cause i live in NL, and follow this stupid hype on its archiecture:
my opinion is that OMA/REM is rather a big PR-product, with some fance projects, but "fancy" is not necessarely "great".
i also keep asking people, why OMA/REM is so great, and they cannot answer. who knows, why? i talked with people working at OMA: some say, it is horrible. some say, well, i wanted to see it. some say, well, its good for my courier, and my portfolio... now, what's the deal of a firm, where all those dreamign students from whereever want to get into, and work for nothing and 80 hours per week?
i consider: OMA/REM is way to overestimated. and then the architectural worls consumes all those in detail not well done buildings, those cheap crappy exhibitions, this endless collections of models and drawings, treated like pieces of great art.
so what?
hey try and write a book half as intense or smart as delirious NY in your thirties, then go on to do a few paradigm-shifting projects within the next ten years (like Villa Dal Ava, La Villete Park & Bibiliteque National Paris competitions) then go on to publish another seminal book in the field (SMXL) five years later, then build a slew spatialy amazing buildings in the next ten (Kunstahalle, Dutch House, Villa Bourdeaux, IIT, Dutch Embassy Berlin, Seattle, Porto...whether they're "well-detailed" or not) -- i think that has something to do with it...
bollocks or not rem has def set the tone for the last few years, no doubt about it. and will for the next decade mostl likely too, even if he does nothing else.
that is a pretty big "what".
for what its worth i think the yardstick has been raised, not lowered.
I like OMA because they challenge notions.. things like the phrase 'superficiality is the new depth' (somewhere in the book content) especially made an impact on me, because it pretty much reflects contemporary attitude and culture. as for buildings like the kunsthal and the seattle library, they really blow me away, in terms of spatial thinking as well as programmatic interpretations and mutations. and i LIKE the fact that the detailing is poor and the finish imperfect.. 'calcutta economy' at its best. I think people who condemn OMA's work really haven't looked deeply enough at it.
Never cared for him/them, but I do like the Seattle library and that one project were he scaled up a house that never got built (wonder what the theory was for that), but kept the form identical.
okay....show me another office......thats is as compex as OMA/AMO with architecture,cultural and political participation.when you find one please let me know.i ve worked for OMA and the place kicks ass...especially yours.....and about you....stop critizising..start contributing....just to comment is so damn easy.......
soft, yeh man OMA is def super cool (except for volume, man i can't stand it), and rem is seriosuly brilliant. he knows how to pick his staff, that's for sure.
i get the team vibe from oma, but oma is nothing without rem. you can call that a prediction, if you'd like.
@bothands
"Embassy Berlin, Seattle, Porto...whether they're "well-detailed" or not" - technically may be (i was too general with my statement), aestetically i am not sure. in the embassy there is actually a denial of detail... but actually the builing is obviously too small for its still interesting concept.
@jump
" set the tone... that is a pretty big..." - setting the tone does not mean, everything is great. in general even: setting the tone can also mean, everything is not great at all. i am actually asking for more specific arguments.
@ManuG
"I like OMA because they challenge notions" - well, my questions here are also challenges.
"superficiality is the new depth" - do you really believe this? or do you consider this to be a wise sentence? its just the typical paradox-construction, turning one aspect into the contrary, a really old concept of cheap rhetorics. and it is (by the way) and old sentence, even the actually great Paul Valery says somewhere: "the skin is the deepest". there are others examples, saying the same...
i find delirious new york not so bad, although it is ignoring all social apects of the N.Y. of the time. but REM does not care about social issues, and you see that in OMAs architecture.
"I think people who condemn OMA's work really haven't looked deeply enough at it" so how deeply did you look? nevermore's comment is good: such logic problems follow rightaway.
and my point was, to say something against the overestimation, not total condemnation.
@softcell
well,
i like - in terms of the "bigger offices" the Eisenman of 1970/80/early90s, partly Gehry and Libeskind. but actually, i don't like big offices, in my general view: the bigger the projects, the bigger the chance, that it is just crap.
"as complex as..." complexitiy is not in general an attribute of great work. f. e. ms windows is also complex.
"kick ass ... especially yours..." if you say so, okay - although you don't now who i am.
"stop critizising...start contributing" is a rather poor argument. is'nt asking critical questions a contribution within discourse?
"OMA/AMO is not about Rem" right, therefore i wrote "OMA/REM...." (forgot AMO, sorry)
enough now. until now, i hear here what i hear and read everywhere. i wanted more specific arguments.
Knut,
I find Rem/OMA/AMO (but mostly, just rem) interesting because of the sincerity of his work - in general terms I find in his production real commitment to grapple with the complexities of our surroundings in text and built projects.
Often, this seems to lead in the same direction: the apparent cynicism he is being accused of because embracing the possibilities of different contexts without the usual pretentiousness that usually pervades the statements of architects. this "cynicism" I see as a true realism - the naked state of our profession. And the projects themselves function as first and foremost models for abusing and fighting these oppressive givens and conventions. It's a sort of opportunism, but one that is tinged with idealism: OMA is an impure practice, not because how Rem styles their work, but because they take on the world, head on.
In the process, they also have created a bunch of spaces that are truly exciting. which obvioulsy is nice.
And I have to say that your critique of Delirious NY's lack of social issues is bullshit, not because he would have dealt with them; he hasn't - but they don't matter one jot in the narrative he is constructing. Sorry for the harsh BS word, but...
signum, the Educatorium [ and the Kunsthal ] are also 2 of the "most fun" buildings I've been in. The janitor that I spoke with at the educatorium seemed to feel the same way... They're both fascinating spatially, and the alleged lack of quality detailing is relatively insignificant, considering the advances elsewhere. Those bldgs and others by OMA aren't being compared to those of Piano or Foster. The game is a different game...and it's being played very well.
well since most of your dislike for oma is pure subjective "i don't like it" sort thing i kept my response to what oma is doing whether you like it or not, and that is quite a lot really.
i mean i don't like daniel liebskind so much and i don't think he is gonna be much more than a footnote in the books so it don't matter either way, but oma (actually just Rem) is pretty much up there with mies and LeCorbusier for affecting the next generation of architects and architecture. look at all his little clones stirring things up already. plot, mvrdv, de guyter, one architecture, to name just a few of the bigger ones.
nah, like him or not, he has an effect. and he is just hitting his stride, man.
personally I like his stuff but i would never bother to defend his work on an aesthetic or logical basis. that is too personal a place to start and frankly who cares? but the rest...well you're gonna have to come to terms one way or tuther lad, cuz what is done is done.
In order to love Oma and his work you need to eat architecture, breath architecture, masturbate on his books, then read them day in day out and live for architecture. People that actually look for a date on this forum, can appreciate Oma. If you want to know what necktie, shoes or glasses other fellow architects/nects wear in order to feel included in the bunch you might love Oma. If you find that the philosophy of the building is more important that other factors that make a building great, then Oma and the whole bunch is your thing.
If you can't see the value in Oma, you are probably a normal human being.
You do things normal people do. If you happen to be an architect or a student, please don’t feel left out. 95% of architects think in terms of schedules, coordination, contractor meetings, overhead cost, bids and vinyl sidings.
he is a very passionate person and has made exceptionally interesting observations. and i'll give him credit, he has the charisma and salesmanship to package second rate work as profound....
just about any project he has ever done is a simple amalgam that can be easily disected. he's made a career out of using philip johnson's 'cataloguing of parts' technique; but unlike pj, he is better at hiding the source material....
The "normal person" argument is so pointless. We're architects. Ever heard a scientist say that cutting edge physics are overrated because 'normal persons' don't understand them? What OMA does that is extraordinary is the analysis of our times, and that they are actually proposing solutions how to deal with it. Hiding your head in the sand won't get you back to the 1900's...
Koolhaas doesn't say "fuck context". He says that our times think so. And he proposes a solution. Sadly, he is quite alone in that. More architects should get out there and start thinking about it, rather that complaining about OMA being overrated.
It is' not about the details, or the style. It is SO much bigger than that.
In terms of his architecture, in a more down to earth style, I personally like it a lot. I think he is successful in what he does. But that is all personal, the rest isn't.
Though I couldnt care much for his Theories on Architecture... I think OMA comes out with very interesting work... and at most times very good work. We need that kind of work in order to keep the proffesion on its toes.
The worst thing that could happen for us, is to get Stagnant.
Btw ... I think every architects work should be considered like works of art.
What I love about OMA's is just how "playful" it is. I love how Prada NY both critizices the culture of shopping and embraces it. I love how his work is always trying to invent new approaches to standard programs. I love how they tirelessly research into the current global socioeconomic and then I love how they bring that right back into their architecture to create pieces that aren't simply about context but supercontext. I mean, the fit and finish on the work can be a bit rough, but to me that only adds a realness to it. Wether you like him or not, you do have to recognize that as a theorist he's of immense importantance to the current generation. I went to one of his lecture's at GSAPP, I was there 2hrs ahead of time to get a seat, and the line for the lecture went all the way through the lobby hall for the auditorium and up the firestairs to the top floor... It was like going to a rock concert.
I must agree with you, the playfulness is wonderful! I went to the IIT center without knowing he had designed it (I know, slightly embarrasing..). Both my girlfiend and I were kind of sceptical about all the 'cheap tricks' that had been used in the design (colors, floor levels, translucency, funny shapes...) but agreed that in the end the whole worked really well.
Remember: I was starting with a Rem-like, prevocational tone, but with terms like “taking into consideration”, “opinion”, “ASKING” QUESTIONS - as a kind of not-believer. How can I understand Rem, if my subjective view tells me, the Kunsthal is not so great, the Delirious N.Y. gives me the impression that social aspects play a much to important role, and Rem does not care about this, as if the myth of Manhattan is a product of architects, contractors, investors. My subjective view tells me that later OMA-books are useless collections of images, which are all over the place today, anyway. My subjective view tells me, the educatorium and the embassy are a bit interesting, some other projects might be too, but is this already enough? My subjective view “I like or don’t like this and that” is not enough for me, so I ask other people for details. What I get here, is mostly: “I like this and that”, or a “kick-ass”, what I wrote is “bullshit”, or I could be a “normal person” (may be, although I don’t know, what a normal person is). Shouldn’t there be somewhat more?
