I pose this comment after finishing the documentary from National Geographic analyzing Jared Diamond's work, specifically the book “Guns, Germs, and Steel.”
This may be my philosophical conscience slipping into my battle with defining a thesis project for school, but seems to be a debate that needs to happen. It also goes along with other threads, but I hope its slight humor and optional perspective gives it a considerable difference.
It also stems from reading a book review on Wolf Prix's new book, “Get Off of My Cloud.” Beyond the bullshit of what Himmelb(l)au means, and why they seem the need to put the parentheses around the l, it made me make a deep-hearted effort to analyze why I am doing what I am doing.
Is good architecture heroic and monumental; does it distract from the users, culture, climate, geography, and program in order to “create architecture with fantasy, as variable and buoyant clouds,” as good old Wolf would say.
Or is architecture rooted in the common, the ordinary, as the book “Architecture of the Everyday” proposes.
And do we “design like we give a damn.” Gehry doesn't give a damn, Zaha doesn't give a damn, I do not know if even Brad Pitt really gives a damn.
But why are we doing what we are doing?
But in one sense they do give a damn, and will throw shell-fish to prove it. But does purely artistic expression fill the void that makes us wake up everyday. The hunt to find purpose in a life, and find out who we are and why we are here. After watching and reading “Guns, Germs, and Steel” it makes me feel like that is a waste of time.
For some reason creating a puffy cloud of fantastical architecture seems to be a slap in societies' face. But maybe it is a push to move our society forward by taking chances, instead of making complacent architecture.
Does it matter that I have learned how to light in 3D-Max, or I tons of type commands in Autocad?
But out of the architecture of the ordinary, normal, and middle, can it still be acclaimed as amazing, beautiful, and thought-provoking, looked at as pieces of art.
This long disjointed layer of questions and statements I understand makes no sense, and hopefully has multiple grammar and punctuation errors, but I felt the need to vent these ideas that I have been hit with.
If this sponsors a debate, beyond the inevitable reality t.v. fashion thread, and get at the core of why we all do what we do, I think it would be an amazing discussion.
We all talk about why we design what we design, but no one really poses the question, what are you doing as an architect.
If it is money, fame, former models in Billy Joel videos, or whatever; I think defining a reason for doing something gives the drive that everyone has in life purpose. Maybe given actual meaning beyond just cool shoes, Jordan, and interesting ad campaigns; to “Just do it.”
No, but I am reading his manifesto now. The one comment I did read about it, was that if his buildings were built, they would be the worst buildings ever built.
I will respond to this at some point but we have had no sleep in 14 days and are all off to the gulf coast tomorrow so no internet access till the weekend....
it is all tied to whether you have an optimistic or pessimistic view of the world. Where there is crisis some see opportunity for change, others see unending dispair. Find out which camp you are in and whether you want to respond.
Some designers are focusing pushing the boundaries of what architecture can achieve and others spend their lives on how architecture can impact lives. This is a profession with no boundaries and nor should it.
the 'l' is in parentheses because with it spells 'blau' which is 'blue' in german.
without the 'l' it spells 'bau', which is the verb, 'to build' in german.
stoi: i think it's required that architects build for both sets of reasons. perhaps some architects build for one, the others for the other, i mean... but at the moment there's a distinct imbalance wherein the cultural/societal camp is being dwarved by the monied heroic/monumental camp.
stoicrise, at university at the moment all of our professors keep talking about the axtrordinary and the 'extra'-ordinary. exactly what you are talking about, do we build icons, or do we build good things which fit in? the answer is of course both, but its rhetorical to ask which we need more. and in an era when most built environments are already hap-hazard and incohesive, and unscaled i would hope most architects could design extra-ordinary architecture. the reason why heroic architecture is in is because of business, capitalism, tourism, so it is understandable, its just a pity that the architectural media hasn't cottoned on and broadened its discussion. but now we are getting intyo a whole nother issue.
