Isn't interesting how much of the architect's equipment (CAD programs, mills, laser cutters, etc) have military applications? Even some of the most celebrated architects or design writers write treatises on military applications for architecture (Diller+Scofidio. Paul Virilio, Jean-Francois Blondel, Deleuze/Guattari, DeLanda).

Not ticked. Engineering is engineering: tons of war technologies are adapted for peaceful use, and vice versa.

Plus those pilots are freakin' adorable.

Back to the show.

haha...that architecture student can't catch a football. this is bad omen for me...are architecture students THAT deprived?

Not ticked. You take it with a grain of salt....I think at the first commercial break it said "sponsored by the US Navy". In all seriousness, my mouth was agape nearly the whole show because of the marvelousness of it all. I mean, did you see that crane? Simply awesome.

And I loved Danny and his dork edge. Yeah I'll watch it next week.

im also a bit ticked too, not only at this show but at most shows that highlight the military prowess of the US. Really, in the end its all taxpayer money. also i bet most people here dont care because the cute GSD guy is hosting it.

come u masters of war
who build all the guns
you that build the death planes
and build the big bombs
you that hide behind the walls
you that hide behind the desks
i just want to know you
i can see through your masks

you that never done nothing
but to build and destroy
you play with the world
likes its your little toy
you put a gun in my hand
and you hide from my eyes
and you turn and run further
when the fast bullets fly

like judas of old
you lie and decieve
a world war can be one
you want me to believe
but i see through your eyes
and i see through your brain
like i see the water
that runs down my drain

youve thrown the worst fear
that can ever be hurled
fear to bring children
into the world
for threatening my baby
unborn and unnamed
you aint worth the blood
that flows through your veins

how much do i know
to talk out of turn
you might say im young
you might say im unlearned
but there's one thing i know
though im younger than you
even jesus wouldnt forgive you
for the things that you do

let me ask you one question
is your money that good
will it buy you forgiveness
do you think that it could
i think you will find
when your death takes its toll
all the money you made
will never buy back your soul

and i hope that you die
and that your death will come soon
i will follow your casket
in the pale afternoon
and i will watch as you're lowered
down into your deathbed
and i'll stand over your grave
till im sure you are dead...

yep. if it weren't for the military, you wouldn't have posted this topic for all of us to see, ajliebch. that's the old arpanet workin' for ya.

"ajliebch. that's the old arpanet workin' for ya."

Yeah, that's true..and NASA brought us Velcro and GPS in the dashes of all our SUVs. And yes, aircraft carriers are marvels of engineering (most EXTREME!!!). And the GSD guy is cute. But there's a whole world of ExE out there, did they have to highlight death machines in the FIRST episode? It seems like a callous trick to me...

OK ajliebch, I can see the point about it being the very first show. And yes I was actually disappointed that the first show was the aircraft carrier, I was more interested in seeing a building.

But I still enjoyed the show, definitely learned some new things. And I loved how they featured the guys they spoke to like "Willie Nestor, Structural Finishing" - they are talking to guys who are experts at their particular area of knowledge and skill. I love seeing people who know their area of responsibility inside and out, can answer any question and understand the ramifications of the answer, and work with a passion. My phrase of high praise for these people, when I come across them in my life, has always been "they know their shit" because I just can't think of a better way to state it.

So yes, I'd prefer to see a building, and I'd love if extreme engineering involving providing sustainable organic agriculture or ending child abuse could be made into an interesting topic, but I'll also take a feature on any really really big and intricate structure because I'm a geek that way.

Good point, I thought it was going to be that tower in Spain.

sameolddoctor, I do care but am also pleased with their choice of host.

I, for one, was floored by how much money it takes to build one of those things. I suppose 4 billion dollars to build an aircraft carrier is still better than 4 billion dollars that disappears into Iraq under Halliburton's watch, though :o/

ajliebch, from a historical viewpoint , before the modern era , 'architecture' and extreme engineering have almost exclusively been used for the expression of either or a combination of 1) Power and 2) Religion.

