into the third page and it's tearing OMA a new asshole for being the enabler for a state symbol of repression, censorship, and human rights abuses. it's absolutely absurd that architecture critics let Rem spew horseshit about 'participating' in the massive growth of China. Since it's not possible for any architect or office to actually affect the development of a whole country, the ONLY conclusion you can reach is that this builder of iconic landmarks is doing just that. CCTVCC is an itty bitty inflamed prostate piss in the ocean compared to the pace of the actual construction shaping the country.
Rem's rhetoric about participating is a smokescreen which is a successful distraction from the ugly reality of the circumstances behind the creation of this 'marvel'. He wrote ONE book with Harvard and fancies himself a king. It's inane hubris, nothing more.
from the article.....
"The building owner and the architect stand together on the biggest construction sites in Beijing and wave harmoniously and jovially to press photographers, extensive waving of the arms outlines the towering and colossal creations, in the new rooms of which censors
will discharge their duties, spies sniff out irregularities, significant political authorities will permit themselves to be courted, threats ejaculated to the camera and the microphone – for example against Taiwan – while the existing order is lulled in soft tones."
It's high time someone called Rem out and stopped massaging his ego. He's willing to work for anyone who pays enough. In other profession that's called a whore.
on this site large companies such as sprawlmart are always portrayed as villains and to work for such a company is seen as the equivalent of drowning a bagful of kittens. But, someone like Rem is never criticized for working for a despotic regime like China.
the big question remains: how to spread the critical word? concerning the future of OMA, i think that Kohlhaas will retire soon, and Ole Scheeren is, at least in terms of rhetorics, no heavy weight champion...
vado and newold, before you call china a 'despotic regime' and go ahead with your rants, step back a minute and think what would you call the USA?
Im sure my rant is also sounding a bit naive right now, but there is nothing that can justify spending trillions of dollars on defense and bombing countries to justify the oil needs of SUV driving americans.
again a question to vado and newold, if you get a large project in China, would you rather not do it and be able to get a chance to do innovative architecture?
"It's high time someone called Rem out and stopped massaging his ego. He's willing to work for anyone who pays enough. In other profession that's called a whore."
im also sure you would do the same at some point of time, unless of course you are a trust fund baby.
of course the US benefits from lax ethics that allow US business and consumers to benefit from cheap goods, labor, and other opportunities within China. the reality is that everyone in the west benefits in some way from lax policies towards China. but look, the Democrats just won both houses so put those tired canards on the shelf for a minute.
but that's not the point at all. this is about what architects do. and this architect is making a really stunning, highly iconic (meaning effective) symbol for the censoring mouthpiece of a repressive government. they're simultaneously creating a smokescreen of selective rhetoric to not just justify their actions but to make them seem obligatory. as in 'how could we not participate in China's development.'
your trust fund baby comment is retarded on its face. offices that get to the level of competing for projects at the level of CCTV are not taking the work because they 'have to pay the bills'. having standards and ethics isn't a luxury only rich designers can afford.
almost all architects have opinions about what governments 'should be' and should and should not do. most are liberal (the american meaning). compromising your beliefs to create a symbol for a government or organization who does things that are against the aforementioned beliefs is wrong.
to use your cliches, it would be like if Halliburton, GM, or Exxon Mobile but up US $730 to build a CCTV of their own. Rem would reject that comission on it's face and those companies don't actually kill people who disagree with them.
Basically, Rem is a liar. He's a sophisticated rhetorician who can convince all the sycophants that his 'innovation' is the first priority.
And personally, if I headed an office, I would reject commissions from Exxon, Halliburton, GM, or the Chinese government. I'm not rich, I just intend to practice what I preach.
In his opening speech at MoMA Koolhaas actually mentioned how fascinated he was by the open and fresh approach of his CCTV client, most of them being younger than 40 and determined to change, maybe he is right and they do have the ambition to change into a BBC slowly... Which still does not account for this interest in other "democratic" beaties such as Dubai, Qatar, Nigeria and not to forget Putin´s Gazprom baby, one wonders what´s next, maybe a presidential palace in White Russia or a ministry in Almaty next to Foster´s pyramid in order to "enhance change through architecture"...
thenewold> if koolhaas bitch about china the way he bitch about US in his "content" or any of his previous writings, he would have 0 commissions in China.
Jun 6, 07 10:30 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.
OMA-CCTV in NY-MOMA
... exhibition opens Nov 15...
On CCTV something to read for critical minds (in German and English):
http://www.xn--o-zfa.net/pics/gam03_birkholz.pdf (867KB, 16 pages, some images)
Rem and Ole Scheeren are also lecturing at Columbia this Friday @ 6:30.
into the third page and it's tearing OMA a new asshole for being the enabler for a state symbol of repression, censorship, and human rights abuses. it's absolutely absurd that architecture critics let Rem spew horseshit about 'participating' in the massive growth of China. Since it's not possible for any architect or office to actually affect the development of a whole country, the ONLY conclusion you can reach is that this builder of iconic landmarks is doing just that. CCTVCC is an itty bitty inflamed prostate piss in the ocean compared to the pace of the actual construction shaping the country.
Rem's rhetoric about participating is a smokescreen which is a successful distraction from the ugly reality of the circumstances behind the creation of this 'marvel'. He wrote ONE book with Harvard and fancies himself a king. It's inane hubris, nothing more.
from the article.....
"The building owner and the architect stand together on the biggest construction sites in Beijing and wave harmoniously and jovially to press photographers, extensive waving of the arms outlines the towering and colossal creations, in the new rooms of which censors
will discharge their duties, spies sniff out irregularities, significant political authorities will permit themselves to be courted, threats ejaculated to the camera and the microphone – for example against Taiwan – while the existing order is lulled in soft tones."
It's high time someone called Rem out and stopped massaging his ego. He's willing to work for anyone who pays enough. In other profession that's called a whore.
on this site large companies such as sprawlmart are always portrayed as villains and to work for such a company is seen as the equivalent of drowning a bagful of kittens. But, someone like Rem is never criticized for working for a despotic regime like China.
the glories of doing 'innovative work' make it possible to forget everything else.... Rem is the Ayn Rand of architecture and just as forgettable.
even institutions as the NY-MOMA do not think twice - just read their poor announcement:
http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2006/cctv.html
the big question remains: how to spread the critical word? concerning the future of OMA, i think that Kohlhaas will retire soon, and Ole Scheeren is, at least in terms of rhetorics, no heavy weight champion...
vado and newold, before you call china a 'despotic regime' and go ahead with your rants, step back a minute and think what would you call the USA?
Im sure my rant is also sounding a bit naive right now, but there is nothing that can justify spending trillions of dollars on defense and bombing countries to justify the oil needs of SUV driving americans.
again a question to vado and newold, if you get a large project in China, would you rather not do it and be able to get a chance to do innovative architecture?
"It's high time someone called Rem out and stopped massaging his ego. He's willing to work for anyone who pays enough. In other profession that's called a whore."
im also sure you would do the same at some point of time, unless of course you are a trust fund baby.
sameold -
of course the US benefits from lax ethics that allow US business and consumers to benefit from cheap goods, labor, and other opportunities within China. the reality is that everyone in the west benefits in some way from lax policies towards China. but look, the Democrats just won both houses so put those tired canards on the shelf for a minute.
but that's not the point at all. this is about what architects do. and this architect is making a really stunning, highly iconic (meaning effective) symbol for the censoring mouthpiece of a repressive government. they're simultaneously creating a smokescreen of selective rhetoric to not just justify their actions but to make them seem obligatory. as in 'how could we not participate in China's development.'
your trust fund baby comment is retarded on its face. offices that get to the level of competing for projects at the level of CCTV are not taking the work because they 'have to pay the bills'. having standards and ethics isn't a luxury only rich designers can afford.
almost all architects have opinions about what governments 'should be' and should and should not do. most are liberal (the american meaning). compromising your beliefs to create a symbol for a government or organization who does things that are against the aforementioned beliefs is wrong.
to use your cliches, it would be like if Halliburton, GM, or Exxon Mobile but up US $730 to build a CCTV of their own. Rem would reject that comission on it's face and those companies don't actually kill people who disagree with them.
Basically, Rem is a liar. He's a sophisticated rhetorician who can convince all the sycophants that his 'innovation' is the first priority.
And personally, if I headed an office, I would reject commissions from Exxon, Halliburton, GM, or the Chinese government. I'm not rich, I just intend to practice what I preach.
there's more to life than innovation at any cost.
"OMA is like GWB, there I said it....George W, not gypsum wall board"
i was hardly ranting, but yes you sound very naive. america is f'd up but compared to china its the garden of freakn eden...
so: people wanted to print the pdf i reffered to, and hand it out at Columbia this Friday @ 6:30 and at MOMA on the 15th...
really ? that's amazing.
JohnProlly, i know, OMA is boring.
thenewold,
don't get me wrong. i can't be in NY...
haha!
"Koolhaas: It certainly doesn't do any good, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that ..."
oh
?
"Koolhaas: Do the old-fashioned socialists you are apparently referring to even exist anymore? "
so?
In his opening speech at MoMA Koolhaas actually mentioned how fascinated he was by the open and fresh approach of his CCTV client, most of them being younger than 40 and determined to change, maybe he is right and they do have the ambition to change into a BBC slowly... Which still does not account for this interest in other "democratic" beaties such as Dubai, Qatar, Nigeria and not to forget Putin´s Gazprom baby, one wonders what´s next, maybe a presidential palace in White Russia or a ministry in Almaty next to Foster´s pyramid in order to "enhance change through architecture"...
just posted some thoughts on the CCTV project... check it out.
http://progressivereactionary.blogspot.com/2007/06/cctv-progress.html
thenewold> if koolhaas bitch about china the way he bitch about US in his "content" or any of his previous writings, he would have 0 commissions in China.
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.