As far as writing about architecture goes, I think that most theorists do not write to save the world, but they only write to save themselves. The problem with some architects with big egos is that they think they can save the world by providing 'solutions' to whatever problems they perceive to stand in the way of better humanity. For example, Le Corbusier is a great theorist and thinker but he failed as a practitioner. With a project like Unite d'habitation you can tell he's never truly pulled his head out of the cloud.
the "Just do it" approach seems simple enough, yet I think there's a big difference between 'loud' buildings (icons, monuments, etc) and 'thoughtful' buildings (that respond to social/cultural needs). We can no longer afford to shut out the rest of the world by being obsessed with the phallic superiority of architectural art as being above everything else, because we are already beginning to be alienated from the very values which had made us (or will make us) great architects.
We should open our eyes and really think about what is needed, rather than just trying to get what we want.
betadinesutures,
there was a recent situation where a community rep. in New Orleans went up to him after a local meeting and was telling him about the org. He turned around and pulled the book from his bag. Kind of funny to think he was lugging it around the lower 9th.
ps... 2 interesting projects will be announced in the next week or so. neither involve him.
Brad does give a damn, but about what? Bono I think does great work for humanitarian aid in Africa, but my pessimistic view of celebrities makes me think there is always something else behind it.
Why do we give a damn?
From studying architecture, and working as an intern, there is a vast amount of reasons for us to be here.
There are just as many paths to get to where we are. I almost think I should've studied philosophy and learned how to swim better so I would have the chance to be famous, haha.
Maybe what I have posed is more a vent of frustration with life, and not a real answerable question. But for some reason the discussion on how we got here, makes me question where we are going, specifically where I am going.
Architecture has never been the savior of man. Advances in technology and thinking pushed our societies, showing through our architecture. Even religion really only shaped architecture, I do not think architecture shaped religion. But walking into a massive church and feeling the power and spirit within makes me re-think that comment and the role of architecture.
The Rural Studio makes me rethink that comment as well, here is architecture bringing technology and aid to a group of people that wouldn't have it.
Is it just a view of the place our society has reached, the level of thought and intelligence we are at, or is it more intersected.
I think that those who changed things realy changed things by first making things more simple, but at the same time this also blinded designers and architects about what realy happened in fabrication ,in perception and in realising about the creative process.
Just to remove the decor to be able to mass fabricate still involve the same crafts ,the same mashins acturly the only thing that happened was that design started serve efficiency , removing the crafts detail --- the fabrication and the whole manufactoring aspects realy only changed with new technologies and the following new technikes.
The Car body are still manufactored the same way from sheet metal pressed into shape , the workers at the assembly line was replaced with Robots just mimicing the workers --- tell me where are the revolution in replacing skilled workers with robots doing the exact same tasks without a thought.
Please remember that Per Corell do not attemt to display as an Architect ---- 3D-H don't intend to engage new design trends but the very core of it ; again simplyfing but not by removing addisional decor so the same old production concept can now do the new designs no -- the change that was not realised go further than just returning to the bare structure of things, it must go further and engage new fabrication technikes , make profit from the just surfacing digital options , it is not enough that the computer offer a smart eraser so tradisional but perfect paper drawings can be made to be used in a fabrication, that is in fact just the old crafts put into use in a refined manufactoring where thoughtless robots, mimic workers --- that is efficient , but the real change will not come following that dead-end road.
3D-H can maby not compeed with today's mass fabrication , -- the technike are new and hardly tested outside the computers 3D inviroment , still with 3D-H it don't matter what shape the structure are, with 3D-H there are only one basic material not 289 various types all asking their own production line and delivery , 3D-H are core digital and ask a very simple fabrication hardware ; one day the mashin can make parts for a house the next for a ship ,and again detail become an option ,detail quality will be what you can ask , new technikes new jobs and a way to develob new materials are the side effects.
but there are plenty money in new technikes, new way's to put things together. Beside 3D-H -- even it dis not have miliniums to develob and refine as all the tradisional methods and crafts --- it can only challance skilled crafts the houses confirmed 3D-H would maby --- even providing the strength and durability --- still would be more expensive , while even providing top quality and expanded 3D ,hands-on, carpentry.