Helsinki wrote about Rem’s “true realism…tinged with idealism”, showing the “naked state of our profession”… What idealism? What is this tinge? Isn’t tinge something on the outside? True realism, going against a small group of heroic dreaming architects and their “pretentiousness”? Were they not dying 50 years ago? Was their pretentiousness not simply rhetoric or a PR-argument, to get enough work, to secure themselves? I guess, I have never met a heroic architect. Are there still any around? Libeskind, with his sometimes annoying messiah-like way to talk? What about Rem’s own pretentiousness (f.e. “Bigness”)? And he is not just saying “bigness”, he is building “bigness”, right? Isn’t he behaving like a hero with more then a “tinge of idealism”? Probably, he is turned into a hero by all those people, saying “I like his work.” And this “naked state” of the architect’s profession: isn’t it at least among architects well known, so why exposing it endlessly?
Harold wrote “In order to love Oma and his work you need to eat architecture, breath architecture, masturbate on his books, then read them day in day out and live for architecture…” – This sounds to me like a kind of brainwash procedure (lol). “If you find that the philosophy of the building is more important that other factors that make a building great, then Oma … is your thing.” What philosophy?
Silverlake wrote: “and i'll give him credit, he has the charisma and salesmanship to package second rate work as profound....” Very good. But why do You give him credit for this salesmanship? Shouldn’t one give him good marks for good works and second rate marks for second rate work?
Cassiel wrote “What OMA does that is extraordinary is the analysis of our times, and that they are actually proposing solutions how to deal with it. Hiding your head in the sand won't get you back to the 1900's...” – Where in his analysis did You find aspects of the relation between social situations and their expression in buildings - be it in New York 100 years ago, or in China today? (I remember an article in ARCH+, where someone busy with urbanism shows, that the research behind the idea of the “generic city” is very superficial, and therefore mostly with wrong results.)
Cassiel wrote “Koolhaas doesn't say "fuck context". He says that our times think so. And he proposes a solution. Sadly, he is quite alone in that. More architects should get out there and start thinking about it, rather that complaining about OMA being overrated. It is not about the details, or the style. It is SO much bigger than that.” What solution? The traditionalists say that he follows exactly this “fuck context”-attitude, because he is not looking not at historic urban structures. I guess, one does not have to do that, but then, at a certain point, history becomes marginal. And aren’t there so many extremely bad projects by some real-estate-firms, taking exactly the same path: fuck context? So, what about urban history, f.e. in Chinese towns right now? In the book CONTENT Rem shows some interest in Peking’s historic “hutongs”, but – as I read it – simply for its structural fascination, not going into its immediate social and historic aspects.
Apurimac wrote: “What I love about OMA's is just how "playful" it is. I love how Prada NY both criticizes the culture of shopping and embraces it.” I have not seen the store in real, but I wonder how this works: criticizing and embracing it at the same time? I can see the embracing, but what is there criticizing? Because it’s “playful”? “Playful” is okay, having a good time, fun etc., but on second thought it sounds to me rather like an aspect of embracing: Playful new shopping world of Prada, while in front of the store one of the homeless gets chased away by the police, because his appearance is certainly not good for playful shopping?
Mmh, I guess, I don’t have to proof that Rem/OMAs work is not so great, but others have to proof that it is great.
Knut,
thanks for keeping the conversation going, it's always good to have to clarify one's points:
(and all the comments don't need an answer, really.)
And my point about the realism/cynicism of OMA is based on the difference between them and most of the profession (not including firms like PLOT, obviously): OMA uses the realities that are usually disregarded as "low" by most professionals - they are very much following Venturi in this - and it is not about the immediate physical context, but the contexts of (for an example) markets, the state of the profession (the illusions of omnipotence/impotence), building culture (exemplified by studies into overlooked innovations shaping shopping for instance).
What I see as pretensiousness in most architecture is the illusions of trancendent values or a vision of "order" architects seem to be willing to link to their buildings (Meier is an easy example, as is Liebeskind. Also people like Piano or the hi-tech crowd) - in Rem's case I can't see pretentiousness, at least in his essay on Bigness. Could you point it to me? Was it just the word "big" that ticked you off? As I see it, "bigness" is an essay about the changing architectural needs of structures too "big" to be understood or experienced in the same way as architecture of a more modest size (buildings that can be subdivided into an array of "parts" with their own function and straightforward relations to each other) - pretentious? I think not.
And I stand by my "bullshit" remark. It might be just my regard for delirious NY, but I honestly think, that the focus of the book is very good and why include "social aspects" if the book is also lacking in art-historical, political and whatnot context? The scope of a certain work can be sometimes too narrow, but in this case widening the scope would not (in my opinion) probably result in so good a read. And if the scope would be widened, "social issues" would NOT be first on the list of relevant things for the narrative. And before you call me a fascist and/or right wing nut, I have to say that I have a high regard for social considerations in architecture, I just can't see them playing any important part in the work that is Delirious New York.
Hope I explained my stance in these few matters now more exhaustively (and in a way less prone to willed missunderstanding).
To go into specifics, I also would like to recommend the essay on Koolhaas by Michael Speaks in the book "City Branding". It goes into the concept of the generic city quite well, and argues for it's strength over the theme-park city: only the generic city can rely on its inhabitants to create an ever-changing city identity as opposed to the "top down" planning, where a city at one moment can do nothing but strengthen it's existing identity, becoming a dead museum.
As for his analysis and China, I really cannot agree with you. I live here at this time, and nowhere else has it been so plainly obvious to me that a New Urbanism kind of approach will never be able to solve the challenges we are facing. It is too fast, too large scale, and consumers here are not asking for what we as architects define as quality. The Chinese are throwing themselves heads-on into a completely new lifestyle, abandoning the strengths and weaknesses of their old life, for better of for worse. Shanghai is becoming a city that I wonder what kind of future it will have. Not because it is demolishing the old, I can understand that, but because of how it is building the new.
Xintiandi (Ben Wood Studio) is in a way promising, but that is and will remain an elitist approach. I see more potential in Xujiahui, a shopping node created around the metrostation. It exists in the city not as a local identity, but as a point in the network that is freed from the city-space. That is where all of the locals shop, and socialize. And I would say that that is the kind of city spaces that Koolhaas deals with. They would certainly be there even without him, but hopefully his work will help us as architects to deal with them.
On the social aspects of these kinds of structures, I can recommend "In Search for New Public Domain", it is an extraordinary book.
I believe Beijing is a more uplifting example, and even though I think projects like SOHO by Riken-Yamamoto or City Hybrid by Holl are more promising than Rem's CCTV, I see a lot of relevance of his writings for these projects.
I really enjoy this discussion, hope you are getting something out of my answers! Sorry if I haven't motivated all my standpoints all that clearly, but I'm sitting at work without too much time to spend..
Knut, at Prada NY there is a definate embracement and criticism of shopping. In the most obvious sense, it is a critisim of shopping because even though it is a large space there is actually very little shopping to do. The way the manquins are aligned in a grid, all facing the same way, wearing different clothes, seems to suggest a conformity, even though the manequins are wearing different styles. It seems to embrace and criticize "prada culture". It spacially challenges the typical store layout. Rather than racks of clothes, there's architectural moves that generate facinating spacial conditions. It's more a place to explore architecture than shop which is why i find it so ironic that security harasses the architectural tourists. Another cool thing is that it in no way relates to shopping in layout or space. It doesn't base itself off of the bazarr or forum or mall or big box or anything, it seems to be a totally fresh typology. Its almost as if OMA said "Ok Prada, we'll take your money, and instead of making just a store, well make it a piece of commentary" that is at once superfical and complex. You really have to experience it to get it, I can't describe it. You either get OMA or you dont, but look at CCTV and tell me there isn't something revolutionary about their way of thinking. It's a new direction no matter how you look at it, OMA is about change, invention and humanity. I'm not a "Remhead" but I can see the point in their work.
^those last three comments were very well stated, and I concur, for the most part.
my input is (relatively) short and only has to do with the alleged superficiality of Rem/OMA/AMO 's analysis.
A work like the Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping (edited by Koolhaas...) represents a multi-faceted analysis of a single issue. Each aspect (article) gets specific attention, and then these aspects are placed in relation to one-another and in relation to charts, illustrations etc, which further elaborate the message of the guide.
Perhaps any one portion/aspect could be accused of superficiality, but the inclusion of numerous aspects related to ______ (shopping in this case) creates not only a widely informative work, but also one that is at once positioned and open for interpretation.
SH*T - today is a Rem-lecture at the Berlage-Institute, and yesterday it was already sold out.
Helsinki, thx. for going on. The others, too!
I consider: 100% architects dealing with the "low", 5% really idealize the "high". What is wrong with the 5%? Nothing. Wrong is, that the 95% lost or never had the idealism to get further, and that very few of the 5% are/were making great buildings, whatever they wrote in some manifests. Venturi: Wasn't he the somewhat Rem-like guy, who was one of the early critics of the clean, white, strait modernists - or at least buildings? Wasn't he the somewhat Rem-like guy who wanted to learn from the "low" to renew the "high" and to build a bridge between both? OMA/Rem is close to this, but is going further: No formal elements from architectural history, no obvious symbols, but new materials, another thinking of spatial orders, other ways of inspirations, non-traditional building shapes and probably design-strategies, down to earth-realism, fresh... I guess that’s what especially the young generation admires. I see this f. e. on the PLOT-website.
