth -- i thought he was marking down point he was going to make but when i looked at the sheets at the end of the event it was as if he was in a different place -- somewhat like autistic childlike scribbles....
other thoughts if you were there?
you that intimate with Miss Z that you know about her ingrown toe nails. you poor devil, i wouldn't want to be in your shoes...
TED Rem said it: He felt like crying...
yes, I especially liked when rem played with the laser pointer. I kept thinking to myself . . . are all of us Americans as frank as Peter? He seemed to be trying to outline a certain position, but was unwilling to take the position until rem clarified his, which he never really did. I mean, non-passive/passive vs neutrality? Come on! I felt it was a classic issue of physics, the displacing of an object with one of the same size . . . neither will budge, unless enough energy is exacted, and I think Peter did not have enough energy to move rem, even though he was blowing a lot of hot air. One of the first things Rem did was spill his Hoegaarden, which I think distracted him the rest of the time. They kept talking about the spectacle and it was just as unspectacular as ever. But what did we expect?
did they kiss and make up after the lecture ?
It sounds like the real spectacle was Zaha doing her nails, what nail polish color did she use?
Looks like it was a reenactment to me...
To: design-l
Re: delirium enacted
Date: 2001.09.30
I just looked up the words delirious and delirium in the dictionary, and many aspects of the definitions do in fact describe Rem Koolhaas' behavior in New York last night. He did display aspects of a wandering mind at times. He didn't so much seem confused, but the moving podium he spoke from did provide a sense of disorientation. His 'speech' was kind of disordered, but not as much as his notes seemed to be. There was a definite restlessness (and when he deliberately moved his seat away from Venturi and more towards the center stage, maybe that was a beginning sign of delusion of hallucination). As to excitement, if it was there, then it was much subdued.
--Stephen Lauf, A Quondam Banquet of Virtual Sachlichkeit: Part II, p. 268.
plus this
would have been funnier if zaha threw a stilletto at peter.
Descriptions and larger images in the Image Gallery
what the heck was this supposed to be about?
non-passive vs neutral???
is there an exhibit or what was the occasion?
non-passive passivity is the correct term and i think the term neutral was eiseman comparing his work to rems work; not from rem.
partly as you heard, it was a re-union of the ANYgroup boys but supposedly in a one-on-one format could evade the so-called niceities... but probably had more to do with brett putting his nay-sayers to rest by showing [via the whole density of the this terms lecture cir-cus] that he means business. i understand the 'transcript' [aka babble] will be part of the new aa journal 'word'....
i think we will be told exactly what it was about via the somol/kipnis show scheduled for wed night. [someone has to sort out what that was]
dont know if you went to the cynthia davidson event - she start the conversation asking the same question.
just a guess...
i wonder, has anyone really been to a panel discussion where the premise was : lets debate ideology? and the gloves came off as they went to their seperate corners [please exclude little fractal danny's performance events]
at some level, the davidson event did say it all: do we have the ability to be 'critical' - constructive - of others work? did last nights debate reflect the difficulty of personal respect v. stating your own feeling? particularly when we as a profession believe cities + architecture, by their nature can support diverse ideas and clearly both do respect the others work. she was speaking of the premise of "Log"; her publication [which is actually quite good if you havent had a chance to pick one up] did the immediacy of the moment dampen the true feelings?
so TED--what is "non-passive passivity"--??? does anyone know what the heck they are talking about???
are these lectures open to the public?
who the hell knows what it non-passive passivity means = i can guess. but it doesnt come across in PE's work at all - at least from what i can tell.
this lecture, as you could guess was ticketed for aa student [and members i am guessing]. i think it was managed pretty well with video links to 4 rooms .
i know a few others that came and got in - but as i understood, 100 or so non-ticketed folks were turned away at the door.
formally, all the lectures are for 'aa students and members only' but generally i havent seen them check [perhaps they know the happy student faces by heart - they always have someone at the door]
i would anticipate some of the other lectures will be controled and perhaps ticketed [like the goddess herself later this term].
as you know most of the lecture places in london such as riba and clubs charge $$$$$ for entry = and as long as the student body gets in i will guess [pure speculation on my part] that the aa will try as much as possible to allow entry when space available. however, you could just join the aa as a member [i think 40 sterling] which would get you in and lib access. not a bad deal -- when you look at the events listing. [i get no commision] it is a private institution and unlike government funded schools like the bartlett, relies soley on student / member fees for its programs. and i think your membership is deductiable.
...do we have the ability to be 'critical' - constructive - of others work?
so the question, so the answer
The lectures at the AA are generally free to attend. I have been as a student at the Bartlett. On this 'big guns' occasion I called and was told that all reservations were taken.
It was even plugged in London daily e-feed Urban Junkies:
Rem Koolhaas is in talk at the Architecture Association. 6:30pm. 36 Bedford Sq WC1 Free, book. 020 7887 4000.
Another good lecture series that is free, but needs booking, is the RCA's Group Theor(ap)y.
The Bartlett (by way of balance) has what used to be the Lowe International Series, but is now just Lectures
RIBA does very reasonable student entry for their lectures
Also see the Winter nights series from the Architecture Foundation, with free booze. Finishes tomorrow night
For more like this sign up to the Bartlett's weekly feed here
Also have a look at the London Architecture Diary
If that ain't enough you can get some more from the source.
Ted, you're mistaken about AA lectures - they are generally all open to the public as well as AA students and members. Obviously, when it's thought (like Peter and Rem) that they're going to be mega-popular, they're ticketed events and priority obviously goes to students and members. The one exception this term is the Toyo Ito talk which is definitely STUDENTS ONLY.
