Really? Elementary? I thought it was quite good. I thought some of the selections on their own were crap (Greg Lynn, for instance, and some of the fashion pieces) but overall, I thought the connections it drew made sense.

What was it you wanted to get out of the exhibition? I try not to really have expectations when I go into something like that....and I came out quite pleased that I was able to see some things I had never seen before. The Viktor & Rolf stuff blew me away. In general, I felt that I really understood what the curator was trying to do. Perhaps they could have reached beyond their architecture comfort zone of course (for once I'd like to see an exhibit without Frank Gehry in it).

My non-designer friend was also able to appreciate it. But I still wouldn't refer to it as "elementary".

PS. I paid for it, too :o)

e.g. Fold: Heres a fold in a form, over there is a fold in cloth.

Mindblowing conclusion.

Here's my alternative: with the influx of fashion designers hiring star architects, how does the architecture interact with the product? How does the brand and style of the product effect the design process? What is the architecture saying about fashion (Prada NY being subversive). Maybe this is just a thesis paper and not an exhibit.

Yes, Gehry did not need to be in the show (why show models of Disney when it is next door?).

As I said before, the show felt like a glossy magazine that is full sexiness but did not provoke any new thoughts.

The show is a great introduction to those that do not know what is currently happening in the world of architecture and fashion. Just like a Phillip Jodido book, "architcture and fashion NOW!"

the best dressed man in rock summed it up about 25 years ago...
the passion went out of FASHION

i know i know ive posted this clip about five times...

So let me get this straight: you think a thesis paper is supposed to just draw comparisons but an exhibit is somehow supposed to propose a new way of thinking about a topic? I guess I've always thought of the two as exactly the reverse of that....


the·sis [thee-sis]
–noun, plural -ses
1. a proposition stated or put forward for consideration, esp. one to be discussed and proved or to be maintained against objections: He vigorously defended his thesis on the causes of war.


ex·hi·bi·tion [ek-suh-bish-uhn]
–noun
1. an exhibiting, showing, or presenting to view.
2. a public display, as of the work of artists or artisans, the products of farms or factories, the skills of performers, or objects of general interest.


......I think if maybe we were talking about a permanent exhibition here, one that was specifically and constantly devoted to the topics that you are talking about, I could see how they could dive into it more thoroughly. But for a temporary exhibit, not to sound like a broken record, but I found it satisfying.

my $.02 cents is this:

Although I understand the conclusion moratto is coming to, I must say that I enjoyed the show for the same reasons dubK mentioned. However, I also wanted to add that whilst it may be seen as this was a glossy magazine piece, the notion of having the exhibit in a space where you can interact with it (by this I mean the simple act of movement and observation - from afar or as close as you wish to get, to capture the image mentally and draw conclusions) is what makes it interesting. I found that tactility, even if we weren't able to 'touch' the models or clothing, through the use of another sense (sight) was what made it special for me.

Mind you, you might not understand or "see" what I was able to extract from this, but to say that it was or wasn't successful....well I guess I just don't agree.

It was an exhibition....which as DubK mentioned (definition) is a presenting - showing of elements that have a relevance to something of interest.

that's what I took from this show. + it was nice to go to the Dwell private viewing and have some wine and bite size morsels!

very nice...very nice indeed!

DubK- No, I meant that my example is more of a thesis than an exhibit idea.
After having some time to ponder about the exhibit I think it did have a revelation; that architecture is a hollow as fashion. Nothing more than aesthetic experimentation. Ideology and philosophy has been overshadowed by the geometrical showmanship of the computer.
I do agree that seeing the models in person in no way compares with the experience of a magazine piece. I enjoyed the huge mock ups by Preston Scott Cohen and Neil Denari (they ruled the show).
But with the notion of the typical museum exhibit, why aren't they more thought provoking? How many more Rauschenberg and Johns retrospectives do we need? Give me more of a Basqiat on his first show, or MOMA's piece on Decon, or as recently a Banksy show.

I am all for the topless fashion/architecture exhibit- Bust + Bones.

moratto, I couldn't agree with you more on the conclusion that you came to. Granted, I don't think that way about ALL architecture and ALL fashion, but the exhibition definitely helped me draw a line. Denari's mock-up was great - you know, it wasn't the most spectacular thing I've ever seen, but it shows that they took the time to think about it, and execute it....which is a level of consideration that just wasn't there in that damn bubble house. I took one look at that thing and thought to myself, "Seriously? Come on..."

What do you think about Hussein Chalayan? I think he's kind of a genius and was glad to see a lot of his work in there.

I have thought it to be very funny that Greg Lynn calls his firm FORM, when has he ever created a great form? Calculus is not going to do it. His bubbles reminded me of a valentines day orgy of seals. Looked very cheap and would have liked to seen some renderings to see how the house comes together.

I like Mr. Chalayan a lot. I remember seeing his veil show before, very cheeky and sexy.

I don't know about architects being the fashion designers of the future. We are having a hard time being the architects of the future.

finally saw the show...

that one Greg Lynn project looks like a damn Cheesecake Factory