I realise the subject matter has been done to death, but I am struggling to come up with a coherant answer to my wonderings. I recently finished 'Deliroius New York' (bear with me), I found it well researched and oddly holistic, considering its fragmented structure. I did feel that Koolhaas got carried away with the dramatic effect of his own metaphors in places, but that is neither here nor there.
Koolhaas is seemingly billed as some kind of aged enfant terrible by many, presumably this is stemming from the controversial nature of his writings, and to a seemingly lesser degree, his buildings (I welcome correction if I am wrong). However, I am having a hard time finding the controversial aspects of his work - where the divisions are being formed, so to speak. I am not looking for a straight answer as per se, I just want to know where to look so I can continue formulating my own opinions. I realise that 'Delirious New York' is the more down to earth of his works, I plan on getting 'S, M, L, XL' out when I return to university in a few days. Is this where I should be looking? And secondarily, while I am at it, are there notable critiques I should read too? Who is antagonistic?
Seeing as I havent read that book in ages and I don’t keep current with the OMA AMO action, Id simply say spend some time with the end of DNY – right? With the swimmers having to swim away from their goal to reach it? Use that as a model for reading the book. New York as the fulfillment of europe’s utopian architectural fantasies? Dirty crummy New York (like 1970s mind you)? How do you have to think to rewrite the Berlin wall positively? How can you say “where there is architecture nothing else is possible” and persist with making architecture? What do you have to accept or abandon to share his conclusions? there is something of the negative about his approach – not like optimistic/ pessimistic, but like countrapositive, or not-x. DNY in a sense says that architects dreams couldn’t even keep up with mundane self interest. So, how do you reject what you thought a creative individual was to actually be one?
Anyway,
im babbling, but I thought someone should respond.
Yes, Koolhaas
Evening!
I realise the subject matter has been done to death, but I am struggling to come up with a coherant answer to my wonderings. I recently finished 'Deliroius New York' (bear with me), I found it well researched and oddly holistic, considering its fragmented structure. I did feel that Koolhaas got carried away with the dramatic effect of his own metaphors in places, but that is neither here nor there.
Koolhaas is seemingly billed as some kind of aged enfant terrible by many, presumably this is stemming from the controversial nature of his writings, and to a seemingly lesser degree, his buildings (I welcome correction if I am wrong). However, I am having a hard time finding the controversial aspects of his work - where the divisions are being formed, so to speak. I am not looking for a straight answer as per se, I just want to know where to look so I can continue formulating my own opinions. I realise that 'Delirious New York' is the more down to earth of his works, I plan on getting 'S, M, L, XL' out when I return to university in a few days. Is this where I should be looking? And secondarily, while I am at it, are there notable critiques I should read too? Who is antagonistic?
Cheers,
Michael
Delirious New York as down to earth?
Wow, how did we get here?
Seeing as I havent read that book in ages and I don’t keep current with the OMA AMO action, Id simply say spend some time with the end of DNY – right? With the swimmers having to swim away from their goal to reach it? Use that as a model for reading the book. New York as the fulfillment of europe’s utopian architectural fantasies? Dirty crummy New York (like 1970s mind you)? How do you have to think to rewrite the Berlin wall positively? How can you say “where there is architecture nothing else is possible” and persist with making architecture? What do you have to accept or abandon to share his conclusions? there is something of the negative about his approach – not like optimistic/ pessimistic, but like countrapositive, or not-x. DNY in a sense says that architects dreams couldn’t even keep up with mundane self interest. So, how do you reject what you thought a creative individual was to actually be one?
Anyway,
im babbling, but I thought someone should respond.
Glad you did, thanks for this Vile. It set me thinking.
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.