Rem does not want to be one of the pretentious heroic idealists (whoever that is), and not one of the ordinary architects, those realists, designing just what sells or the client wants, and not one of the Venturi-like moderators. But what's the problem with pretentiousness? There is none. The question is: Great works or not. What's the problem with "transcendent values"? There is none, as long the result is a great building. (I consider the Jewish Museum in Berlin not bad at all.) "Transcendent values": probably not believing in a personalized god, but rather close to this believing in hope, the better, freedom, justice... no architect ever was truly believing, his work would be so omnipotent to change the whole world. Some had the ideal "at least I can do something with my work for a better world". Why do I have the feeling that Rem is denying his interest in a better world? Because it's pretentious? I have the feeling that the "heroic moderns" are made worse than they are/were: a rather typical technique to promote the own point of view.
The discussion in recent years (or probably since Venturi) goes exactly in this direction: the myth of the early 20th century, the extreme optimism in the 1920s, the "change-the-world-with-architecture-attitude". New names for our time were invented: Postmodernity, second modernity, new modernity, reflexive modernity etc. This sounded always like "Finally we know the truth. The others made some mistakes." What mistakes? Those "heroes" from the Bauhaus f. e.: they were rather young at the time of WW1, then 10 years of hope, then came the Nazis and forced them into emigration. It would be a nice idea to look at their letters or diaries, how heroic or pretentious they actually were. They were probably just happy, if they had work to give their imagination some space. They were realists, because they had to, and they were idealists, because otherwise life would have appeared meaningless. There is nothing wrong with realism, when the works are great. Rem and his disciples want to give the reality a new face by showing it and using it, and then they forget that this method might simply put a mask on reality, while behind it nothing changes.
This argument against bad details in some famous buildings f. e. is no BS: In many ordinary buildings in the Netherlands, material and details is cheap. "That's the way it is today", said realist Rem, or Winy or...: "Let us make a concept out of it, some kind of architettura povera, while the old guy still want the expensive material etc.". So, Rem and Winy etc. go for cheap material and details and use it in another manner: interesting, okay. But on second look and after some time, one gets the feeling; they are also treating the material like dirt: the building starts to look terrible, it must be renovated; the cheap material gets thrown away. That's rather bad realism. Oh yes, in the magazines and on renderings it looks certainly not bad at all, thx. to the photographer, to Photoshop etc.
Tomorrow (or so) more about Delirious N. Y., and the posts from Cassiel, Apurimac, AP
There were few posts that admired the spatial complexity of Kunsthal, and while i do agree it's a great building, i wonder how new the concept really is? Frank LLoyd Wright built spiral space in New York many years ago. Villa Savoye is essentially organized arround the ramp. In some of his best designs he just returns to essentially modernist ideas. Even the "superficiality is the new depth" slogan remindes me of Mies.
Another post mentioned "playfulness" of that architecture, and i think he/she was right. OMA designes whimsical and expensive buildings that only rich contries can afford. So in a way, the relevance of OMA's architecture and discourse is limited to few countries of the rich West (and sometimes rich cities of the East). Rem's "comming to terms with modernity" is obviously pretty irrelevant for the bigger part of the world where words like "Prada" don't mean much.
But I do admit he's great. He might be the first to realize that architecture is also big PR product.
sumatra, while the spiral isn't new, the Kunsthal's organization is certainly more complex than the Guggenheim, and perhaps more so than the Villa Savoye. That doesn't make it better than either, just clarifying the re-use as just that, a RE - use, or re-vision-ing of the spiral as an organizational or itinerarial tool/device. That's why I find it particularly fascinating. Have you ever seen the unfolded elevations/sections of the Kunsthal? Very interesting drawing set. I imagine something similar could be created for the Villa Savoye...
also, sumatra, for the comment on modernity and poverty...
the Project on the City for Lagos, Nigeria is a great counter-example. Rem/GSD takes a very critical, very OMA/AMO -esque look at the social and physical situation in Lagos. The resulting analysis is certainly valid, and hopefully will prove relevant, directly or indirectly.
Knut,
yes, the Venturi-remark was aimed at the similarities of stance - not necessarily the similarity of process/product. I have the feeling, that both of those guys could be called cheeky...
And it's true that bashing the idealists has become way too easy and rarely is an explanation demanded from the accusers. I usually would like to have a feeling of wholeness in buildings, not necessarily as "built coherence" but a dialogue between the ideas and the form. Idealists come in different guises: in cases like repetitive Meier-whiteness I can only see a formal, empty gestures paired with odd lines of explanations (about the reasons for the "whiteness" for instance, or in some sinister cases the belief in a rational world-order seems to be reason enough), in contrast a "hero" like Kahn has achived a feeling of completeness, in the sense that his buildings continue effortlessly outside their physical shapes. I think Rem has made projects that are alive and living in the now, with a close link between concepts and actualisation. So, for me, pretentiousness is a bad thing, when high airs are removed from the actual thing: as a Liebeskind-example, the jewish museum is nice (sans exhibition) but the ground zero plan is a big suck. An actual understanding of the world paired with "pragmatic idealism" is the way forward. What is needed is not necessary transcendental valuations or idealism as such, just understaing and goodwill (a too rarely seen concept!)
The actual buildings are of primary importance in architecture (stating the almost obvious here...), but they work in tandem with aspirations and concepts. And I prefer that working to be smooth.
Is the Berlage-lecture online somewhere? sorry that you missed it.
AP,
do you have information on the publication of the Nigeria-workshop? Would love to read the material. Also, have tried to lockate the Lagos dvd - that came out a while ago. no idea where it could be found... Anyone?
AP, that's what I wrote, he was re-using an old concept, i just wanted to stress that continuous space is not in itself new. I've seen the unfolded plans of the embassy in Berlin (i haven't seen those of Kunsthal, but i studied that building), and there he returns again to the same theme of a building organized arround big "trajectory". Making things more complex and "interesting" does not necessarily mean better architecture.
I think it's important to assess certain architect by his real contribution to architecture, not by contemporary hype. Maybe 20 years from now critics will have clearer view of the question what is it that Rem gave to architecture. As to Lagos, i cannot say how relevant it'll be, but in my world (eastern Europe) his architecture is very much "unreal". Like haute-couture, you just watch it on TV and admire it.
sorry Helsinki, not sure where to find the Lagos project...I recall that I first read of it in a GSD Studio Works catalogue. The movie is available on-line, not sure exactly where, but it's close to $400 to buy, and a ridiculous $75 or so to rent. Check with your library, they may have it...
and yes, sumatra, time will tell...back to work now...
@Helsinki:
Delirious N.Y.: Sometimes I think, I am asking for more social aspects because of my personal interest or because of historical preciseness. And this "retrospective manifesto" from architects, contractors, investors for N.Y./Manhattan is not meant to be the manifesto of other groups.
On the other hand, Rem writes, the book "untangles theories, tactics and dissimulations to establish the desires of Manhattan's collective unconscious as realities in the Grid." The "collective unconscious" (whatever it is) cannot be the unconscious of architects and investors, because the "collective" is much bigger, and Manhattan is not a product of architects, contractors, investors alone. The buildings-in-bed-paintings (by M. Vriesendop) are allegories of those building-related people in their dreams of being important, big, powerful etc. But also of at least a bigger part of the "collective"? I say: Yes.
So, if I am looking at the preciseness of basic arguments, then I get the feeling, there is a PROBLEM. This is also because of the undeniable analytical aspect of the book: Rem wants to strengthen his arguments and underline their truth with footnotes, facts and documents from history. He is not writing fiction.
And I doubt that architects et al. thought the whole day long, Manhattan's buildings would be just their product: I would say, it was for them much more usual business and very little ecstasy, with a lot of work behind it, with rather little fascination after some time - like a broker dealing each day with millions of dollars is saying, "Well, I have no feeling, how much this is, it's just numbers." I guess, some (or more) of them actually hated this build extremism and its daily pressure on their lives. Then, Manhattan was probably much less a playground or expression for something unconscious; it was much more the economic (or may be socio-economic) pressure: and a rather conscious fight, day by day, where very few people were dreaming and even less people making their own dreams come true.
Rem wrote "this book argues that it often appears that the architecture generated the culture". Okay, but I get the impression; he is so busy with this "appearance" that the rest of the culture (and here the social) almost disappears. One may say, polemic needs for its esprit some exaggeration, and then this could be okay. But on this style: Rem calls the book directly a “polemical investigation” and a “polemical operation”: An obvious polemic, saying “I am a polemic.”? Rem said often in interviews or lectures “Don’t take me so seriously.” I see this as some kind of discursive backdoor: He theorizes polemically, and points out his interest and fascination - and if someone wants to go deeper into theory, then Rem takes the backdoor saying: "This is a polemic" and/or "Don't take me so seriously."
I take Delirious N.Y. still seriously. And it has polemic qualities, which were getting mostly lost in Rem’s later books because he was making a system out of them.
@sumatra
About the Kunsthal:
It is mainly this idea of moving and using space not simply horizontally. Like in the Guggenheim. Rem sticks to this idea for years: the ramps and a more or less flowing space (f.e. NL-Embassy in Berlin, the Educatorium etc.). This flow is known from Mies, but just horizontally. These ramps are spatially already in many old European Concert-halls and Castles, and in many governmental buildings - inside and outside: There it is the flow of space often with the help of stairs: big halls or also parks, where a kind of scenography is needed to give everybody the impression: "You are going to enter something special - to meet the king, the president, the great art works, the space for worshiping a god..." In the Embassy in Berlin You are going to approach the lobby of the ambassador, I guess. Other buildings: a (great) view, or a restaurant, or You are in a loop...
@sumatra & Apurimac
About this Prada-Store:
Even if there is little shopping going on, or however it looks in particular - in the end, Rem may as much embrace or criticize, as he wants: his design and his name will have only an embracing effect for Prada, a very good PR-strategy of Prada indeed. And for OMA, too.
Apurimac wrote "You either get OMA or you dont, but look at CCTV and tell me there isn't something revolutionary about their way of thinking. It's a new direction no matter how you look at it, OMA is about change, invention and humanity. " Oh, CCTV is truly my new love. Humanity? Under current circumstances I see this as the worst building of OMA: Simply a loop, this time gigantic, a new symbol for the main TV-station of a repressive government, a new house and symbol for their censorship... Check out hrw.org and amnesty international, than You will see, how human things are in China right now. And Rem is going to build a nice symbol of power. Very good.
