I am going to do an interview Ms. Scott-Brown and Mr. Venturi for a architecture theory magazine and while researching I came up quite alot of questions I'd like them to ask.
But I wonder, what would your question be, that you always wanted to ask those two?
(if there is some sort of consesus within the answers or a particular intruiging question comes up, I might include it in the interview, along a credit of course).
So, Shoot:
ask them how do they feel about that most people think of them as a flattened greek column, while they have the most massive knowledge of modern architecture in their buildings and they can manupilate that modernity like a text.
I think it'd be interesting to know how their professional relationship has affected them on a personal level. I'm not sure how I would react to working that close to a spouse. I guess he doesn't have to put up with "But I never get to see you..." when he goes out to drink beer and play poker, you know, if he's into that sorta thing.
wound't they argue that they have beend adapting modernity; adding regional context, meaning and symbollism to it, hence critiqueing and expanding it?
not to mix with pomo, which according to them they don't do.
but then again, the reception of modernity as a text, isn't that a postmodern reading?
in a old copy of learning from las vegas it states the authors, as dsb/rv/si, whereas under dsb it has a sub-elemebt stating: "private Ms. Venturi"...
this may be a bit of a non-relevant kind of question, but i remember when doing research on john hejduk a long time back, that hejduk mentioned in an interview that he and venturi were running around italy together for a summer (back in 1950 or so). they supposedly ran across louis kahn at some point as well. at any rate, i'd be curious to know how he views his early intellectual development, vis a vis some of the more 'intellectual' new york guys (hejduk and eisenman being the two main ones, although raimund abraham may be of that generation). they were all clearly mining the tradition of modernism (as much as an orthodox history as a living organism), but arriving at very, very different conclusions.
one side note - kudos to the guy for turning down the aia gold medal many years ago because he insisted it be given as a joint award with his wife denise. they, of course, refused to consider that an option; hence, he will probably never get his just due until he dies (literally).
i'd like to know wether he thought it was the early '80's or late '80's when 'learning from las vegas' and 'complexity and contradiction' became irrelevant in architectural discourse?
Punky, why would you claim the arguments for 'both/and' (poster check) as opposed to 'either/or', as espoused in Complexity & Contradiction would ever be irrelevant? -- granted the attack on modernism might have lost currency. But the underlying ideas of that book can arguably be seen to have affected if not permeated a good deal of the thinking behind much of the best architecture done since it was published. The same might be said some of the ideas in Learning from Vegas...
An interesting question for Venturi might be whether he believes the thinking behind those seminal texts might be seen to have resonated in recent architecture by the likes of of Koolhaas, Herzog & DeMueron, Ito, SANAA or Morphosis, for instance.
if the Venturis' great legacy was to remove any idea of the social or political relevance of architecture and redefine it in purely aesthetic decorated sheds/ducks terms, they did a bang up job, helping persuade a generation of architects that not being social or political was 'ok', helping to relegate architects to the position we now 'enjoy', a weak profession backed by a weaker professional body 'aia'.
They gave up caring about architecture in the way the smithsons did, in the way the situationist warned about, and made it into an acquiessed acceptance of vulgar display of visuals and text.
they're so smart, it's too bad.
there is a lot more going on in and around architecture that influences our relevance or otherwise, as there was before venturi/scott-brown. you'd have a hard time convincing me that they were any more influential in our weakening professional influence on the built environment than the creeping construction>contracting>legal industry.
i'm no fan of vsb, but i've always been curious about the fact that their influence in europe was so much more of a positive development for european arch than was their influence on what we do in the u.s.
there is a lot more going on in and around architecture that influences our relevance or otherwise, as there was before venturi/scott-brown. you'd have a hard time convincing me that they were any more influential in our weakening professional influence on the built environment than the creeping construction>contracting>legal industry.
i'm no fan of vsb, but i've always been curious about the fact that their influence in europe was so much more of a positive development for european arch than was their influence on what we do in the u.s.
punky i thought vsb were political at the core of their theory. My reading of them cannot be farther from yours, i think if we would have learned from las vegas earlier architects could have had a hand in the building of cities and suburban landscapes we are excluded from today.