If you consider any of the great past cultures, their architecture can more or less be segregated mainly into these two categories.

The great wall of china, Hadrians wall in Great britain. The brilliant Roman bridges and roads to transport their armies..all the forts/fortresses...
or the innumerable examples of temples/pyramids/stupas of various cultures and religions...

Art and architecture have been intricately connected with war and religion.

that was from the historical viewpoint.

Its only in recent times that architecture has drifted off into other realms..


Also architectural imagery is intricately connected with war.
9 out of 10 people asked to imagine a war scene will imagine one with devasted buildings arch and rubble.

In war, Attacks are perpetrated not only on targets for the strategic or military importance but also for their 'monumental" worth.
(An attack on the symbols of the enemy's culture.architecture being the prime target there)

I had heard a story once ( dont know how far it is true /wether it really occurred )..

Le Corbusier met Adolf Hitler after the latter had captured Paris in ww2 and gave him a proposal.
Corbu told Adolf Hitler that " He should pack off all the citizens of paris to wherever ,raze the city to the ground and he (corbu ) would design the ideal new city of all cities there".
Thats another story that Adolf Hitler refused to take him seriously.

anyways,
to sum it up .I meant to say that Architecture will always be DIRECTLY connected with war.for all time.
because in the end , be it in whatever context, both are about trying to achieve domination over a part of land.Over territory.


War is an extension of politics by other means. - Carl von Clausewitz.

and if I may humbly add to that , Architecture is an inseparable part of politics.

war is an extension of politics, yes, but politics is not an extension of war, therefore architecture as an inseperable part of politics (i agree) is not inherently directly connected to war.

furthermore, architecture has not always been tied to war. at all. you mention the roman bridges, which were of course built largely for military convenience. (the eisenhower interstate highway system is often said to have been conceived as a way to move armies quickly, but i believe this is not true, but i can't remember for sure). but you completely neglect roman aqueducts of the same time that had a purely domestic and non-militarist and non-religious purpose, or even further removed from religion and war, the almost entirely pleasuristic roman baths. you also neglect ancient mounds and other burial systems, often the only prominent or highly developed architecture of ancient civilizations, which have an indirect religious link perhaps, but certainly no military link.

finally, even if architecture has a past directly tied to war (which i don't think it does), this does not mean the immediate past or more importantly the future of architecture must continue to do so. very few (none come to mind) great architectural works of our day have a direct tie to war, even while many have direct ties to politics, some of which have militaristic backing.

The great success engineers have enjoyed building the war machine has in large part been the result of hundreds of years of the architect's quest for universal standardization in all areas of process and form. There is no doubt that the vast inherent intellectual capabilities of all architects have been the wellspring of the greatest technological advances man has seen. We as architects shall continue to provide leadership to the world in these many facets of human standardization. It is our earned right that we stand this high ground. Let's continue to provide this leadership through our area AIA. We have been chosen and are proud of our responsibility to those that require our superior visionary accumen. Take charge as you will!!!!

architecture is kind of like war backwards. Making things and givng people a life rather than killing people and breaking things. Notice the mirroring of CIAM and the Luftwaffe. Modernity gives and modernity takes away.

If mechanical engineers build weapons adn civial engeneers build targerts. I suppose we define targets.Architecture is kind of like war backwards. Making things and giving people a life rather than killing people and breaking things. Notice the mirroring of CIAM and the Luftwaffe. modernity gives and modernity takes away.

Somebody had to raze Rotterdam for Rem to talk about tabla rasa.

If mechanical engineers build weapons and civil engineers build targets. I suppose we define targets.

“I’m Wernher Von Braun!”
Said Wernher Von Braun.
“Vance zee rockets go up I don’t care vaher they come down!”
“It’s not my department!”
Said Wernher Von Braun.

or if you rock..

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!

Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
All right now!

cf, i hope you are joking or that you are at least jokingly so gung ho about standardization. why should we be proud of having anything to do with war machines, as you assert we are? and exactly what standardization of architecture is it that you so relentlessly endorse and propose?

anyway, i have an anology for you (and it's a joke so take it as such):

cf : aia & standardization :: goebells : nazi party

In response to the orginal poster,

Yes that kind of ticks me off too. But I may be
overly sensitive to things like war

Kind of like when I went to the ISU's design studio
for undergrads and found out it isn't in the design
building but in the armory building where the army
corp's whatever is housed. Looking at a studio where
there are army posters everywhere I almost puked
and swore I am going to work my ass off that much
harder everyday so I can get excepted into RISD as
a transfer student.

Sorry for the vent ; )

newstreamlinedmodel, FrankLloydMike:

On the subject of war, modernity, and architecture, consider the following quotes:

The bird can be a dove or hawk. It became a hawk. What an unexpected gift to be able to set off at night under cover of darkness, and away to sow death with bombs upon sleeping towns ... to be able to come from above with a machine-gun at the beak's tip spitting death fanwise on men crouched in holes.

That was Le Corbusier, and he wrote that in 1935.

Also, consider this quote, from Charles Waldheim:

While certain of these instrumental aerial representations are useful analytical tools for revealing a given condition, the use of aerial imaging has increasingly conflated the analysis of the given with its renovation towards possible futures. The projective potential in the seemingly natural and objective information of quantification is evident in the speed in which census becomes population control, military surveillance becomes intervention, land-use analysis becomes planning, and weather prediction becomes emergency management. In this sense, the ultimate coincidence of aerial photography with the instrumental control of landscape is found in the bombsight-photograph mechanism of military aircraft or its contemporary equivalent: the video feed from a missile in real time. This representation-projection mechanism allows for the simultaenous recording and renovation (or destruction) of the landscape as an instantaneous and seamless set of practices.

And finally, from Andrew Herscher:

Damage … is both a violence inflicted on architecture and an architecture inflicted on violence; it is not simply a misuse or abuse of architecture, but a manifestation of architecture’s potential for meaning, effected as and through violence

Good thread!

FLM>> war is an extension of politics, yes, but politics is not an extension of war

"Instead of war being a "continuation of politics by other means," militarized politics is an extension of war through other channels."
- Afghanistan: The Anatomy of an Ongoing Conflict; Jalali


>> therefore architecture as an inseperable part of politics (i agree) is not inherently directly connected to war.

I disagree.

1. Architecture from *arche- originary power - from the Greek verb archein which means "to rule or govern";
"The power of the arche cannot be forced into the frame of a single will; it can only unfold in and against a structure [Gefuge] that enjoins [fugt] the will to comply with [sich fugen] the archaic forces of being in all their overpowering violence." - Heid.

2. Architecture from *techne - from tek, tekton, "to fit together, fitness, to build" - a war of sorts among different compulsions, needs, logic;
"Among most traditional cultures the role of the artist or architect is to give form to an inner archetypal order - to manifest the sacred. Robert Lawlor writes that in Greek, the word "Architecture" means "the way or method of structuring what is arche-typal."" - Philip Harding

3. Rendering a form out of the formless and a chaotic soil is a kind of war and so an expression of power;
"Architecture is a kind of eloquence of power in forms — now persuading, even flattering, now only commanding." - Nietzsche

4. That can be metaphorized to man and culture;
"Man makes the best discoveries about culture within himself when he finds two heterogeneous powers governing there. Given that a man loved art as much as he was moved by the spirit of science, and that he deemed it impossible to end this contradiction by destroying the one and completely unleashing the other power; then, the only thing remaining to him is to make such a large edifice of culture out of himself that both powers can live there, even if at different ends of it; between them are sheltered conciliatory central powers, with the dominating strength to settle, if need be, any quarrels that break out. Such a cultural edifice in the single individual will have the greatest similarity to the cultural architecture of whole eras and, by analogy, provide continuous instruction about them. For wherever the great architecture of culture developed, it was its task to force opposing forces into harmony through an overwhelming aggregation of the remaining, less incompatible powers, yet without suppressing or shackling them." - ib.