In terms of the shape, I find Eisenmans design for a in principle similar skyscraper ("Max-Reinhardt-Haus", Berlin, 1992/93) much more interesting. Maybe also this house by UN-studio (don't know the name right now), looping more horizontally... The "Moebius-strip" and all those topological figures were in the late 1990s at their peak, now this starts to get boring.
@Cassiel
You wrote: "As for Rem's supposed non-idealism, have you guys read the text 'If I was president of Europe' in Contents? Makes me feel all warm inside, as an idealist. :) Do you think it is all PR too?"
I must warn You, Content is a polemic. Do You believe, what is written there? Shouldn't we rather believe in Rem's case, what is build or will be build? Turn the pages to the chapter about CCTV: what is written there, gives me a bad feeling, and the building (OMA starts to build it now) makes me feel not warm at all.
@Helsinki on your last comment
(I don't know if the lecture will be or is online somewhere. May be on the website of the Berlage-Institute... They record lectures for their library, as much as I know.)
The "pragmatic idealism" is a very general term; and in terms of our specific look at Rem/OMA I think, they tend more to bad pragmatism than to good idealism. The whole engagement in China and this AMO-work tends to get to (more or less) pragmatic solutions, while idealism stays behind. The CCTV-project really unveils this: Rem really had the chance, not to do it. But he builds it, a new Babylonian tower. This pretty bad pragmatism: big job, big money (may be), big provocation and PR, and then saying "If I wouldn't do it, somebody else would." This is also pretty bad idealism: his own way of doing things, because he gets some relief or good feeling or whatever out of it. A bit like Google and Microsoft and Yahoo working censored in China - and promoting automatically the existing censorship: for them and their shareholders it is certainly just a money-thing.
1. Everything in this world (and I mean, EVERYTHING) will always be disputed by someone, somewhere.
2. Architecture (like Art) is ultimately a matter of opinion. You might think it's great, someone else might think it's shit. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO GET THE F*CK OVER IT. (and I said LIKE Art. Architecture and Art are NOT the same, no matter how much design snobs make themselves think it is).
And yes, I agree with knut's principles. Of all the comments on this discussion, he/she had something worthwhile to say and knows their sh*t. Whether or not to battle someone about these issues which "Architects" tend to overlook in the face of feeding design to the 2% of the world? Frankly, I'd rather see knut (and others, like myself hopefully oneday) just go about doing work that can make a difference and affect the balances of our global social structure.... when the tide changes, those who follow the elite like sheep won't even know the difference anymore. (as a metaphor, We can't convince everyone in this world to become vegetarian, for example... so why bother changing each individual one by one? Why not just wait for them to get all kinds of hyperreal viruses from the meats and die off as evolution and nature intend? To each his own, the more concious people will survive in the end.)
oh and more thing, Cassiel. I'll quote you 'cause it goes way back up there:
"The "normal person" argument is so pointless. We're architects. Ever heard a scientist say that cutting edge physics are overrated because 'normal persons' don't understand them? What OMA does that is extraordinary is the analysis of our times, and that they are actually proposing solutions how to deal with it."
Have you seriously... and I mean, SERIOUSLY read that to yourself and looked in the mirror? What is the difference between an architect and a physics scientist? Oh, sh*t man, it's that Archtitects actually build spaces for PEOPLE. Yes, that's right, what Architects do affects people DIRECTLY (AND indirectly). Physics Scientist? Indirectly, and if that, way way later down the line once the 'cutting edge' has been translated by an entrepreneur into some commodity that can be used by the people outside of the lab... that takes decades, even today.
Architects? Well, hmm... they design/plan/make/draw/whatever buildings and places for PEOPLE. Once they're built, now stop me if I'm wrong, don't people USE them? What's the avg turnaround time - a year or two? Maybe 1/2 a decade at most?
Maybe Architects should actually get THEIR heads out of the theory and masturbation hole and actually deal with the people they are designing for. That means being able to communicate WHAT WE DO and WHAT WE'RE THINKING to people we actually affect. Not just do our thing, have some archi-babble discussion amongst other architects and then eventually turn around and have some small 'shock' at noticing that the clients and users are using the building as they want it to be used (and that's a maybe, because it's so sad to see architects have some object fetish of a building as if it's encased in some glass.) The most beautiful thing that could happen (and WILL happen) to the Morphosis CalTrans and Gehry Disney Hall is that they get tagged or bombed with some intense piece one day. They both need a good mural, until then they're foreign objects in LA. Fetish object for obsessed Architects who can only speak archibabble.
ok. right.
so, thanks for giving your 2 cents Prendrefeu. Maybe contribute in a bit more constructive vein next time. While looking in the mirror or not, I really don't care. BUT I would be interested in seeing the fabulous piece of architecture that actually makes a difference and somehow stays detached from the normative matrix of architectural production, that is the real holder of power, not the architects caught in the net - the problem of positive contribution is the big question. and if you wondered, just saying "deface the bastards" is really not a positive solution to stuff that you find offensively elitist.
knut,
The good/bad pragmatism is a tightrope walk, and I agree with you that CCTV is something of a problem (the problem comes from the fact, that if it gets built as designed, it will be a work that is (in my view) astounding and probably the defining skyscraper for the beginning of the 21st century. It is obvious that it has been designed for an opressive regime. If it would be crap, this would play well with the unproblematic stereotypical bad/ugly pairing.) But also being instantly opposed is a bit difficult, because we know the stakes are high and probably all of us would take on the project, given the chance.
And I see (good) idealism as a belief in progress, of the profession and of the world - for me, idealism is not the blueprint of our moral judgements, it is a positive stance towards production while aspiring to go beyond the restrictions of the moment - in this context the innovativeness and strenght of the CCTV are strong signals of idealistic aspirations. Still, even when downplayed like this, the China connection is an uneasy one. The world is a mess, and we make our decisions accordingly. I can't think that Rem doesn't have regrets, but probably just more things (some of them not nakedly linked to money or PR or fame) on the other side of the scales.
So while this discussion is engaging, I didn't have the attention span to read all of the long posts above. Sorry 'bout that. However, I thought that you would find this interesting and pertinent to the conversation at hand:
thank you for the post WonderK,
have to say that the design seems a new ironic chapter in OMAs way of using old scrapped designs anew: the Lousiville building resembles a LOT the plan for a Korean megastructure, exhibited in the "Cities on the Move" exhibition in the late nineties... Well, maybe the time is ripe now..
yes i have, seriously, read that and looked myself in the mirror. You, excuse me for saying so, are the one that seems tragic (judging only on two posts, so without claim for any greater objectivity on the matter) for believeing architecture is all about style.
Yes, i know architects 'whatever' buildings for PEOPLE. I also believe this 'whatevering' is one of the most complex and challenging tasks that exists. There is a reason we go to school forever, and still have to work our ass off in order to try to learn all we need to learn. It would be a great jolly world if we could just leave it to the free market to make sure that the best imaginable city would be built, but guess what? It ain't gonna happen! Or do you think Dallas is a great city? Think it's good for the people living there? I don't.
Architectural theory, translated, is trying to figure out how we should go about to "[do] work that can make a difference and affect the balances of our global social structure". If you spend all your time trying to communicate your thing to people, without thinking of what that thing actually is, then you are only working fancy graphics and trying to get rich. And somehow you have managed to convince yourself that you are the good guy...
no, I don't take those two pages too seriously. But it still is something that I find uplifting because it is something that is seldomly said these days. Politically, noone seems to dare to say such a thing in fear of being ridiculed. And idealism has been monopolized by some left-wing reactionaries that are actually only protecting their own interest (refering to European conditions in general, and Swedish in particular).
So if he disguises it in a polemic text, he is excused by me.
And I do think that in Rem's case his contribution to the world of architecture has been greater in his writings than in his buildings, so I would judge him primarily on that. The greatest value of the buildings are the way they have been able to support his theories, which I think they have been. They are not the perfect example of it, but well a step on the way. In what way do you think they fail?
I have not read the text about CCTV, and I must admit to knowing nothing about the building except it's shape. Would like to know more though.
And for China: I agree with you in what you say, but don't forget that China is coming from a past and is moving somewhere. The situation here is extremely complex, and far from black and white.
i didn't know oma or rem actually HAD a theory of architecture...certainly a subtext but never anything as passe as a theory or a manifesto, nor a real polemic in spite of bigness, junk space, delerious, and all the rest. nah, the writing gig is entirely separate, a guy making cool observations about society in a vaguely architectural way. but he never really comes out and says he BELIEVES in what he is writing. Not the way corb did, or Franky wright, not even like Mies who was after all pretty pragmatic about it in the end (worked for the communists and the nazis, or rather tried to...)
that rem uses old ideas from others is standard fro all architecs and hardly a starting point for criticism. rem never claims to be making things from whole cloth, and i am sure he is more aware than anyone that his programattic justifications are just that.
funniest thing about his recycling of his OWN ideas is his smirking comment about MVRDV who made VPRO based on an unrealised project when they were working for him...to their faces. in a public lecture.
on REM again: isn't OMA just a waco?
cause i live in NL, and follow this stupid hype on its archiecture:
my opinion is that OMA/REM is rather a big PR-product, with some fance projects, but "fancy" is not necessarely "great".
i also keep asking people, why OMA/REM is so great, and they cannot answer. who knows, why? i talked with people working at OMA: some say, it is horrible. some say, well, i wanted to see it. some say, well, its good for my courier, and my portfolio... now, what's the deal of a firm, where all those dreamign students from whereever want to get into, and work for nothing and 80 hours per week?
i consider: OMA/REM is way to overestimated. and then the architectural worls consumes all those in detail not well done buildings, those cheap crappy exhibitions, this endless collections of models and drawings, treated like pieces of great art.
so what?
hey try and write a book half as intense or smart as delirious NY in your thirties, then go on to do a few paradigm-shifting projects within the next ten years (like Villa Dal Ava, La Villete Park & Bibiliteque National Paris competitions) then go on to publish another seminal book in the field (SMXL) five years later, then build a slew spatialy amazing buildings in the next ten (Kunstahalle, Dutch House, Villa Bourdeaux, IIT, Dutch Embassy Berlin, Seattle, Porto...whether they're "well-detailed" or not) -- i think that has something to do with it...
then pass your hand over the quality and essence of the real built work, and then realize that rem and oma is pure bollocks
Rem could bag your mom, that's why he rocks.
bollocks or not rem has def set the tone for the last few years, no doubt about it. and will for the next decade mostl likely too, even if he does nothing else.
that is a pretty big "what".
for what its worth i think the yardstick has been raised, not lowered.