I dont fully agree with them, but to me they seem to be saying: go out and engange the world as it is, and in the meanwhile improve it. But I am often wrong about these things.
you know i was trying to think of a reasonable question to ask, but i can't.
which has got me to thinking...i mean, why not? it isn't because they aren't relavent no more, cuz that ain't true...
it could be that architecture today is about DOING not THINKING, and while they were great at the latter i am not convinced by much of their attempts at the former.
so i guess i do have a question for you...in an age where the spectacle is for its own sake, where 3d flibergibitties are produced by students all over the world only because they can, and most philosophy of architecture is suspect, where do they see the ground floor of architecture design? is it turtles all the way down? can there be a foundation anymore? and where do they start from? theory or spectacle.
well, that is a wine-inspired thought if there ever was one. luck with interview. sounds cool.
q,
i think our reading of vsb is similar, just different takes, you see the inherent defeatism in them as a good thing, i see it as bad....and architects have had a hand in the building of cities/landscapes, but because of our refusal to engage the projects as a political and social act, have ceded ideological control to the developer.
don't get me wrong, they are both very smart, and i actually agree with some of their newer thinking, but the phrase 'too little too late' comes to mind.
the question should move beyond aesthetics and address the urban structure that suburban ducks inhabitate. What does a strip mall say about our culture? How does the homogination of the suburban strip (aka vegas baby) contribute to our society? How can we save the environment when most people live in the suburbs?
I dont know how to elegantly ask this, maybe a more acedemic mind could, but how would they react to the statement, " Architectural theory is a response to architectural practice, and not the progenerator of the built environment - simply a way to understand an uncontrolable evolution"?
i show him this project and tell him you like it very much. it will mean a lot to them and he will be gladly using it to drive home that he has never been irrevelant (which most people questions it, even here) he will rip everything apart and have a great time doing and telling a great story about the market value of a spot in circles of the so called forefront lux condo designers and mixed use museum architects.
ask him some names and he'll take them to cleaners too (if he is in a good mood).
c' mon you should ask b&d to rock the boat and expose some big holes on the enemies translucent curtain walls.
hmmn. architecture theory 'mags'..
not for me all the time.
what if somebody asks a question like this to vsb, possibly me.
q. "what about your theory bob, another book possible??"
a. "you know , we rather have a website, but thanks for asking"
i am really laughing at myself and should really go home know.
"The whole aesthetic notion of POP Art flatness (as best described in xxxx) is an aesthetic that Venturi still to this day strives ardently toward in many aspects of his designs. This ‘style’ is rarely, if ever, discussed within the plethora of writing on or by Venturi, yet it is definitely a substantial part of Venturi’s design psyche. ...offers lots of actually working examples of the quest for flatness in the design process, and then we inevitably agree that it is somehow amazing that hardly anyone (else) knows about this very integral component of Venturi’s style."
--QBVS2, p. 50.
diabase
03/29/06 15:01
quondam - I knew you would be the first. Flatness was the opposition notion to depth that I was looking for...Please continue.
quondam
03/29/06 15:25
I realize that flatness is the "opposition notion" that you are looking for. I just wanted to provide historical context to your question(s).
(I'm kind of just guessing, but) Venturi may too have seen "that a characteristic of modern architecture, is a move away from depth" and thus worked to exploit that very aspect in his designs. Venturi may too have been inspired by the contemporary architecture being built in Rome while he was at the American Academy in the early 1950s.
One could also say that Kahn earlier introduced "depth" via volumetric geometrics and the "cut-outs" thereof, which, for a while, influenced Venturi and later Matta-Clark.
Interviewing Venturi/Scott-Brown, what is your question?
I am going to do an interview Ms. Scott-Brown and Mr. Venturi for a architecture theory magazine and while researching I came up quite alot of questions I'd like them to ask.
But I wonder, what would your question be, that you always wanted to ask those two?
(if there is some sort of consesus within the answers or a particular intruiging question comes up, I might include it in the interview, along a credit of course).
So, Shoot:
ask them how do they feel about that most people think of them as a flattened greek column, while they have the most massive knowledge of modern architecture in their buildings and they can manupilate that modernity like a text.
Sweet.
