the 'Male' list:
the old WTC buildings
villa savoye
the rockerfeller center
hadid's cincinnati rosenthal museum
kunsthal, rotterdam
foa's bbc center
guggenheim, bilbao
santa maria church (siza)
caltrans d7 hq (morphosis)
cottbus library (h&dm)
the 'Female' list:
guggenheim, ny
lake shore drive apts (meis)
eyebeam atelier (d+s)
the educatorium
seattle public library
perth amboy hs (morphosis)
coop himmelblau's rooftop thingy
ando's rowhouse
prada, tokyo (h&dm)
shigeru ban's pompidou, metz
laban center, london (h&dm)
Androgynous:
swiss re, london
villa vpro (mvrdv)
bordeaux villa (oma)
villa d'all ava (oma)
tate modern (h&dm)
taichung metropolitain opera house (ito)
kunsthaus, graz (peter cook)
gendering inanimate objects just further structures the gender hierarchy... not so good.
plus, when calling cars, boats, bikes, etcetera "she"... is a little degrading. I mean, you can ride them, control them, grease them, take them apart, destroy them, create them? "She" has no control whatsoever over "her" fate.
you never really hear about those things referred to as "he's a beaut, isn't he?"
*remove soapbox*
what are some good vaginal representations in architecture? and I don't wanna hear "any cavity"...
the way to tell is to identify the building’s tale, lift it up and check. Works on kittens anyway
Feb 12, 06 6:50 pm ·
·
About five years ago, while I was heavily doing research regarding (the theory of) chronosomatics, I came to the conclusion that touch is the first sense to have come into being, and that touch/contact was/is indeed the medium by which “life†itself began. Not only did touch exist before tasting, smelling, hearing or seeing, but, most of all, it was the contact of two otherwise lifeless entities that ‘spawned’ animate life. Moreover, it can well be argued that tasting, smelling, hearing, and seeing are really only very specialized touch/contact senses. Note also that the sense of touch is not just an attribute of the body’s external skin, but a sense indigenous to all parts of the body inside and out.
So what were these two lifeless entities that spawned life through contact with each other? Of course, my answer is that I reasonably assume the true answer may at this late point never re-appear, and that even a reenactment would fall far short of the original event. Nonetheless, I believe there is a very significant clue as to the ‘scenario’ of that first contact right on our own bodies, specifically at the body’s extreme external tips, i.e., the tips of our toes and the tips our fingers. It is there that last vestiges of humanity’s physical hard external shell still exists, namely our nails, and right underneath our nails are those cross-sections of our body’s that are largely just skin. I theoretically propose that this soft entity under a hard entity represents the same conditions that first spawned life. Essentially, it was something soft and vulnerable that found “security and protection†under something hard and more permanent. Animate life began when the contact between the soft and the hard actually became a bond, and thus too the sense of touch came into being.
Now, skipping millions of years on the evolutionary scale, I see this soft/hard duality as the beginning of two sexes as well. Contrary to common perceptions, it is the female that is hard and the male that is soft. In simple undeniable terms it is woman that enables embryonic development within her own body--women’s bodies themselves are a hard protective shells (only women corporally possess and facilitates the human egg that in turn allows fetal development). Men, on the other hand, very much do not have that “built-in†protectiveness, hence men make great displays about forever being on the defensive, and indeed it is almost exclusively men that have continually created our planet’s foremost industry, if only to create that protective shell that their sex was not born with--the age old military apparatus: shields, armor, war ships, submarines, tanks, stealth bomber, etc. are all “manâ€-made protective shells.
So what then is architecture? Is it a hard, ‘simple’, ‘natural’ protective shell that engenders the continuation of life? Or is it a soft formlessness forever redesigning an applied shell it doesn’t naturally have?
--Stephen Lauf, A Quondam Banquet of Virtual Sachlichkeit: Part I, p. 147-8.
can anybody here tell, without knowing, which gender designed that building you are looking at? (yes there are few out there, sadly in low quantaties)
it usually matters only after finding out who.
zaha hadid;
she is an example.she is doing what the big men of architecture are doing. she has got a medal for being an architect. not a female architect but architect. there are many more out there like zaha hadid that would be pissed off when referred as woman architect.
the reason zaha gets a lot of shit, because there are a lot of man out there can't stand to see a woman doing what themselves are trying to do and she is doing it better. she is not shy, not intimidated and don't have any famous male partner who took her on to the limelight. she is a boss in a male majority profession and, you know what, she can be the sexiest thing out there for somebody. so i find all the jokes about her physicality unfair.
yes you know when you look at her building which gender has designed.
zaha is my kung fu sistah and she is one hell of a lady. she can fuck you when it comes to architecture. but don't worry, that will be the best fuck you probably will have, until you can do it on your own.
Do buildings have gender?
there are 'male' and 'female' buildings, right?
just a few, off the top of my head:
the 'Male' list:
the old WTC buildings
villa savoye
the rockerfeller center
hadid's cincinnati rosenthal museum
kunsthal, rotterdam
foa's bbc center
guggenheim, bilbao
santa maria church (siza)
caltrans d7 hq (morphosis)
cottbus library (h&dm)
the 'Female' list:
guggenheim, ny
lake shore drive apts (meis)
eyebeam atelier (d+s)
the educatorium
seattle public library
perth amboy hs (morphosis)
coop himmelblau's rooftop thingy
ando's rowhouse
prada, tokyo (h&dm)
shigeru ban's pompidou, metz
laban center, london (h&dm)
Androgynous:
swiss re, london
villa vpro (mvrdv)
bordeaux villa (oma)
villa d'all ava (oma)
tate modern (h&dm)
taichung metropolitain opera house (ito)
kunsthaus, graz (peter cook)
hmm.. no replies. you all think i'm an idiot dont you? DONT YOU? ahem.
why guggenheim in bilbao is male, while the guggenheim in new york is female?
i don't get it.
let's say that in italian half of your male list is female and half of the female list is male, no androgynous buidlings tho.