I kinda like his incredible arrogance - I find it rather amusing!
Oh and the Educatorium is the most fun I've had in a building...pretty much!
I like OMA because they challenge notions.. things like the phrase 'superficiality is the new depth' (somewhere in the book content) especially made an impact on me, because it pretty much reflects contemporary attitude and culture. as for buildings like the kunsthal and the seattle library, they really blow me away, in terms of spatial thinking as well as programmatic interpretations and mutations. and i LIKE the fact that the detailing is poor and the finish imperfect.. 'calcutta economy' at its best. I think people who condemn OMA's work really haven't looked deeply enough at it.
Never cared for him/them, but I do like the Seattle library and that one project were he scaled up a house that never got built (wonder what the theory was for that), but kept the form identical.
okay....show me another office......thats is as compex as OMA/AMO with architecture,cultural and political participation.when you find one please let me know.i ve worked for OMA and the place kicks ass...especially yours.....and about you....stop critizising..start contributing....just to comment is so damn easy.......
and by the way.....OMA/AMO is not about Rem....its about an incredible team-....
But then manuG isnt its as per what OMA quoted.."superficiality is the new depth" ?
soft, yeh man OMA is def super cool (except for volume, man i can't stand it), and rem is seriosuly brilliant. he knows how to pick his staff, that's for sure.
i get the team vibe from oma, but oma is nothing without rem. you can call that a prediction, if you'd like.
can't answer to all, sorry
@bothands
"Embassy Berlin, Seattle, Porto...whether they're "well-detailed" or not" - technically may be (i was too general with my statement), aestetically i am not sure. in the embassy there is actually a denial of detail... but actually the builing is obviously too small for its still interesting concept.
@jump
" set the tone... that is a pretty big..." - setting the tone does not mean, everything is great. in general even: setting the tone can also mean, everything is not great at all. i am actually asking for more specific arguments.
@ManuG
"I like OMA because they challenge notions" - well, my questions here are also challenges.
"superficiality is the new depth" - do you really believe this? or do you consider this to be a wise sentence? its just the typical paradox-construction, turning one aspect into the contrary, a really old concept of cheap rhetorics. and it is (by the way) and old sentence, even the actually great Paul Valery says somewhere: "the skin is the deepest". there are others examples, saying the same...
i find delirious new york not so bad, although it is ignoring all social apects of the N.Y. of the time. but REM does not care about social issues, and you see that in OMAs architecture.
"I think people who condemn OMA's work really haven't looked deeply enough at it" so how deeply did you look? nevermore's comment is good: such logic problems follow rightaway.
and my point was, to say something against the overestimation, not total condemnation.
@softcell
well,
i like - in terms of the "bigger offices" the Eisenman of 1970/80/early90s, partly Gehry and Libeskind. but actually, i don't like big offices, in my general view: the bigger the projects, the bigger the chance, that it is just crap.
"as complex as..." complexitiy is not in general an attribute of great work. f. e. ms windows is also complex.
"kick ass ... especially yours..." if you say so, okay - although you don't now who i am.
"stop critizising...start contributing" is a rather poor argument. is'nt asking critical questions a contribution within discourse?
"OMA/AMO is not about Rem" right, therefore i wrote "OMA/REM...." (forgot AMO, sorry)
enough now. until now, i hear here what i hear and read everywhere. i wanted more specific arguments.
Knut,
I find Rem/OMA/AMO (but mostly, just rem) interesting because of the sincerity of his work - in general terms I find in his production real commitment to grapple with the complexities of our surroundings in text and built projects.
Often, this seems to lead in the same direction: the apparent cynicism he is being accused of because embracing the possibilities of different contexts without the usual pretentiousness that usually pervades the statements of architects. this "cynicism" I see as a true realism - the naked state of our profession. And the projects themselves function as first and foremost models for abusing and fighting these oppressive givens and conventions. It's a sort of opportunism, but one that is tinged with idealism: OMA is an impure practice, not because how Rem styles their work, but because they take on the world, head on.
In the process, they also have created a bunch of spaces that are truly exciting. which obvioulsy is nice.
And I have to say that your critique of Delirious NY's lack of social issues is bullshit, not because he would have dealt with them; he hasn't - but they don't matter one jot in the narrative he is constructing. Sorry for the harsh BS word, but...
signum, the Educatorium [ and the Kunsthal ] are also 2 of the "most fun" buildings I've been in. The janitor that I spoke with at the educatorium seemed to feel the same way... They're both fascinating spatially, and the alleged lack of quality detailing is relatively insignificant, considering the advances elsewhere. Those bldgs and others by OMA aren't being compared to those of Piano or Foster. The game is a different game...and it's being played very well.
I agree of course AP - although I wasn´t such a fan of the kunsthal - though the mech floor was good fun at least!
I thought the trees as columns wasn´t funny at all though ;-)
knut,
well since most of your dislike for oma is pure subjective "i don't like it" sort thing i kept my response to what oma is doing whether you like it or not, and that is quite a lot really.
i mean i don't like daniel liebskind so much and i don't think he is gonna be much more than a footnote in the books so it don't matter either way, but oma (actually just Rem) is pretty much up there with mies and LeCorbusier for affecting the next generation of architects and architecture. look at all his little clones stirring things up already. plot, mvrdv, de guyter, one architecture, to name just a few of the bigger ones.
nah, like him or not, he has an effect. and he is just hitting his stride, man.
personally I like his stuff but i would never bother to defend his work on an aesthetic or logical basis. that is too personal a place to start and frankly who cares? but the rest...well you're gonna have to come to terms one way or tuther lad, cuz what is done is done.
In order to love Oma and his work you need to eat architecture, breath architecture, masturbate on his books, then read them day in day out and live for architecture. People that actually look for a date on this forum, can appreciate Oma. If you want to know what necktie, shoes or glasses other fellow architects/nects wear in order to feel included in the bunch you might love Oma. If you find that the philosophy of the building is more important that other factors that make a building great, then Oma and the whole bunch is your thing.
If you can't see the value in Oma, you are probably a normal human being.
You do things normal people do. If you happen to be an architect or a student, please don’t feel left out. 95% of architects think in terms of schedules, coordination, contractor meetings, overhead cost, bids and vinyl sidings.
nice
very nice ... let the games begin
rem's work is extremely overated...
he is a very passionate person and has made exceptionally interesting observations. and i'll give him credit, he has the charisma and salesmanship to package second rate work as profound....
just about any project he has ever done is a simple amalgam that can be easily disected. he's made a career out of using philip johnson's 'cataloguing of parts' technique; but unlike pj, he is better at hiding the source material....
The "normal person" argument is so pointless. We're architects. Ever heard a scientist say that cutting edge physics are overrated because 'normal persons' don't understand them? What OMA does that is extraordinary is the analysis of our times, and that they are actually proposing solutions how to deal with it. Hiding your head in the sand won't get you back to the 1900's...
Koolhaas doesn't say "fuck context". He says that our times think so. And he proposes a solution. Sadly, he is quite alone in that. More architects should get out there and start thinking about it, rather that complaining about OMA being overrated.
It is' not about the details, or the style. It is SO much bigger than that.
In terms of his architecture, in a more down to earth style, I personally like it a lot. I think he is successful in what he does. But that is all personal, the rest isn't.
Though I couldnt care much for his Theories on Architecture... I think OMA comes out with very interesting work... and at most times very good work. We need that kind of work in order to keep the proffesion on its toes.
The worst thing that could happen for us, is to get Stagnant.
Btw ... I think every architects work should be considered like works of art.
What I love about OMA's is just how "playful" it is. I love how Prada NY both critizices the culture of shopping and embraces it. I love how his work is always trying to invent new approaches to standard programs. I love how they tirelessly research into the current global socioeconomic and then I love how they bring that right back into their architecture to create pieces that aren't simply about context but supercontext. I mean, the fit and finish on the work can be a bit rough, but to me that only adds a realness to it. Wether you like him or not, you do have to recognize that as a theorist he's of immense importantance to the current generation. I went to one of his lecture's at GSAPP, I was there 2hrs ahead of time to get a seat, and the line for the lecture went all the way through the lobby hall for the auditorium and up the firestairs to the top floor... It was like going to a rock concert.
I must agree with you, the playfulness is wonderful! I went to the IIT center without knowing he had designed it (I know, slightly embarrasing..). Both my girlfiend and I were kind of sceptical about all the 'cheap tricks' that had been used in the design (colors, floor levels, translucency, funny shapes...) but agreed that in the end the whole worked really well.
I should not have started this discussion (lol).
Remember: I was starting with a Rem-like, prevocational tone, but with terms like “taking into consideration”, “opinion”, “ASKING” QUESTIONS - as a kind of not-believer. How can I understand Rem, if my subjective view tells me, the Kunsthal is not so great, the Delirious N.Y. gives me the impression that social aspects play a much to important role, and Rem does not care about this, as if the myth of Manhattan is a product of architects, contractors, investors. My subjective view tells me that later OMA-books are useless collections of images, which are all over the place today, anyway. My subjective view tells me, the educatorium and the embassy are a bit interesting, some other projects might be too, but is this already enough? My subjective view “I like or don’t like this and that” is not enough for me, so I ask other people for details. What I get here, is mostly: “I like this and that”, or a “kick-ass”, what I wrote is “bullshit”, or I could be a “normal person” (may be, although I don’t know, what a normal person is). Shouldn’t there be somewhat more?