I guess many of the hero architects was great craftsmen and just had an efficient way to design ,without anything that acturly made the basic buillding structure but, do that realy mean ,that nothing can be made better , than what is based on 17' century naval mechanics ?
It is obvious to calculate a building mass ,allow the computer to suggest the best, strongest and most Eco friendly structural core, for a house or whatever new methods, such as 3D-H provide. Tell me another direction, what's wrong doing what you plan to do in micro scale try, build that Big first , before trying it out as nanno mechanics. Is Epoxy and cheramics realy the only technologies to empor the flight industrie ? Now the day You can order a house a third the cost, four times stronger, providing an ocean of new jobs , what Style would you prefere ?
it is the task of som of the millions of architects [maybe 10 or 12]. but not every project is about changing the world, adout discovering new techniques etc.
there is no good arch without bad arch.
as for Le corbusier, and his practice. - he did cshange the world. and he was a rat architect. but not every building [especially experiments] work. still the tast I say is without doubt, to try to change the world.
some arch. work for money, some for fun, some for humanity. these are all possible options, not knowing which is best.
we are talking about something that is in maybe in 40% of the earth's terrytorry. today people are living inconditions like they did 300 years ago. but still, they are ok and pleased with it. we sit in our fancy office, in front of the PC, probably in a nice town, cool buidings- and we are theorizing. when theory, we say is a lot of bool....
but after all like Koolhaas said it: people can inhabbit anything.
My point is to make it fun ifyou have to make it.
Aug 16, 06 2:30 pm ·
·
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.
No ONE can save the world.
No ONE can save the world.
I pose this comment after finishing the documentary from National Geographic analyzing Jared Diamond's work, specifically the book “Guns, Germs, and Steel.”
This may be my philosophical conscience slipping into my battle with defining a thesis project for school, but seems to be a debate that needs to happen. It also goes along with other threads, but I hope its slight humor and optional perspective gives it a considerable difference.
It also stems from reading a book review on Wolf Prix's new book, “Get Off of My Cloud.” Beyond the bullshit of what Himmelb(l)au means, and why they seem the need to put the parentheses around the l, it made me make a deep-hearted effort to analyze why I am doing what I am doing.
Is good architecture heroic and monumental; does it distract from the users, culture, climate, geography, and program in order to “create architecture with fantasy, as variable and buoyant clouds,” as good old Wolf would say.
Or is architecture rooted in the common, the ordinary, as the book “Architecture of the Everyday” proposes.
And do we “design like we give a damn.” Gehry doesn't give a damn, Zaha doesn't give a damn, I do not know if even Brad Pitt really gives a damn.
But why are we doing what we are doing?
But in one sense they do give a damn, and will throw shell-fish to prove it. But does purely artistic expression fill the void that makes us wake up everyday. The hunt to find purpose in a life, and find out who we are and why we are here. After watching and reading “Guns, Germs, and Steel” it makes me feel like that is a waste of time.
For some reason creating a puffy cloud of fantastical architecture seems to be a slap in societies' face. But maybe it is a push to move our society forward by taking chances, instead of making complacent architecture.
Does it matter that I have learned how to light in 3D-Max, or I tons of type commands in Autocad?
But out of the architecture of the ordinary, normal, and middle, can it still be acclaimed as amazing, beautiful, and thought-provoking, looked at as pieces of art.
This long disjointed layer of questions and statements I understand makes no sense, and hopefully has multiple grammar and punctuation errors, but I felt the need to vent these ideas that I have been hit with.
If this sponsors a debate, beyond the inevitable reality t.v. fashion thread, and get at the core of why we all do what we do, I think it would be an amazing discussion.
We all talk about why we design what we design, but no one really poses the question, what are you doing as an architect.
If it is money, fame, former models in Billy Joel videos, or whatever; I think defining a reason for doing something gives the drive that everyone has in life purpose. Maybe given actual meaning beyond just cool shoes, Jordan, and interesting ad campaigns; to “Just do it.”
stoi,have you met Per Corell ?
No, but I am reading his manifesto now. The one comment I did read about it, was that if his buildings were built, they would be the worst buildings ever built.
