why are blobbing buildings so boring? what happened to clean good theoretical design. For that matter, why doesn't the Tennis world pay as close attention to doubles as singles?
Well, having an actual theory for instance. Rather than the blobber's; "Why can't it just be about beauty? Why doesn't anyone talk about beauty?" or "Ummm, it's about algorithms?"
If it is about theory it is about relinquishing the responsibilty of the designer. While I like Eisenman's process, if you have ever watched him at a reveiw he will be the first to admit that the aesthetcs of the result are as important as the concept behind it. So what? Its not just algorythims. People, inhabit these spaces. buildings are costly and importants. What happened to the theory behind that. This might sounds humanistic, but as architects don't we have a responsibility to critique and and analyze our own discourse when it is insensitive to the patronage who inhabit its product? My issues with those who see blobs as a the "new architecture" is that digital design and production methods seem to be as much about a simplistic reading of deleuzian smooth space as it is about any serious investigation.
A mies building or the alavar alto childrens kindergarten and daycare is just as valid an investigation of smooth space as some bloby interior. Whats the old joke? how do you drive a man insane? put him iin a round room and tell him to pee in the corner.
I am all for theory. But theory should be held to as high a standard in its implementation as firecodes. Both effect the quality of spaces and construction in the buildings we build.
Aug 15, 04 1:23 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.
lobs and blobs
why are blobbing buildings so boring? what happened to clean good theoretical design. For that matter, why doesn't the Tennis world pay as close attention to doubles as singles?
define clean good theoretical design???
Well, having an actual theory for instance. Rather than the blobber's; "Why can't it just be about beauty? Why doesn't anyone talk about beauty?" or "Ummm, it's about algorithms?"
Why cant it just be about theory? - and I'm a boxer
If it is about theory it is about relinquishing the responsibilty of the designer. While I like Eisenman's process, if you have ever watched him at a reveiw he will be the first to admit that the aesthetcs of the result are as important as the concept behind it. So what? Its not just algorythims. People, inhabit these spaces. buildings are costly and importants. What happened to the theory behind that. This might sounds humanistic, but as architects don't we have a responsibility to critique and and analyze our own discourse when it is insensitive to the patronage who inhabit its product? My issues with those who see blobs as a the "new architecture" is that digital design and production methods seem to be as much about a simplistic reading of deleuzian smooth space as it is about any serious investigation.
A mies building or the alavar alto childrens kindergarten and daycare is just as valid an investigation of smooth space as some bloby interior. Whats the old joke? how do you drive a man insane? put him iin a round room and tell him to pee in the corner.
I am all for theory. But theory should be held to as high a standard in its implementation as firecodes. Both effect the quality of spaces and construction in the buildings we build.
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.