Helsinki wrote about Rem’s “true realism…tinged with idealism”, showing the “naked state of our profession”… What idealism? What is this tinge? Isn’t tinge something on the outside? True realism, going against a small group of heroic dreaming architects and their “pretentiousness”? Were they not dying 50 years ago? Was their pretentiousness not simply rhetoric or a PR-argument, to get enough work, to secure themselves? I guess, I have never met a heroic architect. Are there still any around? Libeskind, with his sometimes annoying messiah-like way to talk? What about Rem’s own pretentiousness (f.e. “Bigness”)? And he is not just saying “bigness”, he is building “bigness”, right? Isn’t he behaving like a hero with more then a “tinge of idealism”? Probably, he is turned into a hero by all those people, saying “I like his work.” And this “naked state” of the architect’s profession: isn’t it at least among architects well known, so why exposing it endlessly?
Harold wrote “In order to love Oma and his work you need to eat architecture, breath architecture, masturbate on his books, then read them day in day out and live for architecture…” – This sounds to me like a kind of brainwash procedure (lol). “If you find that the philosophy of the building is more important that other factors that make a building great, then Oma … is your thing.” What philosophy?
Silverlake wrote: “and i'll give him credit, he has the charisma and salesmanship to package second rate work as profound....” Very good. But why do You give him credit for this salesmanship? Shouldn’t one give him good marks for good works and second rate marks for second rate work?
Cassiel wrote “What OMA does that is extraordinary is the analysis of our times, and that they are actually proposing solutions how to deal with it. Hiding your head in the sand won't get you back to the 1900's...” – Where in his analysis did You find aspects of the relation between social situations and their expression in buildings - be it in New York 100 years ago, or in China today? (I remember an article in ARCH+, where someone busy with urbanism shows, that the research behind the idea of the “generic city” is very superficial, and therefore mostly with wrong results.)
Cassiel wrote “Koolhaas doesn't say "fuck context". He says that our times think so. And he proposes a solution. Sadly, he is quite alone in that. More architects should get out there and start thinking about it, rather that complaining about OMA being overrated. It is not about the details, or the style. It is SO much bigger than that.” What solution? The traditionalists say that he follows exactly this “fuck context”-attitude, because he is not looking not at historic urban structures. I guess, one does not have to do that, but then, at a certain point, history becomes marginal. And aren’t there so many extremely bad projects by some real-estate-firms, taking exactly the same path: fuck context? So, what about urban history, f.e. in Chinese towns right now? In the book CONTENT Rem shows some interest in Peking’s historic “hutongs”, but – as I read it – simply for its structural fascination, not going into its immediate social and historic aspects.
Apurimac wrote: “What I love about OMA's is just how "playful" it is. I love how Prada NY both criticizes the culture of shopping and embraces it.” I have not seen the store in real, but I wonder how this works: criticizing and embracing it at the same time? I can see the embracing, but what is there criticizing? Because it’s “playful”? “Playful” is okay, having a good time, fun etc., but on second thought it sounds to me rather like an aspect of embracing: Playful new shopping world of Prada, while in front of the store one of the homeless gets chased away by the police, because his appearance is certainly not good for playful shopping?
Mmh, I guess, I don’t have to proof that Rem/OMAs work is not so great, but others have to proof that it is great.
:)
Knut,
thanks for keeping the conversation going, it's always good to have to clarify one's points:
(and all the comments don't need an answer, really.)
And my point about the realism/cynicism of OMA is based on the difference between them and most of the profession (not including firms like PLOT, obviously): OMA uses the realities that are usually disregarded as "low" by most professionals - they are very much following Venturi in this - and it is not about the immediate physical context, but the contexts of (for an example) markets, the state of the profession (the illusions of omnipotence/impotence), building culture (exemplified by studies into overlooked innovations shaping shopping for instance).
What I see as pretensiousness in most architecture is the illusions of trancendent values or a vision of "order" architects seem to be willing to link to their buildings (Meier is an easy example, as is Liebeskind. Also people like Piano or the hi-tech crowd) - in Rem's case I can't see pretentiousness, at least in his essay on Bigness. Could you point it to me? Was it just the word "big" that ticked you off? As I see it, "bigness" is an essay about the changing architectural needs of structures too "big" to be understood or experienced in the same way as architecture of a more modest size (buildings that can be subdivided into an array of "parts" with their own function and straightforward relations to each other) - pretentious? I think not.
And I stand by my "bullshit" remark. It might be just my regard for delirious NY, but I honestly think, that the focus of the book is very good and why include "social aspects" if the book is also lacking in art-historical, political and whatnot context? The scope of a certain work can be sometimes too narrow, but in this case widening the scope would not (in my opinion) probably result in so good a read. And if the scope would be widened, "social issues" would NOT be first on the list of relevant things for the narrative. And before you call me a fascist and/or right wing nut, I have to say that I have a high regard for social considerations in architecture, I just can't see them playing any important part in the work that is Delirious New York.
Hope I explained my stance in these few matters now more exhaustively (and in a way less prone to willed missunderstanding).
I second Helsinki.
To go into specifics, I also would like to recommend the essay on Koolhaas by Michael Speaks in the book "City Branding". It goes into the concept of the generic city quite well, and argues for it's strength over the theme-park city: only the generic city can rely on its inhabitants to create an ever-changing city identity as opposed to the "top down" planning, where a city at one moment can do nothing but strengthen it's existing identity, becoming a dead museum.
As for his analysis and China, I really cannot agree with you. I live here at this time, and nowhere else has it been so plainly obvious to me that a New Urbanism kind of approach will never be able to solve the challenges we are facing. It is too fast, too large scale, and consumers here are not asking for what we as architects define as quality. The Chinese are throwing themselves heads-on into a completely new lifestyle, abandoning the strengths and weaknesses of their old life, for better of for worse. Shanghai is becoming a city that I wonder what kind of future it will have. Not because it is demolishing the old, I can understand that, but because of how it is building the new.
Xintiandi (Ben Wood Studio) is in a way promising, but that is and will remain an elitist approach. I see more potential in Xujiahui, a shopping node created around the metrostation. It exists in the city not as a local identity, but as a point in the network that is freed from the city-space. That is where all of the locals shop, and socialize. And I would say that that is the kind of city spaces that Koolhaas deals with. They would certainly be there even without him, but hopefully his work will help us as architects to deal with them.
On the social aspects of these kinds of structures, I can recommend "In Search for New Public Domain", it is an extraordinary book.
I believe Beijing is a more uplifting example, and even though I think projects like SOHO by Riken-Yamamoto or City Hybrid by Holl are more promising than Rem's CCTV, I see a lot of relevance of his writings for these projects.
I really enjoy this discussion, hope you are getting something out of my answers! Sorry if I haven't motivated all my standpoints all that clearly, but I'm sitting at work without too much time to spend..
Knut, at Prada NY there is a definate embracement and criticism of shopping. In the most obvious sense, it is a critisim of shopping because even though it is a large space there is actually very little shopping to do. The way the manquins are aligned in a grid, all facing the same way, wearing different clothes, seems to suggest a conformity, even though the manequins are wearing different styles. It seems to embrace and criticize "prada culture". It spacially challenges the typical store layout. Rather than racks of clothes, there's architectural moves that generate facinating spacial conditions. It's more a place to explore architecture than shop which is why i find it so ironic that security harasses the architectural tourists. Another cool thing is that it in no way relates to shopping in layout or space. It doesn't base itself off of the bazarr or forum or mall or big box or anything, it seems to be a totally fresh typology. Its almost as if OMA said "Ok Prada, we'll take your money, and instead of making just a store, well make it a piece of commentary" that is at once superfical and complex. You really have to experience it to get it, I can't describe it. You either get OMA or you dont, but look at CCTV and tell me there isn't something revolutionary about their way of thinking. It's a new direction no matter how you look at it, OMA is about change, invention and humanity. I'm not a "Remhead" but I can see the point in their work.
^those last three comments were very well stated, and I concur, for the most part.
my input is (relatively) short and only has to do with the alleged superficiality of Rem/OMA/AMO 's analysis.
A work like the Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping (edited by Koolhaas...) represents a multi-faceted analysis of a single issue. Each aspect (article) gets specific attention, and then these aspects are placed in relation to one-another and in relation to charts, illustrations etc, which further elaborate the message of the guide.
Perhaps any one portion/aspect could be accused of superficiality, but the inclusion of numerous aspects related to ______ (shopping in this case) creates not only a widely informative work, but also one that is at once positioned and open for interpretation.
SH*T - today is a Rem-lecture at the Berlage-Institute, and yesterday it was already sold out.
Helsinki, thx. for going on. The others, too!
I consider: 100% architects dealing with the "low", 5% really idealize the "high". What is wrong with the 5%? Nothing. Wrong is, that the 95% lost or never had the idealism to get further, and that very few of the 5% are/were making great buildings, whatever they wrote in some manifests. Venturi: Wasn't he the somewhat Rem-like guy, who was one of the early critics of the clean, white, strait modernists - or at least buildings? Wasn't he the somewhat Rem-like guy who wanted to learn from the "low" to renew the "high" and to build a bridge between both? OMA/Rem is close to this, but is going further: No formal elements from architectural history, no obvious symbols, but new materials, another thinking of spatial orders, other ways of inspirations, non-traditional building shapes and probably design-strategies, down to earth-realism, fresh... I guess that’s what especially the young generation admires. I see this f. e. on the PLOT-website.
