rem

so Rita:

Is it Cardinals vs. Prada? Identity and lifestyle prepackaged under different "political" idologies, and the architect as the package designer?

Prada

I don't know why I find Eisenman so hard to understand, he seems to contradict himself at every turn, or maybe I'm just an idiot. So in that article, is Eisenman saying he want's to essentially remove his politics form his architecture? How is that even possible? All architecture seems to have political intent to me. I laughed at Rem's comment that his buildings, like CCTV, can only exist in the context they are designed for, when he's be guilty of recycling concepts on numerous occasions (Hyperbuilding [thailand] = Louiville Art Museum Tower Thingy [Kentucky]). Both of them are staggeringly full of shit, but I prefer Rem on the fact that he comes off as if he knows that, Eisenman actually seems to believe his own bull. Rem is like Bill Clinton, totally full of shit, but because he pretty much let's you know that, we can forgive him. Eisenman is like, dare I say, Bush Jr., totally full of shit but comes off as if he actually believes his own crap and we should to.

damn good analysis Apurimac...I find Rem more interesting at least he writes in baby english as opposed to obtuse franco-english. I do wish he had never gotten around to building anything.

just because your political ideas don't extend past lefty-righty, that's no reason to force-fit them on two architects who have more nuanced political positions.

also, what basis do you have to say that eisenman is an attention-seeking nonsense-talker; and koolhaas a shock-jockey egotist?

...thanks for posting the links though.

agfa8x, I don't know wether that post was aimed at me or mel, I'm assuming Mel. But I will say that my political ideas are all over the place, so much so I consider myself a radical moderate (if there could ever be such a thing). I do think however that both Rem, Eisenman and countless other stararchitects (and non-starchitects) are guilty of hubris and that their architecture serves their ego as much as it serves their politics. I feel that Eisenman (and a few other starchitects) is essentially a "dinosaur". His career, while professionally expanding, seems to be getting gradually more hollow from a design standpoint. His earlier work indicated a bold approach to theory and construction and then, suddenly, we get a collection of incredibly conservative and, essentially dumb projects. He says in that interview that that was in fact, an intent of his, to make his projects mute of politics. But his WTC proposal was, imho, bad, as in terribly bad, you would expect alot more form that collaboration. The arts center project (in sevilla i think) also seems quite dumb, it's seems like contextualism gone totally out hand. He realizes this so he makes up some BS theory about "dumb" architecture to cover the fact that his designs are fast approaching mediocrity, he writes off mediocrity as if its intended. Now, I like his Jewish Memorial, but if there was, according to him, no graveyard iconography involved, why the hell does it resemble one so closely then? It can't be coincidence. I think that Eisenman realizes he's on a slipperly slope from a design standpoint, so to get the attention onto him, he starts talking shit about everyone and everything, the cantankerous old man on the porch. He's getting into alot of arguments these days, and ruffling alot of feathers, because frankly, I think he fears his own impeding mediocrity, that he's been hugely overshadowed by others. He was talking shit about Calatrava for awhile there, raised some cain at the AA with Rem at a discussion a while ago (from what I heard) and talking massive amounts of shit about pretty much everybody.

Rem on the other hand, is the architectural shock jock. He puts porn in pretty much all his books, sometimes seemingly arbitrarily. He remixes other's ideas until they're fresh. His CCTV tower is a modern day tower of babel, I have never seen a design that laughs in the face of physics as much as that building does, that canteliever is absolutely insane and I love it for it. At the same time though its kind of like Marilyn Manson jacking off on stage for shock effect, which is exactly what CCTV is, shock effect. The design also smacks of an incredible ego, this is literraly man laughing in the face of God and I hope this time we win. Rem might have a huge ego, but he lets it show in his work, not in his words necessarily. That's seems the opposite in Eisenman's case, he's all talk these days and no walk. Anyway I've stalled long enough, feel free to flame away.

rem will win.....He has a secret weapon,


he will make zaha sit on petey.

unless of course the point is that eisenman's political position is less nuanced than he would have you think, the lefty-righty distinctions being predominantly from his replys in the article, and he seems to associate, at least on a personal level,probably as clients, with what could be genrally called the 'conservative establishment', which is hardly supprising really.

in that respect his position seems quite clear, the problem is with his claim that this position and his architecture is apolitical, as an apolitical position is political nonetheless, particuarly when it involves the decision to ignore the politics. at least rem is prepared to acknowledge the problem of working for the chinese government, his counter is his optimism about the future which is probably sincere, possibly correct, have to wait for hindsight for the verdict on that one.

the interlude while he fields the call from opus dei is fantastic, dunno if guilt by association if fair, but its fucking funny none the less.

rem appears to be a much more complex, apparently contradictory and openly political character, and i agree that his frank engagement with aspects with what are generally considered opposing political interests that makes him much more palatable than eisenman.

but then it could be that i just dont like eisenmans work.

or his bow-tie.

or bow-ties in general

so apurimac, you consider both koolhaas and eisenman as egoistic, but you praise the former for it and criticise the latter?

i find your pretended insights into eisenman's pysche staggering.

i don't praise koolhass's ego and dismiss eisenman's neccesarily i just wish the bow-tied one would put his money where his damn mouth is. Rem's ego is in his work, that's where he shows it. Eisenman talks a bunch of shit about his huge game, and I'm sorry, he hasn't delivered in years. The work is what's important, not the shit talking which is what Eisenman is all about these days.