- Architecture is not only part politics, it is therefore also an art of war.


5. "War, as the old Clausewitzian saw goes, is the extension
of politics by other means. As we have been reminded in recent months, there may be cause for a new dictum: War is the extension of
architecture by other means." - War as Architecture;
http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/000454.php


>> furthermore, architecture has not always been tied to war at all. ...but you completely neglect roman aqueducts of the same time that had a purely domestic and non-militarist and non-religious purpose,

Nevermore said arch. was mostly used as 'an expression of power'; and as far as that goes, the aqueducts signify just that. The power of Roman engineers and engineering, and therefore the will of the Imperium as a whole.


>>or even further removed from religion and war, the almost entirely pleasuristic roman baths.

Well, that may be true.

But Malcolm Godwin's "The Holy Grail: Its Origins, Secrets,& Meaning
Revealed" delineates the importance of sacred wells and springs in
tradition & myth. A relevant excerpt from the book:

"the everyday world and the Otherworld were twin universes running parallel to each other. It was at such sacred places as wells and springs that the two worlds were believed to come so close to one another that one might bridge the gap and cross over to the other side.

The Maidens of the Sacred Wells would feed wanderers and travelers
from golden bowls and cups. Historically we know that Britain was
specially favored with hundreds of sacred wells. The Romans
reverently maintained the ancient traditions of occupied Britain and
often built shrines around such waters, as the extensive building
over the healing springs at Bath shows so clearly.

...it was near the presence of flowing water that the most frequent access across worlds would be obtained.

We are told that the land of Logres, "lost the Voices of the Wells".
The barren wasteland which was the result bespeaks a loss of contact
with the Otherworld. It would appear that the Grail hero, the one
who is eventually to "free the waters" has to discover the meeting
place between worlds where he can re-establish the precious links
between the female sovereignty and the kingship of the realm."

So one could speak of both a power component and a religious component there.

"We honor the sources of great rivers. Altars are raised where the sudden freshet of a stream breaks from below ground.
Hot springs of steaming water inspire veneration. And many a pond has been sanctified because of its hidden situation or immeasurable depth.
--- Seneca, Epist. 41.3


>> you also neglect ancient mounds and other burial systems, often the only prominent or highly developed architecture of ancient civilizations, which have an indirect religious link perhaps, but certainly no military link.

What about the pyramids? with the secret doors and chambers - they possibly served an imperial purpose of safeguarding things from falling into enemy hands.

Or the Argun preserve, Chechnya; a complex of a series of military towers (to pass on signals of danger) have been found along with shrines and burial vaults.
http://www.idee.org/lreport12.html


>>finally, even if architecture has a past directly tied to war (which i don't think it does),

"Architecture reveals not only the aesthetic and formal preferences of an architect/client, but also the aspirations, power struggles and material culture of a society.
The built environment becomes a text whose every word reveals a nation's vicissitudes. In other words, a building may be said to be a work of architectural art, then insofar as it serves as a visual metaphor, declaring in its own form something (though never everything) about the size, permanence, strength, protectiveness, and organizational structure of the institution it stands for (but does not necessarily house)."
- Norris Kelly Smith, Frank Lloyd Wright; A Study in Architectural Content.


>> this does not mean the immediate past or more importantly the future of architecture must continue to do so. very few (none come to mind) great architectural works of our day have a direct tie to war,

There was an article a couple of years back I think, about Afghan arch.
being built out of war-paraphernalia, bullets and other stuff.
Arch. there - as a metaphor for the whole nation surely.