I think it'd be interesting to know how their professional relationship has affected them on a personal level. I'm not sure how I would react to working that close to a spouse. I guess he doesn't have to put up with "But I never get to see you..." when he goes out to drink beer and play poker, you know, if he's into that sorta thing.
wound't they argue that they have beend adapting modernity; adding regional context, meaning and symbollism to it, hence critiqueing and expanding it?
not to mix with pomo, which according to them they don't do.
but then again, the reception of modernity as a text, isn't that a postmodern reading?
in a old copy of learning from las vegas it states the authors, as dsb/rv/si, whereas under dsb it has a sub-elemebt stating: "private Ms. Venturi"...
How does their theory applies to the commercial papp that they have been producing.
Oh, what is the transition strategy for their office? Ie how can the firm survive if they retire.
transition strategy. that's a good one.
Ask your questions in sign language.
venturi is still alive? j/k
i am interested in their view on the current state of 'decoration' in architecture.
good one evil...
Ask 'em how their work is still relevant today.
this may be a bit of a non-relevant kind of question, but i remember when doing research on john hejduk a long time back, that hejduk mentioned in an interview that he and venturi were running around italy together for a summer (back in 1950 or so). they supposedly ran across louis kahn at some point as well. at any rate, i'd be curious to know how he views his early intellectual development, vis a vis some of the more 'intellectual' new york guys (hejduk and eisenman being the two main ones, although raimund abraham may be of that generation). they were all clearly mining the tradition of modernism (as much as an orthodox history as a living organism), but arriving at very, very different conclusions.
one side note - kudos to the guy for turning down the aia gold medal many years ago because he insisted it be given as a joint award with his wife denise. they, of course, refused to consider that an option; hence, he will probably never get his just due until he dies (literally).
morgan2sims :
both are still alive and kicking... well not kicking but definitly walking..
spotted them leaving there manayunk office a few weeks back while my girlfriend and i grabbed some wings and beer
Sasha Cisar: are you from the philly area?
others?
i'd like to know wether he thought it was the early '80's or late '80's when 'learning from las vegas' and 'complexity and contradiction' became irrelevant in architectural discourse?
Punky, why would you claim the arguments for 'both/and' (poster check) as opposed to 'either/or', as espoused in Complexity & Contradiction would ever be irrelevant? -- granted the attack on modernism might have lost currency. But the underlying ideas of that book can arguably be seen to have affected if not permeated a good deal of the thinking behind much of the best architecture done since it was published. The same might be said some of the ideas in Learning from Vegas...
An interesting question for Venturi might be whether he believes the thinking behind those seminal texts might be seen to have resonated in recent architecture by the likes of of Koolhaas, Herzog & DeMueron, Ito, SANAA or Morphosis, for instance.
jlaucks:
no I'm from Switzerland actually, but used to live in NYC.
punky_brewster & silverlake:
I'd be also curious to hear why you would belive that their work became irrelevant?
if the Venturis' great legacy was to remove any idea of the social or political relevance of architecture and redefine it in purely aesthetic decorated sheds/ducks terms, they did a bang up job, helping persuade a generation of architects that not being social or political was 'ok', helping to relegate architects to the position we now 'enjoy', a weak profession backed by a weaker professional body 'aia'.
They gave up caring about architecture in the way the smithsons did, in the way the situationist warned about, and made it into an acquiessed acceptance of vulgar display of visuals and text.
they're so smart, it's too bad.
oversimplification meet punky. punky > oversimplification.
there is a lot more going on in and around architecture that influences our relevance or otherwise, as there was before venturi/scott-brown. you'd have a hard time convincing me that they were any more influential in our weakening professional influence on the built environment than the creeping construction>contracting>legal industry.
i'm no fan of vsb, but i've always been curious about the fact that their influence in europe was so much more of a positive development for european arch than was their influence on what we do in the u.s.
oversimplification meet punky. punky > oversimplification.
there is a lot more going on in and around architecture that influences our relevance or otherwise, as there was before venturi/scott-brown. you'd have a hard time convincing me that they were any more influential in our weakening professional influence on the built environment than the creeping construction>contracting>legal industry.
i'm no fan of vsb, but i've always been curious about the fact that their influence in europe was so much more of a positive development for european arch than was their influence on what we do in the u.s.
punky i thought vsb were political at the core of their theory. My reading of them cannot be farther from yours, i think if we would have learned from las vegas earlier architects could have had a hand in the building of cities and suburban landscapes we are excluded from today.