Rem does not want to be one of the pretentious heroic idealists (whoever that is), and not one of the ordinary architects, those realists, designing just what sells or the client wants, and not one of the Venturi-like moderators. But what's the problem with pretentiousness? There is none. The question is: Great works or not. What's the problem with "transcendent values"? There is none, as long the result is a great building. (I consider the Jewish Museum in Berlin not bad at all.) "Transcendent values": probably not believing in a personalized god, but rather close to this believing in hope, the better, freedom, justice... no architect ever was truly believing, his work would be so omnipotent to change the whole world. Some had the ideal "at least I can do something with my work for a better world". Why do I have the feeling that Rem is denying his interest in a better world? Because it's pretentious? I have the feeling that the "heroic moderns" are made worse than they are/were: a rather typical technique to promote the own point of view.
The discussion in recent years (or probably since Venturi) goes exactly in this direction: the myth of the early 20th century, the extreme optimism in the 1920s, the "change-the-world-with-architecture-attitude". New names for our time were invented: Postmodernity, second modernity, new modernity, reflexive modernity etc. This sounded always like "Finally we know the truth. The others made some mistakes." What mistakes? Those "heroes" from the Bauhaus f. e.: they were rather young at the time of WW1, then 10 years of hope, then came the Nazis and forced them into emigration. It would be a nice idea to look at their letters or diaries, how heroic or pretentious they actually were. They were probably just happy, if they had work to give their imagination some space. They were realists, because they had to, and they were idealists, because otherwise life would have appeared meaningless. There is nothing wrong with realism, when the works are great. Rem and his disciples want to give the reality a new face by showing it and using it, and then they forget that this method might simply put a mask on reality, while behind it nothing changes.
This argument against bad details in some famous buildings f. e. is no BS: In many ordinary buildings in the Netherlands, material and details is cheap. "That's the way it is today", said realist Rem, or Winy or...: "Let us make a concept out of it, some kind of architettura povera, while the old guy still want the expensive material etc.". So, Rem and Winy etc. go for cheap material and details and use it in another manner: interesting, okay. But on second look and after some time, one gets the feeling; they are also treating the material like dirt: the building starts to look terrible, it must be renovated; the cheap material gets thrown away. That's rather bad realism. Oh yes, in the magazines and on renderings it looks certainly not bad at all, thx. to the photographer, to Photoshop etc.
Tomorrow (or so) more about Delirious N. Y., and the posts from Cassiel, Apurimac, AP
It's time for sleep in Europe.
There were few posts that admired the spatial complexity of Kunsthal, and while i do agree it's a great building, i wonder how new the concept really is? Frank LLoyd Wright built spiral space in New York many years ago. Villa Savoye is essentially organized arround the ramp. In some of his best designs he just returns to essentially modernist ideas. Even the "superficiality is the new depth" slogan remindes me of Mies.
Another post mentioned "playfulness" of that architecture, and i think he/she was right. OMA designes whimsical and expensive buildings that only rich contries can afford. So in a way, the relevance of OMA's architecture and discourse is limited to few countries of the rich West (and sometimes rich cities of the East). Rem's "comming to terms with modernity" is obviously pretty irrelevant for the bigger part of the world where words like "Prada" don't mean much.
But I do admit he's great. He might be the first to realize that architecture is also big PR product.
As for Rem's supposed non-idealism, have you guys read the text 'If I was president of Europe' in Contents?
Makes me feel all warm inside, as an idealist. :) Do you think it is all PR too?
Looking forward to your comments, knut!
sumatra, while the spiral isn't new, the Kunsthal's organization is certainly more complex than the Guggenheim, and perhaps more so than the Villa Savoye. That doesn't make it better than either, just clarifying the re-use as just that, a RE - use, or re-vision-ing of the spiral as an organizational or itinerarial tool/device. That's why I find it particularly fascinating. Have you ever seen the unfolded elevations/sections of the Kunsthal? Very interesting drawing set. I imagine something similar could be created for the Villa Savoye...
also, sumatra, for the comment on modernity and poverty...
the Project on the City for Lagos, Nigeria is a great counter-example. Rem/GSD takes a very critical, very OMA/AMO -esque look at the social and physical situation in Lagos. The resulting analysis is certainly valid, and hopefully will prove relevant, directly or indirectly.
Knut,
yes, the Venturi-remark was aimed at the similarities of stance - not necessarily the similarity of process/product. I have the feeling, that both of those guys could be called cheeky...
And it's true that bashing the idealists has become way too easy and rarely is an explanation demanded from the accusers. I usually would like to have a feeling of wholeness in buildings, not necessarily as "built coherence" but a dialogue between the ideas and the form. Idealists come in different guises: in cases like repetitive Meier-whiteness I can only see a formal, empty gestures paired with odd lines of explanations (about the reasons for the "whiteness" for instance, or in some sinister cases the belief in a rational world-order seems to be reason enough), in contrast a "hero" like Kahn has achived a feeling of completeness, in the sense that his buildings continue effortlessly outside their physical shapes. I think Rem has made projects that are alive and living in the now, with a close link between concepts and actualisation. So, for me, pretentiousness is a bad thing, when high airs are removed from the actual thing: as a Liebeskind-example, the jewish museum is nice (sans exhibition) but the ground zero plan is a big suck. An actual understanding of the world paired with "pragmatic idealism" is the way forward. What is needed is not necessary transcendental valuations or idealism as such, just understaing and goodwill (a too rarely seen concept!)
The actual buildings are of primary importance in architecture (stating the almost obvious here...), but they work in tandem with aspirations and concepts. And I prefer that working to be smooth.
Is the Berlage-lecture online somewhere? sorry that you missed it.
AP,
do you have information on the publication of the Nigeria-workshop? Would love to read the material. Also, have tried to lockate the Lagos dvd - that came out a while ago. no idea where it could be found... Anyone?
AP, that's what I wrote, he was re-using an old concept, i just wanted to stress that continuous space is not in itself new. I've seen the unfolded plans of the embassy in Berlin (i haven't seen those of Kunsthal, but i studied that building), and there he returns again to the same theme of a building organized arround big "trajectory". Making things more complex and "interesting" does not necessarily mean better architecture.
I think it's important to assess certain architect by his real contribution to architecture, not by contemporary hype. Maybe 20 years from now critics will have clearer view of the question what is it that Rem gave to architecture. As to Lagos, i cannot say how relevant it'll be, but in my world (eastern Europe) his architecture is very much "unreal". Like haute-couture, you just watch it on TV and admire it.
sorry Helsinki, not sure where to find the Lagos project...I recall that I first read of it in a GSD Studio Works catalogue. The movie is available on-line, not sure exactly where, but it's close to $400 to buy, and a ridiculous $75 or so to rent. Check with your library, they may have it...
and yes, sumatra, time will tell...back to work now...
@Helsinki:
Delirious N.Y.: Sometimes I think, I am asking for more social aspects because of my personal interest or because of historical preciseness. And this "retrospective manifesto" from architects, contractors, investors for N.Y./Manhattan is not meant to be the manifesto of other groups.
On the other hand, Rem writes, the book "untangles theories, tactics and dissimulations to establish the desires of Manhattan's collective unconscious as realities in the Grid." The "collective unconscious" (whatever it is) cannot be the unconscious of architects and investors, because the "collective" is much bigger, and Manhattan is not a product of architects, contractors, investors alone. The buildings-in-bed-paintings (by M. Vriesendop) are allegories of those building-related people in their dreams of being important, big, powerful etc. But also of at least a bigger part of the "collective"? I say: Yes.
So, if I am looking at the preciseness of basic arguments, then I get the feeling, there is a PROBLEM. This is also because of the undeniable analytical aspect of the book: Rem wants to strengthen his arguments and underline their truth with footnotes, facts and documents from history. He is not writing fiction.
And I doubt that architects et al. thought the whole day long, Manhattan's buildings would be just their product: I would say, it was for them much more usual business and very little ecstasy, with a lot of work behind it, with rather little fascination after some time - like a broker dealing each day with millions of dollars is saying, "Well, I have no feeling, how much this is, it's just numbers." I guess, some (or more) of them actually hated this build extremism and its daily pressure on their lives. Then, Manhattan was probably much less a playground or expression for something unconscious; it was much more the economic (or may be socio-economic) pressure: and a rather conscious fight, day by day, where very few people were dreaming and even less people making their own dreams come true.
Rem wrote "this book argues that it often appears that the architecture generated the culture". Okay, but I get the impression; he is so busy with this "appearance" that the rest of the culture (and here the social) almost disappears. One may say, polemic needs for its esprit some exaggeration, and then this could be okay. But on this style: Rem calls the book directly a “polemical investigation” and a “polemical operation”: An obvious polemic, saying “I am a polemic.”? Rem said often in interviews or lectures “Don’t take me so seriously.” I see this as some kind of discursive backdoor: He theorizes polemically, and points out his interest and fascination - and if someone wants to go deeper into theory, then Rem takes the backdoor saying: "This is a polemic" and/or "Don't take me so seriously."
I take Delirious N.Y. still seriously. And it has polemic qualities, which were getting mostly lost in Rem’s later books because he was making a system out of them.
@sumatra
About the Kunsthal:
It is mainly this idea of moving and using space not simply horizontally. Like in the Guggenheim. Rem sticks to this idea for years: the ramps and a more or less flowing space (f.e. NL-Embassy in Berlin, the Educatorium etc.). This flow is known from Mies, but just horizontally. These ramps are spatially already in many old European Concert-halls and Castles, and in many governmental buildings - inside and outside: There it is the flow of space often with the help of stairs: big halls or also parks, where a kind of scenography is needed to give everybody the impression: "You are going to enter something special - to meet the king, the president, the great art works, the space for worshiping a god..." In the Embassy in Berlin You are going to approach the lobby of the ambassador, I guess. Other buildings: a (great) view, or a restaurant, or You are in a loop...
@sumatra & Apurimac
About this Prada-Store:
Even if there is little shopping going on, or however it looks in particular - in the end, Rem may as much embrace or criticize, as he wants: his design and his name will have only an embracing effect for Prada, a very good PR-strategy of Prada indeed. And for OMA, too.