Ummm...
To quote the 3 Amigos:
Ned Nederlander: I think it's a mail plane.
Dusty Bottoms: How can you tell?
Ned Nederlander: Didn't you notice its little balls?
Apart from that, no. Gender is a social construction, so it would be pretty hard to argue that any building in an of itself was male or female.
well, ships are called 'she' and they're designed by naval architects...
I love these guys.
No one does a good Oikema anymore:
key to the Ichnographia Campi Martii
plus this
i know buildings don;t have gender, there's just a vibe that a building gives off..
gendering inanimate objects just further structures the gender hierarchy... not so good.
plus, when calling cars, boats, bikes, etcetera "she"... is a little degrading. I mean, you can ride them, control them, grease them, take them apart, destroy them, create them? "She" has no control whatsoever over "her" fate.
you never really hear about those things referred to as "he's a beaut, isn't he?"
*remove soapbox*
what are some good vaginal representations in architecture? and I don't wanna hear "any cavity"...
the way to tell is to identify the building’s tale, lift it up and check. Works on kittens anyway
About five years ago, while I was heavily doing research regarding (the theory of) chronosomatics, I came to the conclusion that touch is the first sense to have come into being, and that touch/contact was/is indeed the medium by which “life†itself began. Not only did touch exist before tasting, smelling, hearing or seeing, but, most of all, it was the contact of two otherwise lifeless entities that ‘spawned’ animate life. Moreover, it can well be argued that tasting, smelling, hearing, and seeing are really only very specialized touch/contact senses. Note also that the sense of touch is not just an attribute of the body’s external skin, but a sense indigenous to all parts of the body inside and out.
So what were these two lifeless entities that spawned life through contact with each other? Of course, my answer is that I reasonably assume the true answer may at this late point never re-appear, and that even a reenactment would fall far short of the original event. Nonetheless, I believe there is a very significant clue as to the ‘scenario’ of that first contact right on our own bodies, specifically at the body’s extreme external tips, i.e., the tips of our toes and the tips our fingers. It is there that last vestiges of humanity’s physical hard external shell still exists, namely our nails, and right underneath our nails are those cross-sections of our body’s that are largely just skin. I theoretically propose that this soft entity under a hard entity represents the same conditions that first spawned life. Essentially, it was something soft and vulnerable that found “security and protection†under something hard and more permanent. Animate life began when the contact between the soft and the hard actually became a bond, and thus too the sense of touch came into being.
Now, skipping millions of years on the evolutionary scale, I see this soft/hard duality as the beginning of two sexes as well. Contrary to common perceptions, it is the female that is hard and the male that is soft. In simple undeniable terms it is woman that enables embryonic development within her own body--women’s bodies themselves are a hard protective shells (only women corporally possess and facilitates the human egg that in turn allows fetal development). Men, on the other hand, very much do not have that “built-in†protectiveness, hence men make great displays about forever being on the defensive, and indeed it is almost exclusively men that have continually created our planet’s foremost industry, if only to create that protective shell that their sex was not born with--the age old military apparatus: shields, armor, war ships, submarines, tanks, stealth bomber, etc. are all “manâ€-made protective shells.
So what then is architecture? Is it a hard, ‘simple’, ‘natural’ protective shell that engenders the continuation of life? Or is it a soft formlessness forever redesigning an applied shell it doesn’t naturally have?
--Stephen Lauf, A Quondam Banquet of Virtual Sachlichkeit: Part I, p. 147-8.
Hurray for the womb!
Speaking Architechture? Or Dirty-Talking Architecture?
can anybody here tell, without knowing, which gender designed that building you are looking at? (yes there are few out there, sadly in low quantaties)
it usually matters only after finding out who.
zaha hadid;
she is an example.she is doing what the big men of architecture are doing. she has got a medal for being an architect. not a female architect but architect. there are many more out there like zaha hadid that would be pissed off when referred as woman architect.
the reason zaha gets a lot of shit, because there are a lot of man out there can't stand to see a woman doing what themselves are trying to do and she is doing it better. she is not shy, not intimidated and don't have any famous male partner who took her on to the limelight. she is a boss in a male majority profession and, you know what, she can be the sexiest thing out there for somebody. so i find all the jokes about her physicality unfair.
yes you know when you look at her building which gender has designed.
zaha is my kung fu sistah and she is one hell of a lady. she can fuck you when it comes to architecture. but don't worry, that will be the best fuck you probably will have, until you can do it on your own.
i am sorry i thought i was posting in hot women architects thread. but anyway slightly applys to this one too, by accident.
according to some native american tribes, houses are feminime. there's an eloquent way to put it but that's the gist of it.
Anyone remember City Hall over in Penis Town?
Fairly male, that one.
And ejaculate we did!
so is fred & ginger a hermaphrodite building? or two buildings? or gender-confused building? or a siamese twin?
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.