My mouth is agape as I read some of these comments. I certainly agree that architecture and war stem from a primary need to affect and control our environment...but please! For nevermore and cohorts, putting war and architecture in the same bed is an extension of the megolomania that seems to walk lock step (and plague) architecture.

Our world (the western world, at least) and our lives are no longer dependant upon our ability to build fortifications and and offensive machines..anyone who would make you think so is a fear monger who counts on your paralyzing anxiety to hold power over you. Come on, the past is the past, let's look at the present and to the future. Architects and engineers should have a burden to solve greater problems that how to kill most efficiently.

And liberty bell, those finishing guys were really cute...

i abhor war, father served in Vietnam, was an army brat for the better part of 15 yrs, but at the same time i have, since my childhood, been fascinated by the machinery of war. now in my architect life my fascination extends to the aesthetic, and technological beauty of the hardware employed by the military. the aesthetics vs. machines of killing is quite intriguing...

Smokety, have you ever had a class with Charles Waldheim? He speaks like that, extemporaneously, in real life too. Killer smart.

Nice quotes.

Unfortunately, I've never taken any classes with Waldheim. I am a huge fan of his writings. That excerpt is from an essay in Corner's Recovering Landscape book. This thread is particularly interesting to me because my research at school concerns war and architecture.

ajliebch, for your kind information, I never put architecture and war in the same "bed" .
I merely stated an intimate connection between the two, which is true.

Problem solving for humanity by archs and enggs is a different topic altogether.

There are very many basic similarities between the act of war and the action of creating architecture.
as i said , first its about domination of territory( in whatever context )
site analysis, strategy etc etc.
--------------
And I said, most of ancient architecture had to do with war,religion or politics.( most of it, not all of it. )

(There were humble mud brick peasant dwellings too in the middle ages..but we consider the fortresses, chateaus ,castles etc when we talk of the past's architecture )


I'll give you an example of art and interior design as a torture device.
it was recently revealed by a Spanish historian that a group of anarchists in Spain during the Civil War had employed specially designed cells, outfitted with surrealist decor inspired by Dali and Bunuel, for what they called "psychotechnic" torture.

The avant garde forms of the moment surrealism and geometric abstraction were thus used for the aim of committing psychological torture.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/27/1043534004548.html?oneclick=true

this happened only 65 years ago.


and you'r saying the past is past ?
The technology and philosophy that we have today in our architecture profession was not just created one fine morning out of the blue.

what we have today - technology and philosophy -in our profession or any profession has come down to us in an evolving chain right from the corridors of the past.

yes the future is important but we have to know where 'we' are coming from !
so before stereotyping anything as megalomania, kindly wake up and smell the gunpowder.

ajliebch>> putting war and architecture in the same bed is an extension of the megolomania that seems to walk lock step (and plague) architecture.
Our world (the western world, at least) and our lives are no longer dependant upon our ability to build fortifications and and offensive machines..


That's because the modes of war have changed; war is waged more subtly today.

Whether, under the agenda of 'Exporting Democracy' in Iraq or 'Global Oneness' in so called developing countries including my own, city-planning, a crop of mncs, funded missionaries and other such architecture have been extensions of neocon war, that personally affect me. So I don't know about others, but I would put architecture and war 'in the same bed' - may sound like megalomania to you, they are ground realities to a lot of people.

As for protective fortifications, its kind of a black-comedy, on the one hand, they are 'rebuilding' Iraq, and on the other, they are forced to build protective fortifying fences for themselves;
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/30657

It would appear this world is still dependent on our ability to build fortifications and other such defenses and offensive machines.

And its really too bad.

I agree.