I will respond to this at some point but we have had no sleep in 14 days and are all off to the gulf coast tomorrow so no internet access till the weekend....
it is all tied to whether you have an optimistic or pessimistic view of the world. Where there is crisis some see opportunity for change, others see unending dispair. Find out which camp you are in and whether you want to respond.
Some designers are focusing pushing the boundaries of what architecture can achieve and others spend their lives on how architecture can impact lives. This is a profession with no boundaries and nor should it.
ps. Brad has seen the light and does give a damn.
to humbly answer your most pressing question.
the 'l' is in parentheses because with it spells 'blau' which is 'blue' in german.
without the 'l' it spells 'bau', which is the verb, 'to build' in german.
try adding this to your reading list.
stoi: i think it's required that architects build for both sets of reasons. perhaps some architects build for one, the others for the other, i mean... but at the moment there's a distinct imbalance wherein the cultural/societal camp is being dwarved by the monied heroic/monumental camp.
stoicrise, at university at the moment all of our professors keep talking about the axtrordinary and the 'extra'-ordinary. exactly what you are talking about, do we build icons, or do we build good things which fit in? the answer is of course both, but its rhetorical to ask which we need more. and in an era when most built environments are already hap-hazard and incohesive, and unscaled i would hope most architects could design extra-ordinary architecture. the reason why heroic architecture is in is because of business, capitalism, tourism, so it is understandable, its just a pity that the architectural media hasn't cottoned on and broadened its discussion. but now we are getting intyo a whole nother issue.
As far as writing about architecture goes, I think that most theorists do not write to save the world, but they only write to save themselves. The problem with some architects with big egos is that they think they can save the world by providing 'solutions' to whatever problems they perceive to stand in the way of better humanity. For example, Le Corbusier is a great theorist and thinker but he failed as a practitioner. With a project like Unite d'habitation you can tell he's never truly pulled his head out of the cloud.
the "Just do it" approach seems simple enough, yet I think there's a big difference between 'loud' buildings (icons, monuments, etc) and 'thoughtful' buildings (that respond to social/cultural needs). We can no longer afford to shut out the rest of the world by being obsessed with the phallic superiority of architectural art as being above everything else, because we are already beginning to be alienated from the very values which had made us (or will make us) great architects.
We should open our eyes and really think about what is needed, rather than just trying to get what we want.
cameron have you been the one whispering the real sweet nothings in brad's ear? you devil you!
you know i kid, i love and support what you and AFH does.
"Do, or do not do." -Bruce Lee
I do what I do, because it is there to be done.
betadinesutures,
there was a recent situation where a community rep. in New Orleans went up to him after a local meeting and was telling him about the org. He turned around and pulled the book from his bag. Kind of funny to think he was lugging it around the lower 9th.
ps... 2 interesting projects will be announced in the next week or so. neither involve him.
since its creation, the world was never meant to be safe...
Brad does give a damn, but about what? Bono I think does great work for humanitarian aid in Africa, but my pessimistic view of celebrities makes me think there is always something else behind it.
Why do we give a damn?
From studying architecture, and working as an intern, there is a vast amount of reasons for us to be here.
There are just as many paths to get to where we are. I almost think I should've studied philosophy and learned how to swim better so I would have the chance to be famous, haha.
Maybe what I have posed is more a vent of frustration with life, and not a real answerable question. But for some reason the discussion on how we got here, makes me question where we are going, specifically where I am going.
Architecture has never been the savior of man. Advances in technology and thinking pushed our societies, showing through our architecture. Even religion really only shaped architecture, I do not think architecture shaped religion. But walking into a massive church and feeling the power and spirit within makes me re-think that comment and the role of architecture.
The Rural Studio makes me rethink that comment as well, here is architecture bringing technology and aid to a group of people that wouldn't have it.
Is it just a view of the place our society has reached, the level of thought and intelligence we are at, or is it more intersected.
more randomness...
I think that those who changed things realy changed things by first making things more simple, but at the same time this also blinded designers and architects about what realy happened in fabrication ,in perception and in realising about the creative process.