I dont fully agree with them, but to me they seem to be saying: go out and engange the world as it is, and in the meanwhile improve it. But I am often wrong about these things.
you know i was trying to think of a reasonable question to ask, but i can't.
which has got me to thinking...i mean, why not? it isn't because they aren't relavent no more, cuz that ain't true...
it could be that architecture today is about DOING not THINKING, and while they were great at the latter i am not convinced by much of their attempts at the former.
so i guess i do have a question for you...in an age where the spectacle is for its own sake, where 3d flibergibitties are produced by students all over the world only because they can, and most philosophy of architecture is suspect, where do they see the ground floor of architecture design? is it turtles all the way down? can there be a foundation anymore? and where do they start from? theory or spectacle.
well, that is a wine-inspired thought if there ever was one. luck with interview. sounds cool.
q,
i think our reading of vsb is similar, just different takes, you see the inherent defeatism in them as a good thing, i see it as bad....and architects have had a hand in the building of cities/landscapes, but because of our refusal to engage the projects as a political and social act, have ceded ideological control to the developer.
don't get me wrong, they are both very smart, and i actually agree with some of their newer thinking, but the phrase 'too little too late' comes to mind.
interesting article:
http://www.tenbyten.net/vegas.html
Do they outsource their CAD work ? If not yet...will they ever ?if not ever ? why not ?
flibergibitties
flibergibitties!!
great word jump.
the question should move beyond aesthetics and address the urban structure that suburban ducks inhabitate. What does a strip mall say about our culture? How does the homogination of the suburban strip (aka vegas baby) contribute to our society? How can we save the environment when most people live in the suburbs?
I dont know how to elegantly ask this, maybe a more acedemic mind could, but how would they react to the statement, " Architectural theory is a response to architectural practice, and not the progenerator of the built environment - simply a way to understand an uncontrolable evolution"?
i show him this project and tell him you like it very much. it will mean a lot to them and he will be gladly using it to drive home that he has never been irrevelant (which most people questions it, even here) he will rip everything apart and have a great time doing and telling a great story about the market value of a spot in circles of the so called forefront lux condo designers and mixed use museum architects.
ask him some names and he'll take them to cleaners too (if he is in a good mood).
c' mon you should ask b&d to rock the boat and expose some big holes on the enemies translucent curtain walls.
hmmn. architecture theory 'mags'..
not for me all the time.
what if somebody asks a question like this to vsb, possibly me.
q. "what about your theory bob, another book possible??"
a. "you know , we rather have a website, but thanks for asking"
i am really laughing at myself and should really go home know.
ask him what he thinks of this
copy paste from a thread 'depth';
quondam
03/29/06 14:56
"The whole aesthetic notion of POP Art flatness (as best described in xxxx) is an aesthetic that Venturi still to this day strives ardently toward in many aspects of his designs. This ‘style’ is rarely, if ever, discussed within the plethora of writing on or by Venturi, yet it is definitely a substantial part of Venturi’s design psyche. ...offers lots of actually working examples of the quest for flatness in the design process, and then we inevitably agree that it is somehow amazing that hardly anyone (else) knows about this very integral component of Venturi’s style."
--QBVS2, p. 50.
diabase
03/29/06 15:01
quondam - I knew you would be the first. Flatness was the opposition notion to depth that I was looking for...Please continue.
quondam
03/29/06 15:25
I realize that flatness is the "opposition notion" that you are looking for. I just wanted to provide historical context to your question(s).
(I'm kind of just guessing, but) Venturi may too have seen "that a characteristic of modern architecture, is a move away from depth" and thus worked to exploit that very aspect in his designs. Venturi may too have been inspired by the contemporary architecture being built in Rome while he was at the American Academy in the early 1950s.
One could also say that Kahn earlier introduced "depth" via volumetric geometrics and the "cut-outs" thereof, which, for a while, influenced Venturi and later Matta-Clark.
but I beat you to it
huh...you certainly did. ;)
discussions are never the same without him.
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.