Plus, yes it's just been decided that Zaha will be ticketed.
the any series were pretty good at the beginning for open debate I thought.
myabe rem and pete have just said everything they have to say to each other so many times there isn't much else to be said...
yeah, jump, non-passive passivity sounds kinda like reaching--
non-aggressive aggressivity
non-intelligent intelligence
non-active activity
non-living life
etc
it's getting so subtle i'm not sure there's a point to be made...
Perhaps:
as
Passive aggression = doing nothing as an aggressive act
thus
non-passive passivity = doing something, but by doing that thing, being passive.
An active lack of efficacy. Much like those who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. They only talk the talk (i.e. act in a non-passive manner) so as not to appear to be passive. In fact, they are passive conformists.
So if someone is (apparently) exerting their influence to change the world (sounds non-passive), but actually, underneath the hyperbole, their agenda is not to upset the applecart, maintain the status quo, passively leave things as they are, that would be non-passive passivity.
Yes?
Seems fairly straight-forward...
So did anyone see the Kipnis/Somol response to the Eisenman/Koolhaas event? If so, what did you think of it?
anyone go to the somol/kipnis follow-on??
yep . . . many remarks were made about Ohio State where they both presumably teach? Also, I think Bob Somol directly attacked the DRL, design research lab, by saying that Architects are disolusioned if they think they are scientists. Maybe he was not directly attacking the DRL, but he was certainly saying something directed at research based practices. Kipnis . . . I dunno about that guy. Seems funny enough, and had some interesting things to say, but then he went to a self gratifying level that I did not understand.
hey luis, i dont think he was attaching the drl directly - the whole grad program is research based.
there are many practitioners/academics speaking around the world around town and at the aa about the big 'e' word [yes, emergence] who are directly nicking the symantics and words in parrell fields of study of catasphy theory -- it generally goes like this: some guy, starting off by claiming its 'responsive' architecture, showing various 'iterations' of a scheme or design and then claiming its 'optimized' --- i sense there is an underlying permis here to imply an idea of 'science as truth' just a bob suggested. "well god damn -- its just gotta be right if you've gone and done the optimizing / iteration thing and who the hell cares about program!".....what is responsive about it, iterations and who is it optimized for. bob gets a gold star for this.....i think the 'e' word is quit the fashion thing now adays. not all are misusing it -- just a few.
however....lets also remember somol is[or supports?] 'new urbanism' in some form [i dont think most in that crowd have a clue what that is--but CABE is also sanction the CNU mission statement] jeff was dead right - gated communities, has and has not greater seperation and lots of other comments - it would have been a good theme in the augmented symposium to debate last december- it fits well with the patriot act. i think a will pop a line to one of the research lines for an idea.
bob is now definitely OFF my christmas card list.
i was torn between asking a question about this[knowing few AA'ers have a clue what CNU is or just to ask that burning question - so what the hell is a buckeye anyway - i bet i would have stumped the panel with the later
the rem/peter debate has grown on me a bit. the suttleties in the manor which they address each other i think spoke louder than what they actually said. what a difference in how both define or understand 'politics' or political.
i thought peter threw out a potential[actually many] carrot to rem to debate to [and probably peter was far more cunning in trying to get rem to bite at lots of bits than rem challenging peter]
peter said he really wanted to design a prison. i know oma has done an 'new model' of a prison early but i wonder if rem would now think prisons as the result of social control, or some other issue. rem didnt bite - he only doodled. it would have been a good subject for both to raise issues on as its not built work -- nothing personal, just idea.
ahh i think peter has designed a prison. whether he realized it or not. that girl in the green blouse is cute.
lol vado !! ... I liked the asian one behind her ..
btw ... isn't that Zaha in the forground of the same pic ?? .. man she does look bored out of wits !!! almost as if she's gonna drop down asleep !!
where was cabe and the cnu addressed in the somol/kipnis discussion? the cnu and it's hubris read a lot like the smithsons (or the kriers lineage) and their garden-city urbanism - which didn't work at all. is this something i missed?
i just don't fully engage with any organization whose charter members include zyberk and duany.
i recently re-read rowe's collage city and then looked at the canary wharf condos by koetter, his protegee. it's interesting where theory and practice break. ie robin hood estate
CIAM, however, is remakably alive and well in latin america
its ITS - god what a grammar torque
kipnis brought it up [torward the end] that New urbanism was somols answer and response to the 'projective practice'. and i believe bob carried on a bit about it - then jeff said the reference to gated communities and class seperation - i think he brought it up to raise what were differences between them.
the cabe connection thing is mine - i remember about 18-24 months ago some cabe press release about cabe 'embracing' many of the ideas of the CNU -
duany is real scare. read the core papers and you want to vomit.
the howard garden city social control is spot on = new urbanism.
okayyy, i was gone to this thing at this place with a friend and we had to do it real quietllike... y'know what i'm sayin????
how a square negotiates a circle.... >>if i were a spy... the cold war? fergetabbou
ted-
i highly doubt bob somol is a supporter of new urbanism now. both he and kipnis were orginally in the eisenman camp and have seemingly shifted somewhat over the years to the koolhaas camp; and a bit of skepticism over the 'emergence' thing is probably healthy, but new urb must've just been brought up by bob to make a point rather than give any props to it...
yeah - was surprised myself but am pretty certain what heard as i am so much against the cnu i was a bit shocked. will have to head to the lib this week and will listen again to those statements.
its so funny how what was one set of rhetoric last year is now all repacked into emergence by all. get on the gravy train. corner lectured this week and ....did you know plant environments are emergent? we move from field conditions to thick.
read: "boring non-interested bored people give passive lecture"
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.