Apurimac wrote "You either get OMA or you dont, but look at CCTV and tell me there isn't something revolutionary about their way of thinking. It's a new direction no matter how you look at it, OMA is about change, invention and humanity. " Oh, CCTV is truly my new love. Humanity? Under current circumstances I see this as the worst building of OMA: Simply a loop, this time gigantic, a new symbol for the main TV-station of a repressive government, a new house and symbol for their censorship... Check out hrw.org and amnesty international, than You will see, how human things are in China right now. And Rem is going to build a nice symbol of power. Very good.
In terms of the shape, I find Eisenmans design for a in principle similar skyscraper ("Max-Reinhardt-Haus", Berlin, 1992/93) much more interesting. Maybe also this house by UN-studio (don't know the name right now), looping more horizontally... The "Moebius-strip" and all those topological figures were in the late 1990s at their peak, now this starts to get boring.
@Cassiel
You wrote: "As for Rem's supposed non-idealism, have you guys read the text 'If I was president of Europe' in Contents? Makes me feel all warm inside, as an idealist. :) Do you think it is all PR too?"
I must warn You, Content is a polemic. Do You believe, what is written there? Shouldn't we rather believe in Rem's case, what is build or will be build? Turn the pages to the chapter about CCTV: what is written there, gives me a bad feeling, and the building (OMA starts to build it now) makes me feel not warm at all.
@Helsinki on your last comment
(I don't know if the lecture will be or is online somewhere. May be on the website of the Berlage-Institute... They record lectures for their library, as much as I know.)
The "pragmatic idealism" is a very general term; and in terms of our specific look at Rem/OMA I think, they tend more to bad pragmatism than to good idealism. The whole engagement in China and this AMO-work tends to get to (more or less) pragmatic solutions, while idealism stays behind. The CCTV-project really unveils this: Rem really had the chance, not to do it. But he builds it, a new Babylonian tower. This pretty bad pragmatism: big job, big money (may be), big provocation and PR, and then saying "If I wouldn't do it, somebody else would." This is also pretty bad idealism: his own way of doing things, because he gets some relief or good feeling or whatever out of it. A bit like Google and Microsoft and Yahoo working censored in China - and promoting automatically the existing censorship: for them and their shareholders it is certainly just a money-thing.
(Oh, archinect.com has also google-ads. Mmh...)
OH MY GOD you are all geeks.
1. Everything in this world (and I mean, EVERYTHING) will always be disputed by someone, somewhere.
2. Architecture (like Art) is ultimately a matter of opinion. You might think it's great, someone else might think it's shit. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO GET THE F*CK OVER IT. (and I said LIKE Art. Architecture and Art are NOT the same, no matter how much design snobs make themselves think it is).
And yes, I agree with knut's principles. Of all the comments on this discussion, he/she had something worthwhile to say and knows their sh*t. Whether or not to battle someone about these issues which "Architects" tend to overlook in the face of feeding design to the 2% of the world? Frankly, I'd rather see knut (and others, like myself hopefully oneday) just go about doing work that can make a difference and affect the balances of our global social structure.... when the tide changes, those who follow the elite like sheep won't even know the difference anymore. (as a metaphor, We can't convince everyone in this world to become vegetarian, for example... so why bother changing each individual one by one? Why not just wait for them to get all kinds of hyperreal viruses from the meats and die off as evolution and nature intend? To each his own, the more concious people will survive in the end.)
oh and more thing, Cassiel. I'll quote you 'cause it goes way back up there:
"The "normal person" argument is so pointless. We're architects. Ever heard a scientist say that cutting edge physics are overrated because 'normal persons' don't understand them? What OMA does that is extraordinary is the analysis of our times, and that they are actually proposing solutions how to deal with it."
Have you seriously... and I mean, SERIOUSLY read that to yourself and looked in the mirror? What is the difference between an architect and a physics scientist? Oh, sh*t man, it's that Archtitects actually build spaces for PEOPLE. Yes, that's right, what Architects do affects people DIRECTLY (AND indirectly). Physics Scientist? Indirectly, and if that, way way later down the line once the 'cutting edge' has been translated by an entrepreneur into some commodity that can be used by the people outside of the lab... that takes decades, even today.
Architects? Well, hmm... they design/plan/make/draw/whatever buildings and places for PEOPLE. Once they're built, now stop me if I'm wrong, don't people USE them? What's the avg turnaround time - a year or two? Maybe 1/2 a decade at most?
Maybe Architects should actually get THEIR heads out of the theory and masturbation hole and actually deal with the people they are designing for. That means being able to communicate WHAT WE DO and WHAT WE'RE THINKING to people we actually affect. Not just do our thing, have some archi-babble discussion amongst other architects and then eventually turn around and have some small 'shock' at noticing that the clients and users are using the building as they want it to be used (and that's a maybe, because it's so sad to see architects have some object fetish of a building as if it's encased in some glass.) The most beautiful thing that could happen (and WILL happen) to the Morphosis CalTrans and Gehry Disney Hall is that they get tagged or bombed with some intense piece one day. They both need a good mural, until then they're foreign objects in LA. Fetish object for obsessed Architects who can only speak archibabble.
ok. right.
so, thanks for giving your 2 cents Prendrefeu. Maybe contribute in a bit more constructive vein next time. While looking in the mirror or not, I really don't care. BUT I would be interested in seeing the fabulous piece of architecture that actually makes a difference and somehow stays detached from the normative matrix of architectural production, that is the real holder of power, not the architects caught in the net - the problem of positive contribution is the big question. and if you wondered, just saying "deface the bastards" is really not a positive solution to stuff that you find offensively elitist.
knut,
The good/bad pragmatism is a tightrope walk, and I agree with you that CCTV is something of a problem (the problem comes from the fact, that if it gets built as designed, it will be a work that is (in my view) astounding and probably the defining skyscraper for the beginning of the 21st century. It is obvious that it has been designed for an opressive regime. If it would be crap, this would play well with the unproblematic stereotypical bad/ugly pairing.) But also being instantly opposed is a bit difficult, because we know the stakes are high and probably all of us would take on the project, given the chance.
And I see (good) idealism as a belief in progress, of the profession and of the world - for me, idealism is not the blueprint of our moral judgements, it is a positive stance towards production while aspiring to go beyond the restrictions of the moment - in this context the innovativeness and strenght of the CCTV are strong signals of idealistic aspirations. Still, even when downplayed like this, the China connection is an uneasy one. The world is a mess, and we make our decisions accordingly. I can't think that Rem doesn't have regrets, but probably just more things (some of them not nakedly linked to money or PR or fame) on the other side of the scales.
So while this discussion is engaging, I didn't have the attention span to read all of the long posts above. Sorry 'bout that. However, I thought that you would find this interesting and pertinent to the conversation at hand:
OMA designs for Louisville
Looks like Rem's finally found an opportunity to use his 'hyper-building' idea..
thank you for the post WonderK,
have to say that the design seems a new ironic chapter in OMAs way of using old scrapped designs anew: the Lousiville building resembles a LOT the plan for a Korean megastructure, exhibited in the "Cities on the Move" exhibition in the late nineties... Well, maybe the time is ripe now..
Hyperbuilding
Bangkok, 1996
GO EAST bank of Ohio River
...time is ripe for reenactment.
preferendu,
yes i have, seriously, read that and looked myself in the mirror. You, excuse me for saying so, are the one that seems tragic (judging only on two posts, so without claim for any greater objectivity on the matter) for believeing architecture is all about style.
Yes, i know architects 'whatever' buildings for PEOPLE. I also believe this 'whatevering' is one of the most complex and challenging tasks that exists. There is a reason we go to school forever, and still have to work our ass off in order to try to learn all we need to learn. It would be a great jolly world if we could just leave it to the free market to make sure that the best imaginable city would be built, but guess what? It ain't gonna happen! Or do you think Dallas is a great city? Think it's good for the people living there? I don't.
Architectural theory, translated, is trying to figure out how we should go about to "[do] work that can make a difference and affect the balances of our global social structure". If you spend all your time trying to communicate your thing to people, without thinking of what that thing actually is, then you are only working fancy graphics and trying to get rich. And somehow you have managed to convince yourself that you are the good guy...
Get yourself together man.
knut,
no, I don't take those two pages too seriously. But it still is something that I find uplifting because it is something that is seldomly said these days. Politically, noone seems to dare to say such a thing in fear of being ridiculed. And idealism has been monopolized by some left-wing reactionaries that are actually only protecting their own interest (refering to European conditions in general, and Swedish in particular).
So if he disguises it in a polemic text, he is excused by me.
And I do think that in Rem's case his contribution to the world of architecture has been greater in his writings than in his buildings, so I would judge him primarily on that. The greatest value of the buildings are the way they have been able to support his theories, which I think they have been. They are not the perfect example of it, but well a step on the way. In what way do you think they fail?
I have not read the text about CCTV, and I must admit to knowing nothing about the building except it's shape. Would like to know more though.
And for China: I agree with you in what you say, but don't forget that China is coming from a past and is moving somewhere. The situation here is extremely complex, and far from black and white.
i didn't know oma or rem actually HAD a theory of architecture...certainly a subtext but never anything as passe as a theory or a manifesto, nor a real polemic in spite of bigness, junk space, delerious, and all the rest. nah, the writing gig is entirely separate, a guy making cool observations about society in a vaguely architectural way. but he never really comes out and says he BELIEVES in what he is writing. Not the way corb did, or Franky wright, not even like Mies who was after all pretty pragmatic about it in the end (worked for the communists and the nazis, or rather tried to...)
that rem uses old ideas from others is standard fro all architecs and hardly a starting point for criticism. rem never claims to be making things from whole cloth, and i am sure he is more aware than anyone that his programattic justifications are just that.
funniest thing about his recycling of his OWN ideas is his smirking comment about MVRDV who made VPRO based on an unrealised project when they were working for him...to their faces. in a public lecture.
Well, 'theory' certainly doesn't equal 'a theory'.
And I could go on about modernism versus post-modernism, but I guess that's for another thread.
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.