Just to remove the decor to be able to mass fabricate still involve the same crafts ,the same mashins acturly the only thing that happened was that design started serve efficiency , removing the crafts detail --- the fabrication and the whole manufactoring aspects realy only changed with new technologies and the following new technikes.
The Car body are still manufactored the same way from sheet metal pressed into shape , the workers at the assembly line was replaced with Robots just mimicing the workers --- tell me where are the revolution in replacing skilled workers with robots doing the exact same tasks without a thought.
Please remember that Per Corell do not attemt to display as an Architect ---- 3D-H don't intend to engage new design trends but the very core of it ; again simplyfing but not by removing addisional decor so the same old production concept can now do the new designs no -- the change that was not realised go further than just returning to the bare structure of things, it must go further and engage new fabrication technikes , make profit from the just surfacing digital options , it is not enough that the computer offer a smart eraser so tradisional but perfect paper drawings can be made to be used in a fabrication, that is in fact just the old crafts put into use in a refined manufactoring where thoughtless robots, mimic workers --- that is efficient , but the real change will not come following that dead-end road.
3D-H can maby not compeed with today's mass fabrication , -- the technike are new and hardly tested outside the computers 3D inviroment , still with 3D-H it don't matter what shape the structure are, with 3D-H there are only one basic material not 289 various types all asking their own production line and delivery , 3D-H are core digital and ask a very simple fabrication hardware ; one day the mashin can make parts for a house the next for a ship ,and again detail become an option ,detail quality will be what you can ask , new technikes new jobs and a way to develob new materials are the side effects.
One can change the world 3D-H.
Vindpust..You are a king..
A king !
Nooo..
higher than that..
You are a demi-god ! a living talking, archinect posting -3-d frame making revolutionary GOD ...
I told you I am not an Architect
balls@ all architects
which godforsakendamnedtwobit architect can think in multidimensions and omniplanes like you can !...
Dont underestimate yourself ! ( seriously ) pal !
cheese grater? am hungry
I know I am an Idiot .
but there are plenty money in new technikes, new way's to put things together. Beside 3D-H -- even it dis not have miliniums to develob and refine as all the tradisional methods and crafts --- it can only challance skilled crafts the houses confirmed 3D-H would maby --- even providing the strength and durability --- still would be more expensive , while even providing top quality and expanded 3D ,hands-on, carpentry.
I guess many of the hero architects was great craftsmen and just had an efficient way to design ,without anything that acturly made the basic buillding structure but, do that realy mean ,that nothing can be made better , than what is based on 17' century naval mechanics ?
It is obvious to calculate a building mass ,allow the computer to suggest the best, strongest and most Eco friendly structural core, for a house or whatever new methods, such as 3D-H provide. Tell me another direction, what's wrong doing what you plan to do in micro scale try, build that Big first , before trying it out as nanno mechanics. Is Epoxy and cheramics realy the only technologies to empor the flight industrie ? Now the day You can order a house a third the cost, four times stronger, providing an ocean of new jobs , what Style would you prefere ?
vindpust, you'r no idiot.
problem is You're only stuck on to one concept.
Blow your mind. everything will find its way.
;)
your well-wisher.
we shoul try to change the world...
it is the task of som of the millions of architects [maybe 10 or 12]. but not every project is about changing the world, adout discovering new techniques etc.
there is no good arch without bad arch.
as for Le corbusier, and his practice. - he did cshange the world. and he was a rat architect. but not every building [especially experiments] work. still the tast I say is without doubt, to try to change the world.
some arch. work for money, some for fun, some for humanity. these are all possible options, not knowing which is best.
we are talking about something that is in maybe in 40% of the earth's terrytorry. today people are living inconditions like they did 300 years ago. but still, they are ok and pleased with it. we sit in our fancy office, in front of the PC, probably in a nice town, cool buidings- and we are theorizing. when theory, we say is a lot of bool....
but after all like Koolhaas said it: people can inhabbit anything.
My point is to make it fun ifyou have to make it.
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.