..and life goes on.

the problem, ajliebch and sotthi, is that you are making philosophical arguments claiming that in a theoretical sense architecture is similar to war in its goal to change the landscape and so on. this is true, but with such a broad theoretically statement, everything is war then. i walk down the street and the street is not the same for my having walked down it. now, my walking is warlike. i know this is a simplification, but still. i agree with many of the philosophical and historical points you make and they are interesting. architecture in the past has often coincided with war, but to claim that because the greek derivatives of the word used to describe our profession express warlike intentions makes everything we do and our inherent goal to (hopefully positively) change the world and the built environment comparable to war is ludicrous. war is simply one means of changing the world, not the only one. yes, sometimes and indeed often times architecture has been a response to and an influence of war, and yes sometimes architecture can be violent (displacement of people for large projects), but everytime we disrupt a site with a cultural institution or residential project or even a commericial building is not an act of war. the surrealist art you mention as being used as a torture device not make it inherently a torture device itself. people can pervert anything, art and architecture not the least of things, but that does not make all--or even most--art and architecture a means or tool of war or torture itself. architecture should respond to, be critical of, and hopefully improve its surroundings and constraints, and so in afghanistan using bullets as part of architecture does not necessarily make the architecture an extension of war, but a response (perhaps a critical one) to it. your arguments are intriguing, intelligent and in large part true, but they are way too far reaching.

shit, my spelling and grammar is horrible... a war crime even

sorry to deviate ,
but when in my teens, I used to love the song "Architecture of Aggression ' by megadeth.
This thread took me down nostalgia lane !

FLM>> but to claim that because the greek derivatives of the word used to describe our profession express warlike intentions makes everything we do and our inherent goal to (hopefully positively) change the world and the built environment comparable to war is ludicrous.

1. Classicism was/is essentially a martial style; and the greek roots of the word reflected this.

2. If and as long as one believes, architecture's primary function/role is to shelter, then one could say, sheltering and protection largely was considered a warrior-function.

That such classicism is no more practised or not as much, and that some deem architecture's role over and beyond sheltering is what I gather from nevermore's differentiating the ancient and the modern.
I was making us aware of this historicism.

>> and so in afghanistan using bullets as part of architecture does not necessarily make the architecture an extension of war, but a response (perhaps a critical one) to it.

You mis-produce my statement. You said, there were very 'few architectural works of our day that have a direct tie to war', and I cited Afghan as an example. I too meant it as a critical and constructive response.

flm you are right. everything is war, not within the usage of this post but when observed; it grows from micro to macro.
the minute conflicts with our selves and others amalgate to the collective mass of cultures conflicting with another

Not to derail a pretty intense discussion, but in respose to the initial post, the interview did make mention of other episodes having more to do with typical Architecture and Engineering, that are not military realted.

He said there is one on Eisenman's new football stadium, something about the New Orleans recovery effort, and some tunnel in Malaysia--and the pictures are from some tower in Spain.

I am anxiously awaiting the one on the football stadium! That looks incredible. And only war-like in the context of the gridiron ;o)

Honestly though, I can hardly blame the producers for wanting to start the season off with a, ahem, bang by showing the aircraft carrier. Those machines are phenomenal feats of engineering. I believe the show IS called "Extreme Engineering", is it not? And, to their credit, I don't even think they talked about the weaponry, the closest they came was the explanation of how the planes take off and land.

I guess I would say that I'm annoyed that the Navy is crafty enough to allow a production that impresses people without alluding to the obvious downsides of joining the armed forces. They can probably use this show in recruiting centers now. But if I were forced into service, I'd want to be on one of those carriers!

This is to say nothing about my opinions on war and architecture, but it is a Saturday morning, and my search for coffee is more imminently important.

I'm bumping this thread in a shameless request for help:

I'm so scattered and TV is so not a regular part of my evening activities that I'm certain I will forget to watch this Wednesday unless someone reminds me - will someone please bump this thread again Wednesday evening so I'll remember to turn on my TV? Danny, if you're out there, please help, we want to keep your ratings up!

Like WonderK I'm eager to see the stadium, especially after our recent WK-led tour of DAAP.

Hey thanks for reminding me, guys ;)

Peter Eisenman is currently embarassing himself.

I'm starting a new thread. I don't want to distract from the war discussion.

did someone declare war